[QUOTE=gudman;36426140]Because we would walk around naked (or all the same) if we did not care about first impression we make of ourselves. Dressing equals visual impression. It comes first, always (apart from blind people, but that's whole other story).[/QUOTE]
But what about people who want to dress nice for themselves?
Heck, I try to dress nice whenever I leave the house just so I don't look like some lazy slob. It's not me trying to objectify myself or get attention, it's just so I can look presentable and fit in.
Keep in mind that women are also forced up to a higher standard than us.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;36426227]But what about people who want to dress nice for themselves?
Heck, I try to dress nice whenever I leave the house just so I don't look like some lazy slob. It's not me trying to objectify myself or get attention, it's just so I can look presentable and fit in.
Keep in mind that women are also forced up to a higher standard than us.[/QUOTE]
You are dumb. Please stop arguing with everyone and get back on topic. It's really annoying.
(On topic now:)
From that picture, how the hell is that offensive? Like it was said before, children screaming, people that are sick, etc etc are WAY MORE ANNOYING than a little cleavage. I've seen sluttier looking women get on planes too. Southwest.. *sigh*
[QUOTE=Gnomical;36426337]You are dumb. Please stop arguing with everyone and get back on topic. It's really annoying.
(On topic now:)
From that picture, how the hell is that offensive? Like it was said before, children screaming, people that are sick, etc etc are WAY MORE ANNOYING than a little cleavage. I've seen sluttier looking women get on planes too. Southwest.. *sigh*[/QUOTE]
[i]Here, have an insult. Now let me comment on this article by saying nothing that hasn't already been said, then refer to some women as being slutty because I'm not a nice person.[/i]
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;36426227]But what about people who want to dress nice for themselves?
Heck, I try to dress nice whenever I leave the house just so I don't look like some lazy slob. It's not me trying to objectify myself or get attention, it's just so I can look presentable and fit in.
[/QUOTE]
You care about what other people would think of you. "So I don't look like...", if you didn't care about impression, that wouldn't be the case. You are not some lazy slob, and you know it. But you want other people to know it too. That is not exactly "objectifying", but it's pretty close to, we let our clothes do some, erm, initial talking.
[QUOTE=gudman;36426522]You care about what other people would think of you. "So I don't look like...", if you didn't care about impression, that wouldn't be the case. You are not some lazy slob, and you know it. But you want other people to know it too. That is not exactly "objectifying", but it's pretty close to, we let our clothes do some, erm, initial talking.[/QUOTE]
I feel this is swaying from the point I was originally making. I don't do that for women.
The people above were implying that women always dress nice to attract men. I think it's obvious that isn't the case.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;36426599]I feel this is swaying from the point I was originally making. I don't do that for women.
The people above were implying that women always dress nice to attract men. I think it's obvious that isn't the case.[/QUOTE]
People always dress nice to attract other people. I think it's obvious that this is the case. You don't dress nice for yourself, you dress nice so that other people notice you/want to be around you so that you can feel better about yourself.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36426638]People always dress nice to attract other people. I think it's obvious that this is the case. You don't dress nice for yourself, you dress nice so that other people notice you/want to be around you so that you can feel better about yourself.[/QUOTE]
you're conveniently skipping over the part where I said "men"
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;36426670]you're conveniently skipping over the part where I said "men"[/QUOTE]
No, I'm telling you that even though we might have said men, we mean people. A relationship between a man and a women still is the most likely and the first thing I think of thus is what I say when obviously men and women can also do it to attract their own sex.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;36424692]For several reasons. But don't assume all women try to "pretty up" just for men to "objectify them", as you say. A lot of women will want to look nice because they want to. They can do it for themselves.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;36426599]I feel this is swaying from the point I was originally making. I don't do that for women.
The people above were implying that women always dress nice to attract men. I think it's obvious that isn't the case.[/QUOTE]
Umm no, I'm pretty sure the only use for cleavage and high heels are because they "look good" / give them a feel that they look more attractive
also, you're exaggerating the hell out of what other people are saying... calm. down. please.
To impress men by wearing high highs isn't to objectify yourself, that's fucking stupid. Just because you're dressing a certain way, doesn't mean you're doing it to objectify yourself, it's to impress certain people / make yourself feel good. No one really said that it was to objectify themselves.
If other people don't like high heels then theres no reason in wearing them because then they wouldn't make you look pretty and therefore you wouldn't have any reason for it.... Making yourself wear certain clothing is so other people get a more professional opinion of you.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36426790]No, I'm telling you that even though we might have said men, we mean people. A relationship between a man and a women still is the most likely and the first thing I think of thus is what I say when obviously men and women can also do it to attract their own sex.[/QUOTE]
Still doesn't matter. Women don't always dress nice to attract the sex they are attracted to.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;36426834]Still doesn't matter. Women don't always dress nice to attract the sex they are attracted to.[/QUOTE]
Why else would they do it then?
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36426875]Why else would they do it then?[/QUOTE]
I think he's just being stupid really
I personally don't dress up at all because I feel that the only thing that matters is personality. Just get the most functional cloths, all you need.
[QUOTE=The golden;36427067]Casually dressed people are more attractive anyway. To me, at least. I find formal clothes to be quite unattractive.[/QUOTE]
You're doing it again, I can't disagree with you on any point. You scare me man!
I see it this way. Casual clothes are a lot more varied, unlike formal wear, and allow you to suit your own personality... tighter? In the end, it's not clothes that attract attention and sympathy, but the way they're worn. Trivially as all fuck.
[QUOTE=The golden;36427067]Casually dressed people are more attractive anyway. To me, at least. I find formal clothes to be quite unattractive.[/QUOTE]
without a doubt, just, never really know anyone that doesn't wear attractive clothing to be attractive. Attractive doesn't need to be sexual, too.
The sheer quantity of butt-hurt in this thread is astonishing. When I tell you this, your penis is probably going to need a box of tissues, but… women don't actually dress up exclusively for the benefit of men.
Clothes may be practical, but all people are subject to vanity. Would you turn up to a family dinner with a beard that resembled a rat's nest? We all brush our hair. Why don't both genders just walk around with dreadlocks? Wearing lipstick and heels, or cologne and a hat is an extension of that sort of thinking. There's honestly nothing wrong with it.
Also: A woman who chooses to expose her cleavage might receive abuse for it, but that doesn't mean she should have to hide her body in order to avoid that abuse (burqa patrol). To a woman, it's just another part of her body; not some overt sexual gesture that's burning up her clit in the hope that men will notice. Have you ever actually considered that women might not walk around all day constantly thinking about their own sexuality? A woman's cleavage isn't offensive, nor should it be inciting. Breasts aren't genitalia. Wearing a low neck line is not the same as walking around with your dick and/or snatch outta your pants.
PPS: Judging by the state of this thread, it's actually men who consciously objectify themselves by dressing up and/or dress up solely for other people. Whilst I have no doubt that there are women who do this (and, of course, all women dress up for other people [I]some of the time[/I]), I do not know one woman who wouldn't give you 10 reasons why you're both all wrong and, also, a bunch of poorly socialised shit-lords who need to stop inaccurately decreeing ~why women do what they do~.
[QUOTE=jerryleelewis;36428467]
I do not know one woman who wouldn't give you 10 reasons why you're both all wrong and, also, a bunch of poorly socialised shit-lords who need to stop inaccurately decreeing ~why women do what they do~.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because people are often recieve no education on special matters such as psychology. Everyone (and I mean it) who care what they're wearing, care how people around will recieve them. Always. If you really don't care what impression you're going to make, you're the one poorly socialised. By definition.
[QUOTE=gudman;36428677]Yeah, because people are often recieve no education on special matters such as psychology. Everyone (and I mean it) who care what they're wearing, care how people around will recieve them. Always. If you really don't care what impression you're going to make, you're the one poorly socialised. By definition.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
A woman just made a post about how she and other women don't always dress to attract men, and you still argue over it.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36426638]People always dress nice to attract other people. I think it's obvious that this is the case. You don't dress nice for yourself, you dress nice so that other people notice you/want to be around you so that you can feel better about yourself.[/QUOTE]
Fucking [I]no[/I]. Attracting other people is only [B]one[/B] reason why people dress up.
Women, in general, have a different relationship to clothes than men. When a woman lists "fashion" as one of her interests, she is not referring to the preoccupation of dressing up to attract other people. Fashion is an art form. Before female musicians, painters or writers--before a woman had the knowledge or wealth to create--a woman's own body was her canvas. Her only canvas. By utilising one of her few skills (needlework), or by purchasing items "off-the-rack", a woman was able to express herself. Clothing enabled women to make statements about themselves and their own lives--publicly--for the first time. And it still does. It's why women have a great affinity for fashion. All other art is a commentary of men, but woman's history is mapped out by her clothes.
[editline]22nd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=gudman;36428677]Yeah, because people are often recieve no education on special matters such as psychology. Everyone (and I mean it) who care what they're wearing, care how people around will recieve them. Always. If you really don't care what impression you're going to make, you're the one poorly socialised. By definition.[/QUOTE]
If you design your appearance, one way or another, you probably care about what sort of impression it will make (if not what sort of reception it will receive), but it's incredibly stupid to presume that one would always care--or necessarily care at all--about whether or not said look is [I]attractive[/I] to other people.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;36428765]I'm not sure what you're getting at.
A woman just made a post about how she and other women don't always dress to attract men, and you still argue over it.[/QUOTE]
The point is that all people, everywhere, all the time, dress up to make a visual impression. Excluding poorly socialised individuals, of course. And to deny that is just a sign of high self-esteem and nothing else. Women are not always dress up to attract men. Neither do men. But the thing "dress up for someone" is still present.
[QUOTE=jerryleelewis;36428781]
If you design your appearance, one way or another, you probably care about what sort of impression it will make (if not what sort of reception it will receive), but it's incredibly stupid to presume that one would always care--or necessarily care at all--about whether or not said look is [I]attractive[/I] to other people.[/QUOTE]
Attractive, maybe not. Some think about how to make unattractive appearance, but that's a reverse signal (look at me!). Generally, the impression is expected to be positive, well recieved. And there's no such thing as "necessarily care". Everyone cares. That's just how society works.
[QUOTE=jerryleelewis;36428781]Fucking [I]no[/I]. Attracting other people is only [B]one[/B] reason why people dress up.
Women, in general, have a different relationship to clothes than men. When a woman lists "fashion" as one of her interests, she is not referring to the preoccupation of dressing up to attract other people. Fashion is an art form. Before female musicians, painters or writers--before a woman had the knowledge or wealth to create--a woman's own body was her canvas. Her only canvas. By utilising one of her few skills (needlework), or by purchasing items "off-the-rack", a woman was able to express herself. Clothing enabled women to make statements about themselves and their own lives--publicly--for the first time. And it still does. It's why women have a great affinity for fashion. All other art is a commentary of men, but woman's history is mapped out by her clothes.
[editline]22nd June 2012[/editline]
If you design your appearance, one way or another, you probably care about what sort of impression it will make (if not what sort of reception it will receive), but it's incredibly stupid to presume that one would always care--or necessarily care at all--about whether or not said look is [I]attractive[/I] to other people.[/QUOTE]
And why would a woman use her clothes as art if she didn't want [b]other people to enjoy said art?[/b]
[QUOTE=jerryleelewis;36428781]Fucking [I]no[/I]. Attracting other people is only [B]one[/B] reason why people dress up.
Women, in general, have a different relationship to clothes than men. When a woman lists "fashion" as one of her interests, she is not referring to the preoccupation of dressing up to attract other people. Fashion is an art form. Before female musicians, painters or writers--before a woman had the knowledge or wealth to create--a woman's own body was her canvas. Her only canvas. By utilising one of her few skills (needlework), or by purchasing items "off-the-rack", a woman was able to express herself. Clothing enabled women to make statements about themselves and their own lives--publicly--for the first time. And it still does. It's why women have a great affinity for fashion. All other art is a commentary of men, but woman's history is mapped out by her clothes.
[editline]22nd June 2012[/editline]
If you design your appearance, one way or another, you probably care about what sort of impression it will make (if not what sort of reception it will receive), but it's incredibly stupid to presume that one would always care--or necessarily care at all--about whether or not said look is [I]attractive[/I] to other people.[/QUOTE]
You do realize even fashion designers are predominantly male right.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36429207]You do realize even fashion designers are predominantly male right.[/QUOTE]
What does that have to do with women dressing themselves?
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;36429264]What does that have to do with women dressing themselves?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]And it still does. It's why women have a great affinity for fashion. All other art is a commentary of men, but woman's history is mapped out by her clothes.[/QUOTE]
Was responding to that.
[QUOTE=geel9;36429205]And why would a woman use her clothes as art if she didn't want [b]other people to enjoy said art?[/b][/QUOTE]
What do you not understand about art being personal expression? It certainly doesn't need to titillate or [I]please[/I].
If you need an example of women who were using their clothes as art [B]not[/B] for the enjoyment of others, you only need to look at the early punk movement.
[QUOTE=jerryleelewis;36429393]
If you need an example of women who were using their clothes as art [B]not[/B] for the enjoyment of others, you only need to look at the early punk movement.[/QUOTE]
It's still impression-driven. It's still dependent on perceptions of other people. There wouldn't be any "movement" otherwise.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36429207]You do realize even fashion designers are predominantly male right.[/QUOTE]
Wow, that's really relevant! Although you're referring exclusively to a consumerist sector of art/fashion (which opens up new, massive debates), you seem to be completely ignoring independent and small-time fashion designers. Are you honestly trying to convince anyone that there are ~way more men~ employed in this industry. If there are larger numbers of prominent and successful male fashion designers (and think about this carefully, too, you expert, you), it does not necessarily equal a gender disparity throughout the entire field. And even if there were more men in the industry, we'd have to examine the exact statistics regarding women employed in the fashion design industry versus women employed in all other areas. And never-flipping-mind the fact that I was talking about how artistic self-expression is--and for a long time--has been achieved by women through everyday dressing.
[editline]22nd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Marbalo;36429655]I would argue that going against public notions and 'enjoying your clothing yourself and not caring what others think' is a form of self-expression. They still created a movement for the thing because they felt the need to impress other people with their creativity and individuality.
This is akin to how nonconformity is becoming just another type of conformity in itself. "It's hip to be different".[/QUOTE]
what
No, it's not. Punk rock was a political and social movement, which responded to and reflected its era. Punks weren't dressing to impress people with their creativity and individuality. At no point in my posts have I argued that people do not dress to create an impression. Safety pins and spiked hair were designed to arouse anxious feelings in the unsuspecting passer-by. In America, people wore simple, dirty clothes as the antithesis to disco glam and so forth.
[QUOTE]
This is akin to how nonconformity is becoming just another type of conformity in itself. "It's hip to be different". [/QUOTE]
This coming from a person with a fucking Nietzsche icon. [I]Holy shit.[/I]
[QUOTE=jerryleelewis;36429687]Wow, that's really relevant! Although you're referring exclusively to a consumerist sector of art/fashion (which opens up new, massive debates), you seem to be completely ignoring independent and small-time fashion designers. Are you honestly trying to convince anyone that there are ~way more men~ employed in this industry. If there are larger numbers of prominent and successful male fashion designers (and think about this carefully, too, you expert, you), it does not necessarily equal a gender disparity throughout the entire field. And even if there were more men in the industry, we'd have to examine the exact statistics regarding women employed in the fashion design industry versus women employed in all other areas. And never-flipping-mind the fact that I was talking about how artistic self-expression is--and for a long time--has been achieved by women through everyday dressing.
[editline]22nd June 2012[/editline]
what
No, it's not. Punk rock was a political and social movement, which responded to and reflected its era. Punks weren't dressing to impress people with their creativity and individuality. At no point in my posts have I argued that people do not dress to create an impression. Safety pins and spiked hair were designed to arouse anxious feelings in the unsuspecting passer-by. In America, people wore simple, dirty clothes as the antithesis to disco glam and so forth.
This coming from a person with a fucking Nietzsche icon. [I]Holy shit.[/I][/QUOTE]
Yes your completely right, how could I have been so wrong. Your compelling evidence has totally convinced me that women dress themselves up for 'artistic self-expression' rather than 'to be seen'.
[QUOTE=gudman;36429547]It's still impression-driven. It's still dependent on perceptions of other people. There wouldn't be any "movement" otherwise.[/QUOTE]
I apologise for not responding to you earlier. I'm not in disagreement with you, and I don't believe that I've posted anything that indicates that I am. People design themselves to make a visual impression, but their intentions and motivations may be numerous. That said, I don't think that art must necessarily be created with the intention of provoking a response and, so maybe it is possible to adorn oneself for self-pleasure or simply /because/.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36430016]Yes your completely right, how could I have been so wrong. Your compelling evidence has totally convinced me that women dress themselves up for 'artistic self-expression' rather than 'to be seen'.[/QUOTE]
Without going into the matter of "visual impression".... Sometimes, women dress to be [I]appreciated[/I] (which is what I think you really mean); sometimes, they have other motivations. That is all. Artistic expression through fashion is real, so are political and social statements and so forth.
[QUOTE=jerryleelewis;36430278]Without going into the matter of "visual impression".... Sometimes, women dress to be [I]appreciated[/I] (which is what I think you really mean); sometimes, they have other motivations. That is all. Artistic expression through fashion is real, so are political and social statements and so forth.[/QUOTE]
All come back to one main reason. To attract attention.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.