Mens Suiting Is Drab

[Daryl]

Very sharp outfits in both pictures though the second one makes me wish the fashion world would get off this obsession with hanging men's lower garments from the hips rather than waist.

My theory on this is that you can use your clothing to divide you body vertically into halves, quarters or thirds. For men it's mostly top/bottom half. Quarters are also permitted, but dividing into thirds (ie at the waist) is considered female only.

Just my impression though. The way to make things normal is to do it often enough.

I was thinking about this a lot this week. I agree that "normal" is mostly what enough people are doing enough of the time, and so mostly completely relative. I use the fudge-term "mostly" for a reason. This week I've been observing that what makes me admire and covet so much of women's fashions is in fact mostly that I find women's bodies more visually appealing to me (het male that I am), and garments are designed to work with the bodies of their wearers. This is where design meets norms. Design isn't strictly about relative (ie. cultural) norms; it's also about physical norms. Cars are all designed to operate on the existing roads, and though the width of roads is an arbitrary norm, it is hard; material not merely cultural, and so affects car design. The same applies to clothing; and kind of explains why the "unisex" fashion moment was so short, and also why it kind of merged with the androgeny fashion trend.

Becoming aware of this fact of design, and my own core reasons for admiring women's fashions, makes it a bit easier for me to sort whether I want something because I like the way it looks on the model or because I would like the way it would look on me. The former is the case quite often, and although I occasionally think that it would be great to have the model's body just so I could adorn it similarly, this never reaches the level of actually considering making my body conform to the visual idea. I really don't want to look like the model. For one thing, I'd probably be mesmerised by my own reflection in the mirror-walled elevator of my building and need to have a blindfold thrown on me so I could be led out safely.

On the quarters, halves and thirds thing....I'm wondering what the thirds are but guessing the head is one of them, with upper body/arms and lower body/legs being the other two. This is of interest to me because I may be having a dress suit made soon and will want to have both trousers and a straight/pencil skirt made with the same fabric. Fine tuning the jacket and vest may be a bit tricky because of this.

[Sinned]

Daryl, my idea of the thirds would be head to under-bust, under-bust to hips and hip to feet. This would be why it works better for females than males - men have less well-defined under-bust and hips. Women's tops and dresses can use the under-bust to modify their form - empire dresses being an example that comes to mind.

[Dust]

The thirds thing works as floor to knees, knees to natural waist, natural waist to top of shoulders. This is the division on a "traditional" kilt outfit.

A men's suit jacket is roughly half the length from shoulder top/base of neck to the floor, dividing the body in half. A shorter jacket will usually look "off" with long pants, while a regular men's suit jacket looks off with a knee length skirt or shorts. The proportions are wrong.

This is why your suit with both a pair of pants and a skirt will be tough to make work. What does work well is a vest and knee length skirt. That same vest will work well under a jacket with pants but it's okay without the jacket since it's "traditional" menswear. A long (floor length or close) skirt will work better with a regular men's jacket. A wrap or a-line would be good.

Women do the jacket with matching skirt and pants thing, and pull it off, but they get away with a lot more in terms of proportions. This is likely due to the constant flux of women's wear and constantly changing hemlines. A skirt that lands a little higher or lower (or even pants that show a little more or less ankle) could simply be an intentional style choice. Menswear, on the other hand, is so dull and stagnant, that there is just about only one "right way" to wear it. Therefore, men who want to up their clothing game, focus on a perfect fit. This has lead to ever higher expectations for men's proportions to be perfect.

Also, men aim to look mature and put together, while women can aim more for young and sexy. Ill fitting clothes suggest youth, where you are still growing out of things. This can play into the young and sexy thing for women, while on a man if his sleeves or pants aren't the right length, he looks like he's a kid; either he grew out of his clothes, or borrowed them from his dad. Either way, a bad look.

[Coder]

Women do the jacket with matching skirt and pants thing, and pull it off, but they get away with a lot more in terms of proportions. This is likely due to the constant flux of women's wear and constantly changing hemlines. A skirt that lands a little higher or lower (or even pants that show a little more or less ankle) could simply be an intentional style choice. Menswear, on the other hand, is so dull and stagnant, that there is just about only one "right way" to wear it. Therefore, men who want to up their clothing game, focus on a perfect fit. This has lead to ever higher expectations for men's proportions to be perfect.

Also, men aim to look mature and put together, while women can aim more for young and sexy. Ill fitting clothes suggest youth, where you are still growing out of things. This can play into the young and sexy thing for women, while on a man if his sleeves or pants aren't the right length, he looks like he's a kid; either he grew out of his clothes, or borrowed them from his dad. Either way, a bad look.

Great analysis! These are things I've been ruminating on for a while now.

Honestly, what would be helpful - would be a set of pictures of the same person with different proportions demonstrated (either same clothes or different). I've done this for myself to get a better sense of what works for me, but still don't know what works best.

I'll also say - I don't think it matters what women wear, they will always look better/put together than men, at least to me. Then again, we are our worst judge:

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/who ... odel-or-me

Though the article is tongue in cheek, it hits upon some relevant thoughts!

[STEVIE]

I'll also say - I don't think it matters what women wear, they will always look better/put together than men, at least to me. Then again, we are our worst judge:

The truth is that from the get go. boys are brainwashed into believing this as inalienable fact.
From Mum and other females in the family to classmates and eventual partner, the ladies in your life are the font of all aesthetic wisdom.
It is just a myth or even a con that we have allowed to be perpetrated on ourselves with collusion from ourselves and that is why "Mens Suiting is Drab".
The boy in the dress from Tennessee certainly pulled that outfit together and we have no reason to believe that he didn't do it all by himself. I'd bet he could pull any outfit together quite successfully too, or at least I hope so.
Steve.

[crfriend]

I'll also say - I don't think it matters what women wear, they will always look better/put together than men, at least to me. Then again, we are our worst judge:

The truth is that from the get go. boys are brainwashed into believing this as inalienable fact.

I'm with Stevie on this one, and just to put a cap on it very deliberately violated the "no white before (US) Memorial Day" dictum.

There were a few playful moments of verbal sparring between one of my bar-fly pals and I over it, and that, as they say, was that. Later in the evening, i playfully asked one of the waitresses that I occasionally spar with her opinion on the "rule" and she mumbled something about the '80s and the thing being obsolete. I merely asked, "Which '80s? There have been several: 1780s, 1880s, and 1980s." There was no cogent response (I'll have to try that gambit again as a test).

I very seldom wear "all white", and today was no exception as I had on one of my black waistcoats.

Times I have, to a one, have had meaning. The first of which was when I took the Long Walk to the gallows from the hole I worked in from 2001 to 2013, and once again when I was flirting with a very attractive hostess where I used to take lunch in Ashland, MA. I think I wear it well if assorted commentary is to be taken seriously.

We can Make Our Own Rules. Be brave and cut new ground!

[moonshadow]

I'll also say - I don't think it matters what women wear, they will always look better/put together than men,

Is that a fact...?

puffy.jpg

[Coder]

I'll also say - I don't think it matters what women wear, they will always look better/put together than men,

Is that a fact...?

puffy.jpg

[moonshadow]

In fairness, I think it comes to presentation.

I've seen photographs (as well as the outside world) of slobby women, and while I don't often see men in dresses and other feminine attire, from the photos I have seen I must say, men can look flat out beautiful if they know how to pull it off.

Even among women, basically what they wear is all the same... So few people seem to really take the time to look stunning.

[6ft3Aussie]

Well Moonshadow, the first thing I thought of when I saw that photo was simple. Chicken suit.

Completely ridiculous I think.

[STEVIE]

In fairness, I think it comes to presentation.

and the eye of the beholder Moon.
With regard to the "chicken suit", the wearer did not choose or put it together. She is just the unenviable conveyor.
In this context I'd be curious to know if the designer is male or female. Moon?
It would be quite genderless too and it is certainly not drab.

"no white before (US) Memorial Day" dictum.

I had never even heard of this little gem. I wonder how it was originally justified so as to become so embedded?
Certainly kicks absurdity up to a whole new level and fashion is full of it too.
Steve.

[crfriend]

"no white before (US) Memorial Day" dictum.

I had never even heard of this little gem. I wonder how it was originally justified so as to become so embedded?
Certainly kicks absurdity up to a whole new level and fashion is full of it too.

I'm not entirely sure of its origin, but might well surmise it was a product of late Victorian times, likely originating in New York or one of the other big population centres in the northeast United States where (1) winters can be hard, (2) artificial removal of snow was commonplace and which produces much slush and much, and (3) that the slush and muck is typically a very dingy grey that is almost impossible to get out of anything hot white.

The admonition, as I first heard it, was confined to shoes. Later on it morphed into more, but that does not explain the use of "winter white" in apparel. I can certainly see not wanting to get white shoes covered in slush and muck.

[STEVIE]

Thanks for that Carl and by the way I have found the designer of the "Chicken Suit"
It is a female from Sweden so on that basis I conclude my case.
Steve.

[Dust]

I'll also say - I don't think it matters what women wear, they will always look better/put together than men, at least to me. Then again, we are our worst judge:

The truth is that from the get go. boys are brainwashed into believing this as inalienable fact.
From Mum and other females in the family to classmates and eventual partner, the ladies in your life are the font of all aesthetic wisdom.
It is just a myth or even a con that we have allowed to be perpetrated on ourselves with collusion from ourselves and that is why "Mens Suiting is Drab".

I think there is an element of women learning fashion by necessity (due to their wider variety of clothing options and expectations on women to not wear the same thing repeatedly), while men have no need to learn fashion (and in some cases are actively discouraged from it) because they will be forced into the "uniform" of a suit and tie anyway.

Enough "rules" are made up specific to the suit (much like The Traditional Kilt™) to keep guys who cares about their appearance busy without branching out much. Guys end up learning these "rules" instead of the foundational basic principles those rules are built on that could be used to wear something else well.

[STEVIE]

I think there is an element of women learning fashion by necessity (due to their wider variety of clothing options and expectations on women to not wear the same thing repeatedly), while men have no need to learn fashion (and in some cases are actively discouraged from it) because they will be forced into the "uniform" of a suit and tie anyway.

Hi Dust
I certainly agree with the wider variety of options and expectations but not the necessity.
Our daughters are mostly encouraged to experiment with clothes and looks from an early age.
Girls have nearly Carte Blanche in this respect in comparison to boys. This gives them a hell of a head start in practical terms but it doesn't mean they are any more aesthetically proficient it just appears that way.
As you say the boys will only ever be expected to wear what males are expected to wear and in many many cases even that will be radically affected by the females in his life.
One event that I personally witnessed was a man of about 65 being told by his wife and daughter precisely what hi holiday wardrobe was going to consist of. Jeans and shorts were the items selected even though the man himself said he did not like them.
That is probably a scene that gets replicated in one way or another on countless occasions.
The fact is that women have themselves to thank for their wider choices and now it is time for men to grab a piece of the same action.
It can only lie in our own hands nobody will give it on a plate.
Steve.