I gave up trying to make sense of his ramblings long ago.


In a nutshell, this points up several of the pitfalls that we get get to look into (assuming we're paying attention) every time we put on something other than the societally-defined "uniform" -- and it's a bit of a mind-bender!AMM wrote:Sounds simple, but that simple phrase "looks good on you" covers up a lot of complexity.Inertia wrote:...I'd say, wear ... what you know looks good on you. Find out what looks good on you,...
First of all, what sort of good "look" do you want? For example, as you point out, men's and women's evening wear strive for very different effects: [...] What "looks good" if you're aiming for one effect looks stupid or terrible if you're aiming for the other -- or if people assume, based on your gender, which effect you must be aiming for. This applies to pretty much all the "looks" that people cultivate.
I believe here that "being desireable" is in the eye of the beholder, and sometimes lines of communication just don't work as we'd like them. I know that in my life I'd like to look "desireable" to my wife, but sometimes the comms just don't cooperate and I'm left wondering whether I've achieved the end or not. I'm not "on the market", so I don't much care if I look "desireable" to other women, but I'm not interested in looking like a slob or a buffoon either. So, how do I look desireable to my wife, and not tittillate the onlookers needlessly? With no examples to inspire (nevermind emulate), I feel very much out on a limb.The point of my original post was that "being desirable" is not a look that men have cultivated, so we don't have any examples of how we might do it, let alone any clothes, fashion magazines, etc., that would explore it.
That's a bedevilling problem, and I think that we need something either strikingly new (or shockingly old) as a baseline design. Personally, I like the romantic notion of the poet's shirt teamed with something V-necked layered atop it, and if we can ever get the sewing-room put together into a useful configuration that'll likely be my first project. After all, the "puffy shirt" did enjoy a renaissance recently in spite of getting ridiculed on a US prime-time sit-com. On the other hand; I have an intriguing design for a simple skirt I'd like to do. but need a large amount of space to lay it out on.[... I]f we (men) try clothes made for women which would give the "look" we want, they won't fit very well, and they will emphasize the wrong things (e.g., our not-so-ample bosoms)
There's two kinds of "desirable" at work here. One is whether certain people who are important to you find you "hot." This is going to depend very much on you, the "certain people", your relationship, and the moment.crfriend wrote:I believe here that "being desireable" is in the eye of the beholder, and sometimes lines of communication just don't work as we'd like them. I know that in my life I'd like to look "desireable" to my wife, but sometimes the comms just don't cooperate and I'm left wondering whether I've achieved the end or not.
Not being "on the market" doesn't mean you might not want other women to find you desirable. That's what flirting is all about, for instance. Or that you would not want to look like you're the kind of man women would desire. After all, feeling like a "hot property" is a pleasure and a thrill all by itself, whether there's anyone around to respond to it or not, and whether you want anybody to respond to it or not. Cf. "I Feel Pretty."crfriend wrote:I'm not "on the market", so I don't much care if I look "desireable" to other women, but I'm not interested in looking like a slob or a buffoon either. So, how do I look desireable to my wife, and not tittillate the onlookers needlessly?
I'd be interested to hear about it -- maybe in the Sewing forum?crfriend wrote:I have an intriguing design for a simple skirt I'd like to do. but need a large amount of space to lay it out on.
I think I see what you mean a little better now. Well, there are some who say that power is what appeals to women, about men. Not saying I necessarily espouse this opinion, myself; but there is a huge belief out there that women are turned on most by power, in general, and the personal power of the individual man, in particular. Which is why evening suits are made like a threat-display, a kind of armour, with broad shoulders and generally dark colours, not showing any skin (because that would indicate vulnerability).AMM wrote:
The other is more like what I would call "convention" or language of fashion. I've become aware of this with women's fashion. For instance, a lot of women's evening or dressy clothing that doesn't actually turn me on very much still projects a message of sexiness and desirability. I think it's kind of a positive feedback loop: they dress a certain way because they want to feel a certain way which they associate with dress, so then they act accordingly, which reinforces the association. You could almost get people to think that a burlap sack is sexy if you worked hard enough on it.
I say almost, because you have to have something to work with to start off with. In my original post, I tried to list some of the elements that women's fashion starts off with.
Women's fashion has a highly developled vocabulary of conventions/fashion language elements, especially around seeming desirable to men. (This makes sense, since for much of history, the only real way women could have control over their own lives was through being appealing to men.) Men, on the other hand, have a whole fashion vocabulary around power. But men do not have much of a fashion vocabulary around being appealing to women. The Speedo, and -- well, what else?
I'm having a hard time putting my idea into words, I guess.Inertia wrote:Am I understanding your post any better, AMM, or am I still not getting it?