Rant: Drab vs. Colorful and The New Puritanism

[AMM]

I've been experimenting with wearing different things and seeing how I feel about them.

For example, this morning I went for a pre-dawn bike ride in a navy blue skirt with red tights. (I also did a load of laundry at my apartment complex's laundry room.) Previously, I had stuck to dark colors, or clothing that could pass for baggy pants. I notice that I feel a lot more anxious in red, especially red tights, which I feel draw attention to my legs and reveal their shape (which I actually think look pretty good, especially for a 50+ year old man.) I also feel more anxious in a pleated rayon skirt than in my denim one.

I'm realizing that, on the one hand, I'm used to dressing to be invisible. On the other hand, I've always had a love of bright colors and eye-catching designs. When I was younger, I used to try the occasional bright color or flashy fashion. But now, when I try it, I feel afraid. Especially since I feel like I'm the only one on the planet who's doing it.

begin{rant}

I've also noticed that, over the years, it's harder and harder to find "interesting" clothing. When I was a teen-ager, there were paisly prints, Nehru jackets, etc. While you might think they were silly, at least they weren't boring. Now, men's clothes basically come in drab colors. And it keeps getting drabber -- Lands' End used to have twill pants in dull green and grey, now there's nothing but black and shades of dark and dull blue. (Oh, yeah, there's khaki, too.) The dress shirts are mostly available only in white and shades of blue. Even hip-hop -- the only semi-original men's style to appear in the past decade or so -- is interesting only for its ugliness.

And the same thing is happening in women's clothes. 20 years, ago, when I got married, we could find tights for my wife in just the shade of yellow she wanted. Now it's almost impossible to find anything but black, "nude", and maybe navy and white. Even grey and burgundy are rare. (Well, there's "welovecolors.com", if you don't mind colors that rub off on your clothes.) I used to be able to find flowery jumpers and lacy under-dresses, clothes that breathed spring and clothes with whimsey. No more. All you find are clothes to go to a funeral in (e.g., your own ), clothes to vegetate on the couch in while you watch "Seinfeld" reruns, clothes to be bored with life in (alone or with someone) and to look like a million other boring people in. To fade into the crowd, so no one will see you.

The "casual" trend has only made it worse. "Casual" is all about clothing you don't have to think about. Now, maybe women (not men) who dress "casual" still obsess over making everything fit together, but the intended effect is that you're just wearing the first things you pulled out of your drawer. (Which is the way most of us men have dressed all our lives.)

Even men-in-skirts get caught up in this. It seems like the greatest compliment you can pay someone here is to say, "it doesn't look like you're wearing a skirt". We say, "wear denim, because no one will see it." Bright colors are "feminine" (God forbid!). Go even further, and you're a crossdresser (head for the hills!) or a fetishist (get my tranquilizer darts!)

Whatever happened to dressing up? Whatever happened to dressing so people will turn their heads to look at you? To be seen?

Why is everyone trying to be invisible?

end{rant}

Now, I don't know if my fear of being conspicuous is just my neurosis (of which I have quite a few, I know) or is it that I'm picking up a Zeitgeist. Remember the song:

Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
Step out of line, the Man comes to take you away.

I'd really like to try brightly colored tights and shirts, or ruffled shirts (and skirts), or satin or taffeta. But when you look around and nobody else is doing it, not even the little girls, you start to worry. It's like strolling across an open field when everyone else is flat on their stomachs in the nearest ditch -- what do they know that I don't know?

-- AMM

[ChristopherJ]

You old hippy!

That's a Buffalo Springfield song, unless I'm mistaken. But don't take that as a criticism - I'm an old hippy too - and I've got loads of Buffalo Springfield records.

I want to make it clear that I agree 100% with what you have said. One of the reasons that I began wearing skirts (only last year) was that I had become very dissatisfied with the clothes available for men. I wanted more choice in terms of colour, style etc. - but could find nothing in the shops. In the end I began to have (lightweight, cotton, summer) trousers made up for me - once I had chosen the material. So I have 3 or 4 pairs of really brightly coloured trousers that I do wear sometimes.

I was going around local mens clothes shop a couple of months ago - looking for a decent tweed jacket - and was practically brought to tears when I walked past the sections selling mens suits. Row after row of black suits. Nothing else. Just black. It was so depressing.

I like bright colours. The dull colours we are so used to now seem to come from Victorian times. before that both men and women used to dress in bright colours and styles.

I haven't got many skirts (well . . not that many . . ) but I must confess that most of mine are blue (denim) or black or brown. But I have got a few cream and a few pink skirts. I've got a nice pink one with flowers - but I haven't worn that yet. And I've got one genuine 1960's psychedelic one. Haven't worn that either.

I agree with what you say about how many MIS seem to be pleased if they are invisible on the street. While I want to be accepted - I don't want to be accepted simply because I am invisible! I want to be seen - and accepted for what I am.

Again - I agree with what you say about brightly coloured tights. I've got a great pair - sort of crazy psychedelic pattern - browns and reds etc. - but I haven't had the guts to wear them yet. Got a great white woollen pair too - but I was too scared to wear them in the winter.

But I will. I will wear whatever I choose. But it's hard being the first one in town.

Anyhow - thanks for your rant. I enjoyed it.

[Bob]

AMM, do you do LaTeX?

[Raakone]

I wonder if three certain factors may be contributing to this. One...certain fundamentalist groups in the US becoming more prominent in the 80's and 90's. More and more people don't want to "rock the boat." Two....certain clothes are perceived by mainstream society as being "gay." Those who are not don't want to be associated. Those who are don't want to perpetuate stereotypes. So certain types of clothing become "pariah" to everyone, and remain so even if the original reason is forgotten. Three....9-11. In this world where we are concerned about terrorists, being "normal" becomes more important, it's a strange comforter, also, with the fear of surveillance, there's an idea that "if I be normal, no one will notice"...wanting to be invisible? You hit the nail on the head. Ok, in a way it's kind of following the Japanese expression "the nail that stands out is hammered in." Nobody wants to be "hammered." So with those factors (at least), there's a desire to be invisible, to be just a "cog", to not stand out in a way that could have one identified as being one of "them." Ok, and now maybe another factor...in some places even certain colors are unsafe. In many metropolitan areas there are places where the simple act of wearing blue or wearing red is a death sentence waiting to happen. And many guidebooks advise against wearing green if going to another country. Maybe this has reached a new height.

Ok, sorry if I'm rambling, I'll shut up...
~The Raccoon

[Sasquatch]

Obviously a lot of the color choices in our unbifurcated wardrobes reflect our personalities. For me, (also an aging hippie) that leans toward faded blue denim and earthtones, dark browns, tans, camo, GI drab, khaki. In cotton, canvas, denim, and corduroy. I'm not drawn toward bright colors in my bifurcated wardrobe, so why would it be different with my skirts?

The only bright colors I have are a few T shirts - a few reds and tie-dyed. But even there, I mostly wear white or black pocket T s. All my tights are black, navy, or hunter. I lean more toward Dylan, Grateful Dead, Zappa, The Band and Little Feat than Buffalo Springfield. Maybe that's the difference.

Roll another one
Just like the other one
'Cause you been holdin' on to it
And I sure would like a hit!

Sasq.

[crfriend]

I've also noticed that, over the years, it's harder and harder to find "interesting" clothing. When I was a teen-ager, there were paisly prints, Nehru jackets, etc. [...]

Nice rant there, AMM! Sadly, it goes well beyond just colours: it cuts to the fit as well. Take shirts, for instance. I remember back when mens' shirts had darts in them so they'd fit well; the ones on offer today that the average bloke can afford all fit like tents. Blech.

I'll admit to being a "child of the 1970s"; that's when I first started forming opinions of my own and when I ultimately came of age -- and the fashion chioces available during the time were quite interesting indeed. True, some of it was really awful, but, as AMM points out, it sure wasn't boring. I got to chatting about this with my wife last night over dinner (she's a "child of the '60s") and we both agree that the way things are for fashions today are just plain dull, drab, and rather unappealing -- especially for the guys -- and that it's high time for a comeback for creative clothing.

The "casual" trend has only made it worse. "Casual" is all about clothing you don't have to think about.

Amen. The operative question is not whether it's made matters worse, it's more of a question, "Has 'casual' killed fashion outright dead?" Or, "Is there a causal relationship between 'casual' and 'sloppy and boring'?"

Even men-in-skirts get caught up in this. It seems like the greatest compliment you can pay someone here is to say, "it doesn't look like you're wearing a skirt".

This may be more related to one's own sense of security than anything else. I don't particularly mind sticking out in a crowd (I do anyway, even when not in a skirt, because of my height), so adding flair to the way I do so is not so terrifying to me; I was actually surprised how easy it was to start wearing skirts in public once I got over my apprehensions about it.

Whatever happened to dressing up? Whatever happened to dressing so people will turn their heads to look at you? To be seen?

See "casual". There's also the problem of cost. Real clothes -- i.e. ones that are properly constructed and that actually fit -- are damnably expensive, and sometimes beyond the reach of the "man on the street". The expense also makes us uneasy when wearing good clothes as well. Once in a while I'll wear some of my wife's old silk skirts; they fit very well, have wonderfully deep (and functional(!) pockets, feel fantastic, and look positively smashing -- but, they're irreplaceable and cost upwards of (US)$100 fifteen years or so ago (close to 300 nowadays) so I spend more time worrying about damaging them or getting them dirty when I'm wearing them. I don't particularly do that when I'm wearing a $15 Wal-mart special.

I'd really like to try brightly colored tights and shirts, or ruffled shirts (and skirts), or satin or taffeta. But when you look around and nobody else is doing it, not even the little girls, you start to worry. It's like strolling across an open field when everyone else is flat on their stomachs in the nearest ditch -- what do they know that I don't know?

I share the desire to push the fabric and fit envelope as well, but also get the feeling that I'm going it alone and that I'll stick out like a sore thumb in the line of fire.

AMM, do you do LaTeX?

OK, that one gets "geek quote of the year"!

[Milfmog]

AMM, do you do LaTeX?

OK, that one gets "geek quote of the year"!

Hmmm.... guess I'm not enough of a geek.

I read that as latex and thought it was a bit of a leap to go from a (thoroughly enjoyable and accurate) rant about fabrics, colours and fashion straight to fetish wear. Oh dear, I think I'm revealing too much of the inner workings of my mind

Have fun,


Ian.

PS If anyone else thought as I did, there is some information here that may help.

[AMM]

I wonder if ... certain factors may be contributing to this. ...

One other factor occurs to me: Television, and other one-way media.

As someone who watches almost no television, and has even gotten sick of public radio, I'm amazed at how TV and other media dominate most people's lives to the exclusion of real relationships. No one hangs out on their porch (if they have a porch) to chat with neighbors or passers-by. My village is better than most places, because it is a village, people walk a lot, and some groups are trying to maintain a village identity, but most places where people live, you can only really get there by car, nobody's outside (except to manicure their lawn), the curtains are drawn. Their main relationships, outside of immediate family, are with TV personalities.

But you can't get the program on TV (or public radio) to respond to you or to recognize your existence. It doesn't matter whether you dress up or dress down, agree or disagree, the TV program will look exactly the same. It's actually better if you dress down and silently go along with whatever ideas the program is expressing. If you're, say, watching Fox News and don't agree with their characterizations, and have the urge to argue with them, you'll be forceably reminded that they have no relationship with you. What you think might as well not exist. If you dress up, and your favorite TV stars don't notice, you're forced to realize that they are completely unaware of your existence. You might as well not exist.

You're completely alone in your living room, watching a bunch of people who are clearly not alone. They blatantly have a life and you don't.

You can't get the TV people to see you, you can't get your neighbors to see you, and, if your kids are addicted to computers and video games, you can't get them to see you, so you might as well sink back into your couch and the passive illusion of living that TV offers you.

(There's an ad running on our local public radio for a "singles event" organized by the radio station. They say, "you're young, you like music, you know books, you're single, you want to get together with other under-40 gay and lesbian people for a night of...." Every time I hear it, I think, "who do you think you're talking to???" Obviously not me!)

One of the (few) things I like about New York City is that people actually interact with one another. You can say things to strangers on the subway and, if it's appropriate, they respond and may even get in a conversation with you. They don't look at you like you're Jack the Ripper. People tend to know who their neighbors are, if only because of thin walls and floors and walking downstairs to empty the garbage, and using the same subway station, or bus stop, or Starbucks.

And though NYC is infected with the disease of Creeping Drabness, too, people still dress to be seen more than in most parts of the US. Something like 10-25% of the women are wearing skirts or dresses, and even the people not wearing skirts tend to put together a "look." You'll see bright colors here and there, not to mention the occasional kilt-wearer in full regalia.

-- AMM

[Departed Member]

"Drab". Interesting word, what does it infere? Boring? Muted? Dark? Not an 'exiting' description like 'colourful', 'brash' or 'bright'? I'm not by nature a "City" person. I prefer to get up close with nature, whenever possible - even in my small town garden! So 'rainbow' clothing for me is a 'No-Go' area.

I'll admit to having owned (and worn) a black shirt with small green/white flowers on it, back in the '60s. It looked quite a riot in the disco lights, back then! But because nearly everyone else wore bright, vivid colours, I didn't 'stand out' from the crowd. Even if I chose to wear all black, I wasn't made to feel 'different' or 'wrong', back then. Nowadays, I've still no wish, no inclination, to wear 'fashionable' clothes - period. However, I'm well aware of the enormous pressure young folk are to 'conform' in the 21st Century - to become 'clones'. Today's "Designer Labels" are about as appealing as "New Labour"! Choice is frowned upon by the PC brigade. You are made to feel you must think, act & dress by their 'standards', or be(come) a social misfit. Originality and Individuality are particularly frowned upon by our Political (Religious, too?) Masters & Mistresses.

[AMM]

... I'm not by nature a "City" person. I prefer to get up close with nature, whenever possible - even in my small town garden! So 'rainbow' clothing for me is a 'No-Go' area.

Interesting. When I was younger, at least, and got around more, I recall that it was the country folk who went in for bright colors, gaudy clothes, busy wallpaper, and lots of decorations in their homes, and the city people who went in for bare white walls, minimal decoration, and plain black clothing. This was true both in the USA and in Germany, where I lived for a few years.

I wouldn't say that the city folk have gotten all that much gaudier -- black is still trendy -- but the suburban people have gotten blander. (I don't know what real country folk go for, not that there's much country left that hasn't had its country-ness "malled" into nothingness.)

-- AMM

[staticsan]

And though NYC is infected with the disease of Creeping Drabness, too, people still dress to be seen more than in most parts of the US. Something like 10-25% of the women are wearing skirts or dresses, and even the people not wearing skirts tend to put together a "look." You'll see bright colors here and there, not to mention the occasional kilt-wearer in full regalia.

Cool...

Just thought I'd pick up on this point because I will be visiting NYC in a few days and will be kilted for all or part of the time. But not in full regalia, as I don't have that. My kiltedness will be casual. Both of kilts are head-turners: one is MacGregor (bright red) and the other is snow camo! No drabness here, no sirree...

Wade.