dressed down , the trend in the 21st century

[jamespowers]

Seeing how the guys on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" dress, and how they make the straight guys dress, I think a show called "Straight Eye for the Queer Guy" should be made. They should show staight guys "toughening up" a gay mans "closet". It's one thing to keep someone from dressing like a slob or having a disaster for a home but making them dress whacky with anything goes type of style as they do is another. I can't believe none of those straight guys has ever refused to wear the fashionless clothing these guys provide.

Already done on Comedy Central. They called it Straight Plan for the Gay Man. It was hilarious but I don't think it is on anymore though. They go through their closet and tell them "this makes you look flaming. Out it goes!"

Regards to all,

J

 

[Biltmore Bob]

I'd wear that queer stuff for as long as it took to get the....

Freakin' check. Then straight into the salvation army bin.

 

[Quigley Brown]

Seeing how the guys on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" dress, and how they make the straight guys dress, I think a show called "Straight Eye for the Queer Guy" should be made. They should show staight guys "toughening up" a gay mans "closet". It's one thing to keep someone from dressing like a slob or having a disaster for a home but making them dress whacky with anything goes type of style as they do is another. I can't believe none of those straight guys has ever refused to wear the fashionless clothing these guys provide.

...a bit of stereotyping going on here. I sense some homophobia in the air.

 

[Biltmore Bob]

Whatever...

Most real men don't like girly men.

 

[Senator Jack]

I dunno. I haven't seen the show once. When I heard about it though, I thought it was a joke. The last gay guy that knew how to dress was Noel Coward. Perhaps they should dig him up. He'd probably still look better than the rest. Sheesh, the rest of them seem to think leg warmers and fish net shirts were (and are) pretty fashionable. But I suppose like in any race/group/creed what-have-you 95% of them are going to live up to some part of their stereotype. My background is Italian, and I'd be the first to say that 95% of them think track suits and pinkie rings are fashionable. They also think The Sopranos are people to emulate. Go figure. I'm also an American and I'd be the first to say 95% of us are fat,lazy (and, yes, greedy) slobs. I'm also a male and I'd be the first to say that 95% are perpetually priapic. All right, maybe that's closer to 98%.


Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Quigley Brown]

Most real men don't like girly men.

You mean real men like manly men?

You can thank lots of 'girly' men for designing your vintage suits.

 

[Biltmore Bob]

I do like manly men...what of it?

You can like all the girly men you want.

And I don't own any vintage suits.

 

[Biltmore Bob]

I'm also a male and I'd be the first to say that 95% are perpetually priapic. All right, maybe that's closer to 98%.


I had to look up that word...priapic. Never heard of it.

And I'll go so far as to say it is a natural condition of the male, American or otherwise.

 

[Bebop]

...a bit of stereotyping going on here. I sense some homophobia in the air.

You have obviously never watched "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy". Please tell me where you get homophobia from anything I said . How could what I said be anymore homophobic that a show called "Queer eye for the straight guy" is hetrophobic? Where does anyone get the gall to tell a guy he does not dress well because he is straight? :rage: Or that gay men, or as the show puts it, queers, know how to dress just because they are gay? :rage: It is an insult to gay men and women everywhere. If you knew me and mine, you would laugh at the thought of calling me homophobic. You could probably get away with calling me just about anything other than homophobic. I sense a bit of knee jerking from you.

 

[Biltmore Bob]

the word 'Homophobic' means afraid of Homos. Homos don't scare me they are disgusting to me. Do you know what those guys do? It should pretty much disgust everybody.

 

[Senator Jack]

Do you know what those guys do?

Yeah, they snap at you at the drop of hat.

I want to make this clear though, it's not the putting of the what where that bothers me. IT'S THE DAMN LEG WARMERS AND FISH NET SHIRTS.

Oh, and I have the only good solution to this whole gay marriage business but the White House won't return my calls. What we have to do is ban marriage completely. There. No one gets married and everyone's happy and divorce lawyers are out of business. Problem solved. Christ, I gotta get on the ballot next year.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Biltmore Bob]

I want to make this clear though, it's not the putting of the what where that bothers me.

Well it ought to. I'll try not to drop any hats near you. back at ya.

 

[Nathan Flowers]

Let's keep this on track, or we'll lock it down.

 

[Angelicious]

No one made that connection.

Well, apparently someone did make that connection; otherwise the topic would not have arisen.

From what I've read the "Modest mid-20th century quality clothing = good ol' fashioned Christian morals" interpretation was implicit, not explicit. Nobody came out and said, "People who don't dress according to Dress Code A are Bad People". But with all the criticism and head shaking and I-declare!-hands-thrown-up-in-the-air, it was very easily assumed.

It was simply a commentary on the trend in portraiture today. No need to lighten up.

While I certainly would not want a oil painting of my child wearing boardies and a t-shirt (let alone advertising some marketing brand that will be pass?ɬ© in 20 years anyway), I don't presume that I am in a position to judge them or their reasons for doing so.

As an aside, as someone interested in history and historical costuming (seriously historical, not just 19th and 20th century), having artworks depicting people in everyday clothing is a valuable asset. Those countless pictures (painting and photography) of people in their Sunday Best tell you little of how they actually lived their lives - they're great records, but variety is also handy...

The other part of the discussion is more to do with sloppily dressed people in public places now and how it has pervaded the public arena. At that particular point it is public and open to scrutiny.

You make it sound as though sloppy dressing is purely a phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

I have photographs of my family in the "Golden Era", and they were plenty scruffy at times. I have research going back to Ancient Greece, complaining about lax standards of dress and behaviour, and "those young people today, they're bringing about the downfall of decent civilisation..!". People in most places, at almost every time, are appalled and disgusted by the behaviour and dress of their peers and lessers. The only thing that changes is borders of respectability and acceptability - and no, they do not only sink, they rise and fall like skirtlengths in a fashion magazine. Some of those fashions from the Restoration to the Regency would make even the most ardent Britney fan shrink.

I should mention a term here that some have forgotten--SHAME.

Ah, yes, because that's a healthy emotion... I personally try to stay away from the opinion (although I revert to it out of habit and upbringing) that shame and self-doubt are a better form of discipline and guidance than actively choosing to do as one does because it is right and best. Shame and self-doubt are weak, destructive emotions that leave one overly concerned with the censure of others, at the cost of self-improvement.

No matter what the denials of people may be, how you look determines how you are treated. If you look like a bum you will be treated as such. I would be ashamed to be seen as slovenly and unkempt.

Your first two sentences are almost undeniably true. Things get fuzzy, however, in an acceptable definition of "slovenly and unkempt".

For instance, at risk of generalising greatly, the few Texans* I have known who have also visited New Zealand and Australia found the common, everyday dress-sense to be casual, careless, strange, bohemian, wild, common in the classist sense, and yes, "slovenly and unkempt". New Zealanders, on the other hand (I can't speak for the Australians) found the Texans to be often overdressed, artificial, showy, loud (clothes, not speech), uptight, attention-grabbing, over-formal, and innappropriate to the surroundings.

It's all just very subjective.

*RE: Texans - I'm not picking on the beautiful Lone Star State. It's just that it's the only State from which I have known more than one family who has visited the antipodes. Also, Texas is still fairly formal and proud to look good (compared to my time in other States, which shall remain nameless), so it was a good contrast to the student-eclectic, beach-boho and gypsy-wild looks in NZ fashion.

Perhaps some people have a lower threshold of shame or they need an adequate definition.

Shame
n 1: a painful emotion resulting from an awareness of inadequacy or guilt

There's a definition - do we really need more inadequacy and guilt in this world?

(I apologise for having run away with the conversation!)

 

[Angelicious]

the word 'Homophobic' means afraid of Homos. Homos don't scare me they are disgusting to me. Do you know what those guys do? It should pretty much disgust everybody.

Same things lots of heterosexual couples do I'd imagine...

 

[Angelicious]

Most real men don't like girly men.

Cute, Bob... But most of my gay friends are indistinguishable from my non-gay friends. Your statement is one of those opinions that makes those who share your mindset make appreciative noises and clink glasses, but it doesn't really seem to stand up to factual analysis. Sure, some gay guys are flaming. But are they flaming because that's them, or are they flaming because they're told "that's how gay guys act, you're gay, ipso facto - go for it"? I've known plenty of soft-spoken, artistic guys with a penchant for Queenish cattiness, and they identify as heterosexual.

Again with the subjectiveness!

As for Queer Eye, of course they needed to play up the "gayness" of the hosts. If the guys on the show looked like the guys on the street, there would be no theme and the show wouldn't sell - and boy, does it sell...

I think the issue is not "Gay fashion", but "high fashion". The show is leaving those guys dressed in stuff that blends in on the catwalk or in cologne adverts, but stands out (for better or worse) when surrounded by blokes in jeans and t-shirts - kind of like vintage does, but at the other end of the scale.

I like some of the looks the Fab Five have provided, but with others I think the biggest issue is that they will date easily and aren't really versatile enough for your average man to wear to lots of different events. Beyond that it all seems to be dependent on the viewer's personal taste. I mean, I know plenty of men who think wearing all vintage will make them look stuffy, old-fashioned, too fat or too skinny, and far too much like their grandad. Once more, with the opinions and the subjectivity and the oy!

 

[photobyalan]

Most real men don't like girly men.

A real man doesn't concern himself with things that are not his business, like what another man is doing behind his closed bedroom door, no matter who he has in there with him.

Do you know what those guys do? It should pretty much disgust everybody.

To the best of my knowledge, "those guys" get up in the morning when the alarm goes off, have coffee, then they go to work and earn a paycheck. After work, they go home, have dinner and watch TV or surf the 'net or maybe read a book, then they go to bed. On their days off they run errands, go grocery shopping, maybe watch a football or baseball game, go for a bike ride, visit their mothers, or just relax at home.

And, unless you know something that I don't about human anatomy, those guys aren't putting anything anywhere that a hetero couple couldn't put in the same places if they felt like it.

There's already enough hate and intolerance in the world, Bob. Do you really need to add to it?

 

[Angelicious]

Sorry Zohar!!

Let's keep this on track, or we'll lock it down.

[bad] Naughty me...

Sorry, that's what happens when you have a habit of answering each reply in a new browser window... It doesn't load new replies on the original page while you're typing, and then suddenly you discover three new ones when all your replies get logged...

I shall make sure to stay on topic from now on.

 

[jamespowers]

This is getting to far off topic and we are not getting anywhere. I can only forsee further disparagement and topics being discussed that really need not be. Perhaps shame is being missed here. Consider this thread closed.

Regards to all,

J

 

[jamespowers]

Closed [bad]