The Yoga Pants trend

[Pompidou]

There's a lot of people who have little knowledge of what's proper and what's not for formality or for situations which call for it.

If you read some of Lizzie's posts, she talks about how times changed so much slower back in the day. Rules had a chance to last. That said, rules did change. What does this mean for the times of lightning fast change we live in? I think it means that when we see a person we think must not know the rules, we have to stop and ask if it's not we that need catching up. Does this person not know the rules, or did I miss the memo where this rule no longer exists? The real fight for some Loungers isn't educating people on the rules and how to follow them. It's more fundamental than that. The real fight is getting their rules on the books. It's a wear what you want world, and I'm not sure we'd exist as a forum if the golden age values never died.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Progress is good, yes. Does that mean that you throw away traditions? I don't see that as a good thing. There's a reason traditions exist and just because they're not as convenient doesn't make them bad.

Modern society can try to sugar coat track suits, t-shirts, and ball caps however they want. They're not formal wear. If you wanna wear that stuff for the day-to-day that's just swell. That being said, if you're at something special, doing something special, dress proper, dammit. I swear, every time I see a guy in cargo shorts at church, I wanna go hand him a pair of slacks and tell him to put them on.

If you read some of Lizzie's posts, she talks about how times changed so much slower back in the day. Rules had a chance to last. That said, rules did change. What does this mean for the times of lightning fast change we live in? I think it means that when we see a person we think must not know the rules, we have to stop and ask if it's not we that need catching up. Does this person not know the rules, or did I miss the memo where this rule no longer exists? The real fight for some Loungers isn't educating people on the rules and how to follow them. It's more fundamental than that. The real fight is getting their rules on the books. It's a wear what you want world, and I'm not sure we'd exist as a forum if the golden age values never died.

 

[Pompidou]

Should traditions be thrown out when they're inconvenient? That's a good question. Can they be thrown out? What I can see with my own two eyes holds more weight to me than what I wish were so. I see traditions being abandoned in droves. So, I have to answer, yes, they can and are. Imagine the dismay of the people alive to see fedoras replace homburgs, and the loss of morning/evening suit distinctions - the loss of black/white tie distinctions and the death of the tophat.

Just as we are today, people who knew how things were probably said, "a suit and fedora isn't formal enough for this occasion", but little did they know, it was. We're in a transition period, I think. Some people do wear suits. Some people only dress casually. You have to wonder not so much, are suits still formal, or are track suits and yoga pants formal, but, will track suits and yoga pants be formal tomorrow? If you want to get depressed, think realistically on it. When you don that black fedora, and look ten times more professional than anyone else around, imagine how casual you'd look to the last group that tried to keep tradition. At the very least, there's some comfort in that even the most reprehensible outfit around will be comparatively great in 50 years. They'll look back on 2012 as the day when a woman still wore spandex hot shorts to her wedding like a real lady.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

That's a sickening thought. Today's changes to what's formal and what's not are very drastic compared to yesteryear. My parents were married in 1988. My mother had a formal dress and my father wore a tuxedo. Besides some minor fashion details, what they wore was not all that different from what my Grandparents wore in 1951.

The big attack is on formal wear and I think it's a very bad thing. Certain occasions should still call for a certain level of professionalism. I'm not saying you gotta wear a suit and tie to everything. I do think a collared shirt and decent pants, even a jacket should still be protocol for weddings, funerals, church, etc.

I also think that throwing away traditions is a bold and offensive move. They say that those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. If you forget traditions, you begin to forget who you are, what your heritage is. Maybe it isn't 'cool' to care about such things, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't.

They say we're in a more fast paced society where fashion changes faster. However, the daily wear of t-shirt/jeans has changed very little over the years. Where fashion is changing is what has changed and it's bad news, at least in my humble opinion. The big question is how casual can we go? There was a time when our clothes got more formal over time. When is the pendulum going to swing?

It seems to me there's a lot of attacks on the traditionalists as of late. What makes the tried and true bad? Some person decides what's new and hip is what is better and so the old becomes inherently bad?

I hear a lot of people talk about how they enjoy seeing people dressed more properly and that they wish more men would wear nice clothes and hats, and that more women would wear dresses and style their hair nice and the like. There's two contributing factors that I believe are the reason why more people don't follow the wish for implementing these styles in their own wardrobe. They would be laziness and fear.

People are too lazy to wear anything that takes any effort. Heck, why do you think you see so many people wearing pajamas all day long? It would be too much work to change clothes. I also think people are afraid that they'll be bashed by those who think that new is always better. I don't think new is always bad, I just don't always think it's better.

I buy new technology when I feel that the cost compared to how it will make my life easier makes the purchase worthwhile, but otherwise I stick with my old stuff that works just as good. Maybe that mentality should be applied more often. New is fine when we need it, but why get rid o the old when it works. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Most of the style 'fixes' are just to put an extra buck in the pocket of the name brand companies.

Call me outdated, call me a relic, call me whatever you'd like to. I'm putting the fashion brakes on before the world hits nudism.

 

[Pompidou]

Prolly just call you an individual. It's good when people say, "This is who I am". It's good when people know it.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I was surfing the net earlier this evening and came upon a picture of a child's funeral. I decided not to post it because I think it could be taken the wrong way, so I'll just describe it: The pic shows what I presume to be the grieving parents at the gravesite gazing at the tiny casket. The father is dressed in a hoodie and jeans while the mother is attired in a sweatshirt and sweat pants -- though, to be honest, the other mourners weren't that much better dressed. Now I don't know the circumstances of their baby's short and tragic life but I think the memory of that poor child deserves better than Mommy and Daddy looking like they attended the funeral as an afterthought while making a beer run to the local convenience store.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Or, just not call you anything, AtomicEraTom. My stance is that what a person wears is irrelevant. And yes, I take that as far as nakedness. I could not care less if someone wants to wander around naked. That is indeed their choice.

Prolly just call you an individual. It's good when people say, "This is who I am". It's good when people know it.

 

[Gin&Tonics]

I was surfing the net earlier this evening and came upon a picture of a child's funeral. I decided not to post it because I think it could be taken the wrong way, so I'll just describe it: The pic shows what I presume to be the grieving parents at the gravesite gazing at the tiny casket. The father is dressed in a hoodie and jeans while the mother is attired in a sweatshirt and sweat pants -- though, to be honest, the other mourners weren't that much better dressed. Now I don't know the circumstances of their baby's short and tragic life but I think the memory of that poor child deserves better than Mommy and Daddy looking like they attended the funeral as an afterthought while making a beer run to the local convenience store.

That's just the thing, isn't it? Whether the freedom crying jammies and hoodie clad ilk like it or not, what they wear says something about them. I don't even buy the lack of money argument most of the time; a lot of my modest wardrobe, in fact most of it, either comes from thrift stores or is quite old and has withstood the test of time. Currently the only suit I own was free. If you're just schlepping along main street going on a beer run, sure, wear ratty jeans and a tee shirt and some old runners. No big deal if you're happy with that, but if you're going to church, a job interview, a wedding, a funeral, etc. show a little class and wear something at least respectable. Otherwise the message you're sending is "I don't care enough and I'm too lazy to get dressed up for this."

I remember in highschool there was a terrible accident in which three students from the school were killed. One of them was the brother of someone I had gone to school with since elementary. There was a memorial service at the school in the afternoon, so I walked home at lunch and changed into the nicest clothes I owned, which at that time was a white shirt and a tie, a blue blazer, grey flannels and a pair of decent black leather shoes. I think I was the only student in the auditorium who bothered to dress up; I wouldn't have dreampt of doing anything less because I wanted to show respect and care to my classmate who had lost his brother. I didn't look down on anyone, and I still don't, but as far as I was concerned it was simply the done thing. I guess that's just how I was raised. My parents taught me that how you dress sends a message to those around you, and dressing nicely for an occasion shows respect.

Yeah, you can wear whatever you want, but don't be surprised when the rest of the world thinks you're a careless, lazy slob.

And may I also add that if you go around naked in public, don't be surprised when the police arrest you and toss you in the can.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Yeah, you can wear whatever you want, but don't be surprised when the rest of the world thinks you're a careless, lazy slob.

That really is the gist of it. Despite everything I keep reading around here lately about how sweats, hoodies, yoga pants, etc. are now universally acceptable for all occasions, I really and honestly don't see any evidence of it. I see tourists schlepping around in the summer in the Charlie Brown look of shorts, t-shirts, baseball caps, and sneakers, but they're on vacation. I see kids, teenagers, and twenty-somethings going around in various outlandish getups, but they're kids, teenagers, and twenty-somethings. They aren't representative of all of society, and even some of them haven't given up on propriety. A young woman I know recently got a job as a children's librarian in one of the local towns, and asked me if I'd hem up some new dress pants she'd bought for work, so they'd fit properly. She's 24 years old, and as much a part of modern culture as anyone I know, but she understands there's a time and a place to look casual, and a time and a place to look professional. Understanding that is an important part of moving beyond the whole collegiate party-hearty attitude and actually growing up.

So no, the helots haven't totally taken over the world yet, and there's no reason why the rest of us should just roll over for them. Maybe the day will come when the President addresses Congress in a hoodie and sweatpants and Crocs, but hopefully I won't live long enough to see it.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

This is, as G. Dubya would say our "fundamental difference in opinion". I counter that someone's clothing says nothing more about them than what they like to wear. It says about as much about a person as does their choice of furniture or curtains: Diddly squat.

All the conclusions you draw about a person, based upon their clothing, are from inside your own head, a result of whatever memes and tropes have lodged there over the years. There's nothing inherent, "true", or fundamental about our reactions to other peoples clothing. Having an understanding of this allows one to step beyond kneejerk reactions.

That's just the thing, isn't it? Whether the freedom crying jammies and hoodie clad ilk like it or not, what they wear says something about them.

 

[LizzieMaine]

This is, as G. Dubya would say our "fundamental difference in opinion". I counter that someone's clothing says nothing more about them than what they like to wear. It says about as much about a person as does their choice of furniture or curtains: Diddly squat.

Well, I dunno. I don't think a person with an essentially conservative nature (and I don't mean politically conservative, but rather a person who doesn't rush to adopt change and "the new" for the sake of its newness) is likely to furnish their home in those avant-garde chairs that nobody can actually sit on, and drape their windows with Nomex mesh. If you walk into the home of a person like that there's a pretty good chance their furniture and overall decor will reflect their nature pretty well. And the opposite as well - a person of avant-garde tastes isn't particularly likely to have Grandma's early-American couch in a place of honor in their living room.

I think you can draw some basic conclusions about people from their clothing in the same way -- I don't suggest you can define everything about them, but the fact that they like to dress a certain way is going to tell me a few things about them. If I see a kid going around dressed in some wild punk-looking outfit I'm not going to assume he's a devoted opera fan. He might be, but I think there's a pretty reasonable chance that he isn't. If somebody walks down the street in an ankle-length skirt with a crocheted white cap on the back of their head, I'm going to assume she's a Mennonite, or at least an adherent of some similar sect. She might just be dressing that way to be ironic, and might actually be covered from neck to ankle with tattoos, but the odds are that she isn't. If a man comes down the street in a suit and tie, carrying a briefcase, I'm going to assume that he's a lawyer, a salesman, a business executive of some kind, or is about to offer me the latest issue of The Watchtower. I may be wrong, he might be a performance artist or a drug dealer making a call on a particularly fastidious client, but the odds are that he isn't.

And if he's naked, I'm going to assume he's either an exhibitionist or a salt-head. Either way, I'm gonna call the cops. After I get done laughing, of course.

 

[1961MJS]

There's a lot of people who have little knowledge of what's proper and what's not for formality or for situations which call for it.

A friend of mine was talking about wearing a camouflage t-shirt and a baseball cap for his wedding. Now, I understand that reflects his personality, but I think certain situations still call for certain things.

Well Tom, there are more than 1 side to things. Formal weddings cost piles of money for a one or two day event resulting in memories that (in theory) the bride will treasure for all time. (time out, I nearly yacked). In actuality, the parents will be remembering paying the piles of money, when their little princess gets divorced two years and 3 months later. I agree that formal occasions like a wedding should be done properly, white dress for the bride (even if she buys it at a maternity shop), a nice suit or tux for the groom. The other junk, like a giant wedding cake, $500 for flowers, released pigeons, etc, can be skipped.

On the other hand, your friend will be just as legally married wearing a camouflage shirt and hat, with the wife in daisy dukes and a tube top as anyone else (just ask her lawyer). Of course, it must be white (or very faded) daisy dukes and a white tube top. His and her parents will still have whatever piles of money that they started with. The bride and groom's friends can just go out to dinner and get plowed on their own dime.

If it were me, I'd try and do the ceremony in a dark suit, wife in a white dress, one cake, one bouquet and hit the road.

On a weird side note, I have a theory that there is some minimum time that a wedding ceremony has to last in order to expect a long marriage. My cousin's wedding ceremony was SUPPOSED to start at 6:30 PM, but it started at least 3-4 minutes late. I was in the parking lot at 6:45 PM. They got it annulled about 2 months later.

Later

 

[bunnyb.gal]

So it's come down to this???

Is it a matching set? Because if it were, I would be sorely tempted to understand "groom" to be a verb...

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Well Tom, there are more than 1 side to things. Formal weddings cost piles of money for a one or two day event resulting in memories that (in theory) the bride will treasure for all time. (time out, I nearly yacked). In actuality, the parents will be remembering paying the piles of money, when their little princess gets divorced two years and 3 months later. I agree that formal occasions like a wedding should be done properly, white dress for the bride (even if she buys it at a maternity shop), a nice suit or tux for the groom. The other junk, like a giant wedding cake, $500 for flowers, released pigeons, etc, can be skipped.

On the other hand, your friend will be just as legally married wearing a camouflage shirt and hat, with the wife in daisy dukes and a tube top as anyone else (just ask her lawyer). Of course, it must be white (or very faded) daisy dukes and a white tube top. His and her parents will still have whatever piles of money that they started with. The bride and groom's friends can just go out to dinner and get plowed on their own dime.

If it were me, I'd try and do the ceremony in a dark suit, wife in a white dress, one cake, one bouquet and hit the road.

On a weird side note, I have a theory that there is some minimum time that a wedding ceremony has to last in order to expect a long marriage. My cousin's wedding ceremony was SUPPOSED to start at 6:30 PM, but it started at least 3-4 minutes late. I was in the parking lot at 6:45 PM. They got it annulled about 2 months later.

Later

I wore a $7 dress to my elopement ceremony which was under ten minutes. I'm still married 13 years later.

 

[Edward]

I was surfing the net earlier this evening and came upon a picture of a child's funeral. I decided not to post it because I think it could be taken the wrong way, so I'll just describe it: The pic shows what I presume to be the grieving parents at the gravesite gazing at the tiny casket. The father is dressed in a hoodie and jeans while the mother is attired in a sweatshirt and sweat pants -- though, to be honest, the other mourners weren't that much better dressed. Now I don't know the circumstances of their baby's short and tragic life but I think the memory of that poor child deserves better than Mommy and Daddy looking like they attended the funeral as an afterthought while making a beer run to the local convenience store.

I'll never be in that situation - I don't much like children and certainly won't be having any of my own - but I'm inclined to cut people who've just lost a young kid some slack, as I suspect they probably have more on their minds in a situation like that than what they'll wear.

 

[sheeplady]

I'll never be in that situation - I don't much like children and certainly won't be having any of my own - but I'm inclined to cut people who've just lost a young kid some slack, as I suspect they probably have more on their minds in a situation like that than what they'll wear.

Agreed. And wearing sweats says a lot more about the mother and fathers' friends/family than it says anything about the couple that lost a child. The friends and the family should be the ones helping the parents to manage their lives at that point, including the way that they are dressing, what they are eating, etc.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Maybe the day will come when the President addresses Congress in a hoodie and sweatpants and Crocs, but hopefully I won't live long enough to see it.

Suddenly, President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho from the movie Idiocracy comes to mind

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I have to agree. I know that people make assumptions about me from what I wear, and typically it is true. The assumptions I make about what people wear are typically true, as well. Same with their furnishings. I go to my best friend's house, he has modern furniture, I assume he's a man of modern society. People come to my house and see rotary phones and blonde end tables, clearly I have an old-school mindset and taste. Not to say the rule is ALWAYS true, but I think it often is.

Well, I dunno. I don't think a person with an essentially conservative nature (and I don't mean politically conservative, but rather a person who doesn't rush to adopt change and "the new" for the sake of its newness) is likely to furnish their home in those avant-garde chairs that nobody can actually sit on, and drape their windows with Nomex mesh. If you walk into the home of a person like that there's a pretty good chance their furniture and overall decor will reflect their nature pretty well. And the opposite as well - a person of avant-garde tastes isn't particularly likely to have Grandma's early-American couch in a place of honor in their living room.

I'm not saying that he has to wear a tux, but he can buy a suit at the thrift store for between 8 and 12 dollars. It is going to be a formal wedding, too. Her family is quite wealthy and they want for her to have a formal wedding, he's just not willing to play ball.

Well Tom, there are more than 1 side to things. Formal weddings cost piles of money for a one or two day event resulting in memories that (in theory) the bride will treasure for all time. (time out, I nearly yacked). In actuality, the parents will be remembering paying the piles of money, when their little princess gets divorced two years and 3 months later. I agree that formal occasions like a wedding should be done properly, white dress for the bride (even if she buys it at a maternity shop), a nice suit or tux for the groom. The other junk, like a giant wedding cake, $500 for flowers, released pigeons, etc, can be skipped.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I have to agree. I know that people make assumptions about me from what I wear, and typically it is true. The assumptions I make about what people wear are typically true, as well. Same with their furnishings. I go to my best friend's house, he has modern furniture, I assume he's a man of modern society. People come to my house and see rotary phones and blonde end tables, clearly I have an old-school mindset and taste. Not to say the rule is ALWAYS true, but I think it often is.

Modern furniture today looks like it designed to be loaded on and off the U-Haul with little hassle during frequent moves.

I'm not saying that he has to wear a tux, but he can buy a suit at the thrift store for between 8 and 12 dollars. It is going to be a formal wedding, too. Her family is quite wealthy and they want for her to have a formal wedding, he's just not willing to play ball.

I can already see how long that marriage is going to last.

 

[Undertow]

...Everyone else is free to hold their weddings as they please as well. There's a wedding outfit for everyone.

I'm sure we're all making the connection that most Western societies are, in fact, free to wear what they like 99% of the time. I don't think anyone in this thread, or probably very many folks in Western Society, would advocate civil/criminal punishment for not adhereing to some arbitrary dress code. I'm not jumping on you Pompidou, but I think it's a necessary point that should be addressed; i.e. it's not that anyone advocates a "law" against wearing yoga pants to church - but perhaps there should be some shame felt?

...but I think certain situations still call for certain things.

This is my main concern - there is a time and place, and folks should refer to tradition to understand this. I think the real discussion is not, "Should I wear a conservative vs. loud tuxedo to my wedding?" or "What is more appropriate for a meeting with my local tax man, a patterned day dress or my pajamas?"

The question our society needs to be asking is, "What does tradition hold appropriate for this event/meeting/situation in which I'm about to partake?"

Fashions change. Styles change. Traditions change. We must allow for some kind of fluidity in that process. But to ignore tradition out of complete wanton laziness, or to claim ignorance of tradition in the face of obvious norms is "wrong". Everyone knows you should show respect to one another, and your families, by dressing formally for your wedding. That's a fact of our society - or else the cheap tuxedo rental industry would have withered away ages ago. Everyone knows you show respect at a church service, or a funeral or an interview, etc., by wearing appropriate attire.

It seems we're all arguing apples and oranges. [huh]