Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rational Dress Society

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 204 posts

Re: Rational Dress Society

#111

Post by dalbasal »

globular-toast wrote: post #95
4ggr0 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"free the nipple" could be understood as "let people freely decide what they want to do with their nipples" :)

Are there any societies where individuals decide how to dress rather than broadly following what is acceptable to that society?

Not entirely, but that's neither here nor there.

Rational dress, free the nipple, cover the nipple, victorian style, SV hoodie culture and all these other fashion/dress movements are about deciding/changing what is broadly acceptable to that society, with both "acceptable" and "broadly" on the table.

Take both OP's comment rational dress and most reform based or freedom based movements' position to be heavy on the "more broad" side. The victorians/etc. on the "more acceptable" side.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#112

Post by guelo »

frodetb wrote: post #100

This is a premise I can get behind. One of the silliest battles I have found myself fighting against society has been my search for comfortable yet attractive men's pants. I deeply dislike the restricting fit of modern pants, especially tighter fitting jeans, but also the semi-current fashion in suits and pants in general. It may be that a catalyst for this conflict has been my anatomy. My thighs and butt are huge, c…

I too have recently adopted a suspender lifestyle while in search of comfortable trouser fits. The main annoyance I've encountered is the need to remove all top clothing layers when using a toilet. This should be less of a problem in the upcoming warmer months, though they will also provide less opportunity for suspender concealment.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#113

Post by falcor84 »

bombolo wrote: post #99
AlecSchueler wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can and often do, but there are other issues then such a tailoring and colouring etc., again it's getting back to the social pressure to look a certain feminine way. I'd also add that while workarounds are available these things add up to an increased cognitive load for women doing normal everyday activities such as shopping for shirts.

shirts don't have pockets in any case.

I'm not following. Shirts can absolutely have pockets, both for men and women.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#114

Post by dalbasal »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #21

It's kind of scary that this looks so quaint and antiquated but we still live in a time when the dress of women is limited both legally and socially, with restrictions on everything from where they can breastfeed to the number of pockets they can get. The older I get the more egrarious it all feels. It also seems more normalised for younger men to hold explicitly misogynistic viewpoints about these issues.

I think there's a limit to freedom as a compass, especially if we emphasise social limitations. At some point you're not after freedom. You're after change to social norms, not people's right to break them.

Depending on the specific beach/society/group bikinis can be either normative or anti-normative.

IE, a woman can, and likely will feel pressured to conform. A 1950s bathing gown or a modern burkini is often as unacceptable at a bikini beach as a skimpy bikini is in religious/conservative spaces. A woman who leaves her seat in a cafe to breastfeed in the baby change stall or toilet can be ashamed in company that considers public breastfeeding a basic norm.

I'm all for broad and free. We're not great at this, and should be better. But, I also think there are always norms and "culture wars" are about the norms. Not just the freedom to violate norms. What the norms are, because norms will continue to exist.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#115

Post by Reimersholme »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #53
bprieto wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they say is one thimg, what they buy is another. If women really wanted clothes with big pockets, women clothes would have big pockets. But big pockets, specially when they have some things in, are not esthetically pleasant, and most women value esthetics more than utility.

> most women value esthetics more than utility. This is the kind of essentialistic thinking that creates these issues in the first place.

[dead]

Re: Rational Dress Society

#116

Post by masklinn »

frodetb wrote: post #100

This is a premise I can get behind. One of the silliest battles I have found myself fighting against society has been my search for comfortable yet attractive men's pants. I deeply dislike the restricting fit of modern pants, especially tighter fitting jeans, but also the semi-current fashion in suits and pants in general. It may be that a catalyst for this conflict has been my anatomy. My thighs and butt are huge, c…

> My thighs and butt are huge, compared to other guys of similar proportions

Have you considered looking at the women’s? Might be no better in the end, but this reads like what’s conventionally a feminine anatomy, and garment designers will generally go with conventional anatomy, if not outright prescribe completely imaginary ones you have to conform to.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#117

Post by micromacrofoot »

gardenhedge wrote: post #102
bprieto wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they say is one thimg, what they buy is another. If women really wanted clothes with big pockets, women clothes would have big pockets. But big pockets, specially when they have some things in, are not esthetically pleasant, and most women value esthetics more than utility.

This is exactly correct. Maybe 30 years ago it would have been difficult to get pockets on clothes because the shops in your locality didn't sell them.. but now we have this wonderful thing called the Internet.

still fairly difficult to get a decent functional pocket, ask a woman

Re: Rational Dress Society

#118

Post by frodetb »

masklinn wrote: post #116
frodetb wrote: post #100

This is a premise I can get behind. One of the silliest battles I have found myself fighting against society has been my search for comfortable yet attractive men's pants. I deeply dislike the restricting fit of modern pants, especially tighter fitting jeans, but also the semi-current fashion in suits and pants in general. It may be that a catalyst for this conflict has been my anatomy. My thighs and butt are huge, c…

> My thighs and butt are huge, compared to other guys of similar proportions Have you considered looking at the women’s? Might be no better in the end, but this reads like what’s conventionally a feminine anatomy, and garment designers will generally go with conventional anatomy, if not outright prescribe completely imaginary ones you have to conform to.

I absolutely have! Didn't think it was worth the tangent so I'm glad you're bringing it up. Women's fashion is so much more varied in shape, size, style, and fit, and some of it even looks comfortable. As a matter of fact, if you search for high-rise trousers online, most of the results are precisely in the women's section. I think that will have to be my next stop, though it's a line to cross and somewhat of pill to swallow.

As an aside, I have said for a long time that I wish it was socially uncontroversial for a guy to wear a loose skirt or dress in public, and that if I found one I liked I would wear it all the time.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#119

Post by karmelapple »

frodetb wrote: post #100

This is a premise I can get behind. One of the silliest battles I have found myself fighting against society has been my search for comfortable yet attractive men's pants. I deeply dislike the restricting fit of modern pants, especially tighter fitting jeans, but also the semi-current fashion in suits and pants in general. It may be that a catalyst for this conflict has been my anatomy. My thighs and butt are huge, c…

Same here. The secret I’ve found: look for athletic cut. That’s the cut many hockey players wear, who typically have huge thighs and a rumble seat because of the muscles skating works. Those are the only pants I buy now.

I even got Michael Strahan suit pants recently, since they were the only ones in the store that fit me nicely.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#120

Post by hgsgm »

karmelapple wrote: post #119
frodetb wrote: post #100

This is a premise I can get behind. One of the silliest battles I have found myself fighting against society has been my search for comfortable yet attractive men's pants. I deeply dislike the restricting fit of modern pants, especially tighter fitting jeans, but also the semi-current fashion in suits and pants in general. It may be that a catalyst for this conflict has been my anatomy. My thighs and butt are huge, c…

Same here. The secret I’ve found: look for athletic cut. That’s the cut many hockey players wear, who typically have huge thighs and a rumble seat because of the muscles skating works. Those are the only pants I buy now. I even got Michael Strahan suit pants recently, since they were the only ones in the store that fit me nicely.

> and a rumble seat

What?

Post reply on HN