Rational Dress Society • Hacker News Board

Re: Rational Dress Society

#141

Post by Mezzie » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 1:58 PM UTC

emptystation wrote: post #137

Mezzie wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say most women do, but a lot of women do. And, more importantly, those are the women dropping the $$ on clothing and therefore what is catered to. I work in a lingerie/bra boutique at the moment and there are a large amount of women who wear the wrong size bra just because the right size shows that they have back fat. Even when the back fat can't be seen under clothing and the right size is more comfortabl…

I am one of those women who would wear an ill fitting bra over a well fitting one if a well fitting one accentuated my back fat. When you're conditioned to look and present themselves a certain way, it's almost impossible to fight it with rational arguments. It's anecdotal, of course, but I've seen a certain degree of conditioning in practically all the women across different cultures, just that the details differ. B…

> I've seen a certain degree of conditioning in practically all the women across different cultures, just that the details differ.

I would agree with that, although my experience is mostly limited to America. I see substantial differences in how that pressure presents across different generations. (Somebody needs to check on Gen X women, Jesus. Mass media did a number on them.)

I don't understand personally (I'm 'pretty' enough to get away with ignoring the conditioning [In quotes because I mean I fit the features the societies I live in see as attractive in cis women], I'm a lesbian and the stick to a lot of the conditioning is that you won't be a desirable to men if you don't conform and what do I care, and I also was/am visually impaired and even people who are really into conformity understand that putting that conditioning onto girls who can't see is a dick move), but it's obviously real. The main reason I hate it is that so many women who think like you like to insult themselves in a way that suggests I should agree? I'm not going to insult you! I think your body is fine!

> I traded physical comfort and health for, hopefully, psychological comfort and the ability to control my narrative through my looks.

This is a great way to put it, and now that I can see and I'm more comfortable with my looks, I'm wading into that mess myself because unfortunately I'm going to need every advantage I can get for things I want to do and people being stupid around attractive women is unfortunately one of those advantages, as gross as I feel about it.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#142

Post by tzs » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 2:13 PM UTC

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…

Have you considered a kilt, like these [1]?

[1] https://utilikilts.com/

Re: Rational Dress Society

#143

Post by masklinn » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 2:14 PM UTC

frodetb wrote: post #118

masklinn wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Yeah it’s becoming a bit less uncommon but not by much.

Maybe you could make up a Scottish heritage and wear a kilt? Other options would be overalls (there’s overall high-fashion) you might have the same shape issue as pants but they won’t fall down thanks to built-in suspenders (which you can play with e.g. cross, halves, …), or onesies (kigurumi) if you don’t mind being seen as a weeb.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#144

Post by red-iron-pine » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 2:14 PM UTC

Godel_unicode wrote: post #134

micromacrofoot wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have talked with not a few women about this, and it always breaks down around not liking the look of the clothes with the pockets. Largely because of what the pockets do to the silhouette of the clothes. I invite you to do this experiment; find someone who you think is stylish, note what they’re wearing, then shop for something similar but with pockets. It’ll probably take you ten minutes online.

Shoot I'm not a woman and I get it. Gym shorts come to mind.

The ones with pockets tend to have thicker waistbands and the pockets flair out near the top. Make my hips look huge. Very womanly, big fat ass. Easily adds an inch or two, or at least the appearance thereof.

Basketball shorts sans pockets look much slimmer. Great for B-ball but not as much while lifting or other activities where I want to carry a cell phone.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#145

Post by adolph » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 2:16 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #129

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 don't know if you've tried it, but there are places that can sell you custom tailored jeans, usually in the form of raw denim that -- because it will do such a great job of conforming to exactly your shape, to the point of 'remembering' your wallet -- are generally built about a half-size too large and shrunk to fit by washing.

> custom tailored jeans, . . . to the point of 'remembering' your wallet

I wouldn't expect anything custom tailored to forget my wallet. . . . .

Re: Rational Dress Society

#146

Post by andrepd » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 2:20 PM UTC

realjhol wrote: post #90

andrepd wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, it sounds pretty clear to me. > The Rational Dress Society protests against the introduction of any fashion in dress that either deforms the figure, impedes the movements of the body, or in any way tends to injure the health.

Right- but all of those criteria are highly subjective. And even the question of why these goals are important versus any other concerns is subjective. Dress is form of self expression - intrinsicly so. Rationalism is absurd, and this is a great example of why. Humans almost never do anything on a purely rational basis. Everything we do is directed by subjectivity, emotion, aesthetics etc. - it's better to be honest…

> Dress is form of self expression - intrinsicly so.

Yes! And the women in Victorian England had no choice in that (did you even read the article?). Shunning the dress norms had serious consequences for the woman. It's easy to forget that when you live in a society where (1) people can more or less dress as they wish, and (2) even the socially accepted norm is not overly constricting of movement or damaging to your health.

> rather than fooling one's self that one's aesthetic preferences are anything more than subjective

Freedom of motion, in a very concrete example, enough to ride a bicycle, is a very objective thing.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#147

Post by adolph » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 2:21 PM UTC

quietbritishjim wrote: post #43

AlecSchueler wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally yes, a woman has to cover her upper body while men do not. Where I am you can also control women more in the workplace by mandating impractical shoes like heels. Pockets, you'd be surprised! Quite often women's blouses, blazers and trousers will have "false pockets" which are just a seam made to look like a pocket, whereas the men's version has actual deep pockets. Makeup and the social expectations around th…

You haven't answered the parent comment's request for your country, which is very relevant as things differ a lot. Here in the UK (which is what the article is about), it is illegal for either (/any) gender to expose their genitals in public [1] - that is called "indecent exposure". Breasts are not genitals and it is not illegal to show them. Admittedly, it would be very unusual to see a topless woman walking down a…

> Breastfeeding in public is not only allowed but legally protected.

The law is an interesting mirror and anti-mirror of social norms. My guess is that if some activity needs legal protections there are significant social norms prohibiting that activity.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#148

Post by andrepd » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 2:22 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #103

andrepd wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cultural norms are diffuse and propagate on their own. It's silly to try to attribute it to John or Bob or Jill.

Of course they don't propagate on their own, they propagate through people. Some people prefer them for aesthetics, but others don't. Some people pressure men to be strong, others don't. It's useful to be aware of these subtle influences on our thinking and our behaviour, and use that awareness to make more conscious decisions about who we listen to, and why.

The culture of a group of people is more than the sum of its parts. That's like saying a cell is "just atoms". Well yeah, but that's a pretty uninteresting observation, as a cell contains immense structure that can be analysed in and of itself.

Likewise, culture is a complicated social phenomenon which has a life and a logic of its own.

Re: Rational Dress Society

#149

Post by andrepd » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 2:23 PM UTC

realjhol wrote: post #94

andrepd wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cultural norms are diffuse and propagate on their own. It's silly to try to attribute it to John or Bob or Jill.

OK so there's nothing to fix, then. It is cultural norms- of women. Making choices. In the real world. It's simply women's revealed preference.

What do you mean "there's nothing to fix"? That sentence doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting cultural change is impossible or undesirable, or am I misinterpreting?

Re: Rational Dress Society

#150

Post by r3trohack3r » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 2:23 PM UTC

Wikipedia is my favorite source of fun facts. Most folks don’t know this but there is a “random” button on Wikipedia that will take you to a random article! It’s a great way to spend an afternoon.

If the noise/signal ratio with that button is too high, I built wikiscroll.blankenship.io for my own use (built on a similar mechanism) you’re free to use it!