From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Ah, Fashion.
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:52:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Oct2.195200.890
Organization: insert anything here

anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) scores fashion:
>>Beauty is internal, not external.

>Knowing as I do, my dear, that this subject lies beneath one
>or more of your hot buttons, I shall tread right on said
>buttons, out of a moral conviction that baby's being tossed
>with bathwater.  

	Moi? Hot buttons?  Must be on my 501's...  :-)
	Actually we agree pretty much right along the line.

>>Fashion is a way for people to make money off of other
>>people's insecurities.

>And a good deal more.  The fact that it's absurd (most
>things are, in various ways) doesn't make it illegitimate to
>make money.  Market forces are not *all* bad, *all* the
>time.  If 501s went off the market, I could get by in
>Wranglers, but if 100% cotton went off the market, I would
>not be pleased by cotton/poly or <cotton/anything else>
>blends.

	Sure - it's an industry like any other.  And I would
say that all industries that are trying to "sell" you something
from toilet paper to BMW's try to instill in you some sense
that you *need* their product.

>And if a person doesn't want to look the same all the time,
>who's injured?

	No one of course.  But that decision is personal along
the lines of "gee, the next time I get my haircut, I think
I'll try something different".

>>When you "go in for fashion" you're buying this demoralizing
>>and dehumanizing crap lock, stock and barrel.

>This only holds for your own, unique definition of the
>operative phrase ("go in for"), I think.  Calling it
>dehumanizing or demoralizing is sizably to overstate the
>case.  Military training is dehumanizing.  Bigotry is
>demoralizing.  Fashion gadflies are not victims, they are
>perpetrators.

	OK - in the big scheme of things, fashion is by no
means the ultimate agent in societal destruction.  I think
that is intuitively obvious.

>>You don't *need* to wax to look good, sexy, interesting,
>>etc.

>True, but no reason not to if you want to.

	Want is much different than *need*.

>>You don't *need* to be thin, tan, blond, smooth, muscular,
>>young to have self-worth and to be found attractive by other
>>people.

>And a good thing that is, too.  But I've been all of those
>things and am none of them now (oops, I'm still thin, but I
>wasn't always).  Self-worth is an interior matter, though
>discovering that can take quite a bit of time.  Being found
>attractive by other people is not interior, in any case.

	True, but recognizing that you *are* objectivfied IMHO
is part of that self-discovery.  But always looking for external
validation is a dangerous thing - the Goddess knows I've been
thru there and back.  At some point though you have to be
able to look in the mirror and say "I am a good looking person".

>>It's time our community started casting off these things in
>>favor of liking each other for who we are, not who we're
>>told to be.

>These are not mutually exclusive classes you're talking
>about.  You don't have to "cast off" a thing to like a
>person for what they are (including yourself).

	Depends I think on the circumstances.  If the mask has
become so much of a crutch then I think you really do have
to toss it aside and fly free.  For most people it's probably
not needed but in term sof the quote in the original article, I
think we have something different altogheter.  IT gets back to 
the fact that fashion is not anything close to static.  What
people are calling "hot" not will be "gross" in 18 months.
What people are calling "gross" now might be "hot" in 19 months.
Clinging to it for some kind of support will send you swinging
from vine to vine.  I can't really see that as being beneficial
or healty to someone's well-being.  On the other hand picking
and choosing things per one's likes and dislikes is something
different - and I've made that point several times already.

>>We dont' like it when the phobes treat us as things, why are
>>we so willing to let GQ/IM/EL/LLBean/etc. to do the same?

>You're confusing markets with concentration camps.

	Ho ho.  No, I'm not - really.  

>>Admittedly, looksism did provide the mechanism for most of
>>the bear and G&M community to form out of, mostly for
>              ^^^ ??
>>self-preservation, but these same elements can and do
>>permeate these sub communities.

	G&M = Girth and Mirth.

>Huh?

	In other words - this isn't a flame of the non-Bear, non-G&M,
"clone/twink/etc." archetype.  There are fashions in each of the
other communities and the similar attitude in any of them is
no better or worse than what's in the mainstream.  It was the 
paragraph to fend away the "oh-you're-just-saying-this-because-
you're-a-bear" arguments.

>>The next time you find yourself judging someone because of
>>how they look/dress/etc...  ask yourself: who is telling me
>>to come to this conclusion?

>And what if it's me myself, do I impeach that too?

	Not for the same reasons.  You might ask yourself *why*
you're coming to that conclusion.  And of course circumstances
dictate that - e.g. how you dress for a job interview, etc.
(but that's not so much fashion as "drag" or roleplaying which
is a different topic altogheter).

>>Then next time you see/hear/read something telling you "you
>>really want to look like THIS" ask yourself is that the
>>*only* possibility there is?

>Always a good question.

	I thought so.

>>We as a society (mainstream) are too fashion-addicted.

>Arguably true.  But much of this is a matter of aesthetics,
>and the mainstream society (whatever that really is) seems
>to rather undersupplied with a sense of what that might mean
>in their own lives.  

	Yup.  So if one can make a concious decision regarding it,
what direction should one go?

>When it comes to fashion, I've been bearded or shaved,
>dressed up or not, long-haired or short, in various fabrics,
>cuts, and combinations.  That I wear what I now wear is
>merely today's waystation in a long sequence of changes.
>I've followed fashion and I've rejected "fashion," according
>to my own aesthetic.

>While my own taste is my general guide, I assure you that
>when I go to an occasion requiring it (yes, requiring), I
>will get out my navy-blue Brooks Brothers three-piece suit
>and my black dress shoes, with my black cashmere topcoat and
>my dark grey suede gloves.

>That suit and those shoes are 26 years old, the topcoat
>older yet.  A comparable rig would set a person back about
>$3,000 these days.  It's fashion, after all, that lets you
>buy something good and never be out of place in it.  It's
>aesthetics that tells you what to buy to achieve that end.
>Rejecting fashion categorically makes as little sense as
>following its every shift.

	OK - there I think I can still agree with you.
And I think there what I have been calling fashion and what you
are calling fashion are different.  I'm thinking along with the
more short-lived trendy stuff.  What you're describing is much
more long-lived, and in terms of "things that never go out of style"
I think one can easily make the argument that for some functions
you might want nicer clothes.  But then again that has nothing to
do with this thread - well not nothing, but it wasn't what I was
originally responding to fromt he original article.

	As far as "it's fashion that lets you buy..." I'm not
sure how I'd fit that in - though I agree that in buying something
good you're likely to want to keep it around more than something 
that is more impulsive.  I'll defer to your judgement...

	See!  And the baby's still in the tub --- everything
sticks better with Velcro!

Cheers, BBC
	
><> I am many things, and it seems artificial to rank them.  At
><> dinner time, I'm hungry first. -- Rob Bernardo

	Sigh, I miss Rob.