From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Ah, Fashion.
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:21:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.172914.7349@spdcc.com>, rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
> In article <72923@apple.Apple.COM> richard@Apple.COM (a flying squirrel) writes:
> >What's in Fashion?  For Men, Smooth Look Goes Integral
> 
> 	Gross.

	Laden value judgement #1, more to follow...
> 
> 	As if we needed more people being "told" that if they
> don't look like X their worth is diminished.
> 
> 	Beauty is internal, not external.  Fashion is
> a way for people to make money off of other people's insecurities.
> When you "go in for fashion" you're buying this demoralizing
> and dehumanizing crap lock, stock and barrel.

  Oh. There's nothing to fashion at all? A person's desire to look
good can only be because of insecurity? It has nothing to do with
trying to achieve a personal goal of beauty? Shouldn't a person's
view of beauty factor into how they think they should dress/look
to give themselves self esteem? What about beards and mustaches?
If I shave am I "demoralized and dehumanized"? What about cleaning
my fingernails?
  Does this fit in with art at all?  Does that mean that an artist
who discriminates about what they paint based on fashion and beauty
is "insecure" is "demoralizing" and "dehumanizing"? 
  If not, what is the difference?

> 
> 	Don't.
> 
> 	You don't *need* to wax to look good, sexy, interesting, etc.
> You don't *need* to be thin, tan, blond, smooth, muscular, young
> to have self-worth and to be found attractive by other people.
> These things are *traits* not requirements or conditions.

  Says who? In your opinion this may be true, but I don't think that
the world of taste revolves around your world view. In fact, I suspect
that you are probably in the minority, but no matter. 
  Just because it is not necessary for *you*, implies that the people
they are trying to attract (either inward or outward) are *just*
*like* *you*. This, I'm afraid, is a rather self-centered attitude.
In fact it may be just *opposite* of you. Why is your view preferential?
 
> 	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.
> 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?  

  My. Shall we elect a fashion czar for the gay community? Shall
I offer your name in nomination?

> 	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?  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?  The model may
> be beautiful, sexy, hot, and wonderful, but so are you.

  I suggest that you should apply this line of reasoning to 
your own attitudes.
 
> 	We as a society (mainstream) are too fashion-addicted.
> We feel we can't "function" without our apparel "drugs", that
> we'll only be OK if have them, and without them we are doomed,nothing.
> What crap.  Isn't it time we flushed?

  Says who? Just because you find it unattractive does not extrapolate
to the rest of the world. I find this attitude of yours shockly
intolerant.
  This being said, I am hardly any sort of fashion slave or clothes
horse myself, but the thought of making such a sweeping pronouncement 
over other's is on very thin ice. I've come to expect that sort of 
tunnel vision from GDM, but it truly suprises me coming from you Bob.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)