Fashion

Categories: Aesthetics, Lookism

[[File:Fashion.jpg|400x400px|right]]
'''Fashion''' is the process of raising one's [[SMV]], or otherwise entertaining others, by buying clothes, clothing accessories and by grooming.  Fashion is an unpopular topic in the [[incelosphere]], as well as a unpopular topic in mainstream white male culture.  The sexual attractiveness of certain clothing is relative to culture, year, race, religion, social status, geography, skin color, nationality, etc, but there remain some universal [[aesthetics|aesthetic]] factors, such as that velvet, silk, and satin materials are seen as the most aesthetic and have always been worn primarily by the upper and ruling classes all over the world, lower class attire is utilitarian in that its best for doing labor out doors.   

Mainstream academic attempts at studying fashion suffer replication issues and chronic methodological weaknesses, especially in psychometric rigor. Fashion is largely ignored by high-IQ researchers, who tend to dress conservatively regardless of income bracket, institutional affiliation, or country. As a result, mainstream fashion science has been relegated to sociological theory and anthropology-lite observations, with little hard data backing aesthetic fashion outcomes in real-world mating markets.

The Incel Wiki Team, by contrast, has conducted independent fashion experiments using anonymous rating platforms like Photoeval and [[Photofeeler]], where participants evaluate appearance, competence, and status without pre-existing bias. Findings show that portraits of "old money aristocrats" wearing velvet, silk, satin, fur-trimmed, and historically referential attire consistently top the Photofeeler and Photoeval Charts, outperforming modern fashion templates like Silicon Valley minimalism or streetwear maximalism by the widest of margins<ref>https://imgur.com/a/CSrBGRq</ref> . In one instance, a velvet-suited portrait reached Photoeval's general leaderboard, outperforming thousands of "normal" fits. 

== Historical exemplars of fashionmaxxing success ==
Fashionmaxxing is not a new phenomenon. Consider Isaac Merritt Singer (1811–1875), American inventor, actor, and founder of the Singer Sewing Machine empire. Singer combined business acumen with flamboyant theatrical flair and was known for his luxurious wardrobe. He fathered 26 children with 5 different women, many of whom were mistresses or actresses. His visual identity and grandiose style matched his reproductive success — a real-life example of fashion signaling mating strategy.

Modern examples also include:

Pimps at the Playas Ball, who use jewelery, velvet, canes, suits, coats etc.  not just as purely cosmetic fashion but as status signaling devices.

Sapeurs (La Sape movement) in the Congo, who practice African Dandyism, often while living in economic poverty. Despite the contradiction, their refined, baroque outfits receive massive attention and romantic success within their communities, and on [[Photofeeler]] and [[Photoeval]].

Hip-hop flamboyants like Roscoe Dash in his All the Way Turnt Up video, whose neon mohawk, precision-shaved side graphics, and audacious swagger form a mating display via dominance peacocking.

== Style, tattoos, and the aesthetic discrimination principle ==
Not all decoration is treated equally. What women find attractive is not simply “more fashion” — it’s fashion executed with aesthetic intelligence. Tattoos are the perfect case study. Basic ink — name tags, tribal swirls, stick-and-poke doodles — are low status and unaesthetic. However a man with a Sistine Chapel-style religious back piece, done in full scale, is aesthetic and evokes a strong positive emotional response. This is backed up by the extremely high ratings of said type of tattoo, on our test accounts.<ref>https://imgur.com/a/b7FwGIW</ref>

Hair and beard patterns follow the same logic. The Versace Beard, popular among Afro-Latino barbershop subcultures, is widely praised by the vast majority of women but virtually hated by the vast majority of men , who see it as try-hard or gaudy.<ref>https://imgur.com/a/mvXXMwR</ref> Male rater bias consistently shows anything expressive is downrated by men, unless it follows elite Eurocentric templates such as neutral colored black, white, brown or dark blue, velvet, silk or satin suits, discreet tailoring etc.

Over 99.99% of male user photos on Photoeval feature brown, navy, black, or white clothing, almost always unaccessorized and devoid of personalized flair. Even among high-status professionals, the visual message is the same: invisibility = respectability.

Yet those rare users who break the mold — wearing flamboyant suits, jewelry, [[silverfox]] colored hair, or highly coordinated outfits — perform extremely well with female raters, and worst with straight male raters. The divide is clear: what fashion attracts women often repels men, and what comforts men often bores women. This highlights how neurodivergent most male trendsetters and celebrities are as their often hyper extroverted, colorful, flashy clothes defy international mainstream fashion of the every day male on the dating market.

== Anti-fashion ==
Anti-fashion refers to a socio-cultural phenomenon—most prevalent among white Western males—wherein fashion is deliberately downplayed, muted, or outright rejected as a means of asserting masculinity, irony, or emotional detachment. This behavior pattern emerged primarily in the 20th century but can be traced back centuries earlier in Europe to Religion, and continues to affect how men (especially white men) police each other’s appearance in modern social contexts, both online and offline.

While fashion has historically served as a display of power, identity, and mating value across nearly all world cultures, the anti-fashion ethos represents a repressive deviation—one that aligns with shame, camouflage, and insecurity rather than ornamentation or peacocking.

The roots of anti-fashion can be traced to a mix of post-WWII austerity, Protestant minimalism, and cold war utilitarianism. These conditions combined to suppress overt self-expression in men, particularly white men in Western industrial societies. Key traits include: Functionalism over aesthetics (“If it works, wear it.”) Minimalism as moral superiority (“Caring about the way you dress is feminine.”) Cringe aversion (Fear of being perceived as trying too hard) Irony as emotional armor (Detachment = cool), The cultural archetype of this mindset is embodied by figures such as: Steve Jobs (black turtleneck minimalism), Mark Zuckerberg (gray hoodie as power uniform), and the ‘fedora cringe’ meme archetype, where flamboyant fashion is mocked regardless of intention or expense.

== Cultural policing ==
Within these circles, any attempt at fashion beyond invisible conformity is punished through mockery. There is no winning: If the clothes are cheap → “You look broke.” If the clothes are expensive → “You’re trying too hard.” If the clothes are colorful → “You look sus/gay.” If the clothes fit well → “You’re peacocking.”

Result: the white male aesthetic ideal becomes a kind of intentional mediocrity. A gray hoodie, dad jeans, and beige sneakers become the “safe zone”—a uniform of invisibility.


In stark contrast, Non-white cultures have experienced temporary, often externally imposed fashion suppression (e.g., colonial missionaries, communist revolutions), but very few, if any, developed such extreme internal anti-fashion ideologies. In general: White cultures invented “plain = moral.” Non-white cultures preferred “ornate/colorful = divine/sacred.”. Across the African Diaspora, Latin America, Asia, and Indigenous communities, etc. fashion remains a social weapon, spiritual statement, or mating signal.

Examples:

Black Culture: Zoot suits, Harlem Renaissance fashion, hip-hop couture, and Sunday church attire celebrate color, silhouette, and flair.

South Asian & East Asian: Rich cultural wardrobes (e.g., silk saris, hanbok, kimono) reflect respect and beauty.

Latino/Chicano Style: Tailoring, gold, grooming—fashion remains identity-coded.

Indigenous Tribes: Feathers, paint, ceremonial regalia—every detail has meaning.

North African & Arab: Ornamentation, fragrance, and robes symbolize status and grace.

In these communities, fashion is not optional—it is a statement of life force, status, and intent.

==  Religion ==
Many Western religious sects, particularly those rooted in Protestantism and Anabaptism (e.g., Amish, Mennonites, Puritans, Quakers), uphold plain dress codes as a moral imperative. This phenomenon appears at first to align with the anti-fashion stance prevalent in broader white male culture—muting self-expression as a form of virtue. However, this simplicity is not egalitarian—it is strategically tiered. At the top of most religious hierarchies, we see the opposite of plainness: ornate, symbolically charged garments worn by Popes, Imams, high priests, and bishops. Thus, anti-fashion becomes a tool of control, not of humility.

This structure mirrors feudal dynamics: the top-tier must be visible, glowing with sacred symbols, while the base must be invisible—camouflaged in modesty. In the religious context, plainness isn't fashion-neutral—it is a form of obedience. To deviate (e.g., wear red shoes or patterned fabric) is to assert autonomy, vanity, or rebellion. Fashion here becomes: A morality signal (plain = pious), A class suppression tool (you are not the chosen), A feminine shaming device (women especially are told ornamentation = sin), this pattern reinforces aesthetic caste systems—only the spiritually elite may be beautiful. The Pope may be draped in silk and velvet, but the nun must hide her hair.

These values were passed down culturally, giving rise to the modern “tryhard = loser” trope, particularly among white men. Any visible effort, from a tailored blazer to polished boots, is seen not as strength—but as neediness. This evolved into the fedora cringe meme complex.
Catholicism contains an ironic counterexample: while Protestantism minimized fashion, Catholic hierarchy celebrated it at the top—gold chalices, velvet robes, red slippers. This is not hypocrisy, but strategy: The Pope is both humble (spiritually) and ornate (aesthetically). Saints are portrayed as suffering yet glowing in icons and stained glass. Churches are simple outside, radiant inside. The contradiction is intentional. It creates the maximum spiritual authority through paradox.


Groups like the Amish take Protestant plainness to its logical extreme: One fabric, one pattern, one silhouette. No buttons, no color, no jewelry. Hair and beards regulated by marital status. While marketed as humble living, it's closer to visual caste control. The goal is not just moral purity—but visibility of conformity. You do not dress to be an individual; you dress to be part of a doctrine.

Religion doesn’t eliminate fashion—it monopolizes it. By restricting access to ornamentation for the masses while elevating it for sacred elites, it reaffirms hierarchy. The aesthetic repression of the lower classes is a feature, not a flaw. It's a way to separate the “divinely chosen” from the obedient flock. Thus, the religious anti-fashion tradition contributes to the Western white male aesthetic trauma. It teaches that elite fashion is either: A sin (if you’re common), or A divine right (if you’re powerful). This conditioning becomes secular anti-fashion when passed into modern white culture—where high male fashion is treated as an offense if you don’t already “qualify.”

Understanding religious anti-fashion helps incels decode why any attempt at self-improvement through fashion aesthetic means is mocked in their cultural environment. It’s not just about fashion—it’s about who is allowed to be beautiful/handsome. The incel who wears something expressive is labeled desperate, cringe, or fedora-core—not because he’s wrong to try, but because he’s stepping outside a caste aesthetic he was never “given permission” to exit.

== "Mutantcore" aesthetic ==
While white mainstream society expresses anti-fashion minimalism through beige hoodies, plain tees, and workwear, its rebellious cousin took a different route: one rooted in visual aggression, aesthetic decay, and maxed-out mutational signals.

Enter: Punk, Grunge, Goth and Alt-core Subcultures, collectively referred to by Incel Wiki Team analysts as the “Mutantcore” aesthetic cluster. In theory, these movements reject societal standards. In practice, they signal poor genes. Field research from Photofeeler and Photoeval has shown that mutantcore men consistently receive some of the lowest attractiveness and hireability, etc. scores of any style group—especially among women rating for long-term potential. Women within this subculture are visually rated significantly higher than their male counterparts—but only for short-term encounters. Long-term desirability remains near-zero due to behavior markers associated with high body count, BPD-like signaling, and visible indicators of [[mutational load]]. Mutantcore defenders often claim their look is simply a nonconforming, expressive, tribal aesthetic—and therefore, “more African,” or at least Earthy and thus “more natural.” This cope collapses under scrutiny:

High-body-count women show higher markers of genuine mutational load, not tribal beauty. African fashion in reality emphasizes clean lines, symmetry, color coordination, skin moisturization, and poise—the opposite of the mutant aesthetic.

Punk/grunge women are not usually chosen as wives in any culture. They are, at best, part-time experiences in Western degeneracy before men return to “clean” women for mating. Despite its supposed anti-mainstream roots, Mutantcore men rank lower in aesthetic success than the beige normie tech bro.
The irony? Both are anti-fashion—but one is mute and the other screams it.

Beige techwear says: “I don’t care how I look.”

Mutantcore says: “Look how ugly I can make myself.”

Women say: “Neither is hot, but I’ll at least co-parent with the silent one.”

Mutantcore men wear their reproductive failure as fashion.
They signal rebellion but receive no invitation to the sexual economy.

Their rally cry may as well be:
“We are the bold and the broken—untouched and unchosen.”
== Criminalization of beauty ==
Before there was "anti-fashion" as an internalized male coping mechanism, there was external enforcement. The State itself actively policed what people could wear.

Sumptuary laws (from Latin sūmptuāriae lēgēs) were enacted across civilizations—from Ancient Rome to feudal Japan to Renaissance Italy—for a purpose that was never merely economic. They were hierarchical weapons. As Black's Law Dictionary defines them, they restrained "luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures for apparel." But the real target was always legibility—the ability to look at a man and know his place instantly.

In Florence, Venice, and Genoa, officials had the power to fine citizens, tear extravagant clothing off their backs, and imprison them for dressing above their station. The laws were exquisitely specific: how many rings a man could wear (one, maybe two if you were noble); which fabrics were permitted (silk, velvet, and fur reserved for the aristocracy); how long a train (the long back portion of a robe, coat, cloak, skirt, overskirt, or dress that trails behind the wearer) could be (measured in inches, calibrated to title); which colors were allowed (purple and gold were strictly regulated). The logic was simple: if a merchant's wife could dress like a duchess, the visual hierarchy collapsed. If a peasant could wear silk, how could anyone tell who was born to rule? The fashion police existed to maintain aesthetic caste. Violators were publicly shamed, stripped in the street, imprisoned. The goal was not just punishment but humiliation—a visceral reminder that the clothes did not make the man; the man's station made the clothes.

If sumptuary laws policed static appearance, the dancing ban policed dynamic expression. The history of these bans reveals the same impulse: control of the body and its aesthetic output. The German Tanzverbot (dancing ban) on solemn holidays like Good Friday. Finland's total ban on dancing during the Winter War (1939-1944), which led to secret dances and violent police raids. The New York City Cabaret Law, which prohibited dancing in unlicensed venues until its repeal in 2017. The Oklahoma town whose dancing ban inspired Footloose. The message across centuries is consistent: certain cultures, particularly white Protestant-dominant ones, have deemed unstructured aesthetic expression a threat to social order. To dance, to dress well, to be aesthetically "loud"—all of it invites scrutiny, punishment, or shame. This is not a natural human impulse. It is a culturally imposed aesthetic trauma, passed down like a genetic wound. What the Italian magistrates did with fines and the dancing bans did with raids, modern Western culture does with shame. The police have been internalized so completely that they no longer need uniforms. 

While the phenomenon of Aesthetic Policing, is most visible in male-on-male fashion policing, women also participate—though their targets and methods differ. Men police other men to enforce the hierarchy of invisibility. A man who dresses well is a man who is trying, and trying is read as weakness. The goal is to keep all men equally unseen, equally non-threatening, equally "safe" within the grey zone of masculine conformity.

Women police other women to enforce the hierarchy of visibility. Female fashion competition is intense precisely because women understand that appearance directly determines outcomes most often for them. The mockery is directed at those who try incorrectly—too much, too little, too old, too young, too rich, too poor. The goal is not invisibility but ranked visibility.

When women police men, it takes a different form. It is often a test. A man who can wear velvet without flinching, who can absorb mockery and remain confident—that man passes. He proves his aesthetic choices are not desperate but chosen. The grey hoodie man, by contrast, fails before he starts; he has already surrendered to the fashion police. 

What happens when men police women? The dynamic shifts entirely. Because men are not competing with women in the same aesthetic hierarchy. They are consumers of female aesthetics, not rivals within them. When a man comments on a woman's outfit, he is not attempting to enforce a shared standard. He is expressing a preference, often framed as objective truth, delivered with the full confidence of someone who has never had to navigate the territory himself.

This creates a peculiar asymmetry:

Men who would never dare wear velvet none the less feel entitled to judge and usually be attracted to the woman who does. Men who only wear  grey hoodie tier apparel, feel qualified to declare what is "too much" or "too little" on a female body. Men who have never considered the coordination of an outfit in their lives become instant critics of hers. The mockery takes predictable forms.

Just as women test men by observing how they handle aesthetic judgment ("can he wear velvet without flinching?"), men also test women—but the test is different. When a man polices a woman's outfit, he is often testing:

Compliance: Will she change to please me?

Deference: Does she care what I think?

Attractiveness: is the outfit co-ordinated with good branding

From a Darwinian perspective, male policing of female aesthetics is deeply strange. In almost every other species, the female chooses; the male displays. The male who criticizes the female's display is violating the fundamental structure of sexual selection.

But humans are not peacocks, although some groups such as the Wodaabe African Tribe and certain Pick Up Artists do genuinely try to mimic them. We are pair-bonding primates with complex social hierarchies and reciprocal mate choice. Also from a Darwinian perspective, the democratization of luxury fabrics creates a crisis of honest signaling. If anyone can wear silk, silk no longer signals genetic quality or resource-holding potential.

The signal has shifted. From the material to the mind. The modern signal is aesthetic intelligence—the capacity to select, coordinate, and carry an outfit with confidence and cultural knowledge. This signals: Cognitive stability (planning, delayed gratification, attention to detail), social fearlessness (willingness to be seen and judged), and executive function (the ability to execute a vision) These are not trivial. They are the very traits women have always selected for, now expressed through a different medium.

The grey hoodie man, by contrast, signals only that he has opted out. He has refused to play the aesthetic game entirely. But opting out is not a winning strategy in a mating market, because opting out signals inability to compete, not choice not to compete, although this would be a heavily debated topic in Philosophy, even the concept of mating being a market in the first place.
== Visual semiotics ==
Semiotics is a pretentious word for the study of how symbols and signs are interpreted.  The traits that clothing attempts to signal may be universally sexually attractive, but different social circles interpret and accept clothing differently.

Expensive looking clothing signals wealth and attractive clothing is often associated with high cost-of-purchase. What is considered acceptable expensive looking clothing differs by social circle.  Certain clothing and fabrics are more often worn by people of a certain age and hence may signal social maturity.  Other types of brands and fabrics denote high-status. 
However, if you are not high-status and you wear very high-status clothing for sexually strategic reasons, your strategy may backfire.  For example, wearing a tuxedo to a punk rock show, may only result in people thinking you work at the show. Although in general overdressing is better than underdressing because the social cost for under dressing is much harsher- ridicule, disdain, etc.  Certain types of ornamentation signals religious belief or cultural heritage.  Certain torso clothing signals [[personality]] and values.

Buttoned shirts, collared shirts, and pocketed shirts signal [[authority]] or prestige in Westernized countries.  Suits signal wealth, business-acumen, and [[dominance hierarchy|dominance]] in most countries nowadays.

== Color ==
A study done on fashionability of clothing color combinations showed that, in 2014, moderately color-matched clothing was more fashionable than highly color-matched or low color-matched clothing.<ref>https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102772</ref>  
===Pink/pastel===
Pink or pastel clothing may be perceived as feminine in the West in the late 20th and 21st century. 
===Red===
Certain [[psychiatry|psychologists]] and studies have concluded that the color red is particularly sexually attractive to both genders.<ref>https://slate.com/technology/2017/05/dont-wear-red-in-your-online-dating-profile.html</ref> These studies were plagued by low-sample size and also alleged bias.  A 2016 study by Roberts and Pollet,<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704916673841</ref> and a 2017 study by Calin-Jageman and Lehmann failed to replicate the earlier flawed studies.<ref>https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/abs/10.1027/1864-9335/a000296</ref>  The Jageman and Lehman study for example concluded that women have a slight aversion to red clothing on men, and that men do have a slight attraction to red clothing on women, but it is minimal.<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4507430/Wearing-red-no-effect-attractive-are.html</ref>

Another study concluded that red clothing is attractive to women, but only women with feminine characteristics.<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491401200404</ref>.

== Hair ==
=== Body hair ===
Anecdotally, and if one were to take pop culture as a guide, women in the USA generally prefer men that do not have tons of body hair.  This almost certainly varies by culture to an extent.

A study done on "Preference for human male body hair changes across the menstrual cycle and menopause" examined the effect of male torso hairiness on Finnish women’s attractiveness ratings by presenting pictures of male torsos before and after the removal of body hair. The study found that the women’s preferences correlated strongly with the hairiness of their current partners, suggesting that body hair may play a role in actual mate choice. 

The results of the study also found that when the women’s fertility was highest, they preferred males with less body hair and that postmenopausal women demonstrated stronger preferences relating to male body hair than did premenopausal women. The study suggests that in the fertile period of their cycle, Finnish women prefer more the trait that is the current Western ideal (the study was done in the year 2010) of male beauty (hairlessness) than the trait that is traditionally (albeit incorrectly) seen as a symbol of high testosterone levels and masculinity. 

Thus, the phase of the menstrual cycle may affect the strength and direction of female preference even for traits that are not “good genes” indicators and whose preference may be culturally based. Interestingly, the hairiness of the women’s fathers correlated positively with that of their current mates. This suggests that women’s preferences as to male hairiness may be partly the result of sexual imprinting on paternal body hair and/or that this preference is heritable.<ref>https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/21/2/419/322906</ref>

A study on human Physique and Sexual Attractiveness in men and women in New Zealand and United States found that in both countries, the image lacking any trunk hair was rated as the most attractive, with a steady decline in attractiveness as hirsutism became more pronounced. 
amount and distribution of masculine trunk hair (chest and abdominal) was altered progressively in a series of front-posed male figures.<ref>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-008-9441-y</ref>

=== Facial hair ===
The results of beard studies are mixed, as there is no ''empirical'' facial hair ''style'' that is most attractive. The only conclusions for facial hair one can draw from beard studies are that any facial hair is more attractive than no facial hair and full- heavy beards are most attractive to women looking for a long term relationship.<ref>https://www.scirp.org/html/2-6901043_44185.htm</ref><ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886908001748</ref><ref>>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513813000226</ref><ref>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jeb.12958</ref>

==Smell==
[[Hygiene]] matters a lot to women as well. For example, a hypothetical person whose clothes smell of pine was rated as relatively more successful, intelligent, sociable, sanitary, and generally attractive than one whose clothes smelled of lemon, onion, or smoke. Sex differences, as well as differences between people who reported smelling their own laundry, were also found.<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.100.1.135-141</ref>

==By country==
===Korea===
<!-- expansion or deletion -->
A study done in Korea on men's fashion examined the differences in impression formation according to accessories and hairstyles, and investigated the relation between men's appearance and occupation, as well as attractiveness inferences. The subjects were 320 female university students residing in the Seoul metropolitan area.<ref>http://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO201509057412985.page</ref> The study determined a sporty (spiky) hairstyle to be more attractive than a classic (swept back/wavy,comb-over) hairstyle, a red tie to be more attractive than both a blue tie and no tie, and metal rimmed glasses to be more attractive than no glasses. Anecdotally, mixing styles seems to result in less fashionability, for example, a spiky hairstyle does not seem to mesh well with regal attire also a swept back/wavy,comb-over hairstyle as well as glasses and or a tie do not seem to mesh well when one is wearing athletic attire such as a varstiy lettermans jacket.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==
*[[Coolness]]
*[[:Category:Aesthetics|List of aesthetics]]
*[[Beauty]]
*[[Game|G<u>ame</u>]]

[[Category:Aesthetics]]
[[Category:Lookism]]
{{Lookism}}
{{Behavioralism}}