The End Of Man

Off Topic
181

[quote]Captain Glanton wrote:
Professor X wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:

Most of my posts on this thread have been tongue-in-cheek to fan the flames. But to claim that social class has nothing to do with clothing styles is crazy-talk.

DB

Social class doesn’t dictate clothing style. If I dress more urban hip-hop, I have to be from a certain economic class? It is about culture more than economy and while they may often have something to do with the other, to claim that all of any certain people dress the same based on income is ridiculous. Once again, you can walk into ANY sporting goods store and most of their shorts are to the knee or below. Most of my shorts are below the knee (including my Under Armour shorts) and I don’t fit your stereotypical income class. Basically you are saying only poor people wear basketball jerseys and shorts and all upper middle class and upper class are prancing around in super short cargo shorts.

But your culture is going to be determined by your relationship to your economic standing [not the same as your class itself, but close]. It’s too much to explain here, but there are mounds of evidence that what you think of as “your” style is determined by how you perceive your economic status.

[/quote]

I dont know about that… I know you mean that this is determined subconsciously and we have little control on it, but thats just like saying that the economically driven “this is what is in style now, go buy it” ploy drives some to subliminally go get similar clothing or those clothing that are supposedly “in style” because of an inner need to dress acceptably.

My family is well off, and I dress in t-shirts and shorts most of the time during most days. Of course-when Im going out with friends or guys-I dress pretty, but that style I dress in is determined by what colors I am attracted to and what looks good on my body–not because of what is “in” nor do I base it subconsciously on my socioeconomical status.

I know my brain, it doesnt think about status. I dont buy bags with idiotic repeated prints of the letters “F” or “C” on it because it would indicate to anybody looking that it is somewhat expensive. I can see some people doing what you say who are more fixated on dressing to look like a certain look they are attracted to but for me its all about how it fits. Id think that Im not the only one that thinks that way when shopping.

182

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Captain Glanton wrote:

But your culture is going to be determined by your relationship to your economic standing [not the same as your class itself, but close]. It’s too much to explain here, but there are mounds of evidence that what you think of as “your” style is determined by how you perceive your economic status.

Bullshit. My “economic status” is different now than when I was in school. My style is simply a variation of what is was previously meaning your study can take a hike unless it can prove that styles change directly with economic status IN THE SAME INDIVIDUALS not related to the actual cost of clothing.

While style may change slightly simply because you can afford things you previously couldn’t, the basic style would more than likely be based on the person’s original culture and influence.

For instance. Master P is a millionaire. He still dresses like the culture he came from when going out(even though I am sure he may dress differently at a board meeting).

I may dress one way at work, but off duty, I am back in the same clothes that relate to what I am used to. If income alone changes who you are, you were pretty fake to begin with.
[/quote]

It isn’t bullshit at all. The theory I’m citing here would actually predict Master P’s taste–he is rich now, but did he grow up rich? His relationship to his own wealth–and, therefore, the style that fits that wealth–is determined by the fact that he wasn’t born into it. He’s a parvenu, someone who rose in class over their lifetime [I’m guessing here, I dont know much about the guy]. His kids who are born into wealth would have different relationships to their status, would be more comfortable with their wealth and the “proper” taste. Someone like Master P would always see himself like a poor man who became rich [and would dress, eat, entertain, etc. accordingly], while those born into millions would see themselves as “naturally” or “really” rich and dress, etc. accordingly. This is why people who grew up in one class and live in another, higher class as adults dress and behave like very rich versions of the lower class rather than like normal versions of the upper class.

There’s more to this, but I don’t have time to explain it. Google 'Pierre Bourdieu" and his book “Distinction” or visit your local library to learn more!

183

[quote]Captain Glanton wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Captain Glanton wrote:

But your culture is going to be determined by your relationship to your economic standing [not the same as your class itself, but close]. It’s too much to explain here, but there are mounds of evidence that what you think of as “your” style is determined by how you perceive your economic status.

Bullshit. My “economic status” is different now than when I was in school. My style is simply a variation of what is was previously meaning your study can take a hike unless it can prove that styles change directly with economic status IN THE SAME INDIVIDUALS not related to the actual cost of clothing.

While style may change slightly simply because you can afford things you previously couldn’t, the basic style would more than likely be based on the person’s original culture and influence.

For instance. Master P is a millionaire. He still dresses like the culture he came from when going out(even though I am sure he may dress differently at a board meeting).

I may dress one way at work, but off duty, I am back in the same clothes that relate to what I am used to. If income alone changes who you are, you were pretty fake to begin with.

It isn’t bullshit at all. The theory I’m citing here would actually predict Master P’s taste–he is rich now, but did he grow up rich? His relationship to his own wealth–and, therefore, the style that fits that wealth–is determined by the fact that he wasn’t born into it. He’s a parvenu, someone who rose in class over their lifetime [I’m guessing here, I dont know much about the guy]. His kids who are born into wealth would have different relationships to their status, would be more comfortable with their wealth and the “proper” taste. Someone like Master P would always see himself like a poor man who became rich [and would dress, eat, entertain, etc. accordingly], while those born into millions would see themselves as “naturally” or “really” rich and dress, etc. accordingly. This is why people who grew up in one class and live in another, higher class as adults dress and behave like very rich versions of the lower class rather than like normal versions of the upper class.

There’s more to this, but I don’t have time to explain it. Google 'Pierre Bourdieu" and his book “Distinction” or visit your local library to learn more!
[/quote]

If you don’t have time to explain it, then quit typing.

You wrote this before:

That contradicts what you just wrote because I seriously doubt Master P “perceives his economic status” as anything other than “fucking rich as hell”. If you are NOW saying that your style is based on how you are raised, then it obviously has fuck all to do with your economic status when it comes to what you will casually put on.

184

[quote]PGJ wrote:
malonetd wrote:
pbody03 wrote:
I found some pics of those metro wussy boys in CP’s latest article.

And I bet at least half of them are very metro. Military boys, especially those in the early 20’s are some of the most metro people I have ever met. This is more true of those stationed in Southern California. The SoCal club scene is a heavy influence on these midwestern kids, southern kids, and kids from other states. They have shaved legs and chests, trendy wardrobes, and pedicures. Make no mistake, the military is very metro.

I gotta defend the Marine Corps “green-on-green” PT uniform in that picture. Most of us hate those short shorts, but that’s what the Corps says we have to wear. The Corps has never been known for it’s trendiness. We all look a little rediculous in those shorts, but we’re Marines so we can get away with it. Now, when I see guys wear those shorts off-duty to the gym, I just shake my head and laugh.

Marines have only two things on their mind: getting drunk and getting laid. And it’s a much stronger urge in the Marines than in other services or in college because Marines spend the majority of their day separated from women. Girls like metro so there you go. I had to counsel a bunch of Marines lately for going to gay bars. Say it ain’t so! They went to the gay bars because the beer was cheaper and that’s where the women are.

[/quote]

Heh, nothing cooler than seeing a bunch of kids out at the bar in high n’ tights, jeans, and some jungle boots.

And, yeah, I had a bunch of friends in the Marine Corps that would hit up gay bars.

185

LOL, i wonder if there is a 8 page thread on a forum somewhere about the pants i choose to wear…

Your all such gossipy, whinny bitches…

high pitched squeely voices “OMG did you see what chriss is wearing? What a slut…”

If the boy can handle the social preasure and can use the fashion to get him female attention. Then make the most of it. Then good for him.

If not, then who cares. Next thread your all going to pop into a bitch how modern media just propogates stereotypes of weight lifters…

Doesnt a coach here were like, pink shirts? i guess thats why hes a renegade… :wink:

186

[quote]harris447 wrote:
The reason they look gay is because they have, over the past year or so, become the official gay uniform.
[/quote]

Funny