Thoughts on the Sartorialist

[TheBatman]

Considering the fact that males exhibit much the same visual physical reaction to arousal (blushing, reddening of the lips, dilating of the pupils), and heterosexual women often have a physical reaction to the visual cues of arousal in the opposite sex, this still does not explain why makeup should be attractive in women but not men, unless it is a cultural/normative behavior.

Hey! It's the Pearl Clutcher! Glad to have you back!

 

[TheBatman]

Hmm yes very good points

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the makeup looks "unnatural"?? Exaggerated eyebrows, and makeup. I would also feel the same for women if it looked overdone. Reminds me of the saying "she caked her make up on"

Edit

I think the more we stray away from Our natural selves, the more we are inclined to resist or cause harm? And often times our sense of perceived virtues (which we then rationalise), are taken as a means to justify the end. So in the case of pederasty, the (rationalised) notion of male superiority and "virtue", coupled with the idea of bonding, and the general scorn towards women, subverted the inclination to resist what men (in a primal/neutral state) would normally have for women.

The real question is, why do some men of homosexual or heterosexual orientation choose to express themselves in the way they do? That would give us the rationalisation

Of course I agree with most of what you said. Thank you for the defense. It was starting to get lonely on the common sense side! The image is indeed jarring.

Upon reflection of this thread and all that has been said, I believe that it is impossible to discuss something like this without ultimately getting to morality, which seems to be the crux of the issue. You eventually found your way there yourself.

Is it "right" to have a gender binary system? If so, should there be visual clothing distinctions between male and female? Is it "wrong" to not have such a system? I believe these questions are what underlay the discussion.

Perhaps this is not the appropriate venue for such questions. It is interesting to note the power of clothing though, that a dude with makeup and a manbun can spur such vigorous debate haha!

 

[TheBatman]

You must be a bad psychologist.

I don't feel the need to trot out my academic credentials since I own the site, my identity is public, and my record is out there for anyone to find.

I was a college professor. I had a very good funding record and a decent publication record. I hold a PhD from Caltech.

Now, since I've answered your question, you defend your original premise. I'm going to give you the completely unwarranted benefit of the doubt that you are not both a troll and a complete idiot.

I "must" be a bad psychologist because I am having some fun on a clothing website? LOL. Wonderful conclusions you draw sir. What was your PhD in, history of gym?

Really though, I haven't made any assumptions about anyone's personal life. I restrict my conversation to the topic of clothing and aesthetic judgement. And a few insults sprinkled here and there for good fun. So I find it odd that so many members, including a "PhD from Caltech," find it appropriate to talk about my personal life, accusing me of being bad at my profession, calling me a c--t, calling me an a--hole, telling me I have autism, etc. All because I differ in my perspective towards clothing.

I also find it odd that no one has chimed in, including you oh fearless leader, to say that it is inappropriate to be hurling such vitriol at members, especially when I have not done so to others. Not only in this thread but in others. Members have commented on my "communication" but say nothing to the person calling me a c--t or claiming I have autism, which is offensive to those actually suffering from autism.

I find this to be an indictment of the members here.

I don't take it personal as no one here actually knows me and so is incapable of judging my character. I am learning quite a lot though, and in a short period of time. I wouldn't think it would be so easy to provoke such ire from people because of some internet posts about clothing... and manbuns of all things!

That being said, I shall continue to post and read, a fine glass of brandy in one hand, and the greatest composer of all time (Ralph Vaughan Williams) playing in the background. I shall just do so whilst expecingt less of the members of this forum.

Cheers!

 

[robinsongreen68]

glad this has been a learning experience for you. As a professional, how would you summarise your findings?

'conclusion: it was found that if one makes pompous dimwitted pronouncements on the internet, fails to respond to (or even, apparently, grasp) counter-arguments and generally acts in an annoying manner , people will respond in a mostly negative way'?

 

[Caustic Man]

But that does not negate the fact that they were also attracted to women, and that objections for said practices were infact very common. Anachronism also plays into our interpretations of their perceived homosexuality (exclusive sexual attraction). I doubt very much the powerful men commiting pederasty (if invoked in our time) would consider their practices to be taken as indicative of their denial of sexual attraction towards women. In fact It is to be expected that, in a society which relegated such praise to men exclusively, found ways to justify even the sexual "exploitation" of young males. I am confident that these very same men must have had scores of women too, only they valued men more on a rational basis, and not because of sexual attraction. Pederasty existed by in large due to notions of male virtue, and often abuse of power. *Young innocent boys display many features similar to that of women* Seldom did grown men engage in homosexuality.

Most Greek influencial philosophers/ writers condemn the sexual act as shameful and brutish. It is interesting that in Afghanistan for example, the young boys involved in pederastic dancing, would dress in feminine attire and apply feminine makeup. They look very much like the people in those pictures.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that most Greek writers and philosophers criticized the practice, but let's assume that's true for the sake of argument. The simple fact is that most Greek philosophers and writers were not people that ordinary Greeks based their lives on. The thing you have to be careful with when looking at sources like that is that you can't conflate the few philosophers that we have writing for with the popular view. Very few Greeks espoused the radical ideas of Socrates, for example, even though we today consider him a cornerstone of western culture. We can, however, surmise popular practices by how common contemporaries claim they were, which is what we're doing in this case.

Attraction to women, of course, has nothing to do with the point. You talk about "also" being attracted to women, suggesting that they were also attracted to men. When you look at those two facts together what do you come up with? The answer is that you come up with a strong anecdote to suggest that sexual practices are only partly determined by biology. Another part must certainly come from cultural/normative behavior. To put it another way, there are certainly biological reasons that men are generally more aggressive, risk taking, and physically powerful. That doesn't mean that the way that men express that fact in our society today (by playing sports to higher degrees, gambling at higher rates, etc.) is also biological, it just means we have created certain acceptable means of expressing that in the society we live in. The same can be said for sexuality, I think.

 

[Caustic Man]

So in the case of pederasty, the (rationalised) notion of male superiority and "virtue", coupled with the idea of bonding, and the general scorn towards women, subverted the inclination to resist what men (in a primal/neutral state) would normally have for women.

See, this too is a shaky assumption. The fact is we just don't know what the average man on the street thought of women in Greece. Certainly a few philosophers had some degree for scorn toward women, but if you step back, it's literally only a few dudes who all knew each other who were saying this. It would be like if the only American writings that survived a nuclear apocalypse were from Donald Trump, how much could we actually say about American society? The answer, of course, is not much. Despite hoe tempting it might be to say otherwise.

 

[dieworkwear]



That being said, I shall continue to post and read, a fine glass of brandy in one hand, and the greatest composer of all time (Ralph Vaughan Williams) playing in the background. I shall just do so whilst expecingt less of the members of this forum.

*tips fedora

 

[Mojo1990]



See, this too is a shaky assumption. The fact is we just don't know what the average man on the street thought of women in Greece. Certainly a few philosophers had some degree for scorn toward women, but if you step back, it's literally only a few dudes who all knew each other who were saying this. It would be like if the only American writings that survived a nuclear apocalypse were from Donald Trump, how much could we actually say about American society? The answer, of course, is not much. Despite hoe tempting it might be to say otherwise.

I'm positing explanations

I've said that people go through a process of rationalisation which subverts the "neural" default behavior in humans. How have I arrived at this? Well we know how the consumption of pornography can literally rewire the brain. In this same vein young children who were "initiated" (we would now say abused) had experiences contrary to what they would normally have experienced had they not been part of that society. My presumption is an objective one, in that "normal" human beings (considering evolutionary biology) when left to their own devices, void of cultural influences, would primarily desire sexual relationships with that of the opposite sex. It is precisely because of certain "extreme" cultural values that led men to justify their exploitation of young boys, all the while continuing to engage in sexual rights with women

 

[dieworkwear]



My presumption is an objective one, in that "normal" human beings (considering evolutionary biology) when left to their own devices, void of cultural influences, would primarily desire sexual relationships with that of the opposite sex.

wut?

 

[Caustic Man]

My presumption is an objective one, in that "normal" human beings (considering evolutionary biology) when left to their own devices, void of cultural influences, would primarily desire sexual relationships with that of the opposite sex.

This is objective, true, but it is also meaningless. It's impossible to prove or to draw conclusions from it because you'd never be able to take away cultural influences, even the most minor ones. Because of that you couldn't say one way or the other what the sexual repercussion of having no culture would look like, even if you could begin to define what having no cultural influences even means.

 

[Mojo1990]

Child studies have, although not conclusive, shown differences in male and female preferences and behaviour from really early on.

Anyway this is way off point

 

[Caustic Man]

Child studies aren't even close to existing in a cultural vacuum. Besides, those studies have come under a lot of doubt recently. They are more often a lightning rod for gender politics than anything you can draw a reliable conclusion from.

 

[meso]

 

[WordsAndThings]

In the same way that, say, Yohji's oversized relaxed style isn't everybody's cup of tea... we can still appreciate an aesthetic balance. The pic in the OP is a relatively simple, well matched ensemble that manages to pair basics without being either too boring or too garish. One element of bright color (the pink headband), a clean and balanced tanktop/jeans, and a fun pattern on the Gucci bag. The two bracelets add some necessary accessorizing. It's fairly clear why Scott would have chosen it; it takes a simple bag, tanktop, and jeans yet manages a hint of flair. It's a way of paring things down without either seeming too severe (eg Prada, Jil Sander, etc) or too relaxed (Gap, Banana Republic). Reminds me of some of the old-school Helmut Lang.

If you just look at the items according to color/pattern/seasonal rules... it's really not a bad matching (again, though obviously not something everybody could wear).

 

[LA Guy]

In the same way that, say, Yohji's oversized relaxed style isn't everybody's cup of tea... we can still appreciate an aesthetic balance. The pic in the OP is a relatively simple, well matched ensemble that manages to pair basics without being either too boring or too garish. One element of bright color (the pink headband), a clean and balanced tanktop/jeans, and a fun pattern on the Gucci bag. The two bracelets add some necessary accessorizing. It's fairly clear why Scott would have chosen it; it takes a simple bag, tanktop, and jeans yet manages a hint of flair. It's a way of paring things down without either seeming too severe (eg Prada, Jil Sander, etc) or too relaxed (Gap, Banana Republic). Reminds me of some of the old-school Helmut Lang.

If you just look at the items according to color/pattern/seasonal rules... it's really not a bad matching (again, though obviously not something everybody could wear).

I'm not really sure where you get old (I assume pre-NYC) Helmut Lang from the outfit.

I mean, it's not a bad outfit, but it looks pretty unremarkable to me. I am not sure how this outfit was chosen by the OP, but for me, the proportions, the patterns, and the accessorizing, none of them stand out to me. Some of Scot's subjects are immediately arresting, but I'd agree with the much heard opinion that a lot of it is just... okay.