Crimes against style that you've committed...

Oh, I'm sorry.... I didn't realise that style was set in stone?

Saying that, I have done the socks and sandals thing before.

There are some boundaries that are pretty objective, especially if you're a man- men's style is a lot more rules-based and static than women's.

I'm not aware of this. Explain.

Well, men's style is about fitting into a spectrum or framework with rules that evolve very slowly over time. For example, you could wear a suit cut in a 1930s pattern today and simply look well-dressed or dandyish, not necessarily "vintage" - because today's highest end suits aren't that different from those of the '30s, especially the "drape cut". Minor changes to the spectrum occur straightforwardly enough with the introduction of variations on existing items - for example, it became acceptable to wear a belt with your suit trousers in the '40s, although some men like the Duke of Windsor had been doing it for years beforehand. Major changes generally occur at the extremities, for example by the late '30s, the frock-coat was considered so old-fashioned and stilted that they stopped wearing them even at court. At the other end, over the course of the '50s and '60s, it eventually became stylish (rather than merely fashionable) to wear a t-shirt and jeans.

My point is that, although style certainly evolves, some things are always just going to look stupid, and will never fit into the classic spectrum or even come near it (eg tucking your trousers into your socks).

Primary School:
- Dark blue "Cyprus" t-shirt which I was absolutely certain went with everything.

- Very tight neon lycra t-shirts with cartoon girls on them surrounded by glitter and silly messages.

Secondary School:
- Unfortunate goth phase, which involved proper tight-lacing corsets, lots of stripy thigh-high socks with fishnets underneath and endless low-cut black things. Too much black eyeshadow as eyeliner, very very very red lipstick and (unfortunately simultaneously) black and purple braces. A generally bad two years.

- Relatively acceptable 40s pinup phase, which would have been entirely acceptable if my necklines had been a few inches higher or if I hadn't been 15 at the time. The clothes were all absurdly tight though, I didn't know it was possible to make a pencil skirt look indecent!

I guess you have to differentiate between what is 'stylish' according to what the world' fashion houses dictate and 'fashionable' according to what the majority wear. When I was at London Fashion Week a couple of months ago, I remember noting that a male model from Burberry, I believe, did indeed have his trousers tucked into his socks. As ridiculous as that may have looked, I guess it's an indicator that fashion designers are trying to introduce that look into contemporary fashion. However, I take your point that it will probably never fit into the "classic spectrum" of what the average man wears, but if your definition of "stylish" is "what the leading fashion designers are producing," then things get a little more complicated.

As with your point about men: yes, it's true there is a more limited range of items for men to wear than woman. As a result, though, I think that makes it easier for men to get it right. Because women have such a large range of different 'styles' at their disposal and and an equally narrow base when it comes to what is "accepted," it makes it harder for us to not commit a crime against style, according to the perceptions of the rest of society. I guess it's difficult for men and women to compare their experiences though, seeing as no one (barring transvestites/transsexuals!) has an experience of both male and female fashion.

Blimey, I never knew style could get so complicated.



I'm not really sure this kind of thing can be called a crime against style. It would seem that most children wear this kind of thing.