Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Ekpyrotic)
    Time to read some Hemingway?
    I was going to go with "Time to stop being so pretentious?".
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by mwfancy)
    Those who don't care about forcing appearances that place themselves among a category entailing further patterns of artificail behavoir "are good". But that doesn't mean to let go of a considerate appearance (cleanliness).

    I usually keep a decent appearance, and sometimes a sharp appearance (because of women, or small concessions made to other expectations). The issue is whether dress and details of dress may reflect non-functional group subscription. Sometimes it's just a deliberate, gratuitous nuance that repeats itself - but is meant to signal membership of any of the many many "cultural" categories.

    It is possible but not often likely (certain details will only be found on category subscribers) that an 'aesthetic' of dress someone genuinely arrives at is indistinguishable from that of a 'category' people place themselves. The way I'm talking also means that many people can and do dress the same, but without being subscribers of some group - in other words, maybe they dress sensibly.
    I think my point can be summed up by disputing the existence of 'sensible dress' - surely that is whatever is expected of you, and if your friends dress in a certain way, so do you. I do and i bet you do. I'd argue that in most cases it is the friendship group that defines the dress, and an individual dressing specifically in order to become a member of a 'subculture' is rare.

    Not that that matters when applied to the issue at hand. In my experience, such distinctions and these 'subcultures' within groups fizzles out as you get older. Perhaps differences exist between universities, which may apply to StA, i don't know. Judging on the base of clothing, however, i do disapprove of (within reason). Would you really judge an oddly dressed person without speaking to or knowing about them? Evidently you would, based on the opening post.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Ìm dressing totally different each day. Sometimes Im wearing just a jeans and a hoody, hte next day Im wearing a suit and the other day Im wearinga "posh" dress.
    I cant understand people who define other people by their clothes!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    this is probably one of the most retarded threads i've seen on the st andrews forum
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I totally agree!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mwfancy)


    Sure, there are more obnoxious ways to dress - such as the way those silly enough to say things like 'I reject conformity' who then show this simply by picking an oppositional category of dress/style themselves - go to ex: hippy, "artist"/"musician".

    Are there a fair number of students who don't need to convey any sort of lame "cultural" category? Eh, this is arbitrarily ironic, but I ask this because the less someone is dressing to convery a "social" category (no matter the obscurity), the more likely they are a person worth knowing.
    I got half way through reading that nonsense and stopped. Going to class isn't a fashion show, and im assuming you don't live in Scotland where warm clothes (which is what they are wearing in the picture) can come in useful.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    I think my point can be summed up by disputing the existence of 'sensible dress' - surely that is whatever is expected of you, and if your friends dress in a certain way, so do you. I do and i bet you do. I'd argue that in most cases it is the friendship group that defines the dress...Would you really judge an oddly dressed person without speaking to or knowing about them? Evidently you would, based on the opening post.
    1st quote, not so for me. I find that sad if you're that incredulous about there being blandly dressed individuals out there, and that that is in fact a more improable sign of conformity or pretentiousness than any other example. 2nd quote - I would not judge someone for dressing oddly per se, one last time: the more someone dresses to convey membership of a group (the kind that requires a relatively harsh in-group out-group), trendiness, etc. then the less likely they are to be decent people, or interesting people, worth knowing. However, most people conform to some niche, whether they think or not (but I don't, believe it or not) and regardless, I am the nicest person to everyone - and give the benefit of the doubt most interactions.

    For a few of you: sorry if I hit too close to home! :rolleyes: Some of most the dense, most ironic misinterpretations yet!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by mwfancy)
    2nd quote - I would not judge someone for dressing oddly per se, one last time: the more someone dresses to convey membership of a group (the kind that requires a relatively harsh in-group out-group), trendiness, etc. then the less likely they are to be decent people, or interesting people, worth knowing.
    So you're saying if me and my friendship group are really into clowns, we talk about clowns a lot, most of our activities are clown related- a friendship group which is clearly quite difficult to penetrate unless you're also really into clowns - and we dress accordingly in our favourite clown inspired outfits, then we're less likely to be decent, interesting or worth knowing? I think you're a bit of a prat to be honest.

    However, most people conform to some niche, whether they think or not (but I don't, believe it or not) and regardless, I am the nicest person to everyone - and give the benefit of the doubt most interactions.
    So everyone falls into a niche except you because you're awesome and super special?

    For a few of you: sorry if I hit too close to home! :rolleyes: Some of most the dense, most ironic misinterpretations yet!
    What exactly is this supposed to mean?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by mwfancy)
    1st quote, not so for me. I find that sad if you're that incredulous about there being blandly dressed individuals out there, and that that is in fact a more improable sign of conformity or pretentiousness than any other example. 2nd quote - I would not judge someone for dressing oddly per se, one last time: the more someone dresses to convey membership of a group (the kind that requires a relatively harsh in-group out-group), trendiness, etc. then the less likely they are to be decent people, or interesting people, worth knowing. However, most people conform to some niche, whether they think or not (but I don't, believe it or not) and regardless, I am the nicest person to everyone - and give the benefit of the doubt most interactions.

    For a few of you: sorry if I hit too close to home! :rolleyes: Some of most the dense, most ironic misinterpretations yet!
    That'd be 'not', then :p: .
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by mwfancy)
    the more someone dresses to convey membership of a group (the kind that requires a relatively harsh in-group out-group), trendiness, etc. then the less likely they are to be decent people, or interesting people, worth knowing.
    Start supporting your airy assertions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by la_banane_verte)
    So you're saying if me and my friendship group are really into clowns, we talk about clowns a lot, most of our activities are clown related- a friendship group which is clearly quite difficult to penetrate unless you're also really into clowns - and we dress accordingly in our favourite clown inspired outfits, then we're less likely to be decent, interesting or worth knowing?
    That is not what I'm saying my friend. I think I used the word functional in another post, and resisted explaining this more because I hoped it would be assumed: your above is exception. Just as someone wearing shoes meant for skateboarding because they skateboard, who may likely have friends who do too. Thought it was needless to say. The ingroup out group in this and your example has more to do with genuine interest, and that homogony happens naturally. It's healthy/expectable vs. the ingroup/outgroup stuff which is more fabricated, status oriented - it's relationship w/ hobbies is usually looser or altogether absent. There's a nuance and I'm not gonna explain it further because people are either gonna pretend it isn't there, or they are so entranced by it they don't even recognize it. The thread asked for yes no answers generally.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by mwfancy)
    That is not what I'm saying my friend. I think I used the word functional in another post, and resisted explaining this more because I hoped it would be assumed: your above is exception. Just as someone wearing shoes meant for skateboarding because they skateboard, who may likely have friends who do too. Though it was needless to say.
    I don't mind admitting that I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Can you perhaps simplify it for me?
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by mwfancy)
    That is not what I'm saying my friend. I think I used the word functional in another post, and resisted explaining this more because I hoped it would be assumed: your above is exception. Just as someone wearing shoes meant for skateboarding because they skateboard, who may likely have friends who do too. Thought it was needless to say. The ingroup out group in this and your example has more to do with genuine interest, and that homogony happens naturally. It's healthy/expectable vs. the ingroup/outgroup stuff which is more fabricated, status oriented - it's relationship w/ hobbies is usually looser or altogether absent. There's a nuance and I'm not gonna explain it further because people are either gonna pretend it isn't there, or they are so entranced by it they don't even recognize it. The thread asked for yes no answers generally.
    You're saying, people dress the way they want to appear. Kinda' a tautology.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wore the same pair of sweatpants every day for four years while doing my undergrad... lol and then when i went out i just put on jeans and a t-shirt... i like being comfy
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: July 19, 2009
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.