Why are women's clothes so much better?

[Sophistic8d_grl]

Again, Frédérique, I applaud your insight and candor! I am also one fortunate to have been in more than one relationship with a gal where I was able and comfortable to share this aspect of my life. Before they learned of my interests, they were surprised at my desire to shop and the taste I exhibited when helping select items. It is through my adoration of women and my zeal when observing them (both in person and in media) that I find my pwn personal motivation. I share your feelings in regards to the textures, fabrics and colors; so much so that I long ago have broadened my drab wardrobe. I believe I am much the better person for it~

[StarrOfDelite]

Clothes have two primary functions: First to protect us from the elements so we neither freeze nor fry from exposure of our hairless skin to sun, rain, wind and weather, and second, to disguise the manifest ways in which our bodies differ from whatever is the currently popular idea of perfection.

There are plenty of items of men's clothing out there that are fabulously stylish. They are also fabulously expensive, and worn by only a small percentage of males in the upper ten percentile of taxable income.

American male fashion is divided along socio-economic lines. Most men work at blue collar jobs or retail clerk type positions, which don't require much more than a pair of jeans and a shirt. A dressy outfit for most men is a pair of khakis, a shirt with actual buttons, and a necktie, but no jacket. For shame, America!

Most American men have no idea about how a piece of good male clothing looks or feels. They'd prefer to sneer at the "Suits" who are the Bad Guys oppressing the common man in his baggy Levis. Instead they should go to the high end rack at Brooks Brothers (or a Polo store) and check out a really good suit, how soft and see how sensual a good English wool fabric is, and how subtle and beautiful the tailoring is. They should check out a B2 shirt and silk tie, or even better a Gieves & Hawke challis wool tie. Beautiful, but costing about $175 unfortunately. American males for the most part think that a pair of overprice Air Jordans is a "fashion statement." And, maybe they should check out how different a pair of good shoes, e.g. Allen Edmonds, is from a pair of Nikes from Vietnam.

Sadly, most males are afraid of ridicule from their peers. I double-dang guarantee you that if one of his chums tells a male that his new shirt/pants/shoes/whatever make him look Gay he'll never wear that item of clothing again.

On the other hand, maybe it's just white homophobic men who act like this, a lot of African-American men dress superbly and don't worry about such nonsense. I think Stephen A. Smith (ESPN NBA analyst) is a horse's patoot, but I admire his suits, shirts and ties!

We are social creatures, not quite herd animals but close, and that makes us extremely susceptible to manipulation by mass media advertising. I'm not much into the idea that women's clothes are desirable just because they're "women's" clothes. There are plenty of looks which are just plain ugly, and those include skirt/dress looks from the vintage era of the 40's/50's and 60's as well as Capri pants and thong sandals from the present day. I can remember what the 17 y.o. girls looked like in their crinoline and flared prom dresses in the 60's, and it wasn't a great scene at all. And, I've seen enough "mutton trying to look like lamb" outfits to make me wince, we've all seen the 55 y.o. 5'9", 235 pound linebacker lookalikes who insist on wearing leather miniskirts and long platinum blonde wigs. That wouldn't be stylish on a genetic woman, let alone on a CD.

[busker]

We are social creatures, not quite herd animals but close, and that makes us extremely susceptible to manipulation by mass media advertising. I'm not much into the idea that women's clothes are desirable just because they're "women's" clothes. There are plenty of looks which are just plain ugly, and those include skirt/dress looks from the vintage era of the 40's/50's and 60's as well as Capri pants and thong sandals from the present day. I can remember what the 17 y.o. girls looked like in their crinoline and flared prom dresses in the 60's, and it wasn't a great scene at all. And, I've seen enough "mutton trying to look like lamb" outfits to make me wince, we've all seen the 55 y.o. 5'9", 235 pound linebacker lookalikes who insist on wearing leather miniskirts and long platinum blonde wigs. That wouldn't be stylish on a genetic woman, let alone on a CD.

Yes, especially the capri pants that are flared (like bell bottoms) and they look they were sized for a child or else they shrunk in the wash. Even Kim Novak couldn't make them look good.

[ReineD]

Starr, I totally agree. The standard of dress for both men and women has changed considerably beginning in the 60s, and few people today know how to dress. I dare say they can't afford it. I include myself in this. The main culprit is the declining purchase power of the dollar. Families in the 50s and 60s could survive on one salary. Now they need two.

I'm not much into the idea that women's clothes are desirable just because they're "women's" clothes. There are plenty of looks which are just plain ugly

Very true. My SO and I were looking at a clothing catalog tonight and there is not one thing that neither she nor I would buy. The clothes were colorful, but woefully out of date. There was an overabundance of gauze, flowers, and frill, in contrast with lime green and fushia pants and skirts that are limiting in terms of what they can be paired with. My SO told me that she has learned to keep her bottom pieces (pants & skirts) neutral and vary her tops, rather than to do the opposite. Much easier on the budget that way. Some of the clothes in that catalog (and in many other catalogs) were just plain ugly in their styling, cut, and color choice.

And, I've seen enough "mutton trying to look like lamb" outfits to make me wince, we've all seen the 55 y.o. 5'9", 235 pound linebacker lookalikes who insist on wearing leather miniskirts and long platinum blonde wigs. That wouldn't be stylish on a genetic woman, let alone on a CD.

Another great point. I see older CDers here wearing things that belong on younger, much slimmer girls that I wouldn't wear despite my being tall and a size 8 (I'm in my 50s). But, there is nothing wrong with dressing like this in private for their own enjoyment or for posting pics in the Gallery. Or even if they wear these things to CD support groups or TG friendly nightclubs. I'm sure if they ventured out in the mainstream, they'd dress more age appropriately.

[StarrOfDelite]

Another great point. I see older CDers here wearing things that belong on younger, much slimmer girls that I wouldn't wear despite my being tall and a size 8 (I'm in my 50s). But, there is nothing wrong with dressing like this in private for their own enjoyment or for posting pics in the Gallery. Or even if they wear these things to CD support groups or TG friendly nightclubs. I'm sure if they ventured out in the mainstream, they'd dress more age appropriately.

Reine. I could have been talking about genetic women with my description of the 55 y.o., 5-9, 235 pound linebacker in a leather miniskirt. I have, unfortunately, seen more than my share of real ladies wearing that type of clothing on the out-and-about, too!

I agree with you that so long as the person thus garbed is doing it for fetish reasons, e.g. a GNO at the local GLBT club, it's perfectly acceptable.