current dress trends

[therizyflapper]

hahahahah I'v just noticed the current trend for women is to show everything they got lol AKA short skirts, shorter then short dresses (more like T-shirts in my opinion haha), and shorts that show their butt-cheeks .... eww.. hahaha not too pretty in my opinion haha oh and that raver, bright colored, hurt your eyes kinda cloths are popular now as well hahaha at-least where I live haha

 

[therizyflapper]

At the risk of kicking the dead horse until it falls to pieces in the road, nobody's ever come up with a reasonable answer to the question I always ask when this issue comes up: why do men want their torsos to look long and their legs to look short and stubby? Wearing pants anywhere but at the natural waistline makes the body look asymmetrical, and is unflattering by any standard by which such things can be judged on any normally-built adult male -- so why do it? What do these men see when they look in the mirror that makes them think YEAH BABY THE CHICKS DIG GUYS BUILT LIKE CHARLIE BROWN! WOO! SMOKIN'!

Seriously, what do they see?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

 

[LizzieMaine]

First, whether or not mainstream fashions are styled for unnaturally thin people has no bearing on how many people are overweight or obese. If you don't believe the numbers just go out and look at people. Tell me the majority aren't too fat.

Second, mainstream fashions are not aimed at unnaturally thin people.

I'm referring to modern-day women's clothing, which most definitely *is* skewed to the unnaturally thin. I'm sure the gents will have something to say about the cut and quality of contemporary big-men's wear. Most of those modern big-men's suits that I've seen around don't look especially well-fitted.

I don't and didn't say there aren't a lot of obese people -- if you want to set up straw men to argue with, that's fine, but you won't put words in my mouth to do it. What I *do* say is that the definition of what is obese/overweight has been shifted, and that's skewing the perceptions people have of their own weight. As I said, I weigh 165 pounds, and the CDC can call me anything it wants, but I don't consider myself overweight. I don't have any intention of starving myself to lose weight so that I can fit into a shifting perception of what "normal weight" is. I eat meat and eggs and cheese and have no intention of giving them up to follow whatever diet fad is in style this month. I'm in excellent health -- my cholesterol is normal, if that still means anything, my blood pressure is textbook, and I probably get more exercise in a day, between the heavy physical housework I do, the heavy steel bike that I ride, and the heavy lifting/running up and down three flights of stairs I do daily at my job, than most of these gym-crawling stick insects get in a week. And yet I'm "overweight" these people say, and I need to change my lifestyle and fall in line. Pfffffrt.

That being so, ordinarily I wouldn't much care about this issue -- I've been around here long enough to know trolling when I see it -- but I have family members who've been directly affected by this nonsense. My sister nearly killed herself with bulimia, and her 21-year-old daughter, my niece, is on her way down that road as well. And it's just such garbage as this that drove them there, this constant Internet/TV/popular media/junk science/crackpot hectoring about "you gotta lose weight youre fat you gotta lose weight youre fat youre obese your belly sticks out and your thighs are ugly lose twenty pounds or else" that you find all over the place. Yes there are a lot of truly obese people out there, and yes there are a lot of people who could stand to lose weight. But the modern fanatical obsession with thinness, which is expressed everywhere in the fashion world, in popular entertainment, in the media, and on the Web, is a genuine menace to all women, and young women especially -- and if you want to think that's a good thing, I suggest you might want to find another place to think it. And if you're just taking a contrarian view to have a little fun with the Crazy Retro People, well, that game's just about over.

And that is the last response you're going to get from me.

 

[Noirblack]

It looks like we actually agree. When I noted that 68.3% of people over age 20 in the US were overweight or obese in 2007-2008 according to the CDC, you replied with the question as to why mainstream fashions were aimed at unnaturally thin people. I took this to be a reductio ad absurdum argument on your part and thought you deserved a reply.

Premise 1: If 68.3 percent of the population is overweight/obese, then mainstream fashion would not be aimed at unnaturally thin people.

Premise 2: Mainstream fashion is aimed at unnaturally thin people.

Conclusion: Therefore 68.3 pecent of the population are not obese/overweight.

Maybe you weren’t doing a reductio argument. But my first inclination is always to look for some type of reasoning.

At any rate, we now both agree that there are lots of overweight people. I even stated that the pressure to be thin has too great an effect on young women. Your personal anecdotes lead me to believe that you would agree with this.

An important point is that while you can say that at your weight you are not overweight, you in fact are. But the important question is do you need to do anything about it? If you have no risk factors for heart disease or other conditions caused by being overweight/obese, then you don’t need to do anything. These risk factors include: high blood pressure, high LDL cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol, high triglycerides, high blood glucose (sugar), family history of premature heart disease, physical inactivity, cigarette smoking. As long as you don’t have any of these risk factors you don’t need to lose any weight.

You seem to be familiar with reasoning and you charged me with a straw man argument. As I noted above, I thought I identified a reductio argument from you. When someone tries to sort out what another person says and to detect an argument in their spoken or written words, that is known in reasoning as the principle of charity. In other words, it is the attempt to put those words in the best possible light i.e. to find a valid argument in them. This is really a duty that a rational agent has towards other rational agents.

You wrote “And if you're just taking a contrarian view to have a little fun with the Crazy Retro People, well, that game's just about over.” That is the well-known argumentum ad baculum, a prime example of a fallacy.

You also wrote “But the modern fanatical obsession with thinness, which is expressed everywhere in the fashion world, in popular entertainment, in the media, and on the Web, is a genuine menace to all women, and young women especially -- and if you want to think that's a good thing, I suggest you might want to find another place to think it.” Where did I ever say it was a good thing? I clearly stated the pressure to be thin “often has too great of an impact on young women”. Who is pulling a straw an now? And one last fallacy from you: calling me a troll. Just an old-fashioned ad hominem attack.

 

[Pompidou]

It looks like we actually agree. When I noted that 68.3% of people over age 20 in the US were overweight or obese in 2007-2008 according to the CDC, you replied with the question as to why mainstream fashions were aimed at unnaturally thin people. I took this to be a reductio ad absurdum argument on your part and thought you deserved a reply.

Premise 1: If 68.3 percent of the population is overweight/obese, then mainstream fashion would not be aimed at unnaturally thin people.

Premise 2: Mainstream fashion is aimed at unnaturally thin people.

Conclusion: Therefore 68.3 pecent of the population are not obese/overweight.

Maybe you weren’t doing a reductio argument. But my first inclination is always to look for some type of reasoning.

At any rate, we now both agree that there are lots of overweight people. I even stated that the pressure to be thin has too great an effect on young women. Your personal anecdotes lead me to believe that you would agree with this.

An important point is that while you can say that at your weight you are not overweight, you in fact are. But the important question is do you need to do anything about it? If you have no risk factors for heart disease or other conditions caused by being overweight/obese, then you don’t need to do anything. These risk factors include: high blood pressure, high LDL cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol, high triglycerides, high blood glucose (sugar), family history of premature heart disease, physical inactivity, cigarette smoking. As long as you don’t have any of these risk factors you don’t need to lose any weight.

You seem to be familiar with reasoning and you charged me with a straw man argument. As I noted above, I thought I identified a reductio argument from you. When someone tries to sort out what another person says and to detect an argument in their spoken or written words, that is known in reasoning as the principle of charity. In other words, it is the attempt to put those words in the best possible light i.e. to find a valid argument in them. This is really a duty that a rational agent has towards other rational agents.

You wrote “And if you're just taking a contrarian view to have a little fun with the Crazy Retro People, well, that game's just about over.” That is the well-known argumentum ad baculum, a prime example of a fallacy.

You also wrote “But the modern fanatical obsession with thinness, which is expressed everywhere in the fashion world, in popular entertainment, in the media, and on the Web, is a genuine menace to all women, and young women especially -- and if you want to think that's a good thing, I suggest you might want to find another place to think it.” Where did I ever say it was a good thing? I clearly stated the pressure to be thin “often has too great of an impact on young women”. Who is pulling a straw an now? And one last fallacy from you: calling me a troll. Just an old-fashioned ad hominem attack.

Stuff like this just isn't right. Calling her overweight? I don't always agree with some of the ideas that pass for mainstream here, but I still respect the members. It's important.

 

[Flicka]

From a medical perspective, it's actually better to have BMI over 25 and ride a bike everywhere you go than to have a BMI between 20 and 25 and take the car everywhere you go. And to have a BMI under 18 is a huge health liability.

Eat plenty of vegs and exercise and you'll be fine from a medical perspective. Give your body good things because you love it, not because you hate it.

First, whether or not mainstream fashions are styled for unnaturally thin people has no bearing on how many people are overweight or obese.

Second, mainstream fashions are not aimed at unnaturally thin people.

I agree with the first, not with the second - in regards to women's fashion.

One, we're not all perfect. Two, we (women) are made to feel that we should be, therefore we strive to be and the dissatisfaction makes us buy more clothes, hoping they will rid us of our sense of inferiority. Modern consumerism is partly driven by the divide between the ideal and the reality, and hence, the fashion industry has every reason to permeate that divide.

I'm talking about women's fashion now, not men's. The ideal for women is much skinnier than for men, and while men are told by popular culture that their worth is measured by their achievements, women are told that our worth is no more than the sum of our sexual attraction. Hence we're much more vulnerable to pressure in regards to our looks. Women can be fat or skinny, but most of us will constantly feel that we're inadequate. Like I stated, I was made to feel I was fat when I had a BMI of 20 (which put me closer to being underweight than overweight).

You may not agree with my (or Lizzie's) interpretation of the facts, but that's a matter of opinion (and I daresay, personal experience), not of our facts being wrong.

Over and out.

 

[Juliet]

Not to fuel arguments, but I have to say, the mainstream women's fashion is directed at thin people, or at very least at people who believe that they should starve themselves down at few sizes. And I'm not talking about truly overweight people loosing a few pounds. I don't know what the situation is in Canada, but all over Europe the stores are filled with clothes that are designed for a thin, square frame. Not for breasts, and not for hips. Sure enough there are a lot of women, who are built like that. But the point is, there are also other women, who are built very differently. And they are not targeted at all. Neither by fashion nor by the manufacturers. And that's a fact.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Like I stated, I was made to feel I was fat when I had a BMI of 20 (which put me closer to being underweight than overweight).

There's actually quite a bit of opposition to the constant reliance on BMI as the primary determinant of whether one is overweight or not -- it's a deeply flawed metric, not just from a practical standpoint but from a mathematical one. And it's being used nowadays for a purpose for which it was never actually intended because it makes for grabby headlines, sells a ton of "weight loss aids" and gives the Boys In Hartford a chance to jack your insurance premiums. Here is an excellent concetrated summary of *why* it's a bogus measurement.

 

[Feraud]

Not to fuel arguments, but I have to say, the mainstream women's fashion is directed at thin people, or at very least at people who believe that they should starve themselves down at few sizes. And I'm not talking about truly overweight people loosing a few pounds. I don't know what the situation is in Canada, but all over Europe the stores are filled with clothes that are designed for a thin, square frame. Not for breasts, and not for hips. Sure enough there are a lot of women, who are built like that. But the point is, there are also other women, who are built very differently. And they are not targeted at all. Neither by fashion nor by the manufacturers. And that's a fact.

Correct. Because the majority of people are overweight (according to data..)doesn't mean advertising is not skewed or sending unattainable messages to the consumer.
You can certainly buy large size clothing but that is of little consequence when the average American size range is considered "plus", an afterthought, and barely warrants one rack on your local retail outlets.

 

[Noirblack]

Stuff like this just isn't right. Calling her overweight? I don't always agree with some of the ideas that pass for mainstream here, but I still respect the members. It's important.

Anyone with that height and weight is overweight according to their BMI. I am not saying that Lizzie is a bad person because of this. Nor did I say there is anything wrong with her appearance. If you look at the photo she posted of herself, she looks great. If you look at all that I wrote about this situation, I am saying that it is not an issue unless there are other risk factors involved. From what Lizzie writes, she does not have these risk factors. But that doesn't change the fact that her BMI says she is overweight. Like any person in this situation she is well advised to monitor things like blood pressure and other health markers while maintaining an active lifestyle - all of which Lizzie is doing.

The clinical categories associated with BMI are underweight, normal, overweight, and obese. Notice that the second term is normal. Why isn't it healthy? Because you could have a BMI in the normal range, but that is only part of your overall health picture. You can't just put a person on a scale and say they are either healthy or not healthy. A person with a normal BMI can have all kinds of health problems. A person who is extremely obese could have great health. (Although that probably would not last for a long time). But overall, the more extra weight you have and the more risk factors you have, the more likely you are to have serious health issues.

The term overweight is simply a clinical term. If you want to put additional connotations on it and say that it is disrespectful, that's your endeavour, not mine. I hope I've made it clear what this term means and how it can be used to help people as they manage their health.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

What do the women see? A good portion of dressing is to look good to the opposite sex. Fact is, " the chicks dig guys built like Charlie Brown".

lol

and the rest of the Peanuts Gang

 

[LizzieMaine]

"In today's epsode of 'Peanuts,' Charlie Brown will be played by Yul Brynner."

 

[Juliet]

Correct. Because the majority of people are overweight (according to data..)doesn't mean advertising is not skewed or sending unattainable messages to the consumer.
You can certainly buy large size clothing but that is of little consequence when the average American size range is considered "plus", an afterthought, and barely warrants one rack on your local retail outlets.

Funny thing is, the larger sizes are the one that are sold out first (possibly, because there are two racks provided), and there are always small sizes left at the end of the season. One would think that at least a manufacturer would look at the numbers and say: "Oh! We've sold a LOT of the large sizes and a lot less of the smaller ones! We really should adjust the marketing concept!". Instead it's - "Ah, who cares! The small sizes have the same price tag, and we need less fabric and thread for them. Just make an ad with a really skinny model, they'll buy!".
Although I can't for the life of me see how a Euro 36 and 38 are 'large' sizes. I'm hopelessly out-of-date.

By the way, I've recently read a feature on a gentleman who oversees airbrushing for the ads in the biggest magazines (absolutely can't remember his name, sorry). It's an interesting insight into a world that has become so detached from the actual living and breathing people, it's not even funny.

Noirblack, the BMI isn't a very reliable method. It does not even take in consideration the bone structure of the body and that's a big factor.

 

[Noirblack]

Not to fuel arguments, but I have to say, the mainstream women's fashion is directed at thin people, or at very least at people who believe that they should starve themselves down at few sizes. And I'm not talking about truly overweight people loosing a few pounds. I don't know what the situation is in Canada, but all over Europe the stores are filled with clothes that are designed for a thin, square frame. Not for breasts, and not for hips. Sure enough there are a lot of women, who are built like that. But the point is, there are also other women, who are built very differently. And they are not targeted at all. Neither by fashion nor by the manufacturers. And that's a fact.

In North America, the larger sizes are available in stores. I had a look at the Sears website. They have women's clothing in sizes up to 24, which is equivalent to a 54 inch hip measurement on their size chart. You probably know that Sears is a mainstream retailer. In Canada we have a store called Addition Elle. They specialize in larger sizes and They have sizes up to 28 on their web site and they are good for 58 inch hips.

But whether buying large medium or small sizes it is always difficult to get a proper fit. The difficulty for manufacturers is that when you are doing the larger sizes it is difficult to know where the extra weight is carried. Usually for women it is in the rear, but there are also apple shaped women who have the weight around the midsection. Some have more in the bust. And some have it all over. I think it would be easier to make a pattern for people with less weight because it is a little easier to predict body proportions. However, people at the smaller end of the scale also have their own unique proportions and can't just get a proper fit off the rack.

Men's clothing isn't any different either. Most shirts are cut too large now because men's stomachs are getting bigger. So if you don't have a stomach you have to try on so many clothes to find a style you like that actually fits properly. Yesterday I tried on 4 shirts. Three of them were my size (medium) according to their labels. But I put them on and I was swimming in them. The only one that fit me was a small size according to the label, and it is really a medium. Even that one is a bit bigger than I like. I should take it to my tailor and get it taken in. I tried on two pairs of shorts that were my correct size according to the label. On the first pair, the waistband was too loose. On the second, the waistband was better, but overall, the shorts were cut so large that I could have easily put on a pair (maybe even two pair) of adult diapers on underneath them. (Not that I need them!)

So my point is that unless there truly are no large sizes available for women in the stores of Europe, don't take the fact that off the rack clothes don't fit properly as a sign that they were designed for smaller women instead of larger women. It's hard for many people of all sizes to get the proper fit off the rack.

 

[Noirblack]

There's actually quite a bit of opposition to the constant reliance on BMI as the primary determinant of whether one is overweight or not -- it's a deeply flawed metric, not just from a practical standpoint but from a mathematical one. And it's being used nowadays for a purpose for which it was never actually intended because it makes for grabby headlines, sells a ton of "weight loss aids" and gives the Boys In Hartford a chance to jack your insurance premiums. Here is an excellent concetrated summary of *why* it's a bogus measurement.

Sure, but if two people have the same BMI and one is Homer Simpson and the other is Arnold Schwarzeneger, I think a little common sense tells us that Homer needs to shape up an Arny just can continue what he is doing. Medical practitioners don't use BMI in isolation from other health markers. Everything has pros and cons. We don't stop using a system simply because there are cons attached to it.

 

[Pompidou]

Being 40 lbs underweight, I can personally verify that there's a skinniness limit that even the clothing industry won't cross, because I can never find clothes both tall enough but thin enough to fit me right.

 

[Gin&Tonics]

Being 40 lbs underweight, I can personally verify that there's a skinniness limit that even the clothing industry won't cross, because I can never find clothes both tall enough but thin enough to fit me right.

I don't mean to pry but as you mentioned it, that doesn't sound healthy at all. Are you suffering from some sort of illness? If not, you may wish to consult a physician, because 40lbs is a LOT of weight to be missing. I've been about 10-15 lbs overweight (6'2" 200lbs) and I've really been feeling it.

 

[Pompidou]

I'm about six feet tall, and my weight fluctuates between 120 and 125, and supposedly my ideal range is 140-185. Doc thinks my thyroid is over active, but I always call bs when everyone blames their weight issues on the thyroid rather than just being lazy, so I figure I'll just eat more and work out more. The whole world can't have thyroid problems.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

First, whether or not mainstream fashions are styled for unnaturally thin people has no bearing on how many people are overweight or obese. If you don't believe the numbers just go out and look at people. Tell me the majority aren't too fat.

Second, mainstream fashions are not aimed at unnaturally thin people. If I go out to pick up a pair of jeans I see sizes as high as 44 inch waists available for men in the store. I just took a look at the LLBean website for fun and you can actually get up to size 46 in their Double L jeans. This size isn't even designated by LLBean as a "portly" size or whatever other kind of euphamisms are commonly used. You can get a linen blazer from them with a 52 inch chest. In fact the smallest you could get for this blazer is a 38 inch chest. Elsewhere on their site, their size guide for polo style shirts show a 38 to 40 inch chest is a medium shirt. A small is a 34 to 36 inch chest. So this means they aren't even making the linen blazer in small anymore.

On the Brooks Brothers website, you can get suits up to a 56 inch chest. And dress shirts with a 20 inch neck! The good news is that the big guys can get decent looking clothing.

I stand by my point - there are lots of overweight and obese people, and lots of decent clothing available for them too.

Brick and mortar stores don't carry many larger size clothing. Even if the store carries a 44 waist, the store only has a few of them. Most of the sizes are for smaller/thinner people. Online is a different animal but the draw back is that one cannot try the clothes on. If the store doesn't have your size, then shop somewhere else. I do.

 

[rene_writer]

Second, mainstream fashions are not aimed at unnaturally thin people.

Sure, I can go buy any piece of women's clothing I want in a size ten at pretty much any brick and morter shop. I think the original point was that most of them are going to be plaid with ruffels on the bosom, awkward 3/4 length sleeves, a puffy midsection, and an elastic band around the hips. The result is that I am going to look 30 lbs heavier. Yes, this might look cute on Candice Swanepoel, but on a regular (normal bmi woman) this will look hideous. That is how the vast majority of clothes are designed.