The Yoga Pants trend

[LizzieMaine]

I think what people are confusing here is the definition of "bad." In all I've read in this thread I don't think I've yet seen anyone use "bad" in the moral sense. Instead, I think people are using it in the Paul Fussell sense -- Fussell, in his book "BAD: The Dumbing Of America" uses "BAD" to denote a supreme lack of tastefulness and dignity, the result being ostentatious, crass, or vulgar in a particularly post-1970s pseudo-upscale way. It's hard to explain if you haven't read Fussell's work, but if you have, you recognize BAD immediately on sight. (And if you haven't read Fussell, I strongly recommend him.)

Using Fussell's definition, yoga pants as worn in a yoga class would not be BAD. Some yoga pants worn on the street might not be BAD. Tight-fitting neutral-colored yoga pants worn to the grocery store might be "bad" but not BAD. But tight-fitting yoga pants in a violent color worn in a business office or in a courtroom or to church or to a wedding or some other similar dignified event would be BAD. And if they had an inscription or designer logo of any kind on them, that would be, without question, transcendantly BAD.

 

[scottyrocks]

Okay, but that would be a judgment call. It's not universal, is it? I've seen some what I would consider horrifically dressed people in most of those environments, but I wouldn't assign the word 'bad' to them. Maybe 'inappropriate.' But then again, according to whom? Me? A boss? A judge? A minister? A bride? It's still all opinion, not a universal truth. Even if you say, 'I think that's bad,' it's not really bad, it's just that you (or someone) doesn't like it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's a cultural judgement, not a moral one. And for anyone to claim they don't make cultural judgements is simply untrue. We all make them every day of our lives, either consciously or subconsciously. Taking offense at the making of cultural judgments is, in itself, a cultural judgement -- which is why these HOW CAN YOU JUDGE OMG U R SO MEAN types of arguments that always come up whenever anyone criticizes some aspect of fashion are so unfortunate.

I've been told that my style makes me look "old." Well, que sera sera. I *am* old. I'm not fifteen, and even when I was, I didn't want to look it. That someone chooses to make that judgement upsets me not at all. It's their privilege and their right. Just as it's my right to look at some woman in yoga pants and think of bulkie rolls in a bakery window.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Just as it's my right to look at some woman in yoga pants and think of bulkie rolls in a bakery window.

 

[scottyrocks]

Okay. Whether you dress 'old' or not, it's good for you, and might be 'bad' to or for someone else. But it's not universally good or bad. That's really the point I was making.

And I agree with you - how we dress is not a moral call, unless, of course, we're talking about wearing your skivvies (or less) to church (or even the market). That might be an exception. Maybe that's the big argument now about PJs in public. Enough people now think it's just hunky-dory to wear pajamas in public. Is this a moral or cultural argument? Body parts are just about completely covered in PJs. But they're PJs. They represent bed. True, people wear other types of clothing to bed (i.e. - sweats) but pajamas = bed.

 

[reetpleat]

I think what people are confusing here is the definition of "bad." In all I've read in this thread I don't think I've yet seen anyone use "bad" in the moral sense. Instead, I think people are using it in the Paul Fussell sense -- Fussell, in his book "BAD: The Dumbing Of America" uses "BAD" to denote a supreme lack of tastefulness and dignity, the result being ostentatious, crass, or vulgar in a particularly post-1970s pseudo-upscale way. It's hard to explain if you haven't read Fussell's work, but if you have, you recognize BAD immediately on sight. (And if you haven't read Fussell, I strongly recommend him.)

Using Fussell's definition, yoga pants as worn in a yoga class would not be BAD. Some yoga pants worn on the street might not be BAD. Tight-fitting neutral-colored yoga pants worn to the grocery store might be "bad" but not BAD. But tight-fitting yoga pants in a violent color worn in a business office or in a courtroom or to church or to a wedding or some other similar dignified event would be BAD. And if they had an inscription or designer logo of any kind on them, that would be, without question, transcendantly BAD.

I don't know this guy, but I would assume he is not the first to be decrying the decline of American culture. I am sure he is one in a line dating back to the 1800s. Just like complaints of youth of today that can be found back centuries ago, I am sure there are always people that think things were better then. I am sure a lot of people on this forum obviously would think so.

But while we can't say that anything is moral or not, there is still this strange idea that somehow our opinion of how people should dress, act, behave, has some kind of credence or god given superiority, which is ridiculous. All the books in the world do not make any one way of acting and thinking better than another. I happen to like a lot of tings about modern culture. I can only imagine what high class people, or Europeans or whatever, had to say about that scandalous swing music, the vulgar habits of common people in the 30s, those ridiculously middle class attitudes of the post war era, etc. No matter what you do, someone is looking down their nose at ya.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

No matter what you do, someone is looking down their nose at ya.

Only today there's so much more to look down one's nose at -- and rightfully so!

 

[reetpleat]

Can something be good if nobody thinks it is? If a thing is considered bad for a century and then is discovered as good, what then? What if something that everyone thought was great suddenly becomes silly? I think good and bad regarding clothes, art and the like are purely subjective. Things become good when the right people, or enough people, say they are. In many cases, it's impossible to come up with a hard and fast criteria of what good is, especially when aesthetics are concerned. Is abstract art inferior to Impressionism? Impressionism to realism? Is classical superior to jazz? I think things can be different but equal.

I don't want to paint myself into a corner, but the best definition of good in this case is if something does what it's supposed to, and in the case of clothing, this is probably most universally, "look good". We wear clothes, at least to some extent, to look good. When people wear saggy pants, oversized shirts and brand new sneakers, they do it to look good, and they wouldn't do it if there wasn't a good chunk of people who thought it did. Even morally, we have a hard time defining good and bad in black and white terms. It's even harder with matters of taste and opinion like clothes. If a suit is superior to jeans and a t-shirt by virtue of the skill required to make it, the time, and the materials, than it'd only take a handmade jeans and t-shirt taking more of such to throw the idea out the window. At the end of the day, aesthetic good and bad is solely in the eye of the beholder.

I won't comment on women, or guys who are just slobs with no effort into their dress. but when I see a young guy dressed in some outrageous, or strange trendy outfit, weather it is punk rock, blue hair, baggy pants, etc. I just say to myself, "he must be meeting girls this way' and that is all I need to know. I guess if it is a gay guy, then it is about meeting guys.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I don't know this guy, but I would assume he is not the first to be decrying the decline of American culture. I am sure he is one in a line dating back to the 1800s. Just like complaints of youth of today that can be found back centuries ago, I am sure there are always people that think things were better then. I am sure a lot of people on this forum obviously would think so.

But while we can't say that anything is moral or not, there is still this strange idea that somehow our opinion of how people should dress, act, behave, has some kind of credence or god given superiority, which is ridiculous. All the books in the world do not make any one way of acting and thinking better than another. I happen to like a lot of tings about modern culture.

You're certainly welcome to it. But on the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised, on a board which openly and unapologetically styles itself "Keepers of the Culture of The Greatest Generation," to find people who find much of that modern culture to be highly distasteful. It'd be like walking into Fenway Park and being shocked that there's such a negative opinion of the Yankees.

Keep in mind too that an "all cultures are precisely equal" worldview is in itself a cultural judgement -- you're suggesting that such a perspective is, in fact, superior and preferable to the argument that some cultures are better than others. See what a slippery slope it is? Everybody thinks their view is the superior view, even if they don't want to admit it.

(And yes, I know that cultural relativism is a central tenet of modern anthropology. But it's used there as a scientific method for studying cultures -- and was never intended to be co-opted into popular discourse the way it has been in recent decades as justification for an "anything goes" point of view.)

 

[Pompidou]

I won't comment on women, or guys who are just slobs with no effort into their dress. but when I see a young guy dressed in some outrageous, or strange trendy outfit, weather it is punk rock, blue hair, baggy pants, etc. I just say to myself, "he must be meeting girls this way' and that is all I need to know. I guess if it is a gay guy, then it is about meeting guys.

That pretty much sums it up most of the time, I imagine. I won't lie - I found my style through trial and error trying to have the best luck with women. Discovered I look good in sports coats, and got my red hat from here, but the rest is pretty modern, albeit nothing anyone here would mind - I've been business casual since I was born. Just became business casual with a hair of vintage and a healthy dose of weird these last two years. To each their own.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

But while we can't say that anything is moral or not, there is still this strange idea that somehow our opinion of how people should dress, act, behave, has some kind of credence or god given superiority, which is ridiculous. All the books in the world do not make any one way of acting and thinking better than another. I happen to like a lot of tings about modern culture. I can only imagine what high class people, or Europeans or whatever, had to say about that scandalous swing music, the vulgar habits of common people in the 30s, those ridiculously middle class attitudes of the post war era, etc. No matter what you do, someone is looking down their nose at ya.

" All the books in the world do not make any one way of acting and thinking better than another." What are you basing this on? One way of acting can be better than another. Someone who refuses to accept responsibility for one's actions cannot be the same as someone else who does. Someone is looking down their nose at ya, and sometimes that someone is right.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

I won't comment on women, or guys who are just slobs with no effort into their dress. but when I see a young guy dressed in some outrageous, or strange trendy outfit, weather it is punk rock, blue hair, baggy pants, etc. I just say to myself, "he must be meeting girls this way' and that is all I need to know. I guess if it is a gay guy, then it is about meeting guys.

This may be a universal truth. Wait. It is a universal truth.

 

[Undertow]

I love watching people striving to look good and, important to their own ideology, sometimes it makes me laugh out loud even, and that isn't a bad thing, it's plain humour..!!

See, I think it's acceptable when people try to dress up (and fail) versus people who either don't try, or who think it's okay to flaunt the rules.

If a young man goes to Acme Formal Wear and asks the salesman to fit him in a great tux for his wedding, can the young man be blamed if he ends up in a 3-button notch lapel tux with teal vest, teal necktie and teal square? If he doesn't have the necessary knowledge of formal wear, we can only blame the salesman.

But what about the fella' who actually requests the aforementioned tuxedo specifically because he doesn't give a darn about tradition and wants to look like the bridesmaids? Or what about the guy who says, "I don't care how I look, just suit me,"?

I think many of us have used trial and error to get the right look, and in the meantime, we probably wore some really nasty stuff. If your intentions are pure, maybe you can't be blamed as much.

Concerning yoga pants, well...sounds like their very nature is "relaxed", and it would be hard to believe they were intended to look "nice" or really even "decent". [huh]

 

[MisterCairo]

UT, your last point I think is the key to this whole thread. Yoga pants are meant for YOGA. I wouldn't wear a baseball uniform to go shopping, I don't wear my equestrian clothing to visit friends, and I don't wear my three-piece suits when I go camping. My humble opinion is that certain types of clothes are appropriate in certain settings, and inappropriate in other settings.

Not illegal, not immoral, just inappropriate.

My tuppence worth.

See, I think it's acceptable when people try to dress up (and fail) versus people who either don't try, or who think it's okay to flaunt the rules.

If a young man goes to Acme Formal Wear and asks the salesman to fit him in a great tux for his wedding, can the young man be blamed if he ends up in a 3-button notch lapel tux with teal vest, teal necktie and teal square? If he doesn't have the necessary knowledge of formal wear, we can only blame the salesman.

But what about the fella' who actually requests the aforementioned tuxedo specifically because he doesn't give a darn about tradition and wants to look like the bridesmaids? Or what about the guy who says, "I don't care how I look, just suit me,"?

I think many of us have used trial and error to get the right look, and in the meantime, we probably wore some really nasty stuff. If your intentions are pure, maybe you can't be blamed as much.

Concerning yoga pants, well...sounds like their very nature is "relaxed", and it would be hard to believe they were intended to look "nice" or really even "decent". [huh]

 

[scottyrocks]

See, I think it's acceptable when people try to dress up (and fail) versus people who either don't try, or who think it's okay to flaunt the rules.

If a young man goes to Acme Formal Wear and asks the salesman to fit him in a great tux for his wedding, can the young man be blamed if he ends up in a 3-button notch lapel tux with teal vest, teal necktie and teal square? If he doesn't have the necessary knowledge of formal wear, we can only blame the salesman.

But what about the fella' who actually requests the aforementioned tuxedo specifically because he doesn't give a darn about tradition and wants to look like the bridesmaids? Or what about the guy who says, "I don't care how I look, just suit me,"?

I think many of us have used trial and error to get the right look, and in the meantime, we probably wore some really nasty stuff. If your intentions are pure, maybe you can't be blamed as much.

Well, that puts the 1970s into a different perspective because those teal (as well as other 'outlandish' colored) tuxes were all the rage.

 

[scottyrocks]

UT, your last point I think is the key to this whole thread. Yoga pants are meant for YOGA. I wouldn't wear a baseball uniform to go shopping, I don't wear my equestrian clothing to visit friends, and I don't wear my three-piece suits when I go camping. My humble opinion is that certain types of clothes are appropriate in certain settings, and inappropriate in other settings.

Not illegal, not immoral, just inappropriate.

My tuppence worth.

And therein lies the difference between (some) FLers and much of society.

When I was a kid, no one wore sweatpants to school, or heaven forbid, work. These days, they are worn everywhere by everyone. It has become the norm.

(Not criticizing you, MisterCairo), opinions are fine, as long as they're kept in perspective. 'Inappropriate,' and the universal 'wrong' are the view of the person(s) thinking or uttering them, but they are by no means 'the truth.'

 

[MisterCairo]

And therein lies the difference between (some) FLers and much of society.

When I was a kid, no one wore sweatpants to school, or heaven forbid, work. These days, they are worn everywhere by everyone. It has become the norm.

(Not criticizing you, MisterCairo), opinions are fine, as long as they're kept in perspective. '

Inappropriate,' and the universal 'wrong' are the view of the person(s) thinking or uttering them, but they are by no means 'the truth.'

Well, I guess I'm not normal. Thank God.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

So it's come down to this???

 

[Pompidou]

So it's come down to this???

If the bride and groom are happy with it, that's all that matters. Everyone else is free to hold their weddings as they please as well. There's a wedding outfit for everyone.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

There's a lot of people who have little knowledge of what's proper and what's not for formality or for situations which call for it.

A friend of mine was talking about wearing a camouflage t-shirt and a baseball cap for his wedding. Now, I understand that reflects his personality, but I think certain situations still call for certain things.

If a young man goes to Acme Formal Wear and asks the salesman to fit him in a great tux for his wedding, can the young man be blamed if he ends up in a 3-button notch lapel tux with teal vest, teal necktie and teal square? If he doesn't have the necessary knowledge of formal wear, we can only blame the salesman.