Thats a good question I view fashion as being in it's essence a form of communication - which requires a sender and reciever, so traditionally an other, but there are whole schools of intrapersonal communication, so communicating with yourself is not out of the question.

I also tend to lean towards the absolute that views all "aesthetic" decission to be fashion - so selecting a paint color in a sense is making a fashion decission.

But I slaso think politics and economics enter into most decissions as well - they all tend to limit the overall pool we select from. I mihgt prefer the aesthetics of the Jag, but the Honda suits my economics better, but I'll get the green one - that being my aesthetic and thus fashion choice.

I would be way bigger on fashion if I were bigger in the wallet and bigger in the size.

For reals, it is sooooo damned difficult to find clothes in America that fit a guy of my slight build that it is most times too depressing an activity to partake of. Add to that my limited clothing budget, and you have a recipe for me wearing things to the disintegration point, and being "retro" both for the stylistic and practicality reasons.

About half my reason for wanting to go to Japan is so that I can buy snazzy clothes that will fit a dude my size.


Frankly, it's not too bad a thing that nothing fits me. I'd like to be even more fashionable than I am, but I'm a notorious over spender. Well, rather, I'm a firm believer in you-get-what-you-pay-for. I apply a heavy dose of caveat-emptor to that, especially for clothing (where the Disney Vintage Crap Line is Exhibit A).




Oh, and by fashionable, I do not mean trendy. I simply mean that which appeals to my personal aesthetic, which I consider highly developed and objectively excellent. :iSm:

Alex's shopping agenda reminds me that sometimes I wish I were a guy. I dressed like one for many years...

I just wonder why there isn't more nudism - economic, durable, no shopping required, what's with this need for clothes thing?

There's a need for clothing because all forms of pesonal expression are fun and rewarding. Well, maybe that's a bit braod, but I certainly feel that to be the case. I love fashion. I love the exciting things that come out of the creative minds of exciting, top-notch designers. I find them inspiring my own fashon aesthetic which is limited only by availability of clothes that I truely want to wear and can find that actually fit. But, everyone knows that I like "dressing up" whenever I have the opportunity.

Conversly, I am not a fan of many trends. Actually, I really hate most trends becaue they only look good on a rare number of people but the majority of people think they can wear them and then we all have to look at them. But, fashion and trendy are not exactly the same thing.

Personally,I have been dressing in the same basic style for years. I alter certain basic shapes and textures or add splashes here or there or modify things just a bit to account for age appropriateness, but I stick with mostly what works with a range I know works. Or, rather, what I feel comfortable working. Weather my particular style works for me or not in your opinion is, well, up to you. My own comfort level self-assurdness is what I care most about.

But, fashion, I adore it much in the same way I adore art, music and other aesthetic pursuits. My own forray into fashion is my own little espression of creativity and I wouldn't give it up for anything.

I agree on these points.

It doesn't have to be expensive, either, any of it. Clothing, art, music. The price doesn't 'make it'.

I should touch on this 'sin' that was brought up. I think perhaps some of what I said may have leaned that way.

I didn't mean that I think people who buy expensive clothing are sinful. But, me, I can't do it. To me, it is wrong. And, I don't see a need for it. I can find something to wear to any occassion within a decent budget. The search is half the fun.

And, I think it is powerful to accept yourself in your wardrobe. Screw opinion and *ahem* the PTA.

I think a certain amount of wastefulness is quasi-sinful.

It's up to each of us to determine what that amount is, where that balance point tips.

It's all relative. One person's extravagance is another's skimpthriftiness. And there's nothing inherently "wrong" with extravagance. It's up to our own individual value systems to determine where pleasureable extravagance ends and wasteful destructiveness begins.


For me personally, something is wasteful if it costs enough to provide a poor person with a significant, survivalist financial boost while also being out of a decent price-to-value ratio on the common market (which is to say, the market of common sense). If I were deleriously rich, I'd like to pick out a $10,000 suit or a $250,000 car and - just before plunking down the cash - cancel the deal and instead give the money to the first homeless family I could find.



I find the Disney Vintage Crap line to be out of the common sense market. Some folks may have no qualms about paying $130 for a thermal T at World of Disney, but I'd much rather take a visiting Boise family out to lunch.

I love how the "real" price for these T's has almost doubled in the proces of this conversation. Me thinks the protests are getting a bit low of fuel.

It appears the conversation morphed a lil while ago from the DL tees to the cost of "fashionable" clothing in general.

However, if we're going to get into symantics of which shirt costs what then the Donald shirt is $130 and the Bambi shirt is $90. I don't see any *doubling* of the cost of the T's.

Both dollar amounts would enable iSm to buy lunch for that family from Boise. And I must leave more mojo before I can mojo iSm again.

*edited to correct in Boise to from Boise.

Have a good time in Boise, ISM. You're a better person than I am.


Or, just different.