Interesting (to me) thought for the day

[spiderine]

rm's latest post has a paragraph about the body-shaping quality of clothing that links back to a previous post entitled "The Public and Private Flesh." It's about how in earlier times when women's clothing was more structured, it followed naturally that the clothes (especially foundation garments) provided the shape of a woman's body, while these

Comments

[51stcenturyfox]

This is very, very interesting. And timely, because I stumbled on Amazon forums from a link yesterday and the stupid of "why don't girls dress like girls anymore you guise where are the sundresses and heels?" burned.

Though I'm sure that the topic starter meant the sort of sundresses with nipped-in waists and/or belts. Isn't there a supposed correlation between biological indicators of childbearing fitness and waist-to-hip ratio?

Men, too, used to have the shield of the suit, which gives men with average physiques more shoulder and less gut if it's tailored to fit him, and even if not, in a way casual clothes don't. I wonder if the rise of gyms and bodybuilding correlates, timewise, with the rise of casual wear for work. Men can't hide upper body "flaws" under a polo shirt, and muscles look weird under suits (suits frankly don't fit guys with bulk).

I'm not going to do more situps OR wear a corset, though. ;)

[spiderine]

I used to wear my sundresses with combat boots. I still would, if I could find sundresses that I liked. :)

Rm's post has a lot to say about how men's garments (suits) still provide a lot more structure than women's garments do, which frees them, to a certain extent, from having to maintain a fashionable figure. For a long time, a man who cared about his body to the point of manipulating it to look attractive was coded as "gay". It's only lately that standard is starting to change.

[rm]

That's true, but that's also relatively recent. Athletics manuals for Regency-era gentlemen are quite a hoot to read, and these endeavors, including things like fencing, weightlifting, pugilism and having a coach so that you might learn to walk in the most fashionable way were de rigeur and masculine in the era.

[51stcenturyfox]

True. And combat boots with a sundress sounds comfortable! (And chic!)

Men do have more freedom anyway, in that they can reject the standard more easily sans (as much) judgment. How many TV shows have male leads who are not "fit" with fit partners, versus the reverse?

King of Queens for example, or even the Simpsons. On Torchwood, if Gwen were the chubbier of the pair, wow, that'd be unusual. Everyone says Rhys is cuddly, but if Gwen were the less fit of the pair, would she be "cuddly" or would she be criticised for being big?

I can guess. Though I certainly heard critical remarks from fans when Ianto filled out.

Sorry to diverge from the clothing topic!

[valancy_joy]

don't want to derail either ... but what I wouldn't give to see plus-size kick-ass alien hunter girl on tv!!

anyway... following this conversation as I find it SO interesting!

[valancy_joy]

I HAVE HAD THIS THOUGHT TOO :D

[spiderine]

OMG I THINK I JUST CAME IN MY PANTS.

[51stcenturyfox]

So a less-than-fit man with a quite-fit partner scores Man Points in that game even if he's a bit of a loser in other areas.

Yeah! Because people (and women do it too) are trophies/arm candy and not people~!

And at least a male actor with crows-feet and a paunch can still get meaty roles (and lead roles) instead of "ingenue's mom", like a fair number of aging female actors.

[spiderine]

It took me 20 years for my combat boots to be PERFECT. Then the leather wore through. SADFACE!