Fashions (historic & otherwise) you never understood...

[Mycroft Holmes]

piercings
flesh tunnels
any sort of body deformation
tattoos

It's like saying 'my body isn't beautiful enough so here have some other stuff to look at.' As I see it you shouldn't want to trade a single inch of your skin for something else.

The Burnside moustache considering how the man was a military failure idk how his stache became a thing for a bit in facial hair fashion.

If you're referring to his resignation from the army after the Battle of the Crater, he was exonerated. Both Grant and Lincoln personally requested that he not resign. It was General Meade's fault both as the superior in charge of the battle and because he was a giant racist who ordered Burnside to not deploy the black divisions during the battle.

Actually I heard this story from my ROTC instructor in High School, the sagging pants fashion originated in prisons as a sign that you were "available." So if you sagged your pants it meant that you dropped the soap on purpose, wink wink nudge nudge. I love telling that to people that do sag their pants.

Your ROTC instructor lied to you and now you are spreading misinformation.

 

[Sacman]

Flesh tunnels.

Because making huge holes in your ears as a fashion statement has got to be the biggest failing in foresight since the man who stored the cyanide capsules next to the aspirin.

:O that's nowhere near as bad as forehead donuts...<.<

[img height= 300]http://www.laughoutnews.com/wp-content/gallery/cache/1006__400x600_Donut-Head_041211040351.jpg[/img]

Yeah, that's probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen...<.<

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

My personal interest in fashion starts and ends with me finding clothing with the least amount of hassle involved that does not make me a social outcast just by mere looks. I really do not care much at all what I wear and by conjecture what other people wear, any inherent sillyness aside. That said, there are only a few things that really do irk me a bit and which most have been mentioned so far:

1) Piercings: I really don't get what's supposed to be so beautiful about having slices of metal pierced through your flesh.
2) Medieval men's wear: Sorry but it just looks silly.
3) The baroque-era (I think...) obsession with paleness: white wigs I can kind of get, but the whole powder-thing for aristocratic women? No thanks.

Now for something completely different...

quoted for attention

Say, do you have any sources for detailed descriptions of historic attire? I'm currently trying to write something a bit Diesel-Punky so any good sources would be appreciated.

 

[bananafishtoday]

The enormous hairstyles in the late-18th century that upper class women wore, complete with jewelry, feathers, and other decorations in/around the hair.

I remember an art class where the prof showed us a picture of a totally insane hairstyle like this (complete with taxidermied birds) and had us write a page about what the picture "meant." Many of us wrote about how it was some kind of commentary on beauty, gender roles, etc, a few of us thought it was parodying then-contemporary fashions. Nope. Turned out it was a literal advertisement for a hairdresser.

Something like this, though the pic that was shown was even sillier:



Edit: Actually, thinking about it, may have been wigs/an ad for a wigmaker. But still just as crazy looking.

 

[Arakasi]

List time!
-Caps - I am serious, I can't stand them for the most part. Especailly if they are the flat brimmed type.
-Piercings - Especially the newer types. I don't mind normal earrings.
-Tatoos - Can you seriously expect whatever you tatoo on yourself to appeal for you for the rest of your life? Also, they normally look terrrible.
-Crocs - Seriously, what?
-That stereotypial Australian hat with the corks - Just no.
-Thongs (not the underware, the footware) - Annoying to walk in and ugly!
-Fake glasses - Fuck off hipsers.
-Most moustaches (without beard) - Few can suit them well.
-Basically anything prior to the 1600s that was worn by the higher class.
-Uneven haircuts - Just looks awful.
-Ties - Now, I don't actually hate ties, I don't understand why they still persist other than them being the one opportunity for a man to wear something decorative in formal situations.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Whigs started to become fashionable when a c17 French king, who's name escapes me, started wearing one because he was going glad. They where also practical, until modern plumbing became common water was not that safe to wash in. People rarely washed, so cutting the hair short was a way of keeping lace at bay. Being able to afford a Whig became a status symbol.

If you're British, then your use of the word 'Whig' is a hilarious Freudian slip!

Anyway, I'm aware of the whole bald beneath the wig thing, but why did they have to be full-bottomed?! They get in the way more than anything... half-bottomed wigs are understandable as far as that stuff is concerned. Ah well... James FitzJames 1ere Duc de Berwick still made it look semi-spiffing... >_>

Say, do you have any sources for detailed descriptions of historic attire? I'm currently trying to write something a bit Diesel-Punky so any good sources would be appreciated.

'Fraid not... most I know is just from casual study of the Enlightenment era, though there was a decided shift to the more 'functional' clothing through the C18th, taking wigs, full-bottomed at start, half-bottomed in the middle, and none by the end. Presumably, shampoo was invented some time around the 1780's or something. Same with coats, they got progressively shorter in the front as the century went on... -_-

 

[Wadders]

Mullets, especially with rat-tails. I thought we were done with these 20 years ago but now they are back, in the UK at least. Why the fuck would anyone consider a Mullet hairdo to be a good idea?

Are they? This must have passed me by. I don't even think I've seen the most hipstery hipsters rocking a mullet.

-Ties - Now, I don't actually hate ties, I don't understand why they still persist other than them being the one opportunity for a man to wear something decorative in formal situations.

Cravats? They are decorative, and can be formal too, without being too much like ties.




I really hat those jeans and chinos with elasticated ankles. They seem to have died out a bit now, but they were all over the place last year. They just look chavvy and vile. How did they take chino's, the preserve of well dressed people, and make them look that terrible?

As for historical fashions - men in high heals. Yes, that was a thing.

 

[Albino Boo]

Whigs started to become fashionable when a c17 French king, who's name escapes me, started wearing one because he was going glad. They where also practical, until modern plumbing became common water was not that safe to wash in. People rarely washed, so cutting the hair short was a way of keeping lace at bay. Being able to afford a Whig became a status symbol.

If you're British, then your use of the word 'Whig' is a hilarious Freudian slip!

Anyway, I'm aware of the whole bald beneath the wig thing, but why did they have to be full-bottomed?! They get in the way more than anything... half-bottomed wigs are understandable as far as that stuff is concerned. Ah well... James FitzJames 1ere Duc de Berwick still made it look semi-spiffing... >_>

At least I didn't say Walpole. All the Whigs wore wigs and looked damm cool in them too.

Say, do you have any sources for detailed descriptions of historic attire? I'm currently trying to write something a bit Diesel-Punky so any good sources would be appreciated.

This might help http://www.museumofcostume.co.uk/collections/collection_search.aspx

But for diesel-punk you could try looking in the ebay vintage clothes section. You can sort by decade and select more than one.

 

[Jamieson 90]

Cravats? They are decorative, and can be formal too, without being too much like ties.

I really hat those jeans and chinos with elasticated ankles. They seem to have died out a bit now, but they were all over the place last year. They just look chavvy and vile. How did they take chino's, the preserve of well dressed people, and make them look that terrible?

As for historical fashions - men in high heals. Yes, that was a thing.

It's really not that surprising if you're familiar with history and fashion through the ages; Roman boys and men wore tunics, or basically another word for a dress when you get down to it considering they're not that dissimilar, in fact they're almost if not the same. Additionally boys have actually worn dresses, I know that's astounding in the modern age right? But it wasn't that long ago, the Edwardian age actually.

Yes that's a boy! In a dress!

Nor was it so weird for boys to wear pink:

In fact up until Barbie and before the market commercialized girls toys, and flooded stores with pink absolutely everywhere it was seen as acceptable for boys to wear pink, the thinking being that it was a softer colour than red, which was popular for men to wear for those who could afford the dye.

Similarly boys swimsuits weren't that different to girls up until early 50's, seen here in Pembrokshire, Wales, 1940 are a bunch of evacuated boys by a lake side.

Lastly in many places it's acceptable for boys to wear tights, Russia, Poland and Eastern European countries being the main examples, although young boys also wear them in Germany too, although they're called Strumpfhosen or Strumphose there, but before tights were around in mass production long stockings were very popular, even in America:
Image from 1902.

And of course long stockings for boys were popular with European royalty, seen here is Prince Leopold of Belgium and Prince Albrecht of Bavaria in the 1920's, both wear long stockings, black in the case of Leopold and white for Albrecht.

Amazing how fashions change isn't it?

 

[Wadders]

Cravats? They are decorative, and can be formal too, without being too much like ties.

I really hat those jeans and chinos with elasticated ankles. They seem to have died out a bit now, but they were all over the place last year. They just look chavvy and vile. How did they take chino's, the preserve of well dressed people, and make them look that terrible?

As for historical fashions - men in high heals. Yes, that was a thing.

It's really not that surprising if you're familiar with history and fashion through the ages; Roman boys and men wore tunics, or basically another word for a dress when you get down to it considering they're not that dissimilar, in fact they're almost if not the same. Additionally boys have actually worn dresses, I know that's astounding in the modern age right? But it wasn't that long ago, the Edwardian age actually.

Yes that's a boy! In a dress!

Nor was it so weird for boys to wear pink:

In fact up until Barbie and before the market commercialized girls toys, and flooded stores with pink absolutely everywhere it was seen as acceptable for boys to wear pink, the thinking being that it was a softer colour than red, which was popular for men to wear for those who could afford the dye.

Similarly boys swimsuits weren't that different to girls up until early 50's, seen here in Pembrokshire, Wales, 1940 are a bunch of evacuated boys by a lake side.

Lastly in many places it's acceptable for boys to wear tights, Russia, Poland and Eastern European countries being the main examples, although young boys also wear them in Germany too, although they're called Strumpfhosen or Strumphose there, but before tights were around in mass production long stockings were very popular, even in America:
Image from 1902.

And of course long stockings for boys were popular with European royalty, seen here is Prince Leopold of Belgium and Prince Albrecht of Bavaria in the 1920's, both wear long stockings, black in the case of Leopold and white for Albrecht.

Amazing how fashions change isn't it?

Aye I'm familiar enough with history, doing an MA in it after all
All that stuff you posted is pretty fascinating though - as youre saying, fashion was what we'd see to be rather feminine until fairly recently. I just love those red heels ol' Louis there is rocking with his tights, like an absolute boss.

 

[jdogtwodolla]

Flip flops. They just look like sandals for people who can't be bothered.

Yes this is generally the mood i'm in when I wear mine, which is quite often.

I never quite understood the "appeal" for Bloomers.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

This might help http://www.museumofcostume.co.uk/collections/collection_search.aspx

But for diesel-punk you could try looking in the ebay vintage clothes section. You can sort by decade and select more than one.

That fashion museum link looks very promising already. Thanks a lot

 

[lechat]

-That stereotypial Australian hat with the corks - Just no.
-Thongs (not the underware, the footware) - Annoying to walk in and ugly!

while i've never actually met anyone who wore a cork hat they do serve a very practical purpose of keeping flies off your face and trust me in the australian outback the flies are brutal
thongs on the other hand i agree with. it's basically impossible to walk in a pair without killing yourself and the extra 2 seconds it takes to put on or remove a real shoe is unjustified

me personally as a practical person i can not stand any fashion that puts form greatly above function and confort. the very fact that women are practically legally required to wear high heels is disturbing enough but foot binding takes it to a whole new level

fuck you fashion

 

[Jamieson 90]

Cravats? They are decorative, and can be formal too, without being too much like ties.

I really hat those jeans and chinos with elasticated ankles. They seem to have died out a bit now, but they were all over the place last year. They just look chavvy and vile. How did they take chino's, the preserve of well dressed people, and make them look that terrible?

As for historical fashions - men in high heals. Yes, that was a thing.

It's really not that surprising if you're familiar with history and fashion through the ages; Roman boys and men wore tunics, or basically another word for a dress when you get down to it considering they're not that dissimilar, in fact they're almost if not the same. Additionally boys have actually worn dresses, I know that's astounding in the modern age right? But it wasn't that long ago, the Edwardian age actually.

Yes that's a boy! In a dress!

Nor was it so weird for boys to wear pink:

In fact up until Barbie and before the market commercialized girls toys, and flooded stores with pink absolutely everywhere it was seen as acceptable for boys to wear pink, the thinking being that it was a softer colour than red, which was popular for men to wear for those who could afford the dye.

Similarly boys swimsuits weren't that different to girls up until early 50's, seen here in Pembrokshire, Wales, 1940 are a bunch of evacuated boys by a lake side.

Lastly in many places it's acceptable for boys to wear tights, Russia, Poland and Eastern European countries being the main examples, although young boys also wear them in Germany too, although they're called Strumpfhosen or Strumphose there, but before tights were around in mass production long stockings were very popular, even in America:
Image from 1902.

And of course long stockings for boys were popular with European royalty, seen here is Prince Leopold of Belgium and Prince Albrecht of Bavaria in the 1920's, both wear long stockings, black in the case of Leopold and white for Albrecht.

Amazing how fashions change isn't it?

Aye I'm familiar enough with history, doing an MA in it after all
All that stuff you posted is pretty fascinating though - as youre saying, fashion was what we'd see to be rather feminine until fairly recently. I just love those red heels ol' Louis there is rocking with his tights, like an absolute boss.

Like a boss indeed! As for myself I studied for a degree in History and Sociology at Manchester University back when I was at university, and researched Evacuation during World War II for my dissertation, although in Sociology we covered a lot on gender roles and how fashions have changed a lot, in fact I guess you could say we used sociology to look at historical societies and took an anthropologist's approach towards them.

So it's interesting how many people would see it as a scandal for boys/men to wear a dress/tights/long stockings when historically those have all been part of a male's wardrobe, because when you get down to it clothing is just fabric shaped a certain way with social meanings attached to them; a dress is for women/girls now but years ago it could quite easily be a tunic for men and boys, it's only how we see them that actually makes them so, and of course how we see things changes over time, so I just laugh when people say women/men can't wear a certain item of clothing, as though it's been set in stone for centuries and all eternity, if people actually knew their history I bet their views would change.

Edit - by the way that's Prince Leopold (Luitpold) of Bavaria too, not Belgium, although there is a Prince Leopold of Belgium too so it get's a bit confusing.

 

[Amethyst Wind]

Short skirts in winter. Any time period.

Put some damn trousers/tights/stockings/whatever on. You're shaking!

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Tights or leggings as alternatives to trousers. I can see your panties, ladies. I don?t know whether or not that?s what you were aiming for, but I haven?t heard of many people looking to get laid in a school.

Skinny jeans. I don?t really have anything against them, but?whenever I try to wear them, despite my friends saying that I have skinny legs that would suit nicely for them, they always tend to constrict around my crotch and I just feel uncomfortable. There?s this girl at my school who wears these trousers so goddamn skinny I had to double-check that she wasn?t just wearing dark tights.

Sagging trousers. It?s not cool, wannabe ?gangstas?. It?s just embarrassing.

Sandals or flip-flops. This is more of a personal thing, but I just don?t like seeing people?s toes.