![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Feb. 21st, 2007
Fashion Rant V: Men's magic suits
Feb. 21st, 2007 01:12 pmIs the three-piece suit universally flattering to men? If so, how is this possible?
Is it their uniformity? By making their wearer appear more or less "suit-shaped" rather than "Joe-Bob shaped," do they efface any irregularities in Joe-Bob's form?
Certainly, it is not easy for every man to find a well-fitted suit. Tall men, short men, barrel-chested men, long-armed men: they must search the specialty shops or else hire a tailor, or else they risk a suit with a too-short or too-long hem, or a too-tight jacket, or too-short sleeves.
And there are subtleties of suit design that escape me, as a non-suit-wearer, but I do know that not every man ought to wear a double-breasted suit, unless he is in the cast of Guys and Dolls. But it is hard to find a man looking actively bad in a suit that fits him moderately well. Perhaps only those with unfortunate necks - either too long or far too short - end up looking weird in a collared shirt and tie.
Is this because the suit covers all but the hands, neck and head? Again with the suit-shapedness of it.
But... certainly for women, there are those of us who look awful in anything that comes right up to the neck, like a collared shirt and tie, or a turtleneck. Is it the breasts that do it? Why can men achieve this look, nearly universally, whether they be skinny or plump, boxy or narrow? Men have different body types, too, yet I have never looked at a man and thought, "There's someone who shouldn't be wearing a suit."
Am I culturally conditioned to accept anyone in a suit as looking good? That seems like an odd proposition - shouldn't I also, then, accept anyone in a designer gown as looking good? The Fug Girls show, on a daily basis, that this is not true.
I keep leaning toward the uniformity of the suit as an answer. As long as it visually presents itself as "a suit," its mission is accomplished. The wearer is responsible only for making sure the shirt and tie match the jacket and pants, that his face is clean, and that his hair is well-done. (Because I have seen men in suits and wondered, "Who let him play with the hair gel?") The benefit is a certain surety of fashion - wear a suit and you will not go wrong. This is appealing, when compared with trying to balance the variables of women's wear (e.g., skirt or slacks, skirt length, blouse neckline, fabric choices, closeness of fit). On the downside, there is little room for personal expression, and you have to wear a tie, which I am reliably informed is a hell which bedevils men nearly as much as high heels bedevil women.
Is it their uniformity? By making their wearer appear more or less "suit-shaped" rather than "Joe-Bob shaped," do they efface any irregularities in Joe-Bob's form?
Certainly, it is not easy for every man to find a well-fitted suit. Tall men, short men, barrel-chested men, long-armed men: they must search the specialty shops or else hire a tailor, or else they risk a suit with a too-short or too-long hem, or a too-tight jacket, or too-short sleeves.
And there are subtleties of suit design that escape me, as a non-suit-wearer, but I do know that not every man ought to wear a double-breasted suit, unless he is in the cast of Guys and Dolls. But it is hard to find a man looking actively bad in a suit that fits him moderately well. Perhaps only those with unfortunate necks - either too long or far too short - end up looking weird in a collared shirt and tie.
Is this because the suit covers all but the hands, neck and head? Again with the suit-shapedness of it.
But... certainly for women, there are those of us who look awful in anything that comes right up to the neck, like a collared shirt and tie, or a turtleneck. Is it the breasts that do it? Why can men achieve this look, nearly universally, whether they be skinny or plump, boxy or narrow? Men have different body types, too, yet I have never looked at a man and thought, "There's someone who shouldn't be wearing a suit."
Am I culturally conditioned to accept anyone in a suit as looking good? That seems like an odd proposition - shouldn't I also, then, accept anyone in a designer gown as looking good? The Fug Girls show, on a daily basis, that this is not true.
I keep leaning toward the uniformity of the suit as an answer. As long as it visually presents itself as "a suit," its mission is accomplished. The wearer is responsible only for making sure the shirt and tie match the jacket and pants, that his face is clean, and that his hair is well-done. (Because I have seen men in suits and wondered, "Who let him play with the hair gel?") The benefit is a certain surety of fashion - wear a suit and you will not go wrong. This is appealing, when compared with trying to balance the variables of women's wear (e.g., skirt or slacks, skirt length, blouse neckline, fabric choices, closeness of fit). On the downside, there is little room for personal expression, and you have to wear a tie, which I am reliably informed is a hell which bedevils men nearly as much as high heels bedevil women.
There be a new blogger yn Geoffery Chaucer's collaboracioun: Tremulus Æscgar, who would rather be yclept scop than poet.
Firstly, the author writes in a more archaic Middle English, which matches well with what I remember reading/struggling through when dealing with more northern authors.
Secondly, he also writes in Old English - but thoughtfully provides glosses in Middle English.
Thirdly, he writes love poetry, as shown by "Þin Leoð," which means "Þin Songe," or "Thine Song."
Firstly, the author writes in a more archaic Middle English, which matches well with what I remember reading/struggling through when dealing with more northern authors.
Secondly, he also writes in Old English - but thoughtfully provides glosses in Middle English.
Thirdly, he writes love poetry, as shown by "Þin Leoð," which means "Þin Songe," or "Thine Song."