Showing posts with label Fashion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fashion. Show all posts

Sunday, March 08, 2009

Hot Test

Rare is the day when I feel like the Sunday New York Times is worth five bucks. At least the fashion magazines provide some entertainment. What's up with the Burberry ad? I associate that label with 60-ish men, usually British, stodgy, conservative, and at the very least, graying hair. The guy on the right gets my hot vote of the day for best windswept hair.





I enjoy thumbing through the magazines looking for the most ridiculous outfit. Here's my pick for today. Who would wear this shit? It's like the guy went to the wildest all-night party of his life, somehow lost his clothes, and had to put on whatever he could find from a clown's closet.



Hot? Or Not?

Friday, August 15, 2008

Shoooooozzz!!!

They look comfy, don't they?



Via my ex-boss.

It gets worse...

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Just Say No to the Short Suit

There were many things in the New York Times which caught my attention this morning. So let's start with the United Nations turning up the thermostat to a sultry 77 degrees. Oh, the horror.

If my office was 77 I'd probably be having chills. Of course, I'm not wearing a stupid suit.
To help speed the transition, “there is going to a be a relaxing of the dress protocols,” said Mr. Adlerstein, which in nondiplomatic terms means he jettisoned his coat and tie for the news conference. There are serious doubts that will fly.

“People walking around without jackets on are not taken seriously” said one man from an organization that promotes renewable energy. “You have to follow protocol.”

What if Mr. Ban sets the example by removing his own tie, as his office said he would?

“Then the protocol will change,” the man said.

Screw "the man." And screw this insane "protocol." Who gives a rat's ass? Maybe they should actually get some work done instead of following protocol.

What's more important, superficial protocol or significantly reducing your carbon footprint and saving a hundred grand?
The building’s carbon dioxide emissions are expected to drop by an estimated 300 tons, and costs are expected to decrease by $100,000, according to Michael Adlerstein, who announced the experiment on Wednesday and who will oversee building renovations. He said savings could reach $1 million annually if the United Nations mandated temperature changes year round.


It's no secret that I despise dress codes, and business suits do not elevate a person's professional stature in my opinion. But I would never advocate a trend toward the "short suit." This is just bad on so many levels. This isn't even casual; it's like a casual Friday anxiety dream. What are they thinking and who is coming up with these ridiculous trends?



This outlandish pervsion gets worse...

NO NO NO!!!


Make it stop. NO black socks!!



Not (what? A typo in the New York Times??) a few designers are pushing men to expose more of the bodies that they have spent so much time perfecting at the gym. “We have all these self-imposed restrictions” about our dress, said Ben Clawson, the sales director for the designer Michael Bastian. “As men’s wear continues to evolve and becomes a little more casual without becoming grungy, it’s not impossible anymore to be dressed up in shorts.”

You, Mr. Clawson, need your head examined.

But if people want to look stupid and follow your lead, that's their business. But I will say this: there is no greater abomination on the planet than the contrast of a business suit from the waist up, and ugly shorts from the waist down.

Case closed.

I'm thinking I need to add a "bad taste" post label.

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Thank You SOS Chats

Early cat blogging: If you can read French, check out SOS Chats in Switzerland which I learned about today after reading an article in the New York Times. Even if you can't read French, the pictures are great.

Photo credit: Nicolas Righetti for The New York Times

I had no idea it was legal in Switzerland, of all places, to skin cats for their fur and sell the garments. Fortunately, this is about to change and hopefully this year.
While it is legal in Switzerland to shoot feral cats as well as domestic ones that stray more than 200 yards from their homes, it is not clear how many cats are hunted every year here and across the border in France, where residents have also complained about disappearing felines. One government official put the number at a couple of dozen. Luc Barthassat, a legislator with the Christian Democratic People’s Party, said about 2,000, but members of S O S Chats, an advocacy group, say tens of thousands are killed.

Estimates of the value of each pelt vary wildly. Mr. Barthassat said he had been told by tanners that they pay only about $5. But animal rights advocates say that hunters make much more than that, noting that some blankets made from 10 pelts sell at retail for more than $1,700.

But the numbers almost seemed beside the fact this fall, after a series of TV reports created a public furor. Three TV news crews from Switzerland and France conducted hidden-camera investigations that caught tanners who had officially denied trading in cat fur actively doing so and, in at least one case, explaining that cat meat was also available.

It's one thing to raise animals in captivity for pelts as well as hunting wild animals for the same reason, and I'm personally not a proponent of either. But at least I understand it. I'm less adverse to the idea if the wild animals being hunted are primarily used as food and the pelts are used secondarily to avoid wasting any part of the animal.

But people have been losing their beloved pets to this absurd practice. SOS Chats did a lot of work in exposing this and I'm very happy they did. If I knew someone had shot and killed any of my cats for pelts or meat I'd be tempted to reciprocate.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Stick Figure Income

As our economy downsizes, so do our male models.

Six-pack abs?


Nah. Too fat and bulky.

And pack your bags, Travis; your career is over as well. Those well-chiseled man-boobs and baby fat are so unappealing for 2008.



Meet the new definition of a sexy male bod. And sagging no less!


Where the masculine ideal of as recently as 2000 was a buff 6-footer with six-pack abs, the man of the moment is an urchin, a wraith or an underfed runt.

Nowhere was this more clear than at the recent men’s wear shows in Milan and Paris, where even those inured to the new look were flabbergasted at the sheer quantity of guys who looked chicken-chested, hollow-cheeked and undernourished.

Because, you know, a 28-inch waist is just to die for.
“I personally think that it’s the consumer that’s doing this, and fashion is just responding,” said Kelly Cutrone, the founder of People’s Revolution, a fashion branding and production company. “No one wants a beautiful women or a beautiful man anymore.”

Hey, speak for yourself!
George Brown, a booking agent at Red Model Management, said: “When I get that random phone call from a boy who says, ‘I’m 6-foot-1 and I’m calling from Kansas,’ I immediately ask, ‘What do you weigh?’ If they say 188 or 190, I know we can’t use him. Our guys are 155 pounds at that height.”

What next? The two-dimensional model?

I paid a quick visit to the Abercrombie & Fitch website just to see how their models are shaping up. Obviously they aren't on board yet with mega-skinny. And apparently they aren't pushing sales of underwear either.

Sunday, November 04, 2007

Two Sides of '77

It's hard to believe that 1977 was the year in which both of these made an appearance:






I was a junior in high school at the time, about to reach the proverbial fork in the road. I'm glad I went down the road of exhibit A rather than remaining on the goon squad road.

This collection of photos was sent to me by my ex-boss this weekend. I think it's one of those funny emails making the rounds, and the collection of photos probably originated on someone's blog. If I knew the source I'd certainly credit it, but it's too funny not to post these.

Remember these lovely furniture sets? Come on, I know you do. Everybody knew somebody who had them!



I'm not sure how much $400 in 1977 would be in today's dollars, adjusted for inflation, but rest assured it's TOO much! Actually I was looking for an online calculator to do the math. I didn't find one but I did find the box office intake for E.T. in 1977 converted to 2006 dollars and by using the same math, that furniture would be slightly over $1,300 today.

{kona takes a quick vomit break.}



OK, I'm back. It gets worse...



I remember these. I think I had one in bright yellow. I actually find that sitting on a cold toilet seat in the winter is sort of inhibiting to my desired business, so this was such a welcomed relief.

On the other hand, this look should have been illegal. And gross! I think the models were about to make out!



It may have been 1977 but JC Penney certainly had no problems with blatantly marketing to the homosexuals:



I'll confess I wore some pretty hideous shit back in the 70s, especially around 1974, but nothing that outrageous.



My God, did they pay someone to write that line??

Thankfully we've all made it to 2007 when fashion and marketing have definitely been kicked up several notches. Oh yeah...

Warning: This ad campaign might not play well in Mississippi.



Crossposted at Big Brass Blog

Monday, September 17, 2007

Fashion Flashback

Question of the Day:

What article of clothing have you ever thrown out or given to charity that you wish you'd kept?

Ten years ago, before moving to Austin, we were doing a lot of purging to keep the move as light and efficient as possible. I gave away a bass guitar and amp that I sort of wish I'd kept, I gave up a futon that I wish I'd never bought, and I gave away a fringe leather jacket that I'd purchased at a flea market way back in my Little Rock days. I think I paid about $100 for it and it was vingtage 60s hippie Dennis Hopper Easy Rider stuff. I'd give anything to have that back.

I also wish I'd hung on to a few t-shirts from concerts or those which I simply purchased because I liked the band. I had a bright yellow Buzzcocks shirt and a Siouxsie & the Banshees shirt. Those are missed.

txrad never seems to purge anything. This weekend while cleaning the closet shelves of all clothing I ran across several shirts of his. One was from the Who concert he went to in San Diego before we met.

And then there's this jewel from his high school days or shortly thereafter. Damn, he still looks hot in it.






Posted primarily for Lisa in Bismarck and Lori in Duluth.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Pull Up Your Pants Or Pay

Here we go again with more stupid and pointless laws. The Fashion Police now have their stingers out for saggers.

Starting in Louisiana, an intensifying push by lawmakers has determined pants worn low enough to expose underwear poses a threat to the public, and they have enacted indecency ordinances to stop it.

Since June 11, sagging pants have been against the law in Delcambre, La., a town of 2,231 that is 80 miles southwest of Baton Rouge. The style carries a fine of as much as $500 or up to a six-month sentence. “We used to wear long hair, but I don’t think our trends were ever as bad as sagging,” said Mayor Carol Broussard.

An ordinance in Mansfield, a town of 5,496 near Shreveport, subjects offenders to a fine (as much as $150 plus court costs) or jail time (up to 15 days). Police Chief Don English said the law, which takes effect Sept. 15, will set a good civic image.

Yeah, I'm sure these kids can part with that kind of money.

In the West Ward of Trenton, Councilwoman Annette Lartigue is drafting an ordinance to fine or enforce community service in response to what she sees as the problem of exposing private parts in public.

“It’s a fad like hot pants; however, I think it crosses the line when a person shows their backside,” Ms. Lartigue said. “You can’t legislate how people dress, but you can legislate when people begin to become indecent by exposing their body parts.”

What body parts? It's UNDERWEAR, and maybe you can detect an ass crack if the boxers are pulled up in there tight, but I gotta confess, I've seen more body parts and ass cracks from auto mechanics bending down to look under my car.


Hiroko Masuike for The New York Times



Does it look stupid? I don't know. Yeah, maybe. But since when is looking stupid or dressing stupid a crime? And why is the above considered obscene while the image below is considered attractive and fashionable?




It beats the shit out of me. Unless it's more about skin color and gender.

Not since the zoot suit has a style been greeted with such strong disapproval. The exaggerated boxy long coat and tight-cuffed pants, started in the 1930s, was the emblematic style of a subculture of young urban minorities. It was viewed as unpatriotic and flouted a fabric conservation order during World War II. The clothing was at the center of what were called Zoot Suit Riots in Los Angeles, racially motivated beatings of Hispanic youths by sailors. The youths were stripped of their garments, which were burned in the street.

Following a pattern of past fashion bans, the sagging prohibitions are seen by some as racially motivated because the wearers are young, predominantly African-American men.

Never mind that the bulk of these laws are being pushed by black officials. Perhaps it makes them more appealing to white voters.




Sag on, brothers!