I've had this idea rattling around for the past couple of days that i would like your opinions on.

I feel that those dedicated followers of fashion, are in fact doing so because of a weakness, they are afraid to be different. The clothing industry knows this of course, and changes fashion so quickly that the victims of it are forever playing catchup. They are spending all there money so that they can look like everyone else! Sounds mad doesn't it, but if they are out of fashion then they will be frowned apon by their peers. They follow fashion so blindly that they wear clothes that they personally don't like, so that they can fit in!

Anyone who looks different is shunned by society, the freaks and the goths, are but two examples of the "ooh! look at them, aren't they weird" set. However those who do not follow fashion and instead wear what they choose to wear and craft for themselves a style that reflects their personality, are generally stronger minded people, who have a better idea of who they are, and are not afraid to show it.

(gerneralising to freaks and goths is wrong of me, and they have there own sub-fashion which people are equally likely to follow blindly, but i hope it gives you the idea i was trying to get across)

We are coerced from early child hood by television, radio, newpaper and magazine advertisements, peer groups and even our parents to look and act a certain way.
It didn't stop just with the way you look but how you think and act have been manipulated, don't forget that drinking the right beer helps along with the right car and enough money and education to be worthy of societies standards.

It's a wonderful life.[img]http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/orang-utan.gif[/img]

Laz, I love your topic.
From what I understand the fashion you are talking about is mainstream fashion? Elsa Klentsch fashion?
For me fashion is free-flowing creativity and expression; I used wear t-shirts made out of garbage bags, leatherpants, feathers, fur, high heels, chinese dresses, my mother´s dirndls, Doc Martins, cotton school girl dresses, saris, bondage look, tribal messy stuff, never because anyone told me, always because I loved to play with fabrics, colours, shades, moods, emotions, touch, with people´s responses....
It´s no problem. It´s a game and one of the greatest samsaric pleasures. Don´t worry about others. Just do it.
LOVE
Piratjenny

I have a friend who uses fashion to be attract girls and bang the hell out of them for his own evil needs. Such is the very nature of fashion.... sex anyway... not being a creep like my buddy. Fashion is sexually based. So whats your sex? What makes you feel sexy? A lot of people out there trying to keep up with fashion know this in an unconcious way and aren't even aware they are trying to be sexy. But that gullibility is what designers need to make you believe their sex is your sex and wearing their sexy stuff makes you sexy. When you apply this concept it can be very interesting. Simply configuring your style one way or another can attract a variety of different sexual energies (people) to you. Sexy sleek suits show money and power and will attract that kind of energy. My buddy whom I spoke of has no money or power, but sometimes wears a suit when he goes out female prowling, knowing full well the suit implies a higher level of importance around him. And it works Im sorry to say, girls fall for it. But my buddys a dirty slut.  : And I think your right Laz with notion of stronger minded people wearing what they want to wear. To me sexy isnt being primpt up wearing trendy dumb garbage clothing. Sexy for me is keeping it simple and real and feeling comfy. And thats who I am in a nutshell when it boils down. Simple, real, and comfy. Thats how I like existence..... and ladies.  ;D

Every modification of the body has to do with statements of sex and power. In New Guinea it´s putting a bone through your nose, in Kenya it´s ritual scarring, in Polynesia it´s tatoos, in the west it´s wearing a suit. You have to look deeper. It´s a mating game and it works within the context of a culture. If a woman wants a provider, somebody who feeds her and her offspring, she might go for a suit guy. If she wants emotional safety and security, she will rather fall for a "simple, real and comfy" guy. I would run as fast as I can - both are unsexy and stereotype. Suits are the unform of the corporate soldier and simple and comfy sounds like smelly old sneakers.... I like it when people express themselves with their outfits, when you can see their inner being shining through, phantasy, creativity... beyond cultural cliches....
And, yes, it is easier for women to be playful with fashion, we have more choices.
LOVE
PJ

Interesting don't you think how we make appearances so important rather than seeing what is inside a person.
I wonder if stereotyping what is on the outside as an an expression of what is inside of a person is an accurate standard.
I have met some pretty wonderful people who by their own ideas of what they should be wearing to be successful and popular wore clothes that didn't really show me what or who they were.
I can't just look at a person anymore and say by their appearances that they are this way or that way.
I think people need to get a grip on themselves and look for the person inside rather than the fluff and advertisement of false presentation.
I also think this would apply to those that are trying to express themselves in order to advertise or sell themselves as well as those that are trying to follow the ideas just to fit in by accepting such a weak foundation as a representation of character and personality.
Some of the younger kids these days actually admire someone who can drink more than anyone else and still stand after so many hours in displaying their stupidity. They admire freedom of expression because it seems to show them that freedom from fear of inadequacy can be overcome by wearing the suit on the outside.

QUOTE

Anyone who looks different is shunned by society, the freaks and the goths, are but two examples of the "ooh! look at them, aren't they weird" set.

what's absolutely hilarious is that the looker and the looked at are one and the same.  Only the unenlightened are deluded by separation and multiplicity.

QUOTE

those who do not follow fashion and instead wear what they choose to wear and craft for themselves a style that reflects their personality, are generally stronger minded people, who have a better idea of who they are, and are not afraid to show it.

of course, you're talking about people like yourself, Laz.   Such blatantly biased statements are practically screaming, "Hey! It's me, the EGO speaking!  Everyone pay attention to MEEEEE!!!!!"  

Let's get beyond blatant ego-centrism, shall we?   And not by pirating Nike slogans, like piratjenny did with her trite "Just do it!"

Shindak, you make the point that outer appearances can be projections from our inner world, whereas Carl raises the objection that appearances can often be deceiving.  Ok, so what's new here?    

What do we care about our appearance?  Fools care to the extent that they wish to receive "approval" from others.   Don Juans care to the extent that they attract the opposite sex.  More intelligent/enlightened beings care to the extent that they communicate important information to other beings, such as inner state, for example.    

What is appearance?  It's mere representation.   All we know are our own representations.   When we laugh at the way someone looks, we're laughing at our own representation of that person.  Hence, we're laughing at ourselves.    And a good laugh is needed every now and then, is it not?   MUAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Any girls here?
LOVE
Piratjenny ;D

QUOTE

What do we care about our appearance?  Fools care to the extent that they wish to receive "approval" from others.   Don Juans care to the extent that they attract the opposite sex.  More intelligent/enlightened beings care to the extent that they communicate important information to other beings, such as inner state, for example.

I like this guy!

QUOTE

I like this guy

looks like it could be the beginning of a lovely partnership.........

of terrorism!

QUOTE

what's absolutely hilarious is that the looker and the looked at are one and the same.  Only the unenlightened are deluded by separation and multiplicity. Â

interesting..., you see meaning exists in the distinction looker/looked (by recognizing the 'elements' of the distinction) and then declare that assuming a personal position relative to the implications of this distinction as delusional (implying that distinctions are somehow intrinsically false)  which makes me wonder, how can you assume a personal position relative to the distinction enlightened/unenlightened ? (as you clearly do) are you intentionally delusional?

QUOTE

of course, you're talking about people like yourself, Laz.   Such blatantly biased statements are practically screaming, "Hey! It's me, the EGO speaking!  Everyone pay attention to MEEEEE!!!!!"   Â

kind of like your post, eh?  

QUOTE

Let's get beyond blatant ego-centrism, shall we?   And not by pirating Nike slogans, like piratjenny did with her trite "Just do it!"

yes, let's use a less obvious form of ego-centrism!  we can instead pirate religious slogans like you did with your fantasy "our ground of being is bottomless"

QUOTE

What do we care about our appearance?  Fools care to the extent that they wish to receive "approval" from others.   Don Juans care to the extent that they attract the opposite sex.  More intelligent/enlightened beings care to the extent that they communicate important information to other beings, such as inner state, for example.   Â

what is an 'inner state', if not the 'need' of a fool to be accepted or the 'need' of a Don Juan to get tang?  your equation of 'inner state' with the 'spiritualistic' version and the subsequent valuation as 'important' sounds suspiciously self-serving........

QUOTE

What is appearance?  It's mere representation.   All we know are our own representations.   When we laugh at the way someone looks, we're laughing at our own representation of that person.  Hence, we're laughing at ourselves.   Â

I would argue that 'appearance' is not a representation, but a presentation.  I often laugh at the presentations of others, because these presentations can appear totally absurd and yet be relentlessly defended to the point of blind emotionalism.  :-*


8)

QUOTE

I like this guy!

is this a form of self-love, preacher joe, to the extent that you like yourself, or do you not recognize me?    

QUOTE

interesting, so you feel competent in identifying a looker and a looked

what's even more interesting is that you feel competent to defend the deluded.   How do you justify this to yourself, or are you deluded too?

QUOTE

kind of like your post, eh?  :P

right back at you, Dan!  :-*    And I couldn't help noticing that you've made many such posts.

QUOTE

we can instead pirate religious slogans like you did with your fantasy "our ground of being is bottomless"

and where do you think I pirated that from?   In fact, the quote was created by me on the spot, though I don't doubt that others may have spoken it before, but it would still be me all the same.  It is a simple truth really.  I know, because I've tasted of the abyss, and am emerging from it's depths, as we speak.

QUOTE

what is an 'inner state', if not the 'need' of a fool to be accepted or the 'need' of a Don Juan to get tang?

these needs of which you speak are worthless and have more in common with the apes and the dull of thought than with the spiritual man.   Dan, I look on you as I do on my appendix, as something I can't exert gross voluntary control over, but still a part of me, nonetheless.  The question for you is, whether you're as useless as an appendix, or whether you have some function or calling in life.  So, which is it?

QUOTE

I would argue...

blah, blah, blah!  You can argue no such nonsense in the presence of one who knows.   Dan, your entire life is mere mental representation which gets extinguished every night when you go to sleep.   Do you really value that so much?  Have you not ventured to look behind the representation?  Have you not ventured to look beyond your own ego?  Such presumption as yours, what should be done about it?   If we trained apes to talk and communicate with us, they'd probably never believe, nor comprehend, our spiritual nature and experiences.  So, what are we to do with such apes?  Can they ever become more than mere laughing stock?  Well, can they??

I need no attention from others.  I express myself without any external justification.  It is merely my inner nature playing itself out.  As such, I do not rely on external approval of my actions.  I act, because that is my nature.  I act from my own inner necessity, an inner necessity that has nothing in common with fools and Don Juans.   I honestly don't expect you to understand of the things I speak, but hopefully, someday you will.

You've been brought up in an illusion, Dan.  It takes time to get free.  Work towards that, night and day, and maybe then we can exchange some meaningful words.

Hi AG,
I don't believe in God but I believe in You.

You say that the 'looker' is the same as the 'looked at'.
I don't understand this apparent inabilty to differentiate between 'objects'.
You give the same sort of response to Joe (I think) who 'likes this guy'. You say he likes himself.
What are you implying by this 'reflection' hypothesis?
I ask this question in sincerity; it is something I have not come across before.
The nearest I can come to comprehending you is the situation where people laugh at someone elses downfall - really they are glad it didn't happen to them, and are thankful - and therefore laugh!

Best regards, Bill.
PS I think the originator chose 'week' rather than 'weak' not as a typo but because fashion doesn't last long (I may be wrong, but it is fashionable to give the benefit of the doubt)!

Bill,
It is just Preacher Joe/Carl/AG spamming the thread and hijacking it in his never ending attempt to get attention.  

Thanks for your replies, it's been interesting reading your views and trying to build up a picture of the person on the other end of the comments.

A couple of people have eluded to it but no-one has out and out put a case for the opposite; Fashion is a meaningless nothing, it does not reflect anything more about a person than a liking for nice clothes.  

it's easy to stereotype, it's not easy to see what's on the inside.

I do not follow fashion as such, I choose to wear Surf/Skate clothes, but I do not hang around with any Surfers or Skaters. My clothes do not present/represent my personality but i'm sure i'm judged by people i meet, and stuck in a pigeon hole like everyone else.

Is my mind unneccessarily weak because of my clothes? No.

So it's probably just my egocentric mind that wants people who all look the same to be stupid, I should probably ask, do like minded people dress the same?

The ansewr is probably yes/no/ish? you can't tell unless you get to know them!

QUOTE

interesting, so you feel competent in identifying a looker and a looked   what's even more interestinge is that you feel competent to defend the deluded.   How do you justify this to yourself, or are you deluded too?

what even morer interestinger is that you feel that I believe they are deluded!  It was you who decided they were deluded, I merely asked how you, in viewing the 'inner state' of others in such a way, could avoid seeing yourself as deluded.

QUOTE

kind of like your post, eh?   right back at you, Dan!      And I couldn't help noticing that you've made many such posts.

so is this an agreement that you are craving attention, or a denial that either of us are craving attention, or simply the exercise of the classic 'I know you are but what am I   ' ??

QUOTE

we can instead pirate religious slogans like you did with your fantasy "our ground of being is bottomless"   and where do you think I pirated that from?   In fact, the quote was created by me on the spot, though I don't doubt that others may have spoken it before, but it would still be me all the same.  It is a simple truth really.  I know, because I've tasted of the abyss, and am emerging from it's depths, as we speak.

I think you 'channeled' it from your religious brainwashing.  I think you haven't tasted the full flavor of the abyss, but have been deluded into thinking you have  :-*

QUOTE

what is an 'inner state', if not the 'need' of a fool to be accepted or the 'need' of a Don Juan to get tang?   these needs of which you speak are worthless and have more in common with the apes and the dull of thought than with the spiritual man. Â

yes, I can see your importance more clearly....

QUOTE

Dan, I look on you as I do on my appendix, as something I can't exert gross voluntary control over, but still a part of me, nonetheless. Â

yeah, I kind of figured that out already.  You are God, after all......

QUOTE

The question for you is, whether you're as useless as an appendix, or whether you have some function or calling in life.  So, which is it?

my calling is to push your buttons and make you sing, byotch!  

QUOTE

blah, blah, blah!  You can argue no such nonsense in the presence of one who knows.

what you meant was since I have decided that I 'know all', any contradiction of my statements is wrong by definition  to which I say 'pshah!' ;D

QUOTE

Dan, your entire life is mere mental representation which gets extinguished every night when you go to sleep.

and it is merely a result of experiencing reality, which is not merely extinguished when I go to sleep at night (reality, that is).

QUOTE

Do you really value that so much?

I tend to value experience, and I tend to value pleasant experience more than unpleasant experience

QUOTE

Have you not ventured to look behind the representation?  Have you not ventured to look beyond your own ego?

Have you ever ventured the thought that your sense of having done so is also a delusion?

QUOTE

Such presumption as yours, what should be done about it?   If we trained apes to talk and communicate with us, they'd probably never believe, nor comprehend, our spiritual nature and experiences.  So, what are we to do with such apes?  Can they ever become more than mere laughing stock?  Well, can they??

such presumption as yours, to value your own 'spiritual nature' and experience over an ape's.  So, what are we to do with you?  Can you ever become more than a mere selfish raving lunatic?  Well, can you??

QUOTE

I need no attention from others.  I express myself without any external justification.  It is merely my inner nature playing itself out.  As such, I do not rely on external approval of my actions.  I act, because that is my nature.  I act from my own inner necessity, an inner necessity that has nothing in common with fools and Don Juans. Â

translation (a la Cartman from South Park):
whatever, I'll do what I want!

QUOTE

I honestly don't expect you to understand of the things I speak, but hopefully, someday you will.

the longer you can hold that thought, the longer you can rant and rave

QUOTE

You've been brought up in an illusion, Dan. Â

that's just an illusion of yours!

QUOTE

It takes time to get free.  Work towards that, night and day, and maybe then we can exchange some meaningful words.

right back atcha!  

8)

QUOTE

It is just Preacher Joe/Carl/AG spamming the thread and hijacking it in his never ending attempt to get attention.

It seems pretty distinct from the normal tone of Joe, are you sure of this?  (i.e., have you traced the IP address of AG and come up with Joe's?)

;D

Dan,
congratulations on mastering the art of being petty.   I know of many teenagers that would envy your abilities.  Fortunately, there are more important items on my agenda than debating dilettantes or engaging in childish games and the deliberate twisting of arguments and the propagation of misunderstanding.   Your psyche amuses me, but does not hold my interest.   And since it's evidently devoid of depth, there's little point in continuing this exchange.

Synchronox,
No-one in their right frame of mind, and of sane and rational mind, would regard my posts as spam, but as valid contributions to the subject of this thread.   Regarding Preacher Joe/Carl/AG, I am this person to the same extent as I am you or anyone else.  For your understanding, it suffices for me to say that we are different people.  For those of higher understanding, they know better.

Bill,
it's not so much an inability to differentiate between 'objects', as the ability to see the common source from which all 'objects', mental representations, spring from, and to realize that everything springs from the same source.   We are all one and the same.  Only delusion convinces us otherwise.   There is no separate 'me' and 'you';  there is only one.  You may not possess my memories, or some of the structure of my psyche, but beneath all this, there is the one substance, the one that is common to all, the one who sees all;  You are that.    This is the reflection hypothesis you referred to.   It is not like me laughing at someone else's downfall, but is like me laughing at myself for part of me downfalling.

QUOTE

congratulations on mastering the art of being petty.

thanks!  I owe a lot of the credit to all the little people out there, they known who they are.  And I'd like to thank the apes and the idiots andthestupi...........

QUOTE

I know of many teenagers that would envy your abilities.

I try, I try.....  ;D

QUOTE

Fortunately, there are more important items on my agenda than debating dilettantes or engaging in childish games and the deliberate twisting of arguments and the propagation of misunderstanding.

I'm thinking the highlighted activites pretty much cover your agenda, although you might be deluded into seeing it otherwise!

party on!
8)

QUOTE

is this a form of self-love, preacher joe, to the extent that you like yourself, or do you not recognize me?

Yes!
More specifically in retrospect, it seems to have fit the moment don't you think?

John, You're obsessing again.
I'm afraid the Rakshasas are multiplying.

What a hyprocrite discussion!
Each one of you who is cursing and swearing against the evils of fashion frivolities, worldy pleasures and superficial appearance will turn his head when he sees a beautiful woman walking down the street. And when she wears highheels and a miniskirt you will turn your head twice. Or till you needs a spinal adjustment.
But you are not ashamed to sound like a bunch of taliban on acid praising the simple and comfy style of the burkha. Or like the Pope and his horny priests talking in their sleep...

You have learned the lessions of duality and morality well and now you try to sell it as your homemade enlightenment.
Hahaha!
and
LOVE
Piratjenny 8)

'People are people everywhere.' I know it's a cliche but whoever came up with it had a point. If people want to follow the crowd and be fashionable, I'm not going to judge them for that. Likewise if people wear whatever they want, I'm not going to judge them for that either. I know some strong-minded people who fit in with the crowd not because they fell compelled to, they just like it that way.

P.S

Synchronox, Joe is annoying, and preachery and close-minded, but nowhere have I seen him use the same kind of obnoxious tone that Anonymous God uses. I think they are probably different people (to the limited perceptions of us poor unenlightened ones, of course).

QUOTE

'People are people everywhere.' I know it's a cliche but whoever came up with it had a point. If people want to follow the crowd and be fashionable, I'm not going to judge them for that. Likewise if people wear whatever they want, I'm not going to judge them for that either. I know some strong-minded people who fit in with the crowd not because they fell compelled to, they just like it that way. Â

What we lack is a clear definition of what fashion is. I understand that for you it would be following the crowd. For me fashion would be developing a style that suits my energy. Laz says he does not wear fashion, he wears surfer´s clothes. But sportswear has become a huge segment of fashion. Anti-fashion has become fashion - look at punk, at goth, at vintage fashion.
No matter what clothes you put on - you will make a fashion statement. If you put on no clothes, you will make a fashion statement too.

A few years ago I was in an elevator in Disneyland, with eight or ten women. They all wore the same bermuda shorts, the same baggy t-shirts, the same sneakers and the same tennis socks, even same same little clipped off noses. They spoke about the dictatorship of french fashion designers and how good it feels to be an individuum....
LOVE
PJ  ;D

seanf and everybody,
It is the style that made me wonder if they were not the same, and if not at least out of the same camp.
I have met superior people in my time, all of them were humble.  A code of ethics with few exceptions.
The self proclaimed in-touch-with-God-crowd exhibit this mean spirited, look down their nose superiority that is like a hall-mark of their trade.
If I were God, I would be saying, "Thank God I am not a God proclaiming man"
These are the people that know they know the truth.
They are the 'chosen ones',  It is this type that kills millions in the name of God if they ascend to power.

QUOTE

Each one of you who is cursing and swearing against the evils of fashion frivolities, worldy pleasures and superficial appearance will turn his head when he sees a beautiful woman walking down the street. And when she wears highheels and a miniskirt you will turn your head twice.

Speaking personally, I love the female form and although the dress may be icing on the cake any fantasies that I may indulge are always habitually sexual in nature. I may be enlightened but I am not dead.
You seem to associate an enlightened person with a lotus posture, a loin cloth and a cave.
The ability to witness the thoughts that draw you outward and away from the inner Self is the first step in making choices to live the life that is not victimized by outer appearances and stimulation.
Harmlessness first comes with discipline to find the Self and then recognise what separates you from it. Once mastering that then life copliments creation. Actions become divine and all life is.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge another if you yourself would like to eliminate hypocracy from your life and your own actions.
This thread is tantamount to the first step in recognising habit born of programming and the awareness that we all create from different programs.
Once the programs are recognised then change comes from within rather than from external means to save yourself from your own habits by removing any temptation.
For a group that claims scientific and logical reasoning you all seem to miss the point of your own evolution and relish in condemning others for personal and emotional inadequacies.

QUOTE

I may be enlightened but I am not dead.

Not yet.

QUOTE

 You seem to associate an enlightened person with a lotus posture, a loin cloth and a cave.

Yes. It should be clear by now that I am a big fan of ascetism. I have I dry hostia for lunch, spent the whole afternoon in silent prayer and sleep on a bed of nettle leaves.

QUOTE

Speaking personally, I love the female form and although the dress may be icing on the cake any fantasies that I may indulge are always habitually sexual in nature.

It´s called mindfucking, Joe.


 

QUOTE

 I wouldn't be so quick to judge another if you yourself would like to eliminate hypocracy from your life and your own actions.

Yes. But I like my life just the way it is. I know that makes wannabe gurus like you unemployed but maybe you can go on welfare?
LOVE
PJ



PS:

QUOTE

 For a group that claims scientific and logical reasoning you all seem to miss the point of your own evolution and relish in condemning others for personal and emotional inadequacies.

I know. All these personal and emotional inadequacies of others. Your little world must be full of them...

Re:Is fashion for the week minded?
Re:Is fashion for the week minded?
Re:Is fashion for the week minded?
Re:Is fashion for the week minded?

Hi All,

Returning to the topic, I presume the originator intended the 'week' to imply that 'FASHION' doesn't last long (for reasons explained below).

I believe FASHION here implies the fashion imposed on those members of the public, both male and female, who prefer someone else (for whatever reason) to decide what they should wear .

I believe FASHION is a marketing ploy which keeps many thousands of people in work by creating demand for (usually) more expensive clothing. This is why FASHIONS change so frequently.
I believe it is up to the individual to choose what to buy!

Best regards, Bill

Oh good, I'm glad were all on the same page again.
Smoochies PJ!!

Hey Joey

I'm starting to like you more, except while reading your occasional blowhardy tomes

keep it real, brah

QUOTE

Hey Joey I'm starting to like you more, except while reading your occasional blowhardy tomes keep it real, brah

I used to say lifes a bitch and then you die but I stopped because I find that life is only what you make of it. Sometimes ya gotta take the salt with the sugar.

[img]http://www.willrich.supanet.com/entertainment/7.gif[/img]

Pj: "I like my life just the way it is. I know that makes wannabe gurus like you unemployed but maybe you can go on welfare?"

Good! Not enough people think like this.

Pj:  "What we lack is a clear definition of what fashion is. I understand that for you it would be following the crowd. For me fashion would be developing a style that suits my energy."

I would refer to 'fashion' as being designer labels, following the crowd, whats 'in' and 'out,' etc. What you refer to I think of as 'fashion sense,' which is developing your own style etc. Once again I say do what you want, what you wear is up to you (in a general sense - I'm aware that you, Jenni, are very obviously already in control and doing what you want).

QUOTE

I would refer to 'fashion' as being designer labels, following the crowd, whats 'in' and 'out,' etc. What you refer to I think of as 'fashion sense,' which is developing your own style etc. Once again I say do what you want, what you wear is up to you (in a general sense - I'm aware that you, Jenni, are very obviously already in control and doing what you want).

Well, my take on fashion in culture is that fashion is dead. Like God....

In the middle ages, in Roman and Greek times fashion was clearly defined and it staid for a long time. A toga or a sandal was worn in a certain way, the hairdo of a Roman woman was exactly the same for centuries, a Renaissance dress, even Victorian and Edwardian fashion did not change in decades.

What you are describing is a post-war phenomena you and I grew up with. Fashion changed every year, mini skirts came, maxi skirts came, metallic look, punk, grundge. Fashion was mirroring society, fashion was picking up impulses from the streets and from the collective unconcious, trying to integrate them into mainstream culture: Mini skirts came up in synchronicity with sexual liberation and the pill, psychedelic patterns became en vogue with expanded use of recreational drugs, jeans fashion camoflaged the limits of social cast and gender and so on.

This has changed since a few years. The clothing industry is bigger than ever, no doubt. But fashion as a yearly changing phenomena has disapeared. Only an expert can tell a haute couture dress from 1992 apart from one of 2003. Could you tell me what is IN right now? Or what is OUT? Fashion went through so many waves of retro - the 50-ties, the 60-ties, the 70-ties, the 80-ties were declared to be chic again, so that a woman can basically wear anything right now.  That men are more limited in their means of expression is again not caused by the evils of fashion but simply mirroring their role in culture and society.

Contemporary culture has become so complex that there are no clear impulses anymore that could inspire fashion. The consumer chooses between a large selection and is creating his or her own style, conciously or unconciously.
LOVE
PJ

Nothing in life really remains the same by definition and appearance as long as it is subject to interpretation, look how many ideas are given about this subject right now.
Some clothes less influenced by western ideas in fashion before function served a purpose.
The romans wore dress that allowed ease of movement and comfort. The desert bedouin not thinking appearance as important as function layers long garments to retain moisture and stabilize body heat.
Todays fashion as deemed for the "weak minded" follows a trend to individualize ones self so that they might stand out amongst the rest. Making a statement about ones individuality can be egotistical or from a place of low self worth, it says" look at me I am my own person set aside from the rest of the lemmings, or I am one of you and am acceptible too."
 Whether judgment about labels based on stereotyping or pride in indivduality illusions are made from the ideas of what is better than another.
I think it will be a long time before the mindset can allow appearance to be, without attaching the judgments and purpose that might go beyond the function that arose from basic needs to protect the body from the changes in tempurature and the damage to the more tender parts of the body that could occur while running through the briar patch.
The ability to just find fun in dress without the stress of wondering if what is worn can perfectly express ones individualtiy or self worth seems pretty scarce these days.

QUOTE

Some clothes less influenced by western ideas in fashion before function served a purpose.    The romans wore dress that allowed ease of movement and comfort. The desert bedouin not thinking appearance as important as function layers long garments to retain moisture and stabilize body heat.

Anthropological romanticism. Indigenous people all over the world have tortured their bodies with painful tatoos (Polynesia, Indonesia), scars (Africa), manipulations of the neck vertebras (the "giraffe women" of Burma), pierced male genitals (New Guinea),  wooden lip pegs (Senegal) and so on. Roman and greek women dyed their hair with saffran and wore make-up made of crimson and powdered lapislazuli, not functional at all but beautiful. Even the earliest findings of human remains indicate bodypainting with ochre. Manipulation of the body, fashion, jewelery, decoration and cosmetics are part of being human and are seen all over the globe.  

QUOTE

 The ability to just find fun in dress without the stress of wondering if what is worn can perfectly express ones individualtiy or self worth seems pretty scarce these days.

Not where I am.
LOVE
PJ

QUOTE

What you are describing is a post-war phenomena you and I grew up with.

No I didn't! I haven't grown up yet! I'm 15 - one of the board's resident teenagers.  ;D

Post-Falkland war then?  :-[

What are your ideas on teen fashion? Do you feel pressured to wear certain things? To be part of the crowd or to be different from grown-ups?
LOVE
PJ

I'm not the most socially active teenager you'll ever meet, and we have a uniform in school, so fashion isn't a big worry for me. I tend to wear just whatever casual stuff I pick up off the pile - usually black jeans and black, green, or blue shirts and jumpers. I don't really experiment with style or anything - I wear clothes I feel comfortable in.

 I'm only 17, and I think most of the pressure on fashion comes from me instead of at me. I catch all kinds of kids wearing name brands like Hurley, Quiksilver and all sorts of others, and I simply ask..."Why are you wearing it?" I generally wear black... and not because I'm Goth or anything, but simply because I like it, you know? I only wear name brand stuff if I like the way it looks, but I don't if it makes me into a public billboard for a clothing company.

 It's really hard for me to associate myself with today's youth. It's like I grew up too fast. I'm consistently questioning social and moral standards, while at the same time trying to explain noncomformity to my generation. Were anyone else's teenage years like this? I feel like I'm already an adult since I've matured so much, but my years don't agree with my mind. It's like I'm held back by the image that the rest of the immature high school youth is offering to the adults.

 Talk about alienation....

There's a great bit of philosophy on certain coloured items of clothing:

Wash dark colours seperately.

Agnostic4now: "It's really hard for me to associate myself with today's youth. It's like I grew up too fast. I'm consistently questioning social and moral standards, while at the same time trying to explain noncomformity to my generation. Were anyone else's teenage years like this? I feel like I'm already an adult since I've matured so much, but my years don't agree with my mind. It's like I'm held back by the image that the rest of the immature high school youth is offering to the adults."

Me: Yeah, I went through that when I was 13 to 14. I learned to get over my arrogance (I'm not suggesting you are arrogant, but I was, and you might be - all IMO of course) and accept my age group for the way they were (and are). Since then, 'maturity' has become a dirty word for me - I think it's used by people saying other people should be more like them. It's good to question social and moral standards, and keep on thinking about stuff (read: everything), but try and enjoy being a teenager as well. All this is, as always, based on my own experience, but it worked for me, and your situation sounds similar. Feel free to argue, ask questions, whatever - I hope I can be of help.

 Hmmm.... you know, it's just that I feel like I can't relate to anyone. It's not that I'm better than anybody. It's just a sort of thing where I could talk about science and writing all day in detail, and everyone wants to go to a football game or call the person they're "seeing." I guess that makes me a nerd. Whatever. It's just that I cant relate to the nerds at my school either, since my opinions get me in trouble, social-wise.

 I love Paxil.