The double standard of false modesty

Doing something only because you’re told to is worse than not doing it at all.

And then if it’s really about a human virtue, the men would also be held to the same requirement. There’s no logical justification for acting like men are the only sex to lust. You can’t have the women being holier than the men, can you? Thus, monks and nuns wore similar attire.

Nobody cared, it was just and the system worked.
Saxon men wore leggings first, they were not considered sexy. How immoral must you be to immediately start thinking of random people in sexual terms? What is wrong with you? They even do this with children. Is it safe to bend over around you? What about naked farm animals? The kind of people who would literally skirt a table-leg. They didn’t have the word projection back in the day.

I won’t go into the sexuality confound. Maybe the impossible notion of “temptation” by the opposite sex wouldn’t be the worst thing for them? Then again, temptation has never been an excuse for anything, ever.

The Muslims pushing the niqab and hijab do not wear it themselves, so they don’t really believe it makes them better Muslims. Even if they didn’t ‘have’ to wear it, as men, they should to be on the safe side.

Let me correct a common myth in this discussion.

The change in the ‘modesty’ of European clothing was actually a textile revolution in the Middle Ages. They weren’t choosing to wear those frumpy clothes, they had no others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_medieval_clothing

In fact, if they looked at modern man and woman, man would be considered more immodest because Speedos and toplessness, chest waxing and tan make-up are expected. By quantitative measures, men show more skin yet women do not commit most of the sexual crimes. The red pill burns.

If you wanted to spot a modern “whore”, tan is the modern rouge.

Respect isn’t rooted in what a person wears (and is no longer a reliable proxy for what someone does, like in olden days) but what they do wear is more an expression of culture (or subculture) than the individual. Clothing is deeply social i.e. trends win out. I don’t care how much you love the Victorians, most people don’t wear steampunk all year round.

The Industrial Revolution up until around war-time led to fabric innovations again (in the latter to spare important fabrics for soldiers) that were warmer but thinner e.g. rayon, polyester, nylon, or styles of dress and cut of suit that were easier to walk in but required the new, advanced sewing machines (with patterns selling like hotcakes). This is quite easy to spot visually. You can see it less so with shoes.

Modern suits on men don’t hang like this, although this 1940s example is a fine half-way point from the Victorian layering to modern minimalism (both suck but at least the Victorians looked like men, modern men look like boyish female models, the androgyny is deliberate). Men also shed most of their tailored shapewear under-garments in the Edwardian era, for clothing rations. They didn’t want them back, like women with corsets, bustles, frilly under-shirts, it’s a rare man today that wears a wife-beater, a girdle (men wore them first), a waistcoat et cetera on top of his external public clothes.

Nowadays, it is rare to see a man wearing “dress shoes”, a suit or a hat – unless forced.

We need less fabric. This is historically novel. We spend less, consume less and move easier. These practical considerations win out in our time of office workers, who needn’t wear all the outer layers of a manual labourer because central heating doesn’t replicate the elements. In fact, that would be a bad idea all around. First, think of the smell.

This should be common sense, people.

Do I think modern garments are perfect? Hell to the no, but the standards of public decency dropped, tacky clothing followed. Can we blame the 60-80s? Man, what didn’t the Boomers do in their misspent youth?

How about bringing back mandatory wearing of ties, while we’re mandating necklines? You gotta pay out for spats, tie, tie pin, collar stays, all these things, whether or not you need them. For public decency. You’re free, remember. Free to buy cheap! Like the other riffraff (note: there are no common expressions for a poorly-dressed man anymore and men always dressed more formally than the women). Since clothing implies personality, anyone wearing less than haute couture can be spat on in the street, a budget is no excuse to patronize fast fashion. Why don’t you save money and make your own clothes, don’t you care? And don’t even think about being fat. Man or woman, it’s a reflection of personal vice and never anything else, like food quality or poverty. Everything must be viewed in a dogmatic, falsely religious context, because doesn’t that sound healthy? Black and white thinking for all, there is no other reason.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-25.htm

When we take down the buxom or bulging billboards of lingerie and boxers models, I might believe you care about the public’s innocent eyes…

Better to lose a limb than let it send you to Hell, better self-castrate, boys.
Because Bible, because Bible! I can justify anything just by saying it’s in the Bible!

The best part is that in this case, it really is and there’s no other context possible.
You can tell the Bible was written by mortal men because they have no idea how women are designed (by God) e.g. it makes more sense for women to wear less up-top because our breast fat causes us to over-heat, and ‘braids’ (or knots, or pins) are necessary to keep hair out of the way safely while working, which the Bible requires. It’s either that or cut it short, pick ONE.

I once saw a guy try to claim that a bra is immodest because it makes men look*.
…I’m sure walking is never the motivation behind shrouding sensitive flesh in the most minimal way possible (less than corset, girdle and bustier). Why don’t men wear cups habitually? Women want men to ogle them as much as men want women to know how much money they really make – as in, if they wanted it, they’d say to the individual specifically. Even a job offer is not an open invitation, everything in this social world has requirements e.g. if you’re asking someone out, you’d better be single.
The etiquette thing about doors and chairs is well-known, what of men hat-tipping in respect? To other men?
How many pretentious guys refuse to remove their beanies in a coffee shop, only to complain about rude servers?

Enforce indecent exposure laws by all means, but there’d be more male cases than female so those with a spiteful motive would disapprove, despite how God made them with more outer curves to expose.

*NOT wearing underwear would “make men look” more.
If men want female respect, dress smart, not scruffy. There is no female scruffy because our clothes are meant to drape, that’s feminine. Cheap clothing is a unisex issue, no getting out of this one.

It isn’t about modesty, it’s the moral weakness of being unable or unwilling to rein in your personal impulse control and then trying to force the rest of the world to accommodate you like a safe space. In other news, all fatties should be allowed to forcibly close every donut shop within a short drive, because tempting someone by existing is a slight on their “honour”. And the shrew wonders why they’re still unhappy, after censoring and banning anything that makes them uncomfortable. The problem isn’t that nice things exist, the problem is you. Beauty shouldn’t be covered up to hide your inner ugliness.

Elegance or decadence?

5 min. Male designer speaks.

There’s a line, isn’t there? Think how much we spend on clothing today. Think how little is any good. If anything, it ought to be better. In menswear you see a lot of circulation, for instance, the gilet is a doublet.
A related discussion in vintage or re-enactment circles is the glamour/beauty debate.
Beauty is natural but human beauty never has been. Primitive tribes had shell necklaces and the torc or crown were made alongside spears. This is something we are so immersed in we cannot see it, there is a hierarchy of style and the modernist love of minimalism (it’s been almost a century now! come on!) came from an American urge to distance themselves from Europe and carve out what is ironically a more rugged, romantic* standard.

Boomers were defined by the hippy look, androgyny that mimicked the political shift.

People wore wigs in most centuries for decency reasons, like hats, they wore heels and girdles, eyeliner was medicinal. Male watches, wristwatches, were originally ladies’ bracelets. To this day, the face is too large for the male wrist, they go overboard to make it look manly with a chunky appearance. If humans put effort in, and since wearing clothing is legally required, they naturally want to express who they are and where they come from and that art form shouldn’t be dismissed. The utility belt began as female, with its height in the chatelaine. Men would only have things strapped to a military uniform from the shoulders, where their muscles could take the weight. Heavy belts help women, whose strongest muscles are our thighs.
The 1950s makeup aesthetic was heavily painted, more than some looks now. There was a full face of foundation and a lot of powder. These days, with HD cameras, it would look cheap as Hell.
Men forgoing makeup is modernist, inspired by the Romantic* philosophers because it was au naturelle.

To this day, many of you don’t know where this sudden squee over the working class came from.
https://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/09/19/3-archetypes-of-american-manliness-part-iii-the-self-made-man/

Yes, it was totally your idea… like the American eagle that isn’t Napoleonic that isn’t Roman…. calling it, Empire = eagles. Sciencey.

The Romantic poets had a fetish about the countryside and farmers, this continued on into Vincent’s art but began around the 17th century with still life and paintings of farmers and cooks. The simple life to contrast the urban “Enlightenment”. Industrialization got the Romantics down, they thought machines were replacing men and making them more effete, dependent. Actually, how many men can stitch a button?

There’s a physical component to gendered presentation, the scale of masculine to feminine.
Modern looks are androgynous, even for men. Denim is andro, cotton, andro, jeans, andro, boots, andro, ties, andro, scarves, andro, t-shirts, andro, it’s all andro-andro-andro-andro!

For real.

Look around and see for yourself.

Women aren’t dressed like men, men are dressing more like women. Do you need a loose fit of maternity wear? Think back to 1980s suits to now, picture the silhouette. Modern men cover up way too much skin, historically. Why? Well, they don’t fight, there’s no body heat being lost. Sports replaced wars. The wealthy areas tend to be cold or polluted, so we cover up. Powerful men are in vogue, fewer dandies and more fat old men, who tend to cover up.

Long coats are Byronic, like long sleeves. Cravat and tie are basically the same thing in French. Grooming became more important, they didn’t just drop a standard so telling women to forgo makeup would be like telling men exactly which hairstyle to wear regardless of face shape and job and climate and whether or not they were allowed a beard, absurd in any time period. Makeup, like hair style is also cultural. You can see comparisons on Youtube of say, French and American makeup. Men couldn’t have beards in the upper classes until soap and good hygiene became the norm. There were reasons for the aristocratic fashions and all grooming is good grooming, with the exception of anal bleaching.

That would be masochism.

Suits, for instance, change how a man walks. Other men don’t notice, we do.
If a man can’t buy a good pair of shoes, do we trust him?
The effect on manners and a sense of personal dignity cannot be under-estimated.
As one man I know put it, he recently got into vintage and said “I know now that I felt like shit because I looked like it.” People responded to that insecurity signal. Depression is linked with unemployment but also sloppy dressers.
Why is there an envy of the stylish? They look happy. We imagine them contented.
It’s different to pin what caused what and I’m not a man so your feels aren’t my beeswax.
When we picture a utopia, what do we spotlight? What they wear. Instinctively, you care. Cosplay is all about the style and the feel of an era, what it represents. Living history, I’ve heard it called, like recipes and music.

They build up on skills and those traditions are rooted in history, in a country and time.

20m. German lady.

A critical aspect of femininity is presentation and expression.
It isn’t limited to women, however, men gain a collective identity more.

It affects how you carry and identify yourself. Think military uniforms.
This concept was floated in NRx years ago but I figured I’d bring it up again.

6m. French designer.

There’s a distinct pride element, whether it’s class, sex, nation, occasion (we still dress up for weddings..) and think how many aspects of appearance are banned or frowned upon (up to the English flag, because it might offend).
SJWs themselves cannot resist the siren song of a uniform but the blending is childish, Monroe catseye glasses with a Betty fringe and Audrey shirts, they signal an ignorance of feminine style. It’s pure fashion and poorly crafted as a look. There is no style.
How many people dress like hoodrats and chavs that wouldn’t dream of it ten years ago? Thanks to Anonymous making it middle class rebellion.
How did wearing Mom Jeans become Tech Guru status? Apple smartphones.
Why don’t men wear hats and spats and carry canes?
Where did all the petticoats go?

These sound superficial but the fabrics follow the philosophies. Designers respond to demand.
We dress cheaply because clothing is made cheaply. That makes us cheap people. History will view us as such. Trends set in LA temperatures look ridiculous in Europe. I said it.
Please can men discuss this because obviously I don’t want to tell you what to wear but women notice. We note the expression and effort, why else do you think the gay best friend thing came about?

This isn’t superficial, aesthetics is critical. It’s the ultimate emotional appeal (looking good) and, no offense, but the signal of sophistication and elegance is one few people could ever make. Natural beauty is genetic but style is a level playing field. The dress-up montages in film and anime are a token marker of stepping into a social role (think Iron Man suiting up) and mature responsibilities.

I’ve noticed one particular thing I want to point out before I set this festive post on a timer: PC culture has risen as appearance has gotten more sloppy. With weak signals from look, the verbal mannerly side has gone into overdrive.

Cate Blanchett, goddess of style

http://www.elleuk.com/life-and-culture/culture/articles/a39520/cate-blanchett-on-women-dressing-sexy/

I just love her so much.

“For me, the true icons of style are always those women who’ve been utterly themselves without apology, whose physical presence and their aesthetic is really integrated in a non self-conscious way into part of who they are, and women who know how they look is not all of who they are, but just an extension of that. It’s about women who feel free to wear what they want when they want and how they want to wear it. We all like looking sexy, but it doesn’t mean we want to f*ck you.

It’s an expression, it has literally nothing to do with men.
Women do fashion for themselves and possibly other women. Maybe.

It’s intrasexual competition, the men don’t even need to be present.
It’s like our gym selfies. Bad example but you really want to be superior to the other men, don’t you?

Do you think men can discern a pair of Jimmy Choos on sight?
Well, not the straight ones!

The ones who’d notice? …I don’t think attracting them is gonna work…

It’s the plot twist to our films because we all get it and you don’t. So much for airhead flicking through Vogue, huh? Visual language and symbology should technically be the male specialty. However, we care about nest-building. That’s why. Men pimp out cars and buy new tools. Same thing.

If men want us to get presumptive and judgy about your sartorial self-expressions then fine, but you wouldn’t like that Choo on the other foot. You complained about the joke about the shoes in SATC literally years ago.* Men are more touchy on the way they dress than the bulk of women, maybe because we’re used to hemline discussions from Kindergarten.

It’s catch 22, we can’t win.

If we dress nice, we like ourselves or are we vain or do we hate ourselves? The invitation to harassment thing is silly, and doesn’t take note of how predators work: they look for insecurity.

If we give up, we’re somehow less of a woman, depressed, crazy and proud of how we look without makeup (like a man). It’s the most ridiculous reasoning, the circuitous bitchiness that personalizes a choice we all must make, since we legally must wear clothes and shops only stock a certain price range and style type. It isn’t about you, it’s nothing to do with observers. Yet you are part of this system and sending signals. Why do ‘sexy men’ go topless? That’s how gay men like them, not women. Must we presume any man in a nice suit is a slut?

This film was a god-damn masterpiece.

Even nuns do fashion. It’s the feminine thing to do. We’re not the sex evolved to present, we’re the sex that selects. Read a bloody book before you prattle on being wrong about evolution.

*It was funny because men are generally clueless about the messages they give out (signals) and expect us not to pick up on them because they don’t care. Yes, we can tell you don’t care. However, you are the sex that should care so it’s funny. You should care because your power is only in asking us out. The rest is us. Insulting us and what we like and our gender role as selective is just ludicrously funny.

If you want to date someone with male psychology, you gay.

It isn’t about the cost of shoes, it’s the choice. If you have bad taste and decision-making, we don’t like you. Similarly, a man who actually takes another man’s style. We can’t stand those, they’re the worst. It’s like implants on a woman.

Video: Ridiculous ho-makers

everything

EVERYTHING

EVERY-THING

it’s become meaningless

you wear make-up? ho

you don’t? conceited ho logic

you wear a skirt? ho

you wear shorts, like men in summer? somehow a ho

Not to mention that 90% of this stuff is vintage and the same men were complaining women should adopt those fashions again, no, taking care of your appearance whatsoever makes random strangers think they can make assumptions about your sex life.

hair spray? basic ho

no hair spray? natural look ho

It’s become synonymous with nubile woman.

Don’t let idiots use a slang term, they ruin it.

Spaghetti straps? oh, you better believe that’s a ho

Cardigans? who does that ho think she is, trying to look vintage? especially with a bling brooch

Pearls? ho

Choker? ho

No necklace? leaving your chest bare, typical ho

At this point, what are women supposed to wear where you don’t feel entitled to insult us?
There’s nothing, is there?

It’s meant to make women who haven’t totally given up feel insecure so the intimidated men can try to neg them.
As I’ve covered, that’s dumb because negging doesn’t work. At all.

Flats? ho

Heels? ho

Tan? ho

Natural skin? ho

It’s become a nonsense term.

The irony is that much of that stuff applies better to gym bros.

What’s a low-cut top to literally showing your man-tits?

Women shouldn’t be topless in public

Following on from-

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/women-used-to-be-ladies/

 

True.

Neither should men.

A solid century ago you couldn’t flash either.

In fact, you couldn’t even show your waistcoat at dinner, this was risque.

These were male thots. Note the closed body language, they’re uncomfortable.

While you’re applying clothing standards, remember they apply to both sexes. That is what we call a social convention.

No mini-skirts? No shorts!
Fact: Edwardian women wore shorts too, before skirts shortened to that length later.
As in, women showed leg in public – after men started it.

If I can’t show small children my tits, why can you flash them yours?
And if it’s purely a fat issue, are flat-chested women exempt? Must shapely bosom-ed men take up a bra?
It isn’t only women’s breasts that are sexualised in the media, is it, Mr Pecs?
If anything, women have more cause to expose than men, since our breasts actually retain a second biological function and constricting them is bad for the nerves, increases the breast cancer risk and weakens the ligaments that prevent sagging. Logically, none of the anti-feminist stuff checks out this time.

Exception: the beach, your bathroom. That’s it. Not BBQs, camping, whatever else.

If you think women can’t break out the sexist humour to justify this stuff as well, you are wrong.

A man’s place is in the shed with all the other tools.

A 27,000 year-old necklace

white people

2creative4u

Dates from the Ice Age.

At this point, I am totally showing off.

Maybe Vox Day’s Time to Civilization concept would be best applied to tools and jewelry evolution?

I’d say coins but we literally invented numismatics. The Goddess Moneta’s temple was literally opposite the ancient mint. [Some sources claim in the Temple but it was all generally the same sacred space.]