The Judgment of Paris Forum

Go Back   The Judgment of Paris Forum > 2005-2012 > 2008: January - December
User Name
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 17th April 2008   #1
M. Lopez
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2005
Posts: 587
Default The problem with fashion

Every once in a while, you find a story that explains perfectly why the fashion industry is as messed up as it is.

This is one of those times.,00.html

You have to read it to believe it:

A leading fashion identity has dropped female designers from a major fashion event...

Huxley said women designers were missing the mark with the [feminine] look while male designers were producing fashion that was more "intelligent".

Huxley chose only men to represent the school at Australian Fashion Week this month for the first time because he also had little faith in the way that women designed for other women.

"Girls are designing more for themselves and for their girlfriends," said Huxley.

"It is for the way that women are dressing today. They are dressing to go out shopping for men."

Women designers attacked the comments as shallow.

Brisbane designer Deanne Mayocchi, of label Maiocchi, said women could design better for women.

"We know what we want to wear," Mayocchi said.

Juli Grbac, of fashion label Grbac, said women had a better idea of fitting women's curves.

The arrogance and stupidity of this is mind-boggling.

So according to this "fashion identity":
1. women shouldn't dress for themselves
2. women shouldn't dress for their girlfriends
3. women shouldn't dress for men who like women

And who does that leave? Who should they dress for, in this person's warped mind?

That's right. Gay men.

So according to him, women shouldn't dress to be attractive to themselves, OR to their girlfriends, OR to men who are attracted to women.

They should only wear clothes that please male designers: i.e., gay men.

The insanity of that is beyond measure.

Gay men is the one target group that women shouldn't dress for. By definition, such men don't find women (or women's curves) attractive in the first place.

Why should a woman to dress in an oufit that would make her unattractive to herself, to her friends, and to men who like women?

For what possible reason would women dress to men?

It's utter madness.

No wonder this "fashion identity" puts such a hostile spin on women simply wanting to look pretty. He can't see heterosexual dating as something natural and wondeful, potentially loving; no, to him, it's "shopping for men."

And no wonder he hates the "feminine" look. In the minds of gay designers, women should all be made to look androgynous - either through mannish clothing, or through starving away their womanly figures, or both.

This perfectly explains why the fashion industry is anti-feminine and anti-beauty. It's in the hands of people who have an innate antipathy toward women, and no one points out how twisted that situation really is.
M. Lopez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2008   #2
Join Date: July 2005
Posts: 1,784
Default Re: The problem with fashion

Another question that one might examine is, why is this topic never discussed?

This issue is the proverbial "elephant in the room," the glaring problem with fashion that no one dares address. The society in which we live has instituted a political gospel so absolute, a "velvet totalitarianism" (call it "political correctness" or "social justice" or whatever you wish) so complete, that even the most obvious truths cannot be asserted, if they antagonize today's cultural arbiters.

For the well-being of its members, society must stop worrying about offense, especially since offense itself is no longer even genuine, but has become a political stratagem, a means by which a group gains and maintains power.

The simple fact is that today, the fashion industry holds women to standards that are devised by individuals who are not attracted to women, who have an innate alienation from femininity, yet who have instituted themselves as the arbiters of how women are supposed to look.

One might as well have religious sermons penned by atheists.

Because of the predispositions of the individuals who have created them, modern fashion standards insist that women should have as few curves as possible, and should look as boyish and unfeminine as they can.

It's utter madness.

These standards are by definition unnatural for women--so no wonder that women suffer terribly (to the point of developing eating disorders) in attempting to conform to them. This manner of appearance is antithetical to their own bodies.

It is time to reject these alien and unnatural standards, which cause so much harm. It is time to acknowledge where and with whom those standards originate, regardless of what offense this may cause.

Who has made these "rules"? By what right?

It is time to tell the individuals behind these standards that they have no business inflicting such misery on women, just for something as shallow and trivial as their own anti-feminine aesthetic inclinations; to tell them that they should be ashamed of themselves for having the arrogance to impose themselves in this field in the first place; to tell them that if they want to remain in this profession, they must put the natural figures and desires of women first.

They were wrong to tell women to starve.
They were wrong to tell women not to look like women.
They were wrong to put their warped "taste" above women's well-being.

The healing will only begin when these individuals acquire the humility and the decency to reform their standards completely, in favour of the natural ideal of beauty that they drove out--the timeless ideal that was in tune with women's bodies, and was conducive to health, well-being, and happiness, instead of lifelong misery and starvation.

And if they can't, then they have no business being in this field in the first place, because their influence has been proven to be toxic.

In the case cited above, the government should have stepped in immediately and reversed the situation, so that the group that was excluded was brought back in, and the group that enacted the exclusion was itself driven out.

Lillian Russell embodying the natural, well-fed ideal:

HSG is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:54.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.