Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I want high water pants, with ugly brown oxfords, and no socks
Why are these people so skinny? They all look extremely unhealthy.
I'm thankful for my remaining hair.
I had hair like that when I was in middle school and part of high school in the late 80's. It was a stupid cliche then and a stupid cliche now. Unless you want to look like people did before an effective chemical treatment of lice was invented, which is what immediately pops into my mind when I see the Sinead O'Connor redux.
It's so Flock of Seagulls . . . and not modern at all.
For people under 30, the 80s feels different, I suspect. If you never got to do that the first time, go ahead, amuse yourself with buzz clippers, a teasing comb, and hairspray.It's "modern" in the sense that "modern" refers to a time in the past when people might have thought of themselves as "modern." We, today, can only look back with a hazy mix of nostalgia and puzzlement.
Are those modern shoes? They look like they're out of the '30s.
New York City is a strange place.
Second photo: So the Dachau look is back?
Evolutionary dead ends. I find it hard to believe that these people will reproduce.
Nothing wrong with those two an Iroquois war party couldn't cure.Ann Althouse said...For people under 30, the 80s feels different, I suspect.Reagan is their Eisenhower.(no sarc)
Goofy.But - I'm as old as the professor.
The second picture looks like refugees from a Nazi concentration camp.Why would you intentionally want to look that way.They say that the fashions reflect the economy. I'm scared!!!
I would not want modern hair unless I was into the post-punk, urban rat, heroin chic thing.
Which I am not
Gay hair. Not that there's anything wrong w/ that.
If you mean ugly hair, then no.It's "modern" in the sense that "modern" refers to a time in the past when people might have thought of themselves as "modern." We, today, can only look back with a hazy mix of nostalgia and puzzlement.This makes me think of that scene in Master & Commander where Russell Crowe says; "What a fascinating, modern age we live in!"
I am in favor of crazy looks in hair styles.They are the reversible form of temporary insanity, unlike hideous tattoos scaring people for life.
Why would you intentionally want to look that way.They're finding themselves and/or expressing themselves. Although, truly finding themselves or expressing themselves is too much work, so silly haircuts and silly clothes instead.
You and I might not find frogs attractive, but other frogs find frogs with exceptionally large slimy warts seductive. If you were a Parsons or FIT student, the pheronomes would knock you dead.
I sometimes wonder if the weird fantasy agenda of gay men pushing androgeny onto women is that somehow they can sexually starve all the straight guys into turning gay. Is it spite? And yet, as William suggests, "the pheronomones would knock you dead." If you get close enough . . .
Why would you intentionally want to look that way.I'm not saying they shouldn't dress the way that they want. We looked pretty silly in the late 60's with the hippie look and in the early 70's too :-)At least, as already stated, they aren't permanently mutilating themselves.However, they just look ill, mopey and depressed. I wouldn't hire any one who looked like that.
"ooohh! oooohhh! Can I join the club??""What?""Why do I have to pierce my pecker? I already have a really fugly tattoo!"
I swear the comments over there never seem real. They all have a kind canned sense to them, like someone not too creative was just trying to write them all. It creeps me out.
Modern Hair: We're just having a "bad hair" epoch.
No, that's retro-'80s hair.
I think that the Sartorialist is interesting in that most of the things he shows are so excruciatingly unattractive that they make me feel beautiful in my suburban middle-class life.This qualifies.
I'm not clicking on the link because a reference to "modern hair" may be much too depressing for me to contemplate. Unless someone can assure me that it's head hair being discussed. Anyone?Peter
Outside of a few rarified places these are not the kind of fashion statements you want to make if you have a desire to be employed.
I had modern hair in the 1960's. Long, curly and ugly. Plus a mustache that had to be one of the 10 ugliest in American history. There are photos that prove this utter folly.
I just got my hair cut today. My nephew is getting married in late October, and I figure my hair will grow out and look perfect by then.The sartorialist link shows people with mange, apparently. I don't think they'll proudly show snapshots (which they probably don't have anyway, so gifs) of those hairstyles to their children.
The problem with those hairstyles is that they usually accompany a tiresome, snobbish and aspirational personality. In a way, such coiffure is useful, because it gives you advance warning of the kind of people who aren't worth your time.
"Modern hair" is a sign of our times - diminishing skills (of hair dressers in this instance: it's so much easier to give a shape to 3 square inch of hair than to the whole head of it).
When I was a teenager, I had a haircut exactly like the chick on the left in the first photo. So I had modern hair before it was modern. I guess I had pre-modern modern hair?The woman on the right in the first photo is trying to pull off a similar cut, but that weird tonsure really fucks it up.Sorry, babe; the monk look is so 12th century.
So is modern a mix of late fifties with late eighties? Stray Cat guys with floods meet faux punk rock chicks. To paraphrase the Ramones: Hey poeser is a punk rocker!
Post a Comment