Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
'Do you have any menswear for men?'
People in the future are going to look back with real confusion at a time when there was men clothes and women clothes. Also, I like this, but probably wouldn't wear it myself.
dude,that's a dress :)
That'd look great with shorts!
There are many things I would rather spend $890 on than a "long sweater."Just don't skip the skinny jeans and boots.Don't do leggings.Don't do ballet flats.
The $890 price tag is futuristic.
For sitzpinklers only.Andy R. said...People in the future are going to look back with real confusion at a time when there was men clothes and women clothes.No, people in the future will shake their heads that there were those so delusional they thought gender was interchangeable.
ask J. Edgar. He'll know.
If you're a man and you watched Bill Clinton's speech last night, you might be in the long sweater target demographic.
Dress? Nonsense. It's a Federation dress uniform.
"The $890 price tag is futuristic. It's Barney's New York. If you have to ask...
A dress is a dress is a dress.That is a dress.Trey
How about Utility Kilts?
"People in the future are going to look back with real confusion at a time when there was men clothes and women clothes."What people look back on with confusion are past predictions of future styles.But let me go out on a limb: Until men start growing hips and breasts, and women start growing man junk, I predict there will be men's clothes and women's clothes.
Is the idea that the creature wearing the dress is an alleged man supposed to distract from the fact that the dress, regardless of who's wearing it, is atrocious? It just hangs there. The colors are ugly and the fabric looks cheap. But I guess if you're used to paying $2,000 for a studio apartment in New York, $890 dollars for a burlap sack isn't too shocking.
If someone wants to see it blown over your head....it's a dress!
Now I'm free...freeballing
The emaciated model projects an Auschwitz or an HIV victimhood.
I like these better.Bargains at Barneys
Their Exemplaire is a really nice look for me. I should buy it.
The color scheme reminds me of something red and black that FLOTUS wore.
You can also see through it, so don't forget to wear your panties, guys.
Is that supposed to be attractive to anyone in any way whatsoever? (it wouldn't be attractive on a woman, either). Andy, as long as different sexes have different shapes, we're going to have different clothing. Unless you expect us to all be clothed in shapeless sacks or robes, but most of us like to see each other's shapes.
Sorun said...You can also see through it, so don't forget to wear your panties, guys.VPL for men. The thong remains the thame.
I have vacation time starting in 20 minutes, to leave work early to go sculling. The days are getting shorter.On days like this, when it's really about the rowing, I get dressed for rowing, then put on a matching skirt over my rowing outfit. All I have to do is whip off my skirt and I'm ready to row.Everything I'm typing is MS underlined in red. I think I have my dictionary set to German. Deutsch. Deutschland Über Alles.Yep, das Deutsch war nicht unterstrichenen.
Andy R. said...People in the future are going to look back with real confusion at a time when there was men clothes and women clothes.Probably not, so long as there are young women wanting the attention of young men. In those cases, shapeless, baggy clothes - not an option.
Moses wore a dress. The Apostles wore dresses. Pontius Pilate and Caesar wore mini-skirts. Washington wore knickers. Ghandi wore diapers. Attila the Hun wore pants.
"People in the future are going to look back with real confusion at a time when there was men clothes and women clothes."The baggy shapeless unisex Mao suits of the Cultural Revolution must have been 'back to the future' for you.
Andy R. said...People in the future are going to look back with real confusion at a time when there was men clothes and women clothes. Men? What were men?
And I can pre-order them now? For only $890? Well, the neutering of Manhattan is complete. Let me find my manzier to see if it shows lines when I wear it with this. Really, I see nothing wrong with it. Just add load of chainmail, a heavy iron vest, a sword, a helmet, and call me Sir Robin, and I think you've got something. Or...maybe I'll buy one to wear at Burning Man.
Q: When is a dress not a dress?A: When it's an ugly dress.If women can wear pants, men can wear dresses. But why would we want to?I have longed faced up to the fact that the laptop bag I carry to and from work every day is essentially a large purse. And the fanny pack I wear around my waist and sometimes sling over my shoulder is a small purse.But a dress that you wear over pants so that you lose access to the pockets?I suppose if I was going out on the town and wanted to deter pickpockets ...Or was planning to spend all day hanging around the house ... It's more presentable than a bathrobe.Pants optional, that's good.Yes, $890 is a lot, but Wal-Mart or Target should be able to knock it off for $8.90.
The closest a man can get to wearing a dress...Is being married to Ann Althouse.Sorry couldn't resist.
Meh.A while back I saw a young man, kind of burly, medium height, long ponytail, wearing a sweater and those felt-type clogs, with socks, wearing a dark green plaid skirt, slightly full, below the knees. Kind of a hipster/grunge look. It worked on him.
Thanks for the fashion advice. But my closet is full of men's clothing that does not require spanx to wear under it.
Beta male.Look at the picture.Skinny, generic body. 1/2 ass won't-grow attempt at a beard. Lady lips.Alpha males don't look or dress like this.
Oh my. Sorry, but if men start wearing this crap I'm going back to being straight.
I could probably buy all the clothes I will need for the rest of my life for $890, apart from boots. Nevermind a fool who wears it. What fool buys it?
A new line clothes designed to get you beaten to a pulp...
ask J. Edgar. He'll know.Timely!
Err...no.This is the appropriate full-body wear for men.
Jill-ette: The dress a man can get.
Here ya go, Haz:http://www.flickr.com/photos/58039671@N00/6522757021/
See, this is pretty cool, referencing skirt guy I mentioned above:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Utilkilt_beige.jpg
I suppose for the typical male it is just one more skirt to look up.
Lindsey Meadows said...I suppose for the typical male it is just one more skirt to look up.Only the atypicals...like your little buddy, Andy.take care, blessings
I actually like the crew neck pieces that were on display, but the prices are ridiculous. You can put that together for much much less.
That 'sweater' has "I just found this dumpster-diving behind the Goodwill" written all over it.
defiantly worse that shorts
@Michael HazNow that's more like it.Or, something more in line with the spirit of election season.
Pretty weak copy of traditional Arab mens Dishdasha. Almost as common as hijab where I live. Bah.
That 'sweater' has "I just found this dumpster-diving behind the Goodwill" written all over it.And some tug-o-war with the dog to give it the proper length.
When it's a cassock.
Scotsmen will have something to say about this.
Sorry, but I wouldn't wear that to my own cremation.Fashion is for suckers.
Also, I like this, but probably wouldn't wear it myself.You definitely wouldn't wear it since it doesn't come in plus sizes.As a double-plus size myself, I know Barney's. The only things that they have in my size are scarves and gloves, and even those are a stretch.When I had money I bought a beautiful pair of gloves from Barney's: soft hide with exterior seams, lined with cashmere, $350.These days, when I can barely afford food sometimes, I put on the gloves and try to daydream. It doesn't make me feel better.
Men worn dresses long before pants were invented and they still wear dresses or some forms of skirt in large parts of the world.The sweater dress in the picture is plain ugly and suits neither men nor women
A house is not a homeAnd a dress is not a dressTill there's something juicy insideAnd I don't mean a big fat schlong.
The key is always which side the buttons are on.It's reversed for men and women so that they can undress each other.
No one wearing that has any self-respect.
OT, Come again, President who?
The Arnolfini Portrait The Ambassadors Portrait of Henry VIII That last one is the paragon of masculinity! When are codpieces coming back in fashion, that's what I want to know.
Two words: Fuck Off
Lindsey Meadows @ 2:43: man hate much? between your talk of small balls and dicks and skirt peeping, I might think you were hard up or something...
Not sure I get why there's all this "gosh, men used to wear skirts so what's the big deal"? Women used to wear veils and dress more modestly in the past. This was also depicted in portraits. Should we celebrate the hijab and the burqa as well?
In all of their towns there was noticed a class of men who lived like women, associated with them, wore the same dress, adorned themselves with beads, earrings, necklaces, and other feminine ornaments, and enjoyed great consideration among their companions. The want of an interpreter prevented us from ascertaining what kind of men they were, or to what office they were designed; all suspected however, a sexual defect or some abuse among those Indians.~from Miguel Costansó's diary of the Portolá Expedition in 1769 link
Scotsmen will have something to say about this.I doubt they'll say much. Probably just toss a caber on the doofus, and be done with it.
Yup. It's a dress.
Ann Althouse - obsessed with gender/sexuality issues - patheticI thought Wisconsin was more evolved - whoops - I forgot - this is the anti-science crowd....
The DNC chairmen is on right now.
Dave, even if she were obsessed, why would that be pathetic?
Chips girfriend in on..Had cancer.. suvivor.
chickelit, I'm not saying "gosh, men used to wear skirts so what's the big deal"; I just think it's fun to note the historicism and arbitrariness of gender signifiers in fashion. (E.g. knee-length and mini dresses and stockings signify "woman" for us, but in centuries past this was quintessential masculine attire.) But those gender signifiers (in any particular historical period and culture) still signify!And IMO there will always be gender signifiers in fashion, human nature being what it is. Andy speculates that "people in the future are going to look back with real confusion at a time when there was men clothes and women clothes"; but IMO this would only occur in a totalitarian society that enforced gender-neutral clothing. After all, clothing/ fashion is (among other things) the plumage by which men and women attract the other (or same) sex. And androgynous clothing is itself attractive because of the existence (and efficacy) of those signifiers. I'm a big fan of medieval and Renaissance male fashion myself. As a woman, I tend to be a pretty androgynous dresser, but my favorite "feminine" outfits definitely have something of the Renaissance man.
Too short, too see-through, and too lacking in a petticoat for me.
I'm a big fan of medieval and Renaissance male fashion myself.I had a serious conversation with a sports-obsessed guy about bringing back jousting (with blunt lances). It could happen.
Eight-hundred-ninety fucking dollars for a lengthy t-shirt?
A while back I saw a young man, kind of burly, medium height, long ponytail, wearing a sweater and those felt-type clogs, with socks, wearing a dark green plaid skirt, slightly full, below the knees. Kind of a hipster/grunge look. It worked on him.Sean Connery, in his prime...oh heck...anytime....could carry off that look. Lots of other guys. Not so much.
No, I doubt Connery could carry off an actual women's skirt, slightly full, falling below the knee. It was wool, though. I maintain that the look hung together in a grunge way, perhaps mainly because the young man 'owned it' by not giving a hang what anyone thought :)
Andy REveryone in a mumu?People in the future are going to look back on this time with real confusion. But, not for the reasons you think.
In the future everyone wears silver jumpsuits and eats nutrition pills. I've seen the film to prove it.
In the future everyone will be naked and have surgically enhanced peginas, so no one feels different or excluded or limited.
If I'm going to wear a skirt, this is what I'd wear - the 5.11 Tactical Duty Kilt!http://www.511tactical.com/Tactical-Duty-Kilt.html?Though the kilt my friend Kelly is wearing in his Kilted to Kick Cancer campaign is cool, too.
Althouse is anti-shorts on men, but what is the Althouse position on kilts? Manly display of muscular calves and knees, with a frisson of sartorial ambiguity on the question of underwear, or emasculated display of bare legs?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20UtEnyl7CI
Would any self-respecting - or self-disrespecting - gay man wear that?
chickelit said... I had a serious conversation with a sports-obsessed guy about bringing back jousting (with blunt lances). It could happen.Modern full contact jousting already has happened. Its been featured on cable television periodically for the past year.
@Aridog:Thanks for the link!
Because the world runs on irony, here is what the future holds:Most couples will use enhanced in-vitro conception where all harmful gene combinations are eliminated. Few, if any, will choose the combination of genes which result in homosexuality. There will still be gay people though: Religeous fundamentalists will reject this technology and so will sometimes have a homosexual child.
http://www.medievalcollectibles.com/p-16934-barbarians-armor-with-skirt.aspxThis is when it's OK.
You need to see the Dorcus Collection of menswear at James Lileks' website.Warning: What can be seen cannot be unseen.
Post a Comment