Fashion: Trivia, Tragedy, or Transcendence?

I've puzzled over this one a lot too, dlowan. I do not believe it is as simple as getting the attention of a mate. I also don't think it's purely a female thing, as it is often cast -- for men, it's more cyclical (i.e. women seem to have always been in the thrall of fashion in modern times, while men have more low-key and more dandyish moments), and men seem to be entering into a dandy phase. Have you seen the HAIR on these boys?? A wonder of mousse and perfectly placed bangs, disordered just so...

I like the idea of an expression of creativity, a sort of communication, to everyone, not just a potential mate. What you see is what you get -- what do you see? This goes for everything is self-presentation, not just the clothes per se. It includes skin (both intrinsic suppleness and the products currently laid upon it), hair (the color, the style, the evidence of expensive products), weight (expensive girdles of yesteryear have been replaced by the expensive flat tummies of gym membership and personal trainers), posture, voice... it goes on and on.

What I think is interesting is a recent democratization of style, though. You find the personal-trainered flat-tummies wearing Old Navy right alongside the bad-haired and bad-skinned burger-flipper. There are still all of these other status signifiers, but they're wearing the very same clothes. Same for H&M, and a few other clothes emporiums that are high on style but low on cash.

Anyway, pretty much anything you choose to wear sends some sort of signal. Sometimes it's a uniform -- khaki capris and a fitted t-shirt with moderately fashionable low-heeled sandals, say. Another kind of uniform is the black pantsuit (in a current cut) with a white shirt and pointy-toed heels. Choosing to put things together outside of the uniform automatically gets more attention, depending on how you do it and how you carry it off. Putting things together over and above the uniform -- a newer look being shown on runways, or (harder to do, harder to carry off), something entirely new that nonetheless feels current and fresh. Or else something that comes across as cut-rate uniform -- not quite the right shoes, not quite the right colors.

Or, where I find myself most of the time these days (I have a visceral dislike of uniforms, though they come in handy), taking bits and pieces of this and that and putting them together in a way that is somewhat original, if not "look at me!!!" original.

More thoughts, but will pause for now...

There's definitely a symbolism to it all.

Want to be taken seriously? Wear suits.
Want to attract a hookup? Wear tight clothes.
Want to attract a long-term mate? Wear gender-stereotypical clothes (usually).
Want to be looked at as youthful? Wear what the kids are wearing, but be careful as that can backfire in a big way, by making you look like a wannabe.
Want to be thought of as exotic? Wear clothing that's more at home elsewhere - a dashiki, a head scarf, that kind of thing.

You get the idea. The same person can be taken in different ways, depending upon the style projected, and can really cause a disconnect in people's thinking if they cross the lines. It was weird when I saw my law firm boss in blue jeans one day (we were moving offices). I had always seen him in suits. The onset of casual Fridays is often a revelation, particularly for men. Do they go with the golf look? That's a safe uniform. But what if that's not their thing? Are tee shirts too casual? What about just going tie-less?

Fashion can really clang when it's in the wrong place, wrong time. A friend of mine worked with a woman who was desperately trying to be taken seriously in her field. And this woman (my friend's boss) would wear suits, but with just a camisole underneath, and short skirts. All very peekaboo, all very, look at me, I'm serious but really naughty kind of vibe going on, and T__ was never really taken seriously, despite her education. Almost wanted to take her aside and tell her to change the shorty short skirts for something hitting right around the knee and the camisoles for regular shell tops or oxford shirts and she'd be fine.

A pity, but colleges and grad/business schools never seem to teach this. Why not? Is it seen as too fluffy? But it isn't, really. People get - or don't get - jobs and clients and contracts - and, unfairly as it is, it's often at least in part based upon appearance. So why is something as vital as this being left to chance?

I think most of it stems from fact that society today has become a "beautocracy." With the prevalence of photographs and television, etc., people started putting more and more emphasis on good looks. If you look at history before photographs, people didn't care how good you looked, they only cared how much money you had or if you had some title of nobility. Any attention to dress was not made to make you look good; it was made to make you look rich.

And if society bases all of its impressions of you on how you look, then it is a worthwhile goal to look fashionable. I think I heard that attractive people on average have higher salaries. I certainly believe it, because people everywhere are generally shallow.

. In addition quoting a long post in its entirety to respond to one sentence should be avoided if possible. Try to just quote the relevant sentence.