/fa/ - Fashion

dadcore pls go

no

>>6759438
How come dadcore has become such a buzzword?
Fits like this were everywhere until goof ninja.
Now it is literally a bunch of fuccbois asking questions all day.

>>6759445
>>6759438
And here's the golfmanger brigade to shit on everything that isn't skirts and dunks.

>>6759455
because suits are for old men

>>6759463
Come on anon. You don't actually believe that.
>can't rock gothninja and suits
>being that much of a fuccboi.
Heh.

>>6759481
>actually using the word fuccboi in derogatory fashion

look at these faggots

> tfw you realize that girls prefer a slightly /fit/ guy in #meanswear more than skinny guys in gothninja

Suits and button up shirts do objectively look better than any gothninja shit.

Gothninja looks absolutely shit. A big mess of baggy black clothes.

>>6759744

I'm willing to entertain other people's values and tastes, but when people throw around words like "objective" it's almost always a red flag for me to take someone less seriously.

The hilarious part is that there are tons of people who wear brands like Rick and Ann and Givenchy and assimilate it into totally "dadcore" looks all the time. It's ridiculous to think Ann Demeulemeester has run a business for several decades based on people decking themselves out like Byronic priestesses head-to-toe and nothing else. Most people buy an Ann boot or a shirt or a tunic and wear it with totally mundane, everyday stuff. Same thing for a Rick tee or leather jacket. And given how many suits these brands make, chances are good that somebody is wearing an Ann Demeulemeester suit with a Charvet suit and John Lobb's and making it look "dadcore" as fuck.

>>6759757

Basically, these aesthetics are really part of a spectrum and if you look at how bigger department stores stock and merchandise stuff like this, you realize that there's tons of ways to take looks apart and integrate them into any given wardrobe.

>>6759500

Where have you been? Fuccboi has never had anything but a negative connotation.

>>6759786
I think he's saying that using the word unironically pretty much marks you as a fuccboi.

>>6759744
>objectively
i don't fucking even

>>6759744

Yep, no question about it. I can't stand ill fitting baggy clothes. I was born in the early '80's and I grew up in the 90s when baggy ill fitting clothes were the norm.

I guess what is old is new again.

>>6759455
Thats because you came here in like 2012 or 2011.

There was goofninja way before that, Rick Owens stuff has been here since the beginning.

Fucking faggots post some fucking menswear shit
Gonna be dumping what I got.
If you frequent menswear blogs and shit you might recognize some/most of it.

Most of my stuff is spring/summer
If someone had some fall inspiration it would be most appreciated

I've never seen anyone look comfortable in #menswear

>>6759924

>Black 3 piece pinstripe
>anything but a wedding or funeral
>gtfo wannabe menswear

>>6759933

>sleeves too short
>pouch pockets on a formal cut
>no.

>>6759945
>>6759952
>a samefag cunt posting shit instead of fit
Fuckoff shitposter

Why do you think menswear is exclusive to suits and ties?

>>6759968

>fuckoff shitposter
>says the guy posting shit "menswear" in a menswear thread

>>6759976
Considering menswear as rooted in tradition it makes sense that menswear tends to lean more towards suits and ties rather than the more casual plain shirtfronts and shit people wear around todays.

>>6759983
Why are you so angry? Why can't there be a menswear thread on the fashion board? you look so stupid posting so much

>>6759933
>poorly fitted suit
>NATO strap on a 3000 dollar watch
lol

>>6760012

1st, I never said there can't be a menswear thread on /fa/. I much prefer menswear to gothninja bs. However, what was being posted were absolutely horrible examples of menswear. I wouldn't be surprised if they were actually attempts at trolling
2nd, I've posted a grand total of 3 posts in this thread... so not sure how I'm "posting so much"

>>6759983
>Hurr it doesn't fit my closed minded perception of menswear
>it breaks the mold this isn't my comfort zone please hold me

It's funny you seem to have the same kind of mindset the anti-menswear folks do; "it limits muh self-expression!"

Fashion is alive; it changes, and in the case of the individual it can give way to personal style and touches. I'm sorry if that's 2much4u2handle, feel free to post what you feel is proper menswear.

>>6760026

>posts plaid with stripes

>made me respond/10

>>6760039
Oh boy I bet this will really get your goat then

>>6760043

the idea of menswear is to look effortlessly good, not like you spent 5 hours trying to pick out your outfit. These guys look so tryhard it's not even funny.

>>6760046

>polo

>confirmed highschool fag

The problem with menswear on this board is that a lot of people on here aren't men, they are boys. I don't mean this in a derogatory sense but it's true.

>>6760057
>Posting something you disagree with makes me a highschool fag

I agree with you, Polo isn't exactly my cup of tea, but some people like it. I have images of it, for one reason of another. I will post it.

Seriously, if you're such an expert, please enlighten us and grace us with your knowledge and preferred examples of menswear.

>>6760101

actually what you just posted is the first decent example of the whole thread. I mean, the guy looks like a total faggot because of the way he's wearing his coat to pose for the photo, but everything works together, fits, and isn't screaming at the top of its lungs for attention.

>>6760023
oh i just was casually viewing, sorry then

>>6760120

Fan-tastic.
Sadly, and surprisingly, I don't have many fits like that, which is why I haven't posted many.

>>6760052

Nobody here looks effortless.

The problem with menswear is that people try too hard to look good and end up fucking everything up.

>>6760465

talent is in trying hard and making it look effortless

>>6760465

You know what, I'm not bothered by this THAT much. I think it's definitely harder to make things look easy and natural when you have to tend to SO many details, but when the work and attention shows through, at the very least I can appreciate that. I can appreciate the energy that was put into it.

I have a different method (being extremely picky about the simple things that I wear) so that the effort was done long before I ever put on the outfit, but I think it's really just different tacks towards trying to build the person you want to be.

>>6757339

Far left looks acceptable
Red tie dude looks like a complete dork with those glasses, haircut, and clown shoes
Middle guy looks like a dork
Fourth guy is trying too hard
Guy on the far right looks like he's from The Hangover

is #menswear self-consciously gay? no judgements, i'm genuinely curious. it seems so flamboyant to me that it must cater to the wealthy gay community right?

>>6760498

Maybe. I can see how

>>6760026
is that a fucking denim shirt

I've been wondering for a while, what is UK Adult 10-12 mean for Americans??
Is that like a Medium? Startpage ain't giving me no results.

>>6760498

Is there a specific example you have other than a highly stylized runway look from a known provocateur?

>>6760512

Are we talking women's sizes?

>>6760512
Heres a buncha charts, scroll down for what you want.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/cloth-sizing-d_221.html

>>6760517
Shit, I think it was women's.

>>6760526

A women's UK 8/10/12/14 is a US 2/4/6/8

>>6760525
Awesome, bookmarked.
Thanks man.

>>6760515
i mean all the ones in this thread are pretty 'light in the loafers'. for example, do you really believe the man in >>6760026 has never sucked a dick before? look at him. or do you mean to tell me that if you saw this man: >>6760154 walking down the street you wouldn't assume he's one of those sassy gay puerto ricans ?

>>6760540
Theres likely better resources will more extensive lists and such, but that was the first hit on google...haha.

>>6760574

Not really, I don't go around looking at guys and trying to guess if they are gay or not, and dont imagine what their sexual experiences have been.

>>6757339
>No socks
>fit pants
>high maintenance hair cuts

>menswear

>>6760587
bro. come. on.

>>6760574
I don't see anyone as appearing "gay" in this thread. I don't assume that men that wear lighter-colored or patterned suits have sucked dicks, nor do I believe that men that wear double-breasted suits are sassy.

I don't think any differently about a man that takes care of his appearance. I tend to focus more on mannerisms and movement if I think that someone is gay, but that's neither here nor there.

>>6760574

You are very imaginative.

>>6760498
It isn't gay, or self consciously gay, but it is akin to coming out of the closet.

For most of the peacocking in #menswear(also people need to know the difference between #menswear and menswear and dadcore, they different bitches) comes from the regression through the 90s and early aughts in mens fashion.

We were a repressed sex, in terms of fashion, at this point in time. If you looked after yourself, you were a metro half man with fag roots. If you ever declared "I am interested in fashion" in any way, you were pretty much a sissy boy, there was no disconnect between being interested in what you wear and your sexuality back then.

I realize in some communities you may still feel this, but the reality is the world has progressed to a point that being a male with a favorite designer is a perfectly fine thing. Being a male interested in female designs is a perfectly fine thing. Being a male in the fashion industry, is again, a perfectly fine thing. Even further though, you are no longer gay because of any of that.

The #menswear illuminati, and the minions and denizens that follow them, are really just screaming at the top of their lungs like a just-out-of-the-closet-kid with their passion for fashion(fuck me, I just put those words together?) So they allow their articles to be flamboyant because in the past they weren't even allowed to suggest they were interested in fashion. It's a way of subconsciously sticking it to the assholes that made them hide, or pretend, or that kept them from enjoying fashion the way they do now.

So is #menswear self consciously gay? No, not at all. It peacocks for a reason, even if that reason is underlying and completely subconscious.

>>6760601
well sir classy gentleman, if you saw pic related walking down the street you're telling me you wouldn't make any assumptions about his sexuality?

>>6760599
if you are dressing solely to attract women, you are doing it wrong.
aside from the belt, i think thats a fun outfit and would wear it any day.
I love thom browne though so I am biased

>>6760645
i already know thom browne's sexuality so no

>>6759757
>>6759761
i enjoyed reading this

>>6760622

thank you for the thoughtful answer. however, your theory ignores the fact that #menswear creates a feminine image of men:

>the bright colors
>revealing legs
>tight fitting

there are ways to 'peacock' that appeal to a masculine sensibility. for example, pic related is definitely peacocking but in almost the polar opposite way #menswear is. the fact that #menswear adopts a self-consciously feminine image suggests that it is more intimately linked with homosexuality because under your theory men could have accomplished the same thing by dressing like raylan.

>yet they chose not to

fa is going to hate this guy but i fucking love his outfits

>>6760645
If I saw Thom Browne on the street, I would think, "HOLY SHIT, THOM BROWNE!".

>>6760698
It doesn't though. With the gender repression came the gender ideals which stipulated that males needed to dress in an un-feminine way.

If you were a man, and dressed feminine, you were a gay. Now, you can wear any colours you want and still be a straight guy getting his dick sucked by multiple bitties while listening to hood shit like Las over here.

The femininity actually proves the logic more than it destroys it. As the gender roles are what they are peacocking against.

Masculinity doesn't need to mean cowboy hats and horrible suits, it can mean a lot fucking more than that. And its questioning what it means that we found ourselves in when all the peacocking happens.

It is about finding our new role as a fashion enabled sex, and learning the boundaries is the phase we are kinda pushing through right now.

>>6760707

I actually did see Thom Browne. He's a nice guy. He seemed shocked that I knew who the hell he was.

He also wasn't wearing a suit, he was in Barnes and Noble drinking a coffee and reading a magazine.

>>6760656
i don't dress solely to attract women. however, i am aware of how i will perceived by the opposite sex. i am positive that if i approached a woman wearing pic related she would be off-put by my appearance.

>>6760742
It depends on context, but you're probably hanging around pleb grillz :^)))

>>6760737
I would be surprised because I live in the suburbs of Georgia and work in Atlanta. I would expect to see Sid Mashburn or someone a bit more local.

>>6760742
>see that guy
>"OMG, it's Matt Bomer!"
>"He looks like the Great Gatsby!"

I'm pretty sure now is one of the best times to be a dandy.

>>6760787

I also met Zac Posen (weirdly, at the same fucking Barnes and Noble) but he's not Thom Browne so...

>>6760787
If you hang around Phipps Plaza you're bound to run into someone high-up

>>6760742
I really dislike that outfit.
>disgusting tie knot
>shirt same colour as jacket
>pleats

Why the fuck are they wearing skinny jeans with suits?

God damn that looks like shit

>>6760878
They aren't.

It is an impossibility to wear skinny jeans with a suit, as a suit is two pieces combined, both pants and jacket, made of the same cloth by the same hand at the same time.

They are wearing jeans with a blazer, or an odd jacket/casual jacket.

I don't really see any issue with that, and I don't quite know why anyone else would either when it is done well.

Business casual > Suit and tie

>>6760836
I actually work at the AMC at Phipps Plaza. Usher and Ludacris have been there a few times, but I never see anyone from the fashion industry.

>>6760894
Get your head out of your asshole.

>>6760895
for /fa/ness, sure. for business, no unless you live in sanfran.

>>6760912
>>6760878
lol fuccboi not knowing words and shit

>>6760919
>calling it sanfran

>>6760729
>gender repression
why do you get to decide what's repressive? some people like traditional gender roles.

>Now, you can wear any colours you want and still be a straight guy getting his dick sucked by multiple bitties

rich men can wear anything and still get laid. regular guys who imitate the clothing are out of luck. if you doubt me, try to imagine if your average 20 something first year insurance associate or whatever tried to pick up a girl wearing pic related. how do you think it would go?

>As the gender roles are what they are peacocking against

i don't think 'peacocking' has ever solved a serious issue. #menswear lets its proponents think that they're protesting something but in reality it just exploits their vanity. #menswear is designed to make you honestly believe that you need a seersucker suit. #menswear is about commerce, not protesting gender roles.

>It is about finding our new role as a fashion enabled sex

using the phrase 'fashion enabled sex' un-ironically is impressive even for this board. #menswear is unappealing to most men (and probably most women) because it is flamboyant. men can still dress fashionably while retaining their masculinity: workwear, streetwear and traditional prep are styles that illustrate that men have always been 'fashion enabled'.

>>6760933
I go to Stanford lel all is forgiven

>>6760938

>why do you get to decide what's repressive? some people like traditional gender roles.

hes not deciding anything,

its history. societal expectations of men/women have changed, boundaries are less limited in many contexts.

>>6760953
he's deciding that it was repressive and 'repressive' is a loaded term. proponents of traditional gender roles would contend that societal expectations harmonize with what each gender was designed (biologically or religiously) to do.

>>6760938
>why do you get to decide what's repressive? some people like traditional gender roles
It isn't about what some people like, or traditional gender roles at all. It is about understanding where the boundaries are today for menswear. And to do that, peacocking is needed. Its a new and vibrant world for mens fashion right now, so figuring out where we stand is apart of that. So the traditional roles kinda don't matter right now because we are redefining them.

Also, traditional roles don't exist within fashion. It is, and has always been ever changing.

>rich men can wear anything and still get laid. regular guys who imitate the clothing are out of luck. if you doubt me, try to imagine if your average 20 something first year insurance associate or whatever tried to pick up a girl wearing pic related. how do you think it would go?
I'd say you are completely wrong with that.

>i don't think 'peacocking' has ever solved a serious issue. #menswear lets its proponents think that they're protesting something but in reality it just exploits their vanity. #menswear is designed to make you honestly believe that you need a seersucker suit. #menswear is about commerce, not protesting gender roles.
I never said it was about protesting gender roles. I said it was a subconscious breath of air after the repression we've had in mens fashion for decades.

>using the phrase 'fashion enabled sex' un-ironically is impressive even for this board. #menswear is unappealing to most men (and probably most women) because it is flamboyant. men can still dress fashionably while retaining their masculinity: workwear, streetwear and traditional prep are styles that illustrate that men have always been 'fashion enabled'.
That doesn't matter, it is the loudest that defines what the loudest will be. And it is that loudest person that defines where the medium will be. The average rests on the shoulders of the loudest man in the room.

>>6760938
different poster here, but I have to argue that last point: workwear has only recently seen a revival and been considered fashion. In the past, it was a matter of utility, function over form.
Streetwear was also arguably only appealing to very certain demographics in the past couple of decades (skaters, hip hops fans, etc) and couldn't be embraced by the male gender as a whole. As in, you would look like a tryhard nigger fuccboi if you weren't a part of those groups.
Traditional prep is incredibly flamboyant. I'm not sure what you mean. Unless you're talking about actual prep school uniforms, in which case that's not fashion either.

>>6760498
clothes cannot have a sexuality

outdated stereotypes dont mean shit

>>6760967

Search Results

re·pres·sive
riˈpresiv
adjective
adjective: repressive
1.
(esp. of a social or political system) inhibiting or restraining the freedom of a person or group of people.

regardless of whether its loaded or not, there were more social constraints of how people could express their gender in the past than there are now.

>proponents of traditional gender roles would contend that societal expectations harmonize with what each gender was designed (biologically or religiously) to do.

great, i was just talking about how society has changed, im not addressing how people feel about what genders were designed biologically or religiously to do, thats kind personal.

>>6760938
>men can still dress fashionably while retaining their masculinity: workwear, streetwear and traditional prep are styles that illustrate that men have always been 'fashion enabled'.

Ok.

>workwear
Up until the big online trad boom with Alden taking jumps and slowly but Shirley the rest of the Americana fest taking hold of Western Culture, there was very little situations in which someone dressed in 'workwear' was considered anything close to fashionable this side of Japan. This fashion renaissance we've had has allowed us to take hold of this male centric fashion genre and really propel it to a place where it is now acceptable as a 'fashionable' outfit.

It was literally workwear before.

>streetwear
Streetwear wasn't fashionable outside ghettos and shit. It was brought forward by the BB-boys and street artists into the main stream through rap music and then matured in its own right through that. It again, is relatively new, and outside of its culture wasn't considered fashionable until relatively recently.

Now you have guys in workwear, giving props to streetwear kids for their fits, and vice versa, before this type of thing didn't exist. One was the clothing of the working poor, the other was the clothing for the ethnic poor.

>traditional prep
Sure, I understand this one. But this isn't really a broad sweeping gesture either. As traditional prep says traditional in it's name. It is about following traditional ideals, and values. #menswear pushes it a little bit more, makes things a little bit harder to define. It isn't the same.

None of these were also fashionable pursuits. No one jerked off about Dickies or Aldens when they were woodworking. They owned this shit because it worked well and was what was considered a uniform. They weren't buying it because they looked good, they were buying it because it worked.

>>6760787
Maybe you'll see gucci mane

I like more classic looking styles, but...dear lord, all of the pics in this thread are absolutely horrible.

They're just clothes goddamn you guys are autistic

>>6760938
Streetwear has an argument, as it was always about being fresh. But it still evolved and changed and pushed forward. If you drop some of the kids in streetwear shit down in the 90s bronx with the sneaker heads of that day burying themselves in waffles, that shit is a completely different style. It was about completely different things. And a connection to fashion, wasn't really a tie to it. You didn't have people flexing to designers, you had people flexing to brands. It was about getting city wide tags, and brands that upped your prestige or level with the homies. It was a one up contest on costs, and on showing off how much you had and could blow. Now it is about doing that, and looking good when you are doing it.

None of these are really fashion enabled, because none of your examples were about being fashionable. They were uniforms for sub-sects of society, and thus they were followed. The #menswear revolution was all about breaking the sub-sects and allowing some white bread bitch like me the right to peacock my alden ass all day while I have no calluses on my hands, and would likely be murdered by any power tool I got near. It is a totally different conversation.

>>6760953

Thank god. People still think I'm fucking gay though. Not that it matters, only the women matter, and me looking gay has done nothing that I'm aware of to scare them away. If anything, it's helped my game.

Niggas graspin' at straws b/c he's insecure in his own sexuality.

>>6761047
And fucking thank you

>>6760978

never has a tripfags name been more appropriate.

we have a fundamental disagreement about the first three points.

however, regarding:

>That doesn't matter, it is the loudest that defines what the loudest will be. And it is that loudest person that defines where the medium will be. The average rests on the shoulders of the loudest man in the room.

to suggest that #menswear is 'defining where the medium' ignores the fact that it only appeals to a narrow segment of the male population. most men don't dress that way and that speaks volumes about how the 'medium' is defined.

>>6760953
I like how you boiled all my rambling bullshit down to one sentence that said it all.

Cheers.

>>6761047
I don't get this mentality. You are on the fashion sub-board of 4chan, so I get the b'tards showing up for some fun, but the idea that we shouldn't discuss or have deep feelings about the topic of this board is a little ridiculous.

I am passionate about fashion, and thus I have opinions and feels about it. I choose to share them here.

>>6761068
>we have a fundamental disagreement about the first three points.
Care to go deeper?

>to suggest that #menswear is 'defining where the medium' ignores the fact that it only appeals to a narrow segment of the male population. most men don't dress that way and that speaks volumes about how the 'medium' is defined.
You don't understand how fashion works if you believe this comment. The loudest trendsetters set the trends, colours, cuts, patterns, style, all of it, then the rest boil it down and commercialize it for the common man.

These #menswear guys may look out there to you now, but if you look back on 2 years ago at some of the shit they were doing, I can guarantee you that you will see connections with stuff that is hot today.

>>6760998
>there were more social constraints of how people could express their gender in the past than there are now.

or have the constraints just changed? i talk a lot of smack about this stuff on here but i live in a liberal city and i don't voice my opinion as openly because it's not worth the hassle of arguing in real life.

>i love arguing on the internet however

>>6761072

I feel u bb
but it feels more like babysitting u know
Trying to teach people to not make assumptions about people's sexuality against their own neuroses and such
That ain't talkin' 'bout clothes, that just seems so outta left field

>>6761086
>commercialize it for the common man

people in missouri are never going to get #menswear. the 'common man' eats at arbys and no matter how commercial #menswear gets it will not visibly affect the way he dresses. however, his fashion sense is important too. he gets to help define what 'male fashion' is as much as some fancy fruitcake in capri suit pants.

>>6761121
now i ain't even gun dignify this with a serious response, but you're way off base, so off base it's almost comical.

>>6760645
>laughingchinks.jpg

>>6761091
The constraints have changed, by broadening.

>ucwatididthru

>>6761098
I agree with you and understand your point. I guess I just use this as my place to drop fashion feels, so I don't really care if anything comes back because of it.

Essentially, changing opinions or thoughts isn't what I care about. It is the discussions which allow me to learn more things, and shape my own that matter.

>>6761121
This isn't about missouri understanding #menswear, or them in 2 years dressing like Las or Noah while on a peacocking expedition in Italy. It is not about visibility for #menswear, or anything like that. It is about the mobility of fashion, and understanding how the industry works.

You take an apple pie made by grandma with all the fixings, then you break it down to its best ingredient and find a way to cook them that makes mass production possible. Then once that sells, the people down the change find a way to break that pie down while still retaining the flavor of it, they may even change the size, the shape, the list of ingredients, all of it. Then someone like McDonalds comes along, and shits out something sold in a rapper that looks more like a pita than a pie, but it is still based on that original pie your grandmother made.

What I am talking about is that process. It is the process of the trend setters, fashion designers are the pinnacle starting the waterfall that eventually reaches the masses. By the time it hits them, it may not be as discernible as it was at the top level, but it is still a derivative, and it still has its influences, and without those influences it likely wouldn't be there.

best suit brands? list a couple if you know some : )

>>6761310
There's no "best" out there, it really depends on what kind of cut you like. I prefer a neapolitan cut so I'm more into italian brands such as Attolini, Kiton, Isaia, Belvest, Caruso, E. Zegna etc.

Some fall inspiration.