It's funny you say that. I happen to be Southern Baptist. I play git-tar in the evil praise band. Our pastor does not wear suits, but he does wear a shirt and tie for the contemporary service and dons a jacket for the traditional service-that way the old folk don't have a premature meeting with our Lord and Savior.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Dressing well in the brave new world...
This is probably a well-worn subject by now, but I'd be most interested in hearing the ways in which men dress well in this age of casual rule.
I would happily dress as our esteemed member Upr_Crust does each day! Sadly, a button-down shirt, khakis, and a blazer now elicits comments such as, "Why so dressed up?" Dressed up? My late father would never be caught in public in anything less!
I got to thinking about this topic (yet again), after reviewing an interview with Roycru. As part of this, he said:
" It seems as if, for the first time in history, there is a universal world wide style for all sexes and ages consisting of tennis shoes, jeans (or short pants), back packs, ball caps (worn indoors and outdoors), and tee shirts, which almost all people wear wherever they go and whatever they do. Any other style seems to be a relic of a time that has gone and will never come back." (italics my own)
The interview concluded with:
"Finally, what can readers learn from traditional American dress?
RP: Probably the same things that they can learn from looking at dinosaur bones, seeing what's left of a time that has passed forever. When I was young, everyone looked like me. Now, very few people still look like me. Eventually, probably no one will look like me. Some time in the future traditional American prep-ivy-trad style will be as rare as knee breeches, tricorn hats, and powdered hair are now."
So I ask anyone interested in commenting, how do you dress these days, and not look as a relic?
Or do you just say (as I often do) that if people can put steel in their faces, and wear pajamas in public, how can anything that is classic style (or anything else these days for that matter) be considered weird?
I would happily dress as our esteemed member Upr_Crust does each day! Sadly, a button-down shirt, khakis, and a blazer now elicits comments such as, "Why so dressed up?" Dressed up? My late father would never be caught in public in anything less!
I got to thinking about this topic (yet again), after reviewing an interview with Roycru. As part of this, he said:
" It seems as if, for the first time in history, there is a universal world wide style for all sexes and ages consisting of tennis shoes, jeans (or short pants), back packs, ball caps (worn indoors and outdoors), and tee shirts, which almost all people wear wherever they go and whatever they do. Any other style seems to be a relic of a time that has gone and will never come back." (italics my own)
The interview concluded with:
"Finally, what can readers learn from traditional American dress?
RP: Probably the same things that they can learn from looking at dinosaur bones, seeing what's left of a time that has passed forever. When I was young, everyone looked like me. Now, very few people still look like me. Eventually, probably no one will look like me. Some time in the future traditional American prep-ivy-trad style will be as rare as knee breeches, tricorn hats, and powdered hair are now."
So I ask anyone interested in commenting, how do you dress these days, and not look as a relic?
Or do you just say (as I often do) that if people can put steel in their faces, and wear pajamas in public, how can anything that is classic style (or anything else these days for that matter) be considered weird?
41 - 60 of 83 Posts
To each his own.
Sadly, I see it all of the time. I stopped to pick up a bottle of ketchup today and saw someone in the grocery store sporting this look. He did have on work boots though.Where on earth is it acceptable for a 40 year old to wear no shirt in social situations (not including the beach, pool, or boat)??
Superb commentary, thank you, Fading Fast!I completely understand the argument that God doesn't care what you wear, etc. And I agree with it, but I also think it's off point.
Dressing up for certain occasions is not (or should not be) about pride or - even worse - showing up others, but it is a way for a culture to say "this is an important event / this we respect."
So, IMHO, dressing for church is not some philosophical incongruity with Jesus' poverty (I've heard that one), but it is a way for a society to mark the specialness of going to church.
It signals to the younger members that this institution is important and it - even when we are (grumbling sometimes) putting on a suit - reminds the adults that there's a significance to going to church.
This holds - maybe with less theological meaning - for school and work and fine restaurants, etc. When we (used to) dress up for these places we were saying - as a culture / a society, "these are important institutions and activities and we reflect that by dressing in a serious and appropriate way."
And - in a nice restaurant, for example - we are saying to each other that we respect you (the other diners) and are dressing to keep the environment attractive for all. It used be thought disrespectful to dress sloppily in places where nice dress was expected.
Of course, any kind and well-intentioned society would never look down on anyone unable to afford - or not knowledgable in how - to dress for, say, church. A kind society welcomes them with open arms and, hopefully and respectfully, has practices and institutions to help those in need.
To be sure, we can live fine the way were are today where we have said, effectively, "dress how you want / your individual taste and comfort are paramount." But it is, IMHO, a sign of selfishness or, at least, self-centeredness where we don't want to voluntarily conform to a set of social norms that helps signal to all the importance of certain culture institutions and practices and that shows respect to all who attend.
I'm not a scold. This is our society today - the do-what-you-want society - and, my guess, if we take other things seriously, we'll be fine. But the societal norm around dress that proceeded ours wasn't simply for fussiness; it was a standard to acknowledge and reinforce our commitment and respect for certain institutions and practices - and for each other. It also served to educate the young and those who wanted to stray that these things mattered to the larger community.
Today, we've, essentially, said "this isn't necessary anymore." We've said - by dropping almost all standards for dress - that "we don't need these cultural signposts and guardrails." We've said that "arrant individual expression is more important than the social signaling of culturally accepted dress codes." We'll see over time how this all works out.
Do you ever worry that you're a bit fickle? Also, what Jesus's dress sense has to do with his potential homosexuality is beyond me. Do you perceive wearing a tie and being heterosexual as qualities equal in marking a man out as better than others?When a succession of preachers stopped wearing suits and french cuffs, swapping these for jeans and untucked OCBD shirts, my faith was shaken. When "praise music" replaced the old standards, I cashed in my membership as a Southern Baptist and fled the country.
As we are all aware, Jesus wore a tie. He also does not want to be my boyfriend.
Cheers,
BSR
It seems that this thread is little more than an expression of self-satisfied superiority over those who don't conform to one's own standard of dress. Each member here may well look elegant, but each has no more than his own style. To say that one is 'well-dressed' and others, who follow contemporary fashions and don't care for what is deemed acceptable by the members of this community (a group of which a considerable proportion of the population would proudly claim membership) are not reeks of snobbery.
Don't get me wrong, I think this place is full of wisdom and have used it to guide myself. Do I consider myself well-dressed? In the main, yes, but in the sense that I dress to make those around me feel at ease and still respect me for the way I look. Does this involve wearing jeans and a T-shirt? Yes, but the outfit will still be tasteful and fit well. When it involves wearing a suit, I tend to follow much of the guidance commonly expressed here, but only when it is approriate for those that will see me. Never will I dramatically 'outdress' those in my company, even if they are slovenly and especially not if they are my hosts or equals - to do so might even come off as rude - but I will always maintain my own sense of style.
Hear hear! And it should be said that relics are to be treated with honor and respect -- indeed even veneration!Oh, I probably do look like a relic from the past, but then that's what I am these days!
Agreed.Superb commentary, thank you, Fading Fast!
As a Catholic who believes in the Real Presence it seems incongruous to me to dress casually at Mass. I would don a coat and tie to meet the President of the United States whether I liked him or not, so I am uncomfortable not showing our Lord comparable respect.
But before a certain someone weighs in imjurisprudently to suggest that this means I must feel I am morally superior to those who dress casually, let me say for the record that such a claim is utter rubbish. I'm not interested in judging others; just applying appropriate standards to myself.
Well 'moral' means concerned with right and wrong behaviour. Given that you acknowledge that you dress smartly where others don't, and that in the circumstances in which you dress as such it is, in your view, wrong to dress in a slovenly or indifferent way, you are unavoidably applying a norm to how we dress at church. You are right, and those who dress indifferently are, to use your word, doing 'wrong'.Agreed.
As a Catholic who believes in the Real Presence it seems incongruous to me to dress casually at Mass. I would don a coat and tie to meet the President of the United States whether I liked him or not, so it certainly seems wrong to be indifferent before our Lord.
But before someone weighs in imjurisprudently to suggest that this means I must feel I am the moral superior to those who dress casually, let me say for the record that such a claim is utter rubbish. I'm not interested in judging others; just applying appropriate standards to myself.
There is surely no clearer indicator of moral superiority than to indicate that you are in the right and others in the wrong.
Please don't take me as hostile - I do not mean to say that you would ever be so impolite as to approach these people and put them down. Furthermore, I think your intentions in dressing well for church are entirely honourable and admirable. However, to say that you have never implied your moral superiority to the more casual dressers would be to ignore the effect of your last comment.
I, too, can get preachy and lecture-ish. Yep, sometimes I climb onto that high horse. It’s satisfying in the moment, but each time I do so, I end up regretting it.
From time to time I’ll say something unflattering about general subsets of people—such as those who buy obnoxiously pre-distressed sweaters. And people who, inexplicably, don’t like cinnamon in their oatmeal. But dissecting the motives and behavior of individual members of this forum? That’s no way to win friends and influence people.
From time to time I’ll say something unflattering about general subsets of people—such as those who buy obnoxiously pre-distressed sweaters. And people who, inexplicably, don’t like cinnamon in their oatmeal. But dissecting the motives and behavior of individual members of this forum? That’s no way to win friends and influence people.
I agree in part. There is a difference between judging actions and judging people. One can certainly say that a person doing X is doing wrong without judging the state of their soul or measuring such a state against one's own soul. I do think that folks who come to Mass in shorts and flip flops are wrong to do so, but I do not think that this somehow makes them further from God and His heaven than I.Well 'moral' means concerned with right and wrong behaviour. Given that you acknowledge that you dress smartly where others don't, and that in the circumstances in which you dress as such it is, in your view, wrong to dress in a slovenly or indifferent way, you are unavoidably applying a norm to how we dress at church. You are right, and those who dress indifferently are, to use your word, doing 'wrong'.
There is surely no clearer indicator of moral superiority than to indicate that you are in the right and others in the wrong.
Please don't take me as hostile - I do not mean to say that you would ever be so impolite as to approach these people and put them down. Furthermore, I think your intentions in dressing well for church are entirely honourable and admirable. However, to say that you have never implied your moral superiority to the more casual dressers would be to ignore the effect of your last comment.
By the way, the most "judgmental" comments on this thread are likely your own.
Agree completely. Truer words have never been written.It seems that this thread is little more than an expression of self-satisfied superiority over those who don't conform to one's own standard of dress.
Are you really 19 years old?Do you ever worry that you're a bit fickle? Also, what Jesus's dress sense has to do with his potential homosexuality is beyond me. Do you perceive wearing a tie and being heterosexual as qualities equal in marking a man out as better than others?
It seems that this thread is little more than an expression of self-satisfied superiority over those who don't conform to one's own standard of dress. Each member here may well look elegant, but each has no more than his own style. To say that one is 'well-dressed' and others, who follow contemporary fashions and don't care for what is deemed acceptable by the members of this community (a group of which a considerable proportion of the population would proudly claim membership) are not reeks of snobbery.
Don't get me wrong, I think this place is full of wisdom and have used it to guide myself. Do I consider myself well-dressed? In the main, yes, but in the sense that I dress to make those around me feel at ease and still respect me for the way I look. Does this involve wearing jeans and a T-shirt? Yes, but the outfit will still be tasteful and fit well. When it involves wearing a suit, I tend to follow much of the guidance commonly expressed here, but only when it is approriate for those that will see me. Never will I dramatically 'outdress' those in my company, even if they are slovenly and especially not if they are my hosts or equals - to do so might even come off as rude - but I will always maintain my own sense of style.
Sounds like it, doesn't it, given his proclivity for showing his elders the many errors of their ways.Are you really 19 years old?
I really am (not sure what the relevance is though) although I see no reason to defer to an elder I've never met on the internet.Are you really 19 years old?
Some will agree with me and some won't. I don't want to come off as hostile, although I appreciate that that was probably the tone of my first comment, and for that I apologise. However, I wanted to give what I have no doubt would be the view of most of my demographic. In doing so, I was influenced not only by the comments on this thread but by others, which, I admit, isn't fair to you members here.
My point was more about the topic of the thread than anything else. Its context - the brave new world - appears from comments to be a hellish dystopia in which people take the liberty to be comfortable in whatever clothes they wish to wear, and how members of this forum can repel the demon of daywear by dressing 'well', id est, dressing how they like, a standard which fails to take into account the norms and differences of class, race or religion. I thought that most people my age would take issue with that vision of today's society.
However, in the spirit of the thread, I'll try to take part in the discourse. I want to respond to the point about respect for god and for hosts at events. I accept the traditional view that dressing 'up' means to show respect for god or whichever deity the individual chooses, but I think this respect can be shown in more than one way. For some, it is in showing their comfort and ease with the person they respect by dressing comfortably around them. I don't think this style should be afforded any less weight than dressing 'up'.
The above post is very good. With respect to your earlier posts, I was favorably impressed by some of your insights but turned off by your attitude. With your latest comments, you have maintained your perspicuity but, thank goodness, have dropped the attitude. That's a dramatic improvement in a short time. Well done. Congratulations.I really am (not sure what the relevance is though) although I see no reason to defer to an elder I've never met on the internet.
Some will agree with me and some won't. I don't want to come off as hostile, although I appreciate that that was probably the tone of my first comment, and for that I apologise. However, I wanted to give what I have no doubt would be the view of most of my demographic. In doing so, I was influenced not only by the comments on this thread but by others, which, I admit, isn't fair to you members here.
My point was more about the topic of the thread than anything else. Its context - the brave new world - appears from comments to be a hellish dystopia in which people take the liberty to be comfortable in whatever clothes they wish to wear, and how members of this forum can repel the demon of daywear by dressing 'well', id est, dressing how they like, a standard which fails to take into account the norms and differences of class, race or religion. I thought that most people my age would take issue with that vision of today's society.
However, in the spirit of the thread, I'll try to take part in the discourse. I want to respond to the point about respect for god and for hosts at events. I accept the traditional view that dressing 'up' means to show respect for god or whichever deity the individual chooses, but I think this respect can be shown in more than one way. For some, it is in showing their comfort and ease with the person they respect by dressing comfortably around them. I don't think this style should be afforded any less weight than dressing 'up'.
I'm 51, and I've long ago given up trying to "dress to impress." I generally wear wool slacks (tan or navy), a button down shirt, and a sweater in the winter. About 2-3 times per week, I wear a suit. That's my choice... in my field, I could probably get away with jeans and a polo if I wanted to.
If people think I'm "overdressed" or whatever, well, that's their problem.
The one concession I make is that I generally don't wear my double-breasted suits in business environments (social is okay).
If people think I'm "overdressed" or whatever, well, that's their problem.
The one concession I make is that I generally don't wear my double-breasted suits in business environments (social is okay).
I'm pleased I can make a contribution which is meaningful.The above post is very good. With respect to your earlier posts, I was favorably impressed by some of your insights but turned off by your attitude. With your latest comments, you have maintained your perspicuity but, thank goodness, have dropped the attitude. That's a dramatic improvement in a short time. Well done. Congratulations.
Incidentally, this 'brave new world' offers a real advantage to conscious dressers. Where dressing traditionally might once have been accepted as the norm, and forgoing any of the details often touted here as rules would have earned one a rebuke, it seems that now to follow the 'rules' adds a sense of mystique to your outfit - I've often received compliments from people who give no specific reason as to why they like how I dress. It seems details mean more to people now that dressing up is less common, and to those unaccustomed to it they add up to a whole whose undeniable attraction can't quite be identified, but is there when the look is compared to something more fashionable. Take a pleated shirt, a suppressed waist, peak lapels and grosgrain facings - most would have trouble distinguishing this outfit from a black suit that does not fit so well, with notch lapels, a poplin shirt and satin facings, but (in Britain, at least) I think many people sense an aura of sophistication from the former even if they have little interest in why. Your tastes may differ, but it's an example.
Sorry, that was vague.
Sometimes I think of clothing like music. Is classical proper and best? Therefore, the others less desirable? Should rock, country, folk and other styles not be allowed in church because they are not good enough? Are they disrespectful? Or, do they each have there own rules and if following those rules are respectful? If picking one kind (the one you like) and look down on the rest isn't that a form of snobbery that God hates? And, isn't that a form of god that God hates because he is the judge and not us? Does he He see the purity of form in other people's hearts for how they dress? Pride is a serious sin. I don't care to see preachers wearing jeans. But, if he is reaching more people for Christ, then I think God is on his side, than those who impose artificial clothing rules.
I should have known better than to start this; social media...
I’m still trying to determine why a creator God would create us as broken vessels and then command us to be made whole through redemption, with some predestined to fail in this journey. Bad luck for them.
I would have much preferred to have been created perfect from the outset and avoid all the trouble. From my read, we are still on humankind version 1.0 Noah which was seen as rather glitchy from the get go.
A new faith...
Those wearing ties to church should be first in line for salvation with those dressed to mow the church lawn cast into a lake of fire?
Organist saved, bongo “players” damned?
White shoes outside of Easter/Memorial Day....firey furnace for certain?
Hands kept firmly at ones side during the invitational hymn with violators left to clean up after Wednesday night supper?
Brown shoes with black belts cast into purgatory?
Or we could learn to proceed in life with our sense of humor as our shield and our ability to be self deprecating as our flaming sword leaving our breast plate of self righteousness somewhere along the side of the road to Damascus.
Cheers,
BSR
I would have much preferred to have been created perfect from the outset and avoid all the trouble. From my read, we are still on humankind version 1.0 Noah which was seen as rather glitchy from the get go.
A new faith...
Those wearing ties to church should be first in line for salvation with those dressed to mow the church lawn cast into a lake of fire?
Organist saved, bongo “players” damned?
White shoes outside of Easter/Memorial Day....firey furnace for certain?
Hands kept firmly at ones side during the invitational hymn with violators left to clean up after Wednesday night supper?
Brown shoes with black belts cast into purgatory?
Or we could learn to proceed in life with our sense of humor as our shield and our ability to be self deprecating as our flaming sword leaving our breast plate of self righteousness somewhere along the side of the road to Damascus.
Cheers,
BSR
41 - 60 of 83 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Men's Clothing Forums
A forum community dedicated to men’s fashion and clothing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, materials, models, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Oldsarge
102 Replies
Vecchio Vespa
44 Replies
Preppy Climber
34 Replies
Recommended Communities
