JASKN

It certainly does. So if I want to attract either a 1930s fetishist or someone middle aged to senior citizen, I'll be sure to wear my three-piece suit and tie, slick my hair back, slide on my loafers, pop my bowler off of my hat stand, grab my cane and stroll on down to the talkies to see if tonight might be my lucky night.

And who the hell knows why it was popular to begin with.

Ok, I thought I had with proceeding sentence. To state it differently, I personally like clothing for a variety of reasons, including the feel of different material against my skin and because I also like colors, but in the grand scheme of things clothing and fashion is not very important and, like I said, not nearly as important as my physique. Also, I think What Not To Wear maybe is good for someone who has never given a second thought about what they wear, but the hosts' clothing preferences are very boring, very similar from show to show, and very uninspired.

You're asking the wrong guy about makeup on women, because I think makeup is a horrible, unnecessary nuisance. But I have no vested interest in making a woman's face appear smoother, or whatever makeup is supposed to accomplish. I think makeup is a poor substitute for the real thing, which in most cases is youth and in all others good genes. Same thing with plastic surgery. Why don't men wear makeup? Why is it ok for a man's face to show its age but not a woman's? To sum up, yes, I would like to live in a world where the aesthetic justification for things is utilitarian. Have you looked at fashion magazines lately? They actually profess to champion a return to the "glamor" which you think should be everyone's aim in dressing themselves. What is this glamor? It's tacky, overstuffed, over-jewelryd, formless decoration for the sake of decoration. I hate it. I haven't given it much thought, but I don't think something can exist solely for its aesthetic appeal.

I did not mean to imply that aesthetics serve no purpose. In fact I hold aesthetics in very high esteem. However, I think they should be based on utilitarian needs first. A tie has never served a utilitarian purpose, and so if you want to look taller or leaner, I think there are better ways to accomplish that besides hanging a piece of cloth from the center of your neck. It is an unnecessary nuisance. As to uniforms, you are talking about something different entirely. I think they are more like costumes than fashion or personal apparel (although they sometimes intertwine).

Well, you're the one who agreed with Inspector's post in the first place. My point is that your idea of what men are supposed to look like is highly person-specific and will vary from what I think, or what anyone else thinks. There are lots of different standards by which to judge any person's clothing, and each of them has a certain context. One person may prefer the tradition-heavy (and mostly ridiculous) suit-and-tie ensemble because that is what has been around forever. Another person may wear khakis and polos because that is what everyone at work wears right now. As Dismuke illustrated, even your reasons for copying your co-workers may be different than another man's. And all of these preferences will influence what someone thinks someone else should wear in order to meet certain standards of etiquette, such as work, funeral, recreation, casual, around-the-house attire, etc. Personally, I place a lot of importance on fashion, but not a lot of importance. I like clothes, but I am not willing to follow (basically costume) trends, and I will not sacrifice comfort to look a certain way. Who could guess why people find ties attractive, including myself, by I still think they are ridiculous because they serve no purpose. I also think someone's physical shape is a thousand times more important than the clothes he chooses to wear. Edit: Also, Capitalism Forever, you did not answer my question (and I don't think it was my fault for misunderstanding that you were referring to both men and women for that singular sentence of your post). I'll state it a little differently anyway: Why is a man's purpose different than a woman's in his choice of apparel? And what exactly do you think the fundamental difference is? Here's what I think the purpose for clothing one's self is for both sexes: Foremost, shelter from the elements. After that, emphasize the best qualities that your body has to offer, with the best human physique you can think of as your standard. And if you look hella good, go naked.

Unfortunately your definition of "handsome" is the next man's definition of "pretty." So women should dress sloppily and make clothing something other than a background for life? Clothing should eclipse a woman?

You speak the truth!

Well he was a Jehovah's Witness... (anyone know if he stayed that way for the duration of his life?)

Sex holds varrying levels of importance to everyone, and I do not see a problem with that. There is much more to a serious relationship than sex. As long as you are honest with yourself as to what you want to get out of a sexual relationship, and as long as your partner is just as honest, nothing bad can come of it. To you, sex is very important, to your girlfriend it is not as important, in the broadest context. However, when you are together, you both hold sex in equal esteem. So where is the problem? Neither of you is sleeping with other people right now, right? I am of the opinion that it is not "unhealthy" to have less interest in sex than the next guy (you), so I think you are forcing an issue where none exists.

That's interesting. I guess I don't know a lot about history.

Actually, based on your tone and the volume of what you wrote, I think you do mind. Look, your work is exactly what you describe in your bio: doodles from class. I did it, other people do it, my younger brother does it. Doodling is fun, but I will agree with IAmMetaphysical that in your case it does not qualify as good art. Maybe a kind of design some people would like in a certain context, but not good art. I could not even identify what some of the subject matter was, in Atlas Walked and Woman with Child, for example, until I read the descriptions. Even then, Bird Diving and Morning Commute I still can't recognize. Wait, I just got the bird one (really... at first I thought it was a fox or something). To me it seems like your subjects are actually melting, or sludging, into the ground, or to their destinations. The "water" design effect that you use gives off a melencholy tone. It is not light, dynamic, joyful, or hard at work.

So Czechs are not atheists because they are rational, but because of communism?

Ha!

Well, for what its worth, I'll back it up with my own experience. At a point in my life, I regularly responded in an upset manner to things which I found to be beautiful or great. Specifically, beautiful art, music or movies, and even great personal traits I observed in other people, such as unapologetic confidence, or beautiful things in nature such as a sunset would really make me sad. And many times I would respond with tears. The best way I can explain it is with your theory, and in fact I would think things like, "That's the way it's supposed to be," with the "...but it isn't" always implied. I have spent some time actively trying to shift my outlook to a "benevolent-universe-premise," with some pretty good success. I plan to continue my efforts because of my results.

Clearly the producers would be fools not to wait for young Jennifer. How could they be so blind?... ugh. Angelina Jolie will look amazing and act beautifully as Dagny. I don't see why people are not happy with that casting decision.

CafePress.com has some redundant gear, but JohnGaltGifts.com, which is run by this forum's user Felix, has many more options.

This reply actually quotes from the other thread, but I thought it more appropriate to comment in this one. With modern photographic manipulation through computer software, photography can and may certainly be classified as art. Besides that, a photographer has the world to choose from, yet he photographs only a selected portion of it. I do not see how that is different from painting in a way which emphasizes the parts of the world which you feel deserve the most attention. I also do not see how the final painted product is necessarily all deliberate. At least some of what you paint is accidental, ask any artist, but what you allow to stay is deliberate. In photography, I may take many photos until accidental conditions give me the product I desire. The photographs from the shoot before and after which I did not use are part of my selection of reality, and the final product. I have also noticed that most of the art submitted has been bad art (the first picture), and some of it not art at all (the bride, which is nothing but a promo pic). And in my opinion, all of the submissions are far from "breathtaking." Unfortunately, I have almost no knowledge of art history, so I cannot provide good alternatives to the submissions. Only one artist so far has taken my breath away with his work, which can be found at www.goodbrush.com. I did not locate what I thought was a good representation of masculinity, femininity, or romance in his archives (although I have several photographs (these photos I would not consider art) that depict the concepts well). To note, I have had strong emotional reactions to photographs (the ones just mentioned) which represent these concepts, but never to a piece of art. I think this thread is too broad, and working definitions of masculinity, femininity, how those concepts play into romance, and a person's general taste in art must first be established for me before the posts would mean much. So to be fair, I will answer my own requests. Masculinity and femininity can popularly be concepts highly based upon any given culture a person is part of. Primitive tribes have worn sheaths on their penises and Americans have worn Abercrombie & Fitch to represent the same concept. But what concept leads to these physical incarnations? At this point I can only refer to general physiological and psychological differences which can be observed as nearly universal between the sexes. Men are more confident, strong, active, aggressive, etc. Women are more graceful, emotional, talkative, etc. But these are not all-inclusive or necessarily even accurate, and certainly not universal. So what is the importance of these concepts anyway? I would say minimal. It seems to me every aspect of masculinity and femininity can apply to both sexes, so why not just choose the ones you like the most and apply them to yourself? If the difference is legitimately physiological or psychological and it is an integral part of yourself, it would be ridiculous to go against who you are in order to fill an ideal of masculinity or femininity. For instance, if I fit the aggressive-male stereotype and I have a tendency toward it, I should not try to be more passive or "dainty." How does this fit into romance? I think masculinity and femininity are secondary to actual sexuality, and no one has figured that out conclusively yet. As for art I love, here are some examples: dark_sniper green_samurai hallway fb_final2 These are ridiculously good! I could keep linking, but just go and browse his site.

Beautiful post, Dismuke.

Do you have any ideas? Because I would really like to know as well. If masculinity cannot be fully realized without finding women attractive, then what good is the concept to homosexual men? And if every other aspect of the concept can be realized by a homosexual, who cares about the small differentiation of which sex he is attracted to?

That's not going to work, either, since I know there are masculine men who are attracted feminine men, and there certainly must be every other combination out there, such as feminine men who are attracted to feminine women. Attraction doesn't necessarily play in. Aren't we part of the culture? So shouldn't we at least be able to define it right now within the context of our culture?

Agreed. Does anyone have a thread, or anything, off-hand which clearly presents definitions for both? I only have vague working definitions, actually mostly just vague feelings of definitions, and I would like a better understanding of masculinity and femininity, in order to judge their importance, etc.

You're right, she would for her frame and looks. Unfortunately, she's not a good actress.

Unless early in his life a child is around the "government" more than his parent, I agree that the parent has a greater potential to screw a kid up. I don't think it necessarily has to be a parent, but more like a parental figure who is around a child the most. Even still, personally I have never placed incredible importance on a parent's role in a person's life. In the end, one must decide to do everything on his own, for himself anyway, which certainly plays into the creation of terrible governments. But my parents are still and were always around and supportive, and I have received contrary judgements from people whose parents were not.

Actually, NPR did a story last winter on the reliability of Wikipedia versus the Encyclopedia Britannica and the verdict found Wikipedia only slighty less accurate. For every large major flaw, such as names, places, dates, Britannica had around 2-3 to Wikipedia's 3-4, and for every minor flaw, such as misspellings, Britannica had 4-5 and Wikipedia 5-6. In my opinion, that isn't bad. Obviously at this point Wikipedia can't replace large academic resources, but for what it is, Wikipedia is reliable.