Tight Clothing; Yes? or No?

Post Reply New Topic

I hate tight clothing, and always have. I'm especially creeped out by spandex--Ughhhhhh. I don't know how people dress in that stuff, especially for biking or soccer or lacrosse. Even if there is just a little bit of spandex in the fabric, I feel like I'm going to freak out if I don't get it off me right away.

I never wear tight clothing. everything i wear is cotton and/or pure wool. (except my swimmers.) i loathe anything that is not comfortable and i cut off all labels on shirts and pants. (always have and always will.)

I don't wear tight clothing because of the modesty issue. Besides, it doesn't seem comfortable.

I hated tight clothes as a kid but I liked stretch pants. My mother didn't know that until 1997 (I think) when a therapist figured it out. I didn't like anything tight.


Lot of my clothes are loose anyway but I also have jeans.

nup - big and baggy or stretchy ta

Yes, I did mean the women you were talking about. I dislike anyone (man or woman) who is presumptuous enough to just expect presents. No idea if you are one of them or not, that's why I said no offense incase you were talking about yourself. To let you know that it wasn't a personal attack. Why would I dislike you specificaly? I don't even know you
Sorry that offense was taken anyway

I tend to choose clothing that fits for, often most clothes tend to be way too long or short therefore, I'll state baggy clothes..

Since people have started talking about jewelery and makeup and shoe shopping and stuff, I just thought I'd like to say, perhaps kind of randomly, that I never understood the value of such things. Jewelery doesn't do anything (Christmas tree ornaments for the human being - why? Pointless enough on a tree, I'd say). Makeup doesn't do anything (Goo for the face, supposed to enhance prettiness, only makes icky. Makes sense on a clown, except clowns don't make any sense anyway as they are intended to entertain kids but only end up scaring them...but I digress. My point is why wear makeup if there is no role to play?). And who needs more than one pair of any given basic category of shoes? It all seems like pointless spending to me. Could somebody please explain the point of it all?

I loathe tight fitting clothing.
I prefer loose fitting clothing in soft, heavy fabrics.

I'm hardly conventional on this one, but I'll give it a shot:

Jewelry: I love earrings, but I don't go for expensive ones (ie anything made of any precious stones or metals). I don't know why I enjoy them. It's probably because I love wind chimes and other things that make nice rocking motions back and forth, so I like earrings. Most of mine are beaded or otherwise dangly. The exceptions were gifts. I also enjoy the aesthetics and artistry of them--the colors, the shapes, etc.

Makeup: I wore it when I was 14 and for a year in grad school on the premise that it would make me look more adult. In grad school, I also thought it would make me look more professional and thus help me network and get a job. So I was definitely playing a role. I ended up having a very successful career without makeup, so it obviously wasn't professionally important. I can understand people on TV wearing makeup, sort of, but that's a pretty small subset of humanity.

I've never understood why anyone would find a woman in makeup more attractive than a woman without makeup. Except on TV, no one wakes up in the morning with perfect makeup and hair, so why the dissembling, and why do people fall for it? I'm quite mystified about this.

Shoes: I have the following--One pair of sneakers, one pair of hiking boots, one pair of rubber boots (for doing outside work in mud or snow), and one pair of fairly decent looking flat shoes I hardly wear. I'm almost always in sneakers (in the nice weather) or hiking boots (in the cold weather). If it isn't functional footwear, I don't wear it. I can appreciate that other people just like the variety and the aesthetics of having different colors and styles of shoes, but nothing I wear on my feet looks particularly lovely for very long. Plus, Imelda Marcos loved shoes, and she and her husband considered their country's treasury their personal bank account, so I don't like the idea of having anything in common with her. I know that isn't completely rational, but it makes sense to me.

I love jewelry!

Actually, the history of jewelry is richer and deeper than the history of just about any other kind of property, except for lands, heads of cattle, stockpiles of grains and other food-and-survival "things". It is the earliest form of money, traded as beads, ear dangles, necklaces. IN more recent history, jewelry is the way women wear and carry their wealth. In the middle east, indonesian, indian subcontinent and pacific rim nations, jewelry is still today the way lower and middle class women carry their wealth. Their dowries consist of gold necklaces, earrings, rings, etc. that they receive on marriage from their families, and they wear these to the husband's home. In those cultures, the jewelry is a form of alternative money and a stable form of savings. It is the form that womens' money and savings takes, in those cultures. Gold jewelry is bought and sold based on purity, weight and that day's market value. You can trade a necklace for food, in a pinch.

In general, in the West, jewelry is more ritualized. The jewelry store markups are something like a thousand percent from the base materials. (No jewelry store sale where you're not getting at least 65% off is anything but a ripoff). So women aren't going to build their wealth around jewelry or buy jewelry as a form of savings asset. In the U.S. jewelry is more about expensive fashion and romantic gifts.

I am a little bit different because I like to pick up jewelry second hand from people who are selling vintage pieces. I like the white gold and 18 kt gold designs from the 1970's, like made by Christian Dior, which are slimline, art deco and with good weight and nice quality. In the 1980's there was the first big gold spike and pieces made after that are kind of flimsy. Recently, I've been picking up a lot of nice pieces that people sell because they have to raise money to pay their mortgages, etc. It works out well for them to sell to someone like me because they get a little more than what the guy who melts down gold will give them. And it works out well for me because I avoid the jewelry store markup. So during this economic turndown, I'm actually buying my chic vintage precious metals and stones jewelry second for basically dealer cost. Because of the foregoing conditions, my collection is actually a form of asset that can be sold or traded like any other kind of asset. The value of the precious metals has been somewhat unstable this year, but my jewelry buys, in terms of being assets, are doing a lot better than my stocks, bonds and real estate values are.

So in my own financial portfolio, jewelry is an asset class that is a precious metals collectible, and it's doing better than my other assets are this year. For example March, I picked up a 10 carat sapphire bracelet for $400 that appraised at almost $4000. Now I won't try to turn around and resell it during this recession/depression and make a profit. But it's something I'll keep and wear and if I sell it 10 years from now I'll probably get a lot more than the $400 that it cost me this year. But if I did want to turn around and sell it, I wouldn't lose any money. I can't really say that for my Petroleo Brasiliero stock.

The bottom line is jewelry is fundamentally that collection of stuff that people would naturally use for money if we didn't have a national paper currency. In human civilization, the womens' money is designed into and built into jewelry for adorning her face and body. Wearing her money has traditionally allowed the woman to wear her wealth on her person and keep it safe. As a matter of culture and fashion, it has developed into a kind of couture, or jewelry for decoration purposes.

I got interested in jewelry because it helps me with some of my sexual harassment problems. I more or less have those under control now, because I am able to coordinate cultural messages using things like clothes and jewelry. I think I understand now the mentality and psychology of various types of guys who push a woman too far for sex, and they usually revolve around some perception that they might succeed. In fact, that is what makes attractive Asperger females a big target in upper class white collar professional circles is the perception that the woman is naive, socially passive or that she will be submissive, all due to her social skills deficits. While there are lots of variants on reasons why some men go over the line with a woman while most men don't, a universal is that perception (based on her social skills traits) that they'll score with the Asperger female if they keep trying (these are, needless to say, the jerks). By now I have developed lots of nonverbal cues to discourage men from thinking that they'd score with me. But the most effective one I have found so far is jewelry.

If you walk into the office wearing a sapphire bracelet on one day, diamond earrings on another day, and a solid gold choker on the third day, any man who's secretly tracking you or obsessing over you figures out pretty quickly that you are way out of his league. A guy might hit on a woman who wears cashmere suits and a gold watch, but he'd be doing so out of love or a crush, not out of some sneaky plan to bag her and dump her because he thinks she's socially naive. So even though in the U.S. jewelry isn't a woman's wealth stash, it does convey that the woman has status and value. And the perception that the woman is socially naive gives one impression when she's wearing jeans and tight clothes and another when she's dressed in wool slacks and wearing a diamond tennis bracelet. A sexually predatory jerk might thing the first kind of socially naive woman (jeans and tight shirt) is just an ignorant slut he can take advantage of but he will tend to see the socially naive well-dressed woman with an elegant piece of jewelry as just sheltered, or shy. And that he will have a hard time taking advantage of a woman who costs so much to impress.

So for me, jewelry is a kind of cultural armor that puts down a lot of sexual predators in the workplace, etc. It also looks incredibly beautiful on a woman's body. It also has great asset value properties: stability of precious metals and gems to economic fluctuations, durability, etc. So for me, jewelry is a kind of precious collectible that, like gallery art, is a kind of asset class investment for me, it looks really beautiful when you wear it, and it is extremely effective at sending non-verbal signals that others read very clearly but that I don't have to have any social skills to send properly.

Another thing is that I can't stand shopping for clothes, accessories, shoes, etc. My girlfriends are out of their minds, going on scheduled trips to expensive shoe stores on special days to get their $300 shoes for $70, and so on. It's like their whole life, and actually it's my girly-girl fashionista girlfriend who taught me how people interpret what kind of person you are based on what you are wearing. Instead of investing every other weekend into these fashionista hunter-gatherer rituals, I just use my jewelry. I don't care how upscale the place is, if you walk in with decent quality simple clothes (like jeans and a v-neck pullover) and rubies on, I look just great. I would never spend all my time and thousands of dollars buying designer shoes every year that go out of fashion the next year. So, in that sense, jewelry helps me avoid all those other clothing and accessories rituals that women use to display their status and compete with each other, since I don't really get it anyways.

Re: makeup. The makeup is more cultural. People read your social agendas and self-view through your makeup. If you don't wear makeup, people who do assume certain things about you. If you do wear makeup, people who don't assume certain things about you. It's like who do you want to fit in with, if you wear a football jersey to the office on casual day instead of a polo shirt.

Re: multiple shoes, etc. I'm not one of those shoe ladies, but there are plenty. It's about status and expense, what your taste and wallet can afford. I like classic clothes, like your classic sweater, jeans, skirts, etc. Because they don't go out of style, just change slightly year after year. When I'm not working or socializing I just wear jeans. With the fashionistas, that it their way of establishing their pecking order and displaying status, etc. I hate clothes shopping, so was always bad in the clothes department.

You got this "presumptuous enough to just expect presents" from the following quote of mine:



I was giving the OP a piece of social skills advice since he said he'd talk to women about trying on jewelry. I was letting him know that when you start talking about jewelry when flirting with a woman, that is a suggestion that you would buy some. It is a suggestion that he will buy jewelry because the suggestion follows straight from the fact that the rare man who chats jewelry tends to be the kind of guy who buys jewelry. Also, the only times women run into men who raise the subject on their own is when the guy is fishing for information about what kind of piece to buy the woman they are talking to.

Just envision this conversation: "Wow, what a beautiful moon! Just out of curiosity what kind of necklaces do you like, my coworker wears pearls a lot but another woman told me that is old fashioned. I think they look great. What's your opinion, do you like pearl necklaces?"

I was just giving the OP some social-skills type warning to be careful, as a man, about chatting about jewelry with women he's flirting with.

I can't see how you get out of that, some feeling that the women "are presumptuous enough to just expect presents" or how you could get anything out of that post that would make you focus your "irk" on the (greedy, selfish, materialistic?) woman. Sounds to me like you're projecting some kind of negative bias about what kind of woman you think would be on the receiving end of an expensive gift.

Edited to add: Don't need to argue either. I didn't think it was worth the time since it seemed you were projecting some kind of caricature or bias. But if you're going to give an explanation for your statement, it seemed polite to respond to you. Perhaps the best response would not have been to point out that your explanation didn't make sense given the context.

Last edited by ephemerella on 05 Dec 2008, 11:55 am, edited 2 times in total.

ok

I don't need to argue with you. Have a nice day

You got this "presumptuous enough to just expect presents" from the following quote of mine:



Ok. I think I get it now. You see the whole gift-giving and gift-expectation thing between a man and a woman as being somehow corrupt.

Well, when it comes to people who make over six figures a year, it's not. It's what they do. It's not corrupt and it's not exploitive and it's not some kind of "mentality". And when you're talking about professional women who make good salaries, they tend to give as good as they get. It's a whole other culture than what you are probably thinking of. It's nothing like a sugar-daddy thing. Often, the women make more than the men. When professional couples exchange very expensive gifts, it's normal and ordinary, and it doesn't mean the same thing as it would mean between low-income people.

Loose for me. I feel like I am being crowded when I wear something too tight, even slightly tight. Drives me crazy. I can't even look at people wearing the 'skinny jeans' fad these days. Ick!

I absolutely despise tight clothes! It is one of my top sensory issues. I cannot wear tight shoes, tight pants (that excludes all pants with zippers), tight shirts, etc. And one of the main reasons I never wear socks is because they make your foot feel tighter inside of the shoe.
-OddDuckNash99-