random fashion thoughts

[Faust]

I disagree, mirror. I think shoes are the trickiest of all because I'd argue that they have most utilitarian value, so fit is even more important. Of course plenty of people, especially women, simply choose to suffer.

Bags, as Shucks points out, are perfect though. You can be any size or shape and wear one with a sense of satisfaction.

[Mirror&Rack]

We're talking about the same thing. Fit and comfort are the most important. My statement is exclusive of things that can bring wearers pain or discomfort, such as high heels worn too long, chosen suffering, and CCP.

I was referring to the fact that if I'm a size 44, and if I go online and order a size 44 RO Dunk, or a size 44 A1923 boot, or a size 11 flyknit, I already know that it's going to fit me and be comfortable. If I'm not familiar with a brand's sizing, I ask around, and usually I can figure out if I need to go one up or down. Guidi shoes mostly run small, great, I'll get the 45. (Some brands obviously have significant sizing issues, but most are static) Also, shoe sizes for the most part aren't variable season to season. I'm not going to be stuck there in sizing limbo... Should I order the size 52 or 50 SS14 RO jacket... Those BBS P13's ran so small last season, what should I order now? ... More research, more questions ensue... Footwear? ... So much easier to pull the trigger from afar.

I was also referring to the idea that footwear is the most gender neutral accessory as most men own 2 or 3 bags at most, many 1 or none. I won't pass judgment, but many men refuse to wear a bag altogether, even when direly needed (idiots). I don't know of many men with a bag fetish. I require bags, and I still have at least 3 times the amount of footwear that I do bags.

I know a lot of people, up and down the strata of style and income that have significant holes in their wardrobe (because they complain and/or point it out to me), and yet they continuously buy more footwear instead of making an effort to fill those gaps. Past a few pairs of shoes/boots/flipflops, utilitarian value is lost. I mean how many pairs of shoes do you really need? Many people I know have at least 2K-3K in excessive footwear in that case, and yet still don't have a really proper winter coat, while they live in a place where they certainly need one. (Sorry, not you Atlantans)

[BSR]

I know a lot of people, up and down the strata of style and income that have significant holes in their wardrobe (because they complain and/or point it out to me), and yet they continuously buy more footwear instead of making an effort to fill those gaps. Past a few pairs of shoes/boots/flipflops, utilitarian value is lost. I mean how many pairs of shoes do you really need? Many people I know have at least 2K-3K in excessive footwear in that case, and yet still don't have a really proper winter coat, while they live in a place where they certainly need one. (Sorry, not you Atlantans)

1) everyone here should stop talking about 'need' and 'utilitarian value' on these boards. It's both indecent and irrelevant.
2) are you aware of shoe fetishism? No need to build a big 'consumer' theory here if you ask me... also, ask yourself what a fetish is and why men fetish boots but not bags. Freud and the likes could help.

[Faust]

BSR, by "utilitarian value" I was merely referring to the fact that footwear must be the most comfortable thing in your attire, at least for those of us who live in the cities and walk a lot.

I don't see how a high price tag (presumably you are objecting to the fact that it makes something "luxury" and hence not a necessity) invalidates this statement.

The reason I've been wearing my RO side zip creepers to death is that not only they look great but I can walk in them all day.

I know it's something Sissy P cares about in his high-falutin' universe, but normal people do.

[Mirror&Rack]

1) agreed, unless it's truly a utilitarian statement like the above.

2) I am, quite aware, thank you. I appreciate the recommendation, but I don't need to review Psych101 to be appraised. I was expounding on my simple comment, in response to Faust's comment. No need to get all Freudian and shiz. My initial comment was simply referring to the ease of which footwear is consumed compared to other items, especially now with online ordering.

[BSR]

@Faust: this distinction (footwear vs rest of wardrobe) is far from obvious to me, on several levels:
-even if you walk a lot, your feet aren't the most sensitive parts of your body. Try to spend a day in pants that crush your balls / leather jacket with too high armholes etc...
-Nikes will always be much more comfortable than any RO footwear. So if comfort matters, even for high price fashionable goods, it's certainly as a secondary criterion.
-'utilitarian value' sounds as an economical concept to my ears, and i don't see how it would really apply here: in the realm of expensive shoes, practical shoes should be more expensive than unpractical ones?

@mirror: my answer was a tongue-in-cheek way to tell you that maybe the best explanation to the fact that men buy many shoes online isn't the online factor or the more consistent sizing of footwear vs jackets or whatever.

[Dorje]

BSR, I disagree, clothes certainly serve a utilitarian value and they are certainly needed. That aspect does not need to be avoided just because people here are spending more than required to achieve the utilitarian requirements.

M&R, you think most people that are into fashion end up with a shoe/boot fetish? I really don't know but I would guess this isn't the case. I don't think most folks are sexually aroused by their shoe collection, but I understand it is a common fetish... but by common I still think it's likely well under 1% of the general population and I doubt people who are into fashion are much more likely to fetishize footwear. To me it seems very strange and I'm not sure being interested in fashion means you are much more likely to sexually aroused by aspects of it.

[DudleyGray]

I mean how many pairs of shoes do you really need?

At least 2 dozen, by my count, assuming you live in a place with 4 seasons, dress differently for work than leisure, have an active social life, travel, and indulge in hobbies where footwear matters.

[kunk75]

i am floating in a sea of passport blue

vicious is fn killing me...

[Mirror&Rack]

This is either getting good or really tired... Where to start...

/BSR... I wasn't SOLE-ly referring to men, which my original thought clearly indicates.

/Dorje... I referred to collection/fetish meaning many would never admit to having a fetish, but that does not mean that they do not possess one in effect and by action. Some people, such as myself, may simply have a collection.
I'm aroused by leather, and so clearly the fact that I pay next to no attention to my linen shoes indicates that I do not have a shoe fetish. Also, strangely enough, I agree with you in regards to the fashion ilk not being more likely to fetishize footwear. I used to think differently on that, especially considering fashion folk enduring considerably higher exposure rates. Meeting a few very strange women's and/or men's shoe collectors through the years has certainly changed my beliefs.

/Dudley... I'm no Imelda Marcos, but I had thought at least 3 dozen. I strongly desire (need) almost every preferred shoe in Black, Grey, and White... have to sprinkle a few bloods and reds in there too... So I guess it's more like 6 dozen if you're going to include duplicates, and a few for posterity... admittedly, very few shoes qualify for the latter purpose... So maybe it's more like 5 dozen.

/kunk... It's like blue just got invented, huh? ... I say that lovingly... Passport is quite nice, reminds me of BBS SS09

[Faust]

@Faust: this distinction (footwear vs rest of wardrobe) is far from obvious to me, on several levels:
-even if you walk a lot, your feet aren't the most sensitive parts of your body. Try to spend a day in pants that crush your balls / leather jacket with too high armholes etc...
-Nikes will always be much more comfortable than any RO footwear. So if comfort matters, even for high price fashionable goods, it's certainly as a secondary criterion.
-'utilitarian value' sounds as an economical concept to my ears, and i don't see how it would really apply here: in the realm of expensive shoes, practical shoes should be more expensive than unpractical ones?

This selective hearing - is that a French thing? Or a Parisian? Because you are starting to rival Galia in this

a) what I say stands, because I can spend a day in high-armholed jacket, but I can't walk with blisters on my feet. Maybe you can, hats off to you in this case.

b) Obviously Nike is more comfortable - we are talking about fashion here, looks and comfort, which is part of utility.

c) Re: "utilitarian value." Maybe it's a language barrier. The concept of "utility" in the English language is central to fashion, often a substitute for "function."

[BSR]

This selective hearing - is that a French thing? Or a Parisian? Because you are starting to rival Galia in this

a) what I say stands, because I can spend a day in high-armholed jacket, but I can't walk with blisters on my feet. Maybe you can, hats off to you in this case.

b) Obviously Nike is more comfortable - we are talking about fashion here, looks and comfort, which is part of utility.

c) Re: "utilitarian value." Maybe it's a language barrier. The concept of "utility" in the English language is central to fashion, often a substitute for "function."

don't forget that Galia has also Russian blood, and maybe selective hearing comes from there!

ok about c), i don't think it's English, it's just an academic bias, when I hear 'utility' i immediately think of the economical/philosophical notion. still, i think we can easily agree that function is both a very common property of garments, fashion or not, that fashion very rarely impacts on function in a positive manner (does not add to comfort), and hence that we obviously do not choose our garments using this criterion first.

also i wasn't directing my gentle sarcasms towards you, but sometimes i get the feeling that our talkative newcomers try to reinvent water. no wonder kunk (and I) feel a bit drown.

[Shucks]

i am floating in a sea of passport blue

thank god i don't do color - i'd be bankrupt.

but on the other hand cdgh+ is looking so good this season. gaaaah...

[mrbeuys]

fashion very rarely impacts on function in a positive manner (does not add to comfort), and hence that we obviously do not choose our garments using this criterion first.

You obviously don't own a lot of Rick Cashmere.

[galia]

Rick cachemire is not of better quality or greater softness than other cashmeres at a lower price point, and has a tendency to pill like a mofo. most are cozy but hardly convenient with weird shapes / inefficient or absent closure systems, etc. Great design wise but hardly ideal in terms of comfort and convenience. let's not pretend like looks and prestige are not by like 95% the main decisive factors in purchasing

also I don't have selective hearing, I just respond to what catches my attention. If I don't respond to something it's just that I either agree or don't care

PS: I realize that my tone seems a bit dry in writing, please add tongue in cheekiness and winks throughout, I'm not trying to be mean or anything