AMA Fashion and anthropology. Everything happens for a reason…

[ArseInTheCoOpWindow]

I’ve been asked to start a thread in this.

I wrote a 50,000 word document in this and lectured in it for years. Fashion doesn’t just ‘happen’

It is essentially a social history particularly as regards women. This is mainly from the 1800’s. There is a reason for all those lovely Jane Austen type dresses.

So fire away, or l can drop little gems in here and there.

The hourglass shape hasn’t really been fashionable since the 50’s. The fashion industry is only interested in making money. The ‘ideal’ in the clothing industry is tall and slim, that’s what they cater for. And the other big reason is anthropometrics. They aim for main area of measurement. So a certain size has to fit the entirety of that size. Bigger waists allow for this to happen more. It would be too niche making purely for hourglasses and probably too expensive. The vintage clothes you buy that fit may have been worn with girdles to suck the flesh in.

But Collectif isn't actual vintage clothing - it's "vintage reproduction" i.e. modern clothing in a vintage style, and it's still made with a different hip to waist ratio than high street clothing. Hourglass-shaped women are real women who exist in the present day. We don't wear girdles, just normal modern underwear. It's our natural shape. This isn't about us wanting to be in fashion - it's about wanting clothes to actually fit our body shape. So why do high street shops act like we don't even exist? There are millions of us out there. Nobody seems to have done any anthropometrics on us.

I meant the vintage clothes you buy would have maybe had girdles under them.

I think honestly the reason they fit is it is the best style for an hourglass. So will be more attractive to an hourglass shape, so maybe they can afford to be niche? A retailer akways sizes for its market.

But who organises these anthropometrics? Who decides which people are chosen to take part in measuring people, leading to manufacturers' perception of what size people are? Certainly nobody asked me to take part.

I read that in the 1950s (or maybe longer ago, I can't remember), they did a mass measurement of thousands of women, but it turned out that they paid people to take part, so poorer women were over-represented and so the sizes were smaller (as they ate less food) as the manufacturers assumed that the measurements represented most women in general. What is happening with this in the present day, who exactly is measured, and who decides which people to measure?

When will the fashion for boring black be over? It's been around for far too long.

Who organises anthropometrics? This is the problem.

BSI hold a set of data. No one buys them as they are too expensive. There was a review of measurements sometime in the early 2000’s l think. And some clothing adapted to this.

But the real reason is every retailer has their own set on measurements that they use. It tends to reflect their target market. There are standardised measurements ( as above) but no one used them. So measurements are different for every shop and usually are based on their core customer

Black will never be over ( l don’t wear black) it’s everyone’s main choice. It goes with everything according to customers ( I don’t agree) it can be ultra sophisticated or ultra casual. Black is also a passive colour meaning people don’t have to make difficult decisions about when to wear it.

Re hourglass and silhouettes, I have thoughts .

Years ago I read somwhere that it used to be that there was a fashionable silhouette and women wore garments that helped them acheive that, like stays (and later corsets), bum pads, stiffened petticoats, crinoline hoops, bustles. Now there is still a fashionable silhouette but we are expected to modify our bodies to achieve it, through dieting, exercise or surgery. So while the hourglass silhouette had its moment in the say 50s it could helpfully be achieved through girdles and wide skirts (creating illusion of hourglass). I'd argue that the 60s skinny look was achieved through smoking instead of eating.

I think making clothes with a generous waist was less of an issue say in the early 80s when they made clothes in a way that made it easier to open a back or side seam and adjust the size, and people were more aware it might have to be done. Tops were defined by bust size. Trousers/skirts by hip size more than waist size. So to fit more people, esp as women stopped wearing girdles, it would make sense to be a little generous in the waist.

Now all those seams are closed in and "finished" making this much harder for a home fix, and with the price of clothes so low no-one spends money on tailoring.

I find fashion history fascinating. I saw something the other day that made the argument that the enormous skirts of the past were a way of women taking up space, and that quite a few men wrote outraged articles on how dreadful these enormous garments were specifically because it meant women occupied more space. They also argued that it kept groping hands at more of a distance - which does make a giant crinoline sound much more appealing 😂

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

Who organises anthropometrics? This is the problem.

BSI hold a set of data. No one buys them as they are too expensive. There was a review of measurements sometime in the early 2000’s l think. And some clothing adapted to this.

But the real reason is every retailer has their own set on measurements that they use. It tends to reflect their target market. There are standardised measurements ( as above) but no one used them. So measurements are different for every shop and usually are based on their core customer

Black will never be over ( l don’t wear black) it’s everyone’s main choice. It goes with everything according to customers ( I don’t agree) it can be ultra sophisticated or ultra casual. Black is also a passive colour meaning people don’t have to make difficult decisions about when to wear it.

I have some friends in dressmaking and clothing and they say this too. They tell me there is no such thing as vanity sizing...the shops aren't trying to flatter you that you're thinner than they are, they're just updating sizing standards and measurements based on our changing shapes and that of the core customer. Teenage girls are, overall, thinner than middle aged women so clothing designed for them comes up smaller.

It makes sense. If we didn't update our sizing then we'd still be using patterns from, what, the 1800s or earlier? We've made our cars, beds and furniture bigger, why nor our clothing?

Another hourglass here, quite an extreme one. It's bloody annoying that anything that fits the bust and hips is too big in the waist, but I've come to realise that my shape just isn't that common and I can't expect most mass produced stuff to fit it. I've found the places that do and made friends with my local seamstress. It sucks, but actually, why should anyone take something mass produced off the rack in a random shop and expect it to fit them in particular? Friends of mine with different body shapes have the same problem.

@ColdNovemberRain

Both Rob Roy and Braveheart came out in 1995 so Scottish-ness had a lot of positive press at that point. I was just finishing Uni (Edinburgh) then, and kilts were definitely favoured by young, middle class, men / students. Most of the guys I knew would get their kilts on at the slightest opportunity: they were great for pulling on a night out. They'd need an excuse - but anything would do tbh - rugby, football, weddings, end of exams, end of term, whatever.

Interesting thread about Western fashion.

But @EmpressCixi initially posted about Japanese traditional dress and OP responds about "the Chinese thing" ffs Stick to Jane Austen please.

I have a question. Has there ever been a period where male sexuality has been as blatantly expressed through fashion as female sexuality / sexual attractiveness (for want of a better word) currently is? Is it all relative i.e. we have so few 'rules' these days that fashion goes much further to try and catch our attention? Have men ever dressed in an overtly sexual manner (relative to the norms of the time) as much women do?

@workwoes123

I have a question. Has there ever been a period where male sexuality has been as blatantly expressed through fashion as female sexuality / sexual attractiveness (for want of a better word) currently is? Is it all relative i.e. we have so few 'rules' these days that fashion goes much further to try and catch our attention? Have men ever dressed in an overtly sexual manner (relative to the norms of the time) as much women do?

Men haven't traditionally been objectified like women, but they've defibrillator used fashion to accentuate certain physical characteristics. Ahem - www.wga.hu/art/m/moroni/navagero.jpg

Fucking autocorrect, definitely not defibrillator 😂

I think the codpiece was very sexual. But l can’t think of any other time.

No actually the late 60’s and 1970’s had ridiculously tight trousers. During womens lib, so things were changing, and men had to work harder to attract women. This was also a period where mens wear became much more flamboyant and peacock like.

I was look for pictures of men in tight trousers and came across this!

www.sadanduseless.com/funny-retro-rockstar-fashion/

Pineapplecakes, there’s quite a lot of work in responding to this thread. I’m also doing other things too. And I’m quite busy.

I make mistakes. But l don’t need nasty comments 😊

‘I think the codpiece was very sexual. But l can’t think of any other time.’

Try the late 14th-15th century.

Why has fashion returned to the early 00s, which seems so recent?

Or is the 15-18 cycle normal? I enjoy the 90s, grunge things again but I see things being sold now that I wore as an adult!

Not to mention some of the late Elizabethan styles…

ArseInTheCoOpWindow oh and thank you, this is really interesting!

Would that be the era of courtly love?

Fashion goes in a 20/30 year cycle. Early 2000 is over 20 years ago. So it’s ripe for revival. Bit early maybe, but it’s normal in the general cycle.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

Pineapplecakes, there’s quite a lot of work in responding to this thread. I’m also doing other things too. And I’m quite busy.

I make mistakes. But l don’t need nasty comments 😊

Ok, let's just gloss over the mistake of conflating 2 distinct cultures! No worries!

Sarcasm, not "nastiness".

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

I think wearing kilts in Scotland and not being ridiculed is due to a less formal society and acceptance of home sexuality,

Nonsense

It’s the tough guys that wear the kilts

Ok Bowing out now.

Hope those who were interested enjoyed it. Didn’t take long for the thread to turn.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

Would that be the era of courtly love?

Courtly love begins several hundred years before the advances in tailoring that allow the very fitted men’s styles but it is very much still in the air by then. The Hilliard Elizabethan courtier in his tight silk hose among the roses is part of that tradition too.