‘Ugly’ fashion only works if you’re attractive

[WizardinTraining]

I know it’s subjective and there’s no right or wrong and we should all be comfy with ourselves etc but am I the only one that thinks the current ugly/wacky/comfy type fashions that all the Instagrammers are wearing only work because most of them are slim and attractive.

I love all the bright jumpers, clashing patterns, baggy jeans and especially the bold trainers but being short, not very slim and booby I’d look like a Playschool presenter at best and an oversized child at worst <sigh>

But you can have things that make you happy because they're flattering as well?

Good colours, a style that suits you. Flattering doesn't mean sexy to me. It means it suits you. I've never thought of flattering to mean 'for the male gaze' any more than my husband looking stylish is dressing for other women or even other men- he just doesn't wear things that make him look like a potato.

I love my long puffer. I really embrace the daelek silhouette it gives when zipped up.

but you know, she is young and lovely and can get away with it

What does “get away with it” mean here?

I guess flattering means different things to different people (of different ages)

at 50-something I see the need for clothes to be “flattering” as something certain women my age worry about, having grown up with the fear of “does my bum look big in this?!” Flattering clothes were typically clothes that made you look slimmer, trimmer, perky boobed and small bottomed, small feet, long legs … the 90s ideal (very prescriptive imo)

it is now a bit outdated as a concept (in the above way), the same way that my mum always worried that clothes were “appropriate” and “sensible” 😁 which to me seemed such an old fashioned way to look at clothes.

I am not saying people should not want to wear flattering clothes, but just that the above idea of “flattering” I grew up with now seems a bit outdated. Not sure if I am making sense 😁😅

I genuinely don't understand the comments about puffer coats. They make everyone look as if they're wearing a sleeping bag.

To my eyes they fail my subjective tests of (1) is this interesting and (2) do I like the look of it?

They look exactly the same on tall, thin people as they do on a short, size 18- they're both wearing a nylon sleeping bag. I'm sure they're fantastically warm and if I were going to be spending lots of time outdoors in sub Arctic weather I might get over my dislike, but I won't be.

Although having said that I applaud your embracing of the Dalek silhouette. Now that's a mindset I can get to grips with. That's dopamine dressing too. (Do you sort of hover along the pavement in it, thinking "exterminate" if anyone gets in your way?)

I stuck to 'flattering' clothing for years, devoured everything by Trinny & Susanna and still have a soft spot for them. But I got immensely bored and the constant negativity and 'I can'ts' got me down. And the older I got, the less it had to say to me.

But I think the final straw was flares coming around for the 3rd time in my life. Now I like flares, a lot, I'm wearing some today, but I thought 'Jeez is this really all you've got to offer me? Is this constant recycling all there is?'

Seeing different silhouettes had been a breath of fresh air.

I would love to believe that young women are turning away from dressing to look sexually attractive and turning instead to comfort and clothes that make them happy. Reality is the vast majority of them spend far, far more money, time and effort on their looks (skincare, makeup, hair, nails) than my contemporaries ever did. And if fashion told them to wear tight sexy uncomfortable clothes most of them would. It’s just another passing phase.

Do you sort of hover along the pavement in it, thinking "exterminate" if anyone gets in your way?)

😂 I think that anyway, when people get in my way- whether puffer clad or not.

Although on busy streets it needs to be zipped as when left open it certainly fulfils the “taking up space” criteria and is liable to flap on to oncomers and gives me about 3x my natural width. I will miss it come the Spring.

What do you mean by "flatter"?

My criteria for buying something are
Is it interesting? Do I like the look of it? Does it come in my size? Does it fit? Will wearing it make me happy? (the Dopamine dressing effect)

Something similar to what I mentioned up thread, garments that fit and suit the person's shape and colouring, garments that work together.

For one person that might be a tailored outfit of neutral basics, for another it might be some beautiful jewel tones, someone else might like classic cuts in brighter colours, another might prefer lighter pallettes and looser fitting, someone else might have a more casual vibe and all could be dressed in a way that is flattering even if their style preferences are different to mine. Overall whatever their individual style their look makes sense.

In contrast some looks seem to involve throwing on a weird mixture of poorly fitting garments, loud prints that don't work together, colours that don't work together and/or don't compliment the colouring of the person wearing it. For those people it seems that being wacky is their 'thing' and if it brings them joy then great, but I'd not consider it a flattering look.

But the whole concept of what suits someone is personal , subjective

What makes one person happy another person may think ugly

The only wrong thing is to judge people based on their style

Something similar to what I mentioned up thread, garments that fit and suit the person's shape and colouring, garments that work together.

I'm not sure what "suits my shape" means. Suits my colouring doesn't come into it. I like most colours and other than purple have clothes in most colours and shades, including neutrals. A colour is my colour if I like it.

I loved my baggy clothes and deliberately garish makeup as a teen, and like that it's in fashion again... but it did nothing to put the 'male gaze' off, so that wasn't part of it. Creeps will stare at teen girls either way sadly. And while I didn't think it was 'ugly fashion', I did think it was much cooler than 'try hard' tight, short clothing, which my oh-so-cool friends would have scorned! So it was still about impressing peers in a way.

Not even then. Look at catwalk stuff. It looks shit even on models.

All very true. Good points.

midgetastic
There's a big difference between having an opinion on the aesthetics of a style and judging a person though.

If dressing in a loud and chaotic style makes someone happy, all power to them. But let's spare the pretence that everything goes with everything else.

If someone wants to wear period themed dungarees covered in vulvas with a loud clashing t shirt and a poorly fitting jacket and it brings them joy, great. Nobody else is obliged to think that the colours/shapes/tailoring/aesthetic work or are flattering and it's not a judgement on them as a person. It's an opinion about style.

There's a lot of styles that aren't my cup of tea for me, but I can appreciate them on other people.Just like I can appreciate interior design in houses that isn't how I'd design my own home.

Many people can tell the difference between house decor that's well designed though not their personal taste, and interiors that are a hot mess of clashing colours with shelves/walls full of stuff that looks chaotic. The latter might bring someone joy, but it doesn't mean everyone else has to pretend that it's well designed or aesthetically pleasing.

💯 someone walked past me this week in wide legged trousers with a flowing long coat all in shades of brown check and vintage feel check, she looked incredible as was so tall and slim, I'd look like Del Boy trotter with my stature and bust.

Flatter means slimming or accentuates figure.

rooftopbird
I think cut and fit of the garments matters too, possibly as much as height.
I've seen some people who aren't tall and slim wearing what I think is probably described as a dark academia look.

It's not my style and I'd look like a sack of potatoes in it but they looked great!

V.true OP

Good looking 22 year olds look good in almost anything. It's a bit like when everyone used to say how good Sinead o Connor looked with a shaved head...no, Sinead o Connor was a really pretty twenty-something. It definitely wouldn't look the same on older, fatter me!

But it's all subjective.

There's a particular dress which appears regularly on here on wedding guest threads. It's available from various stockists and under a couple of brand names. It gets almost universal praise. I'd have to be paid a large amount of money to wear it in public. And I'd be very unhappy wearing it.

The latter might bring someone joy, but it doesn't mean everyone else has to pretend that it's well designed or aesthetically pleasing.

From a technical point of view something is well designed if it easily serves its purpose and is durable.

So far as "aesthetically pleasing"- many posters presumably find the dress I'm referring to "aesthetically pleasing". For me, that dress is so far from "aesthetically pleasing" I'm not sure I could bear leaving the house in it.

IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle
I take your point about subjectivity but do think that it can get stretched to a point where people act like the colour wheel doesn't exist and get caught up in the faux confused outlook, often from people who know fine well they're dressing in a clashing way because (in my experience) people with that style tend to focus a lot on how different and wacky their clothes are. They're not confused. They know that a pair of green and pink patterned trousers and a neon orange top clashes because that's the point.

Whereas with your dress example, I'd say a dress that isn't to my taste, even one that you'd have to pay me to wear, can still be styled well, even if I wouldn't wear it. It wouldn't be to my taste, but I could look at it styled and work by someone else and think "not my taste, not a look I like, I'd never wear it, but overall I can appreciate the look they are going for".

They know that a pair of green and pink patterned trousers and a neon orange top clashes because that's the point.

Well yes, that's exactly the point but why not? Why shouldn't they clash (whatever that even means) What's so inherently better by having colours that match?

You're also contradicting yourself.

Your position seems to be that you're objectively deciding clashing colours are wrong- just done for attention seeking but you would make allowances for that particular dress, which to to my eyes, subjectively is just a horrible dress.

But if you're going to go down that route I can easily understand the point of clashing colours, even if the colours aren't colours I'd pick- that dress on the other hand...

Not really I just think that lots of people are capable of saying:

• this is my personal taste/style (be it clothes or home decor or anything else like that)
• this is not my personal style/ not to my taste / I don't like that item, but I can appreciate it as a look or style for someone else. I might not like X, Y, Z but appreciate on a colour/design level they work.
• this does not go together/ the colours and prints clash / this looks chaotic and messy

The thing I find funny when it comes to the chaotic/clashing/loud/wacky style, is one minute it's all faux confusion about why anyone would notice the obviously mismatched and chaotic look because "it's so subjective/what does it really mean for something to go?" and the next it's "obviously it doesn't go that's the whole point". If the whole point is to clash then they know it clashes and looks mismatched, but then people are wrong for identifying that the look is chaotic and clashing.😂

I disagree. some of the ugly stuff is so ugly that it also looks awful on models. case in point: balenciaga. let's take some bin bags/actual rubbish and tape them to skinny sticks on legs and charge 10 grand seems to be their motto

this does not go together/ the colours and prints clash / this looks chaotic and messy

You're still being prescriptive. It looks chaotic and messy to you. You think chaotic and messy is bad, or ignoring the "colour wheel" is bad.

I wear colour combinations which you'd probably categorise as "chaotic and messy" I pick them because they aren't dull and boring. There's no confusion or "faux confusion" involved.

You can think whatever you want about it, but trying to impose rules that choices shouldn't be "stretched to a point where people act like the colour wheel doesn't exist" are just silly. I suppose I do act as if it doesn't exist, inasmuch I don't think about it.

The thing I find funny when it comes to the chaotic/clashing/loud/wacky style, is one minute it's all faux confusion about why anyone would notice the obviously mismatched and chaotic look because "it's so subjective/what does it really mean for something to go?"

Really not sure what you're referring to here. You keep mentioning"faux confusion".

The confusion I've seen on here is confusion by some posters , including me, about why the imposition of rules about what colours and shapes are acceptable is taken as a given.