A few ppl have pointed out that my threads on Matt Walsh and others neither debunk their views nor will they have any impact on changing people's minds on LGBTQ+ issues. This is true. I do them partly bc I think it's ironic how many anti-LGBTQ+ activists now dress metrosexual. 🧵
I also do them bc it's hard to illustrate certain points without posting photos of bad outfits. And I don't like posting photos of regular ppl who I think are dressed badly. If someone is just trying to feel better in their clothes, it's lame to put them on blast.
I feel less bad, however, posting photos of celebs or ppl who have made a career off being cruel to people. These side-by-side comparisons aren't meant to change anyone's mind on LGBTQ+ issues—this is a Twitter thread, be realistic—but to help ppl develop an eye for what works.
There are many ways to dress. Fashion doesn't even have to be about looking conventionally attractive or flattering one's figure. A good outfit can be concealing, unflattering, or even disfiguring. Much depends on the cultural language of dress and one's identity & intentions.
There's nothing wrong with wearing skinny jeans, short suit jackets, or other types of clothing. Although I do think there's such a thing as good vs. bad outfits. These are good:
It's more about figuring out what works for your body type, lifestyle, identity, etc. And not thoughtlessly jumping from trend to trend, unaware of the meaning of clothes, or buying stuff just to fit in. This aesthetic is not pleasing:
The real point of all these threads is to help ppl develop an eye, so that they may get more pleasure from dress. So they feel confident in what they wear, know what works for them, and have long-lasting relationships with their purchases.
If someone buys a skinny, short suit and it happens to work for their body type, lifestyle, and identity, then it doesn't matter if the trend is "over." But figuring this out takes looking at good & bad outfits, diff silhouettes/ styles for diff body types, and knowing what works
This is primarily a menswear account, so you should expect that the main thrust of most posts—albeit not all—is about men's clothing. No one is under any illusion that commenting on a bad outfit is going to change large-scale structural and social prejudices against people.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The US Army celebrated its 250th year today with a massive parade in Washington, DC. It appears @ComfortablySmug believes that this is an appropriate tie for the occasion.
It's once again worth reminding that men's dress used to be governed by time, place, and occasion (TPO). If you were of a certain social station and had to do a certain thing, you were expected to wear a certain outfit.
This tradition can be seen in men's neckwear.
In Britain, where we derive most of our traditions for classic men's dress, the term "regimental stripe" refers to neckwear with diagonal lines, like you see below. These were not purely about decoration. Each design symbolized belonging to some organization.
This is the suit in question. It's a bespoke suit by Anderson & Sheppard in London. The cloth is a 60/40 mohair-wool blend from Standeven's "Carnival" book. The stylist was George Cortina.
To understand why this suit is interesting, you have to know a bit about tailoring history
In the early 20th century, Dutch-English tailor Frederick Scholte noticed that a man could be made to look more athletic if he belted up his guard's coat, puffing out the chest and nipping the waist. So he built this idea into his patterns. Thus the "drape cut" war born.
In 1881, Hans Wilsdorf was born in Bavaria, then part of Germany, to parents who died not long after he was born. At a young age, Wilsdorf set off into the world. He landed in England in 1903, which at the time had virtually no formal immigration controls.
Lucky for him. Two years later, fear of poor Eastern European Jews flooding the UK led to 1905 Aliens Act, which moved the country from an open-door policy to one of stricter control. This was the first British law that labeled certain migrants as "undesirable."
I can tell you who goes to cobblers. And a bit about the trade. 🧵
In the 18th century, men got shoes from two types of people. The upper classes went to cordwainers, who measured feet and made shoes from scratch. The lower working-classes went to cobblers, who cobbled together shoes using scraps from salvaged pre-owned footwear.
A cobbler was also someone who repaired footwear. Hence the Middle English term cobeler ("mender of shoes") deriving from an early form of cobble ("to mend roughly, patch"). In shoemaking, cordwainers and cobblers were considered distinct trades. Cobbler was lower on the ladder.
An offhand comment about how Prince Harry doesn't dress very well seems to have stirred up his fans. So here's a thread on how both Harry and William don't dress well when compared to the older men in their family — and how this represents a broader decline in taste. 🧵
I should say at the outset that I don't care about the drama surrounding the Royal family. I don't care if you're Team Markle or Team Middleton or Team whatever. I am simply talking about clothes. The following is also not meant to be personal jabs; just an honest review.
The first thing to understand is that select members of royal family were incredible dressers. Most notable is Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor. For a time, whatever he wore, others followed. He popularized cuffed trousers, belts, and a tailoring style known as the "drape cut."
When we zoom in on the wallet, we see the label "Saint Laurent Paris," a French luxury fashion house that became popular about ten years ago when Kanye started wearing the label. This was also when Hedi Slimane was at the company's creative helm.
For many young men at the time, Saint Laurent was their entry into designer fashion, partly because the designs were conceptually approachable (LA rocker, Hot Topic), while the Kanye co-sign made them cool and the prices signaled status (and for the uninformed, suggested quality)