EvelynVogtGamble

Martin wrote:

    > On 23 Jul 2005 01:29:10 -0700, "A Human Being"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Martin wrote:
    >>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 00:59:24 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>>DDT Filled Mormons writes:
    >>>>>But none of them are in this place.
    >>>>Or at least they don't actively post.
    >>>They don't post at all.
    >>Correction- some do post, but as Mxs said - not actively.
    >
    >
    > What is inactive posting? Not pressing the send button?
    >
    >
    >>>Why do you think that is?
    >>Because some folks prefer conversations with substance from which they
    >>can learn something useful, which is a rare occurance here.
    >
    >
    > You haven't been paying attention. This group is a mine of
    > information.

Yeah - you can even learn correct spelling by observation
("occurrence" for example).

EvelynVogtGamble

A Human Being wrote:

    >
    > Martin wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:35:04 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
    >>wrote:
    >>>Timothy Kroesen writes:
    >>>>How many Euro did you make Clown buskin?
    >>>If you are asking if I was soliciting money in the Métro or on public
    >>>right of way, I was not.
    >>but now you are considering it? Less embarrassing than begging from
    >>friends?
    >
    >
    > One never needs to beg from real friends. They understand and extend
    > help without being asked. That in fact is the test of real friendship.

This guy sounds like Ixi's alter ego!
    >

EvelynVogtGamble

A Human Being wrote:

    >
    > Martin wrote:
    >
    >>On 23 Jul 2005 01:29:10 -0700, "A Human Being"
    >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>Martin wrote:
    >>>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 00:59:24 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>>>DDT Filled Mormons writes:
    >>>>>>But none of them are in this place.
    >>>>>Or at least they don't actively post.
    >>>>They don't post at all.
    >>>Correction- some do post, but as Mxs said - not actively.
    >>What is inactive posting? Not pressing the send button?
    >
    >
    > I don't know what `inactive posting' is- its a term you have used. But
    > its not the same as `not posting actively' which means not posting very
    > many messages.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>>Why do you think that is?
    >>>Because some folks prefer conversations with substance from which they
    >>>can learn something useful, which is a rare occurance here.
    >>You haven't been paying attention.
    >
    >
    > What leads you to this conclusion?
    >
    >
    >>This group is a mine of information.
    >
    >
    > Information is of both kinds- useful as well as useless.

I'd be SURE this guy was Mixi putting us on, except that
Mixi can spell. ("occurrence"; "it's" - not "its" - for the
contraction of "it is".....)

    >

EvelynVogtGamble

Mxsmanic wrote:

    > The Reids writes:
    >
    >
    >>and can show off a bit with an expensive dress or a lot of
    >>cleavage, men are supposed to just all look the same and sweat.
    >
    >
    > The purpose of female attire is to show off the individual physical
    > attractiveness of each woman. The purpose of male attire is to make
    > all men look the same, so that appearance can be largely ignored.
    >
    > Unfortunately, the standard for male attire was developed in very cool
    > climates, and is very ill suited to warmer climates. Additionally,
    > its very purpose requires multiple layers of clothing to hide the body
    > as much as possible, which means that male attired intended for its
    > usual purpose will necessarily be hot and uncomfortable in all but the
    > coolest environments.
    >
    > If you don't believe this, just compare people in formal attire and
    > naked. When they are naked, the women look a lot more alike, and the
    > men look considerably more different. When they are clothed, the
    > women look much more different, and the men look much more alike.
    >
    > Overall it reflects the norms of a society in which the appearance of
    > women is their most important characteristic, and in which the
    > appearance of men is not supposed to be allowed to influence the
    > impression they create. Additionally, in any society, the most
    > dominant group usually dresses the most conservatively and
    > identically, and in Western society men tend to be the dominant sex.

I think you're overlooking the fact that, up until Edwardian
England, the fashion in men's clothing (although equally
"restrictive" - if not more so) could hardly be described as
"conservative"!

The Reids

Following up to Icono Clast

    >> No, you can't. It has to be around 50° F and less than 30%
    >> humidity to wear a suit, no matter how well it fits.
    >Utter nonsense. I frequently wear suits, business and dress, in
    >considerable comfort. Even more frequently I don't, in unnoticeably
    >different comfort.

Its not nonsense, it may not apply to you, but its true for me.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

The Reids

Following up to JohnT

    >> Overall it reflects the norms of a society in which the appearance of
    >> women is their most important characteristic, and in which the
    >> appearance of men is not supposed to be allowed to influence the
    >> impression they create.

    >Did you think of that all by yourself? It is as sensible as many of your
    >other outpourings, which is not at all.

the part I haven't snipped is a reasonable point of view, the
rest was more controversial, but not nonsense by any means.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

The Reids

Following up to [email protected]

    >> My hope is that the current trend towards totally casual, functional
    >> attire will continue, making the whole question obsolete.
    >I like comfortable clothes too, but ties have been around for centuries
    >and I think they're unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

I'm not sure about centuries in their current form? I get the
impression they are near the end of their time, they only seem to
still exist in the conservative world of business and formal
occasions, where some conservative minded people can actually be
shocked or horrified by someone not wearing one, bizarre!
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

The Reids

Following up to Keith W

    >> Overall it reflects the norms of a society in which the appearance of
    >> women is their most important characteristic, and in which the
    >> appearance of men is not supposed to be allowed to influence the
    >> impression they create.
    >That may have been true in the 50's its assuredly not true today
    >and especially not in Paris. Parisian men may not dress formally
    >by American standards but appearance IS important.

in my experience mens clothes are very similar while womens
clothes are very varied and emphasise their sexuality in varying
ways according to current fashion, while mens do not.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

The Reids

Following up to A Human Being

    >>The clothing of
    >> the respective sexes is deliberately designed to achieve these
    >> results.
    >What purpose would it serve?

womens clothes primarily as sex objects, mens clothes as
primarily status objects.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

Alohacyberian

"The Reids" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Following up to [email protected]
    >>> My hope is that the current trend towards totally casual, functional
    >>> attire will continue, making the whole question obsolete.
    >>I like comfortable clothes too, but ties have been around for centuries
    >>and I think they're unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
    > I'm not sure about centuries in their current form? I get the
    > impression they are near the end of their time, they only seem to
    > still exist in the conservative world of business and formal
    > occasions, where some conservative minded people can actually be
    > shocked or horrified by someone not wearing one, bizarre!
Yup, neckties, cravats, like hats, are on their way out. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

Icono Clast

Mxsmanic wrote:
    > The purpose of female attire is to show off the individual
    > physical attractiveness of each woman. The purpose of male attire
    > is to make all men look the same, so that appearance can be
    > largely ignored.

When entering the social dance world, beginners are told "Followers
[usually women] are the picture; Leaders [usually men] are the
frame". Just as those who play with balls are reminded by their
coaches to keep their eye on them, Leaders are regularly reminded of
their rôle.

    > male attired intended for its usual purpose will necessarily be
    > hot and uncomfortable in all but the coolest environments.

Bullshit!

    > If you don't believe this, just compare people in formal attire
    > and naked. When they are naked, the women look a lot more alike,
    > and the men look considerably more different. When they are
    > clothed, the women look much more different, and the men look much
    > more alike.

A fascinating revelation.

    > Overall it reflects the norms of a society in which the appearance
    > of women is their most important characteristic, and in which the
    > appearance of men is not supposed to be allowed to influence the
    > impression they create. Additionally, in any society, the most
    > dominant group usually dresses the most conservatively and
    > identically, and in Western society men tend to be the dominant
    > sex.

And another! You sure you live in Paris?

    > the appearance of women, which [Muslims] consider an evil
    > temptation to men.

Only Muslims?

    > My hope is that the current trend towards totally casual,
    > functional attire will continue

I don't because


[email protected] wrote:
    > as the song goes, "Every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp-dressed man."

I dare not repeat some of the comments made to me by women, and men,
at dance conventions on Saturday nights when I'm in Black Tie.
__________________________________________________ _________________
A San Franciscan who never says "No!" to an invitation to dance!
< http://geocities.com/dancefest/ >-< http://geocities.com/iconoc/ >
ICQ: < http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 > ---> IClast at SFbay Net

Mxsmanic

Icono Clast writes:

    > When entering the social dance world, beginners are told "Followers
    > [usually women] are the picture; Leaders [usually men] are the
    > frame". Just as those who play with balls are reminded by their
    > coaches to keep their eye on them, Leaders are regularly reminded of
    > their rôle.

Since this is not about dance or ballplaying, I'm not sure I see the
relevance of this.

    > Only Muslims?

Arab Muslims are particularly gung-ho on this point. Most religions
are critical of all things sexual, though. Sexuality is an excellent
instrument of control for organized religions, because it is something
that everybody wants, but nobody needs.

JamesStep

    >> ties have been around for centuries
.
    > I'm not sure about centuries in their current form?

Yes, I should have said that they've been around *in one form or
another* for centuries.


    > [ties] only seem to still exist in the conservative world of
    > business and formal occasions

Yes, but that's an enormously big world. There are millions of
businessmen who wear ties everyday. Walk into any store that sells
men's dress clothing and you'll still lots of ties for sale, indicating
that they still sell well.

    >I get the impression they are near the end of their time

People dress more casually these days, but those things tend to go in
cycles; sooner or later it'll probably become fashionable to dress more
formally again.

Jim

A Human Being

Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Icono Clast writes:
    > > When entering the social dance world, beginners are told "Followers
    > > [usually women] are the picture; Leaders [usually men] are the
    > > frame". Just as those who play with balls are reminded by their
    > > coaches to keep their eye on them, Leaders are regularly reminded of
    > > their rôle.
    > Since this is not about dance or ballplaying, I'm not sure I see the
    > relevance of this.

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts....

-- Shakespeare, `As You Like It'.

    > > Only Muslims?
    > Arab Muslims are particularly gung-ho on this point. Most religions
    > are critical of all things sexual, though. Sexuality is an excellent
    > instrument of control for organized religions, because it is something
    > that everybody wants, but nobody needs.

A bit off the mark here.

A Human Being

Mxsmanic wrote:
    > A Human Being writes:
    > > But you mentioned in your earlier post ....
    > > ``Additionally, in any society, the most dominant group usually dresses
    > > the most conservatively and identically''
    > Yes, the reason being that if the dominant group behaves too
    > "strangely," it destabilizes the society and makes people nervous.So
    > the ruling class or dominant group often has strict rules for
    > behavior, attire, etc., at least in public.

But women are _not_ the dominant group, so why the strict behaviour and
dress code for them? It should have been for the menfolk, no?

    > > ....but muslim women are certainly not the dominant sex in their
    > > culture.
    > No, but their bodies are considered an evil temptation, so they are
    > dressed conservatively for that reason.

Then your above reasoning that strict behaviour and dress code is for
the dominant sex does not apply here. There can be other reasons
too.And indeed that is how it is.

    > > You know you can get all the info you want from Google. Still, here are
    > > some pointers ...
    > >
    > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suit_(clothes)
    > >
    > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cravat
    > They don't really explain in detail why ties exist at all, or why
    > suits look the way they do.

Look carefully and you'll find some. Other conclusions you can draw
yourself.

    > My hope is that the current trend towards totally casual, functional
    > attire will continue, making the whole question obsolete.

Amen..