Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Extinct clothing

Page: 1 2 3(4)

00:12 / 18.07.06

Oy, Stoatie, you can't even grow a beeeeard, I say, just by way of example, you understand.

See, I think it would be better if you left the Prince Harry in it. As in, "Steal my parking spot will you, Tabitha Tickletooth? Well, Prince Harry can't even grow a beard!!"

HURTS, DON'T IT?

Tabitha Tickletooth

07:08 / 18.07.06

My god, you're right. It cuts. It bleeeeeds. Face hairlessness and royalty combined - I believe in the Borough of Westminster, one can still be arrested for leveling such an extreme insult (or at the very least be challenged to one of the many ugly and brutal parking duels which take place throughout the borough on a daily basis, I hear).

13:44 / 30.07.06

Hmm. Where to start? Possibly by attempting a definition of "the male archetype", as in

Maybe thats my percpetion but I sure as hell dont think white shirts turned up at collar and watered down mochians instill the male archetype very well.

33

19:23 / 30.07.06

Hmm. Where to start? Possibly by attempting a definition of "the male archetype", as in

I apologise there is obviously no male archetype at all
I blame zoltan from battle of the planets for putting me into this sexually confused state

33

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

19:26 / 30.07.06

Look, 33, if you ARE gonna go round spouting this ignorant bullshit, at least try to get the names right.

It's ZOLTAR. Zoltan was the Hound Of Dracula.

33

19:33 / 30.07.06

Look, 33, if you ARE gonna go round spouting this ignorant bullshit, at least try to get the names right.

It's ZOLTAR. Zoltan was the Hound Of Dracula.

but Zoltan confused me too

33

19:42 / 30.07.06

I apologise there is obviously no male archetype at all

See, I'm not at all sure if you actually mean this, or what. I'm interested in what you're getting at here because it can read like you're suggesting "homosexual" and "male" here are mutually exclusive, which obviously isn't the case. I think there's an interesting discussion to be had regarding the idea of masculinity expressed through clothing, and whether it's possible to fully separate out specifically heterosexual 'looks' from degrees of homoeroticism. We could also talk about the ways in which certain masculine garments and 'looks' travel from the 'scene' gay community to the mainstream and vice versa, sometimes becoming fetishised in the process...

If we're looking for a specific central/monolithic "male archetype", though, then I'll take your statement at face value and agree with you: even Quentin Crisp eventually admitted it was a mythical beast.

33

19:44 / 30.07.06

What's 33 got against men wearing skirts anyway? Is this some Scottish thing? Are Scots secretely ashamed of kilts?

I have nothing against skirts or kilts whatever gender race they come in , who told you that ?

33

33

19:47 / 30.07.06

If we're looking for a specific central/monolithic "male archetype", though, then I'll take your statement at face value and agree with you: even Quentin Crisp eventually admitted it was a mythical beast.

You should read some carlos castaneda

33

19:57 / 30.07.06

You should read some carlos castaneda

Been there, done that, not especially relevant.

I'm pointing out that the idea of there existing a central "male archetype" completely distinct from any sort of homoeroticism (and, by extension, homosexuality) is a questionable one. Crisp talked longingly about the Great Dark Man, which was a sort of variant on this theme, but he never really found one.

Put another way, 33, when you said

I sure as hell dont think white shirts turned up at collar and watered down mochians instill the male archetype very well.

what did you mean? I'm not attempting to trap you here, or paint you as homophobic; I'm struggling to understand what's being said. When you say white shirts with collars up don't "instill the male archetype", are you trying to say you perceive this look as somehow other-than-male?

33

20:34 / 30.07.06

what did you mean? I'm not attempting to trap you here, or paint you as homophobic; I'm struggling to understand what's being said. When you say white shirts with collars up don't "instill the male archetype", are you trying to say you perceive this look as somehow other-than-male?

---------------------------------------------------------

I percieve as being a disposition of sorts..

the whole way the collar and hair just up in an incomplete manner annoys me immensely

the collar too long the hair too short

33

20:42 / 30.07.06

I percieve as being a disposition of sorts..

the whole way the collar and hair just up in an incomplete manner annoys me immensely

the collar too long the hair too short

I can see that, subjectively, a given 'look' might annoy you - but I don't really understand how that amounts to a "disposition", or fails to "instill the male archetype" or whatever. I'm still unsure what you're getting at here. Do you mean you believe men with their collars turned up are homosexual? Or something else?

33

21:05 / 30.07.06

You ever mind map ?

Sarting with a thought or image and see what comes up when you keep going and making connections or associations ?

Trust me if your spontanous and honest enough to put down the first thing that comes into your mind youd be suprised..

Incomplete = immature = child - baby - denfencless - weak - vulnerable - paranoid etc etc

that just a wee example

The male archetype to me is something that goes beyond mental comprehension it is a man fully in touch and at harmony with what and who he is at that point in time

33

21:26 / 30.07.06

I'm pretty well aware of free association, yes, and I can well accept that, when you see a particular 'look' on the street or wherever, you run through a series of associations. What I don't understand is where that gets us in terms of wider reality: for example, you might well perceive upturned collars to be "incomplete" and therefore "immature" etc. etc. etc., but that's your string of associations, and I don't see that it amounts to a "disposition" anywhere other than your own mind. Others might look at the same thing and associate in quite a different way. For example, I would tend to see upturned collars with rugby shirts or cravatted Beau Brummell dandies, and run through a whole other set of mental images...

... all of which is fine and groovy but, if you're going to attach your own negative associations to a particular group ("homosexuals"), be aware that all of those associations belong to you and you only, and others may well perceive the situation differently. The fact that you, in your head, associate certain styles of clothing with gay men doesn't necessarily equate with gay men being "responsible" for them in a wider sense.

The male archetype to me is something that goes beyond mental comprehension it is a man fully in touch and at harmony with what and who he is at that point in time

Again, nothing fundamentally wrong with this, but a man with an upturned collar may well be fully in touch and at harmony with what and who he is at that point in time. As may a gay man. Or a man with a mohican hairstyle, or whatever. None of these things is inherently antithetical to "the male archetype" in any objective sense.

Page: 1 2 3(4)