clothing psychology - personalities

[GOD]

Ok, here's my views on clothing and the psychology behind it....

This isn't straight forward to understand as people masquerade themselves in a way they believe they should project themselves rather than the way they feel is right (If they even know what that is).

I'm sure that most people can recollect the "group conformance" orientation during early childhood (Ok up to the age of 25) which tends to be more about trying to adopt an image rather than already knowing what image is really themselves.

Some kids just have parents with poor taste and they in turn have to wear the dreaded garments that are bought in sales because no kid in the state would have been seen dead in them...Or, the endearing Granny who knits you garments for christmas and you're expected to wear them... bummer dude . Then there are the kids that have mothers that somehow think they can sew. Pattern dresses and so forth...luckily mothers don't get into patterns for boys...

So, we have a bunch of kids that are fashion victims...

Then there are the kids who's parents buy them all the labels.... and get it easy and are "cool".

So, really, kids dress sense is more about the psychology or just simple fashion awareness of their parents. A IxxJ parent is not the best in this sense.

As teenagers... its more about identity. Perhaps its more of a herding instinct as they feel exposed while feeling their way outside the nest.
However, there are people that as teenages do quite clearly show their inherent thinking in their clothes... The expensive labels person. The city slicker wanabee rich kid. The artistic one who frequents the charity shops (I never did meet a person who shopped at charity shops for the benefit of the cause). Then there's the rappers and all the other groups that form. Interestingly its pretty tribal and often linked with media (Music Groups etc) and often is driven by marketers.

As adults most of that group culture is lost (For men anyway). Women do maintain some tribal pecking order which is determined by the outcomes of great shopping expeditions...

Admittedly, no male psychologist has ever really worked out the desires for endless handbags and shoes. Especially shoes.

My only theory at this stage on this is that somehow new shoes is like managing to forage the best (out of all the women) and return to the cave with the prized possessions... which subjugates all the other women. Yeah... Peck on down.

[Louie]

I love the individuality and expression people show with their dress, the keeping up withe Jones's and "labels" are a worry, but not my worry.

It can be a very powerful statement and affect on kids though, if we can get them comfortable in their own skin! the clothes thing may not matter so much.

I'm a little funky farm girlish meself. Shoes are important in the sense of wading through horse manure.

Never been an issue to score leather to prop me.

I think I am working through this forum haphazard like. Such interesting stuff.

[antialiased]

Interesting points. What always struck me as odd was the difference between men and women regarding clothing and fashion. (blatant generalizations based solely on my own observations follow)

While both men and women tailor their dress to cultural norms (suits in an office, shorts at the beach), inside that framework, men generally choose clothing based on comfort or on how that clothing is likely to be perceived by prospective mates. Women, however, seem to choose clothing based on how it will be perceived by other females.

It seems the fashion industry itself is almost exclusively devoted to creating or reinforcing feminine preferences. Fashion for men is aimed at what appeals to females while fashion for women is more of an attempt at constructing a certain fashion ideal in women and then having women attempt to match or approximate that ideal.

What got me thinking about this was the recent fad/prevalence of a certain style of dress which gave the impression that the wearer was pregnant. From a biological/evolutionary standpoint, this makes no sense: If the purpose of adorning ourselves is largely to attract mates, an adornment that discourages potential mates by implying that mating is presently impossible would be illogical.

As adults most of that group culture is lost (For men anyway). Women do maintain some tribal pecking order which is determined by the outcomes of great shopping expeditions...

Admittedly, no male psychologist has ever really worked out the desires for endless handbags and shoes. Especially shoes.

My only theory at this stage on this is that somehow new shoes is like managing to forage the best (out of all the women) and return to the cave with the prized possessions... which subjugates all the other women. Yeah... Peck on down.

Perhaps this is the reason. In animals, the purpose is generally reduction in conflict for food and mates. For humans, I imagine it would be reduction in conflict for capital and mates. However, as men still hold most of the capital/power, what purpose does this pecking order serve? If the attribute on which the pecking order is based has no connection to any attribute on which mate selection is based, and those within that pecking order do not belong to the more socially powerful gender, then it seems to be non-functional.

Thus, it would seem that even if a woman is at the top of the 'fashion pecking order', that unless a man recognizes that pecking order as having some inherent value, her position will not benefit her in mate selection or in capital/power accumulation. Indeed, one can easily imagine a woman near the bottom of an apparently irrelevant pecking order with the looks of Jessica Alba and the brains of Marilyn Vos Savant or a woman near the top with the looks and purported IQ of Andy Warhol (sorry, I doubt anyone would have paid for his 'art' if he was a she).

I don't quite understand it, and perhaps that's because it seems analogous to so many other elements of society that are self-referential/reinforcing - I went to college because it proves to you who went to college that I am part of the same group of people who went to college because other people went to college: it proves neither intelligence nor mastery, and may be entirely unrelated to my ability to perform in a given career or in life in general, but because people buy into that system, that system has societal value/power.

Since this is my first post here, I should say 'hi,' and, also, please forgive the length of my first post; I got carried away.

[GOD]

Women, however, seem to choose clothing based on how it will be perceived by other females.

I can assure you that any straight male wears clothes for women and not to show his mates (male friends). But what is the purpose of women wearing clothes to show other women? It must be a pecking order competition? Kitty cats do fight for guys. (Although if I really think about it, when boys are young most play with toy cars, and as adults can show their mates what a great car they have etc, same too with women I guess, dressing dolls as kids and then dressing themselves as adults? seems logical, fashion mags & car mags etc).

Guys have guy friendly wear, which means they generally wear things that are comfortable. Generally jeans and T's etc. They actually get sentimentally attached to their clothes... whats a hole in a T/Shirt?.. character building! (women that through away a guys favourite T are committing sacrilege).

Although, there is the dress up slightly to get into a club (dressing up for the bouncers I guess ) and there's the "better keep the g/f happy" clothing, or "pull mode". Women too have pull mode clothing.

But never never has a guy dressed up for another guy! Guys can dress the same(ish) if they are trying to identify with their "tribe", but never to impress their friends... I couldn't even imagine what guys would say if another guy said that.... lol.. there would be some sideways glances...

It seems the fashion industry itself is almost exclusively devoted to creating or reinforcing feminine preferences. Fashion for men is aimed at what appeals to females while fashion for women is more of an attempt at constructing a certain fashion ideal in women and then having women attempt to match or approximate that ideal.

In my opinion the best designer for women are men, and the best designers for men are women.

What got me thinking about this was the recent fad/prevalence of a certain style of dress which gave the impression that the wearer was pregnant. From a biological/evolutionary standpoint, this makes no sense: If the purpose of adorning ourselves is largely to attract mates, an adornment that discourages potential mates by implying that mating is presently impossible would be illogical.

Possibly a number of angles 1) They are simple fashion victims, they'd walk the streets naked in gumboots/wellington boots if it made them an early adopted relative to their peers (and it was in the magazines of course - maybe even with a small dog ) (The emperors new clothes is a great analogy 2) I don't think this applies, but I knew a guy that split up from his girlfriend and she kept on saying (after having advocated) that his ultra short haircut looked great... in fact it ensured that no other woman would look at him... (It really was terrible, in fact she even cut it ) 3) The PR people and the designers wanted a fashion that would fit their bodies, so they rolled up some pregnant B grade celebs and made the fashion happen.

I go for 3). Although there was a speight of pregnant celebs and some designers though it was a great way to make more people inclusive. Very 70's as well...

Perhaps this is the reason. In animals, the purpose is generally reduction in conflict for food and mates. For humans, I imagine it would be reduction in conflict for capital and mates. However, as men still hold most of the capital/power, what purpose does this pecking order serve? If the attribute on which the pecking order is based has no connection to any attribute on which mate selection is based, and those within that pecking order do not belong to the more socially powerful gender, then it seems to be non-functional.

I think my para above is probably more the truth.. modern living has increased the size of many people (men & women alike).

Thus, it would seem that even if a woman is at the top of the 'fashion pecking order', that unless a man recognizes that pecking order as having some inherent value, her position will not benefit her in mate selection or in capital/power accumulation. Indeed, one can easily imagine a woman near the bottom of an apparently irrelevant pecking order with the looks of Jessica Alba and the brains of Marilyn Vos Savant or a woman near the top with the looks and purported IQ of Andy Warhol (sorry, I doubt anyone would have paid for his 'art' if he was a she).

Women do differentiate themselves for mate selection, otherwise women wouldn't wear makeup and all the rest, clothes in my opinion is just an extension of that, its a conscious and subconscious flirt cue.

I don't quite understand it, and perhaps that's because it seems analogous to so many other elements of society that are self-referential/reinforcing - I went to college because it proves to you who went to college that I am part of the same group of people who went to college because other people went to college: it proves neither intelligence nor mastery, and may be entirely unrelated to my ability to perform in a given career or in life in general, but because people buy into that system, that system has societal value/power.

Many people are followers and as such their life's direction is really following the shoal (fish wise). I used to think of them as rudderless ships... although sometimes you still hit the icebergs whether you want to or not...!!

Actually, this exemplifies what I call "purpose", some people need it, others are not even aware of it. I think introverts are more purposeful than extroverts...

Since this is my first post here, I should say 'hi,' and, also, please forgive the length of my first post; I got carried away.

Great to have you on board... great to always have different perspectives on things!