top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 81 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Pretty sure only aristocrats dressed like that.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    And wasn’t the makeup to hide chlamydia / syphilis etc?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think it's also for the opposite? I mean, the white face, rosy cheeks and red lips were popularized due to the romantization of tuberculosis. The guy on the left could literally have tuberculosis looking at his face.

    One of the many sources: https://historycollection.com/tuberculosis-became-the-victorian-standard-of-beauty/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 56 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    There is absofukinglutely nothing stopping you from dressing like that, only yourself.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 31 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Mark Zuckerberg, who dresses pretty much like the guy on the right, then adds a watch worth $100k to indicate his status.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    The pants shirts an hoodies the ultra wealthy wear are also often obscenely overpriced versions of the normal clothes. Like Luis Vuitton's plain tshirt, with a same color embossed logo on the front, for 700$. Or this one by Prada for 2500$ (its casmere)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I legitimately do not understand

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I think it's silly and wasteful, but I don't think it's difficult to understand. Modern aristocrats have so much money that the cost doesn't matter at all, and they probably get it for free in the hope that they'd be seen wearing it by all the wannabes who can afford it.

    But even if they pay full price and pick it for some dumb reason like the color or because it's soft, with the average net worth growth these people see in a month or year, any time spent buying the thing would be far more valuable (or they would passively make far more money) than the cost of the shirt.

    But silly things like transactions and opening packages of free overpriced fashion are for underlings to handle anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    If I could suit up like in games that actually have good clothing options and don't punish you for just getting every option I totally would, but for better or worse I settle for tattered hand me downs from my uncle that I have been wearing since I was 7 or so. And some hand me ups from my younger siblings that became bigger than me as a top up to the supply.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Flügel asserted that men "abandoned their claim to be considered beautiful" and "henceforth aimed at being only useful".

    Meanwhile, still waiting on 99% of men (or all humans, really) to start being useful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    Noble vs peasant.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    wasn't the make up meant to hide the lesions and wigs to hide the peeling scalp and hair loss?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Maybe we have grown out as a society of that childish one-upping each other with made up rules?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Don't you ever insinuate i have boring socks ever again.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    Rich cunts then:

    Rich cunts now:

    Poor cunts then:

    Poor cunts now:

    Or to put it another way, nothing has changed. The upper classes still dress like wankers who sniff their own farts, and the lower classes still dress with whatever they can afford that works for them.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Who's got boring socks? Not me, sir. 😤

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Rich guys wearing really dour clothes is actually a relatively recent phenomenon in history. Up to the French Revolution the aristocrats were peacocked up to the max; maybe it was fear of the guillotine that saw their successors going around in North Face jackets.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    My penis would dangle out the bottom of the skirt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm a bear built, and even though I just bought a skirt. I'll never look cute like that,

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And you know what!

    I'm a cis male, and I'm not even thinking this is any form of gender bending. I'm wearing them because when I wear them, they are manly.

    I'm not against blurring gender lines, it just not my style. I just hate that make fashion is basically funeralwear.

    When I die I want everyone to attend in the most colorful and creative outfits, need to make a will to ask people wearing a traditional suit to fuck off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Remember, the Roman's thought pants were for the effeminate easterners.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I do find it weird there's been this resurgence of fixation on superficial motifs being associated with masculinity, but the guys who parrot these views all have an appearance that screams, "I want to blend in and be invisible!"

    Nothing masculine about tepid conformity.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Try it, you get lots of shit. I'd know.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I think they dropped a word there. I think "rich" was the word they dropped......

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    that's a part of it, however during the Victorian time. it became fashionable for men to be stoic and boring. that's why a guy can wear the same outfit for a meeting, a wedding, and a funeral.

    although wealth is a big factor. it isn't the whole story. a good suit can cost a lot and still be fashionably bankrupt.

    And if you try to put some flare, they will question your sexuality and distupt the corporate dynamics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Tbf, that (dress dark and be boring) was probably due to all the opium/morphine they were on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Look up "Beau Brummely" and "Great Renunciation".

    US southern-prep khakis, blazer, shirt and tie, slightly longer hair is pretty much the exact look Brummely and his dandies created and socially enforced through mockery.

    Some people claim that the underlying force granting Brummely the ability to do so had to do with the center of power shifting from traditional nobility to financiers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Call me a sissy but t-shirt and cargo pants for life!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    See good buddy that's why you buy yourself thrift.

    I wear suits that cost me 20 bucks that look better than what the president wears. Not that that's a high bar, but a worthy comparison.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Ugh, and this indoor plumbing and daily hygiene is such a chore.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    You've obviously not been to a goth club recently ;)

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's where you're wrong, I only wear the most clown ass socks under my jeans

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    The title is implicitly responding to someone who thinks, "fashion is an important part of masculinity, and it's immutable," but has nothing to say to someone who thinks, "fashion is an important part of masculinity and can change."

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    The “now” person is a peasant, not man. Put some eyeliner on, at least!

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    that's why women are attracted to men in uniforms

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Pantaloons with tights aren't completely dead, just shorts with long socks need to up their sock game

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    My socks are not boring, excuse me!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Tbh men like me are a step away from becoming cats and I would love to just be a cat. Every step we do that progresses men becoming cats is fine for me.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I’m wearing awesome socks. Those are anything but boring!

  • source
  • Wooden teeth, life's a beach.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Ahaha! Well played.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Casually forgetting that they didn't shower back then.

    This is a man vs bear scenario, repainted to make the modern man look like what feminazis view us as. Simple as.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    frankly, im not sure what point this stupid meme is trying to make.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Also did you see King Louis XIV shoes? Dude was flair.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›