Wednesday, May 21, 2008

(is it, or is it not?)


Here are a few quotes I trawled through in process of completing my cultural studies essay...

Not only have men been reluctant to wear clothes that exude sexuality but they have also been loathe to indulge in other behaviour associated [emphasis added] with sexual display, including shopping.
--- Jennifer Craik

At least on the surface, consumer culture appeared, and indeed appears, to be beginning to deliver the individuality and difference that it had always promised.
--- Steven Miles

There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl [emphasis added]. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger color is suitable for the boy; while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.
--- The Infant's Department (June 1918)

One thing that fashion is quite categorically not is an expression of individuality.
--- Rosalind Coward

Value systems are inevitably embodied in our dress.
--- Elizabeth Wilson

Is fashion, then, a shallow subject? Think again.
Also, a suggestion on what to do to a wedding gown post-ceremony.
Seize the day :))

2 comments:

johnorford said...

i saw an interesting tv program on bbc three about english ppl trying out working in indian clothing factories... and thought of ur blog... seeing as it's the only fashion blog i read :)

btw, i reckon women's dress is associated with sexual display, cos usually men ask women out, and women play a less overtly active role. therefore looks are everything.

i wonder whether those roles change much in different cultures??

mukuge said...

'attracting the gaze' is an established theory in western fashion/dress dissertion amongst other hypotheses (from what I've read and observed).

The funny thing is, the range of actions that can be done to attract female sexual attention is distinguishably greater than that required for male sexual attention. Does that mean, given the same proportion of flesh acreage put on display, men are supposed to look more sexually attractive than women?

That also means that under the said 'required flesh acreage' rule, women are predisposed to show more of their skin relative to men in order to generate the same level of sexual attraction.

(Which, funnily, also brings me to a conclusion that maybe men should wear burqa to prevent us womenfolk from feasting upon male sexual display? That's some food for thought ;D )

As for other cultures, I still need to look deeper into academic theories published by non-western cultural writers. It'll be a while before I can come up with a clearer answer...