Post by david on Oct 7, 2008 23:10:16 GMT -8
The emperor had a different outfit for every hour of the day, and clothes for each day of the week…No matter how great or small the occasion he wanted to wear just the right clothes for his subjects to see him as a wise and able ruler.
– Hans Christian Anderson,
“The Emperor’s New Clothes,” 1837
Like many boys who approached puberty during the mid- to late-50s, I took advantage of every opportunity possible to peruse the pages of Hugh Hefner’s scandalous periodical: Playboy.
This fact had to be kept secret. Only the other “bad boys” with whom I occasionally huddled to explore the lascivious layouts were aware of my sins.
Had I been accosted by the powers of good, and challenged for my transgressions, I probably wouldn’t have thought to posit the argument so many others who were similarly caught in the act used at the time: that I was only interested in the articles.
In fact, Hefner did spend time and money (writers published in Playboy were well paid) ensuring that the pages contained both meat and potatoes (now, don’t ask me which is which – perhaps I should say “meat and cheesecake).
Ironically, when I had the chance to carry an issue home with me, I actually did read some of the prose. The Playboy Interview attracted writers like Alex Haley of Roots fame and interviewees included Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.
Along with much of the content, the advertising projected a clear portrait of the idealized playboy. A playboy was cultured, knowledgeable, attractive and – perhaps second only to having a beautiful buxom woman on his arm – he was well dressed.
The first issue was dated December 1953. Nine years later, a new feature was added: The Playboy Advisor. This section was a how-to for aspiring young playboys-in-training.
Now, I was far from playboy material; but I did take note of the proposition being put forth: there are rules that must be followed if one wishes to be considered part of an elite group – playboys or otherwise.
The advisor feature remains part of each issue today (no, I didn’t buy a copy in the interest of research – I found my facts online, sans the photographic window dressing). In fact, the Playboy website is currently promoting a book filled with advice from past columns.
Among tips for chasing, catching and entertaining attractive women are instructions regarding food and spirits, cars, sound systems, gambling, fitness and – to get to the point – clothes.
Like the much more tame Esquire and GQ (Gentleman’s Quarterly), Playboy offered safe alternatives to those who may have lacked fashion sensitivities. Readers feel safe buying items praised in the articles or from advertisers who target those who seek to emulate people appearing in the pages of the magazine.
Had I been financially empowered to upgrade my wardrobe during the teen years, I might have opted to become part of the world described above. But I doubt it.
I believe I am simply wired to focus more on ideas than on appearances. Ask me about my surroundings and I am unable to describe them with any detail. I can discuss beliefs or events for hours on end, but a two-minute chat about neckties or sports coats bores me to death.
My standard rebuttal to all those who would have me pay more attention to my appearance is, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.”
I know many books are sold because of inviting cover art. But I suspect that many of those who buy because of the art never end up reading the book.
And I also suspect that those who choose their mates based physical appearance may risk missing out on true love because their rules require them not to look twice at prospects who fail the fashion or physical attribute test.
I don’t approve of statements that ascribe character flaws with fashion choices. Telling someone (particularly a child) they don’t look “good” or “right” can harm that person’s sense of self worth.
Statements that are used without regard to their possible impacts abound:
“That dress is wrong for her.”
“He’s a bad dresser.”
“Who would wear a shirt like that?”
“I’d never wear that to a place like this.”
For the most part, I adhere to four rules:
This usually simply means that I avoid circumstances where not fitting in creates significant discomfort or disruptions. Once in a while – rarely – it means I will conform in the interest of others’ feelings. This has happened most often in ceremonial circumstances (weddings, funerals, graduation ceremonies) when family members or others might be made uncomfortable by my choosing to be comfortable.
One of the benefits of living in a free society is our ability to choose our own lifestyle. If one person’s “hobby” is fashion and another person could care less, so be it.
I know not what fashion choice others may make; but as for me: give me shorts and a T-shirt or give me death.
– Hans Christian Anderson,
“The Emperor’s New Clothes,” 1837
Like many boys who approached puberty during the mid- to late-50s, I took advantage of every opportunity possible to peruse the pages of Hugh Hefner’s scandalous periodical: Playboy.
This fact had to be kept secret. Only the other “bad boys” with whom I occasionally huddled to explore the lascivious layouts were aware of my sins.
Had I been accosted by the powers of good, and challenged for my transgressions, I probably wouldn’t have thought to posit the argument so many others who were similarly caught in the act used at the time: that I was only interested in the articles.
In fact, Hefner did spend time and money (writers published in Playboy were well paid) ensuring that the pages contained both meat and potatoes (now, don’t ask me which is which – perhaps I should say “meat and cheesecake).
Ironically, when I had the chance to carry an issue home with me, I actually did read some of the prose. The Playboy Interview attracted writers like Alex Haley of Roots fame and interviewees included Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.
Along with much of the content, the advertising projected a clear portrait of the idealized playboy. A playboy was cultured, knowledgeable, attractive and – perhaps second only to having a beautiful buxom woman on his arm – he was well dressed.
The first issue was dated December 1953. Nine years later, a new feature was added: The Playboy Advisor. This section was a how-to for aspiring young playboys-in-training.
Now, I was far from playboy material; but I did take note of the proposition being put forth: there are rules that must be followed if one wishes to be considered part of an elite group – playboys or otherwise.
The advisor feature remains part of each issue today (no, I didn’t buy a copy in the interest of research – I found my facts online, sans the photographic window dressing). In fact, the Playboy website is currently promoting a book filled with advice from past columns.
Among tips for chasing, catching and entertaining attractive women are instructions regarding food and spirits, cars, sound systems, gambling, fitness and – to get to the point – clothes.
Like the much more tame Esquire and GQ (Gentleman’s Quarterly), Playboy offered safe alternatives to those who may have lacked fashion sensitivities. Readers feel safe buying items praised in the articles or from advertisers who target those who seek to emulate people appearing in the pages of the magazine.
Had I been financially empowered to upgrade my wardrobe during the teen years, I might have opted to become part of the world described above. But I doubt it.
I believe I am simply wired to focus more on ideas than on appearances. Ask me about my surroundings and I am unable to describe them with any detail. I can discuss beliefs or events for hours on end, but a two-minute chat about neckties or sports coats bores me to death.
My standard rebuttal to all those who would have me pay more attention to my appearance is, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.”
I know many books are sold because of inviting cover art. But I suspect that many of those who buy because of the art never end up reading the book.
And I also suspect that those who choose their mates based physical appearance may risk missing out on true love because their rules require them not to look twice at prospects who fail the fashion or physical attribute test.
I don’t approve of statements that ascribe character flaws with fashion choices. Telling someone (particularly a child) they don’t look “good” or “right” can harm that person’s sense of self worth.
Statements that are used without regard to their possible impacts abound:
“That dress is wrong for her.”
“He’s a bad dresser.”
“Who would wear a shirt like that?”
“I’d never wear that to a place like this.”
For the most part, I adhere to four rules:
- Modesty – I want my clothes to conceal parts of my body that I consider to be private
- Safety – I want protection from the sun, heat and cold, rough terrain and – when necessary – from bugs or other external threats
- Comfort – I don’t want to feel constricted or restricted nor do I want the texture of my clothing to be irritating to my skin
- Economy – realizing that clothes are easily stained or torn, I prefer cheap and durable items that tend not to reveal stains.
This usually simply means that I avoid circumstances where not fitting in creates significant discomfort or disruptions. Once in a while – rarely – it means I will conform in the interest of others’ feelings. This has happened most often in ceremonial circumstances (weddings, funerals, graduation ceremonies) when family members or others might be made uncomfortable by my choosing to be comfortable.
One of the benefits of living in a free society is our ability to choose our own lifestyle. If one person’s “hobby” is fashion and another person could care less, so be it.
I know not what fashion choice others may make; but as for me: give me shorts and a T-shirt or give me death.