Why is the Bum Look Popular? (formally the unemployed look)

[Feraud]

Just to add my .02 cents to this thought..

Many people kid themselves that they're bastions of an older, more mannered, ordered time. They're just out of touch with changing attitudes towards appearance.

bk

The idea that clothes in any way dictate the manners and morals of the wearer is utterly ridiculous.

When the conversation takes that "just like in the good old days" tone I start to zone out.. :eusa_doh:

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Looking sharp is its own reward.

How I present myself is simply an extension of my creativity and how I choose to "paint" this canvass called my body.

 

[John in Covina]

When I was a kid the schools relented and allowed students to wear blue jeans to school. Girls were allowed to wear pants to school but it wasn't the norm. It was a shift in what was permissible and attitudes shifted.

When I was out of high school and entering college the concept of designer jeans as special dressy jeans came to the forefront and there was another shift as to what was permissible and where.

I believe it was in the mid 90's designer track suits were brought forth and became a lifestyle for some segments of the populice and there was a shift in what was acceptable as to where and when.

BUT I have to draw the line someplace and say wearing pajama bottoms outside of the home is truly evil and destructive and is unacceptable - period. It is insulting to others and insulting to the wearer.

What next just bathrobes and slippers, then somebody shows up just wearing their Depends so they don't have to interrupt their texting?

 

[Lefty]

Once the unemployed look is over, homeless will be cool.

 

[Cody Pendant]

Cardboard prints....

Wow Lefty, now that was a find. I must admit for the shock factor that is extremely way cool. May have to invest in some.

 

[Feraud]

Once the unemployed look is over, homeless will be cool.

Sleep under a cardboard box so a homeless young person doesn’t have to.
A large proportion of the proceeds from the Le Clochard duvet cover go to SZN, the foundation for homeless youngsters in the Netherlands. The income is used to fund housing projects which prioritise supporting young people in finding work or continuing their education.

That's awesome!

 

[Foofoogal]

I find it so disturbing on so many levels. Now I like the fact of helping the homeless youth but the product is so unbelievably awful.

 

[Edward]

I found it quite shocking at first - I have some fairly strong views about homelessness, no doubt provoked by the fact that it is such a major problem here in London. But the intent of the project made me see it in a different light... and hey, maybe being reminded of what some others have to face as we slip into our warm beds after a long night, or crawl out of them in an early morning, isn't such a bad thing, eh?

 

[Foofoogal]

I feel quite the opposite. I believe it will desensitize others to the plight.
A soft comforter is not the same as a cardboard box in the cold.
I wonder how much a large proportion means also. It really kind of makes me mad. Having worked in a food pantry it offends me. [huh]

 

[Feraud]

There is no doubt the comforter is kitsch and not meant to represent a homeless experience. Consider the item a token reminder of your contribution to the cause. If such a commercial product can do it's tiny part to help homeless youth or at the least make people aware then it's a good thing. That also goes to a celebrity that donates their time/image.

 

[John in Covina]

Enabling the homeless to be homeless.

 

[Lefty]

Thanks. I found this in the Holiday 2008 issue of T, The New York Times Magazine.

Wow Lefty, now that was a find. I must admit for the shock factor that is extremely way cool. May have to invest in some.

 

[Foofoogal]

FTR Lefty. I don't take offense with you, only the concept. [huh]

 

[Lefty]

I'm not on either side of this one, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFox]

Spot the unemployed guy at a job interview: he's the only one in the office that day wearing a suit...

Truer words have never been spoken! At my office, he's typically one of two wearing a necktie - the other being me.

Noel

 

[shortbow]

John, can you explain that last comment? If it means what I take it to, I'm speechless.

 

[John in Covina]

John, can you explain that last comment? If it means what I take it to, I'm speechless.

******
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

 

[Lone_Ranger]

Just to add my .02 cents to this thought..
The idea that clothes in any way dictate the manners and morals of the wearer is utterly ridiculous.

When the conversation takes that "just like in the good old days" tone I start to zone out.. :eusa_doh:

Maybe not the manners, and morals, of the wearer. But, the manners of the people that the wearer has contact with. Whether we like it or not, we are judged by our first impression, at least until actions prove, or disprove that impression.

If you're the person that polishes your shoes to a high gloss, you probably take the rest of your work just as seriously. If you're one of those people with the opinion that "it doesn't matter" what you look like, because it "doesn't effect" your work. It may! You probably take that attitude with certain things at work too. Maybe not. You'd have to prove that your "don't give a crap" attitude only applies to your dress.


Fletch mentioned it in another thread. Regarding President Reagan's handlers, having him adopt the "cowboy" look, so he wouldn't be perceived as an "Eastern sissy." At some point after the 1950's, American society started to adopt a decidedly Marxist prejudice against looking like you have money, are educated, etc. That prejudice has been being pushed steadily down, farther and farther, until the definition of "rich" includes anyone that has a job.

(My 'trickle down' fashion theory)

 

[vitanola]

Tattoos are works of art.

Works of art?

At twenty -Absolutely

At thirty- Of course

At forty - perhaps...

At seventy .....?

 

[i_am_the_scruff]

Works of art?

At twenty -Absolutely

At thirty- Of course

At forty - perhaps...

At seventy .....?

Hopefully at seventy people won't be flashing the flesh. To be honest, most people's skin isn't attractive at that age, tattooed or not.

And as i've said many time, if all I have to worry about at seventy are some wrinkly tattoos i'll be happy.