In preparation for the future

I just returned from several days spent in upstate New York. I went with two purposes in mind. One was to watch the son of one of my college roommates graduate (as salutatorian) from high school. I've mentioned this delightful family before (see Note of June 8, 2009); it's always a great pleasure to spend time with them, and Bryan is a very nice, smart, funny kid, so I felt inclined to witness this rite of passage of his.

There were a couple of noteworthy things about the graduation ceremony, as far as I was concerned. One was the row of kids sitting right in back of us who were determined to make as much noise as they possibly could, every time anyone they knew crossed to get his/her diploma. I couldn't help wondering why there were no adults with them, why no adults from the school made any attempt to calm them down. Eventually I turned around and said, "Guys, let's hold it down a little," because I dislike the adult abdication-of-responsibility thing. One of the kids actually said, "Sorry," and they were a tiny bit less obnoxious over the next few names called.

The other thing I noticed was the obviously casual dress of many of the graduating students, underneath their graduation robes. A lot of the girls wore flip-flops -- a phenomenon I'd also noticed at the college graduation of my goddaughter last year -- although a decent number wore heals. But what I found really appalling were all the boys with bare legs showing beneath their robes -- evidence that they were wearing shorts -- with big clunky shoes or sneakers worn without socks to finish off the look. Good grief. Why on earth didn't their parents insist that they wear slacks, shoes and socks?

Quite possibly because they didn't think it was important. People so rarely dress up for anything anymore, even going to church. Maybe wearing shorts on a hot summer's day seemed practical to those parents...but note that the event took place in a very air-conditioned "Events Center" at Binghamton University. And come on, if graduating is such a special occasion, doesn't it deserves a little something special in attire?

My friend Clifford occasionally bewails the (as he sees it) complete moral deterioration of the country. I'm not sure I can concur with that, but I myself am dismayed by the national deterioration in dress standards. I miss seeing people look nice. I deeply regret that people no longer seem to think "looking nice" matters. All that's important is being comfortable, which all too often translates into looking like a slob. And if you're young it's important to look like your peers, so you all look like slobs, or tacky (the slut look) or stupid (the baggy pants).

My friend Joey has a very entertaining photo blog, which you can access through the Fascinating Photos link on this blog. He often takes pictures of people he sees at state fairs (he loves going to state fairs), the horse races, or just on the street. In many of these pictures the way people are dressed is frightful. They would say they're dressed "casual;" I would have to say they are dressed without style, taste, grace or any idea of what looks good on them.

But whaterya gonna do. Supposedly fashions go in cycles, so I'm waiting (have been waiting for quite some time) for the more formal style to swing back around. Like hats! Remember when everybody wore a hat for special occasions? Heck, men used to wear a hat all the time. Every time I see an old movie in which even the criminals wear hats -- not backwards or sideways baseball caps but fedoras and Milans and Panamas -- I think what a shame it is that particular fashion has gone out of fashion. Will it ever return? Along with stockings (everybody goes bare-legged now, even when wearing cocktail dresses!), and the occasional "nice" dress? We can only hope.

The other reason for my trip to New York appears in my next posting.

No hair and baggy pants

It’s Pet Peeve time. I was bewailing the fact that women color their hair in order not to look old, which is socially unacceptable for women in our society. And I was bewailing the double standard this represents. But the absolute proof of that double standard lies in the hair style that has been the fashion for men for too long now, and the equally appalling fashion in men’s britches.

I call the hair style the skinhead look. All these men with their semi-shaved heads. Do they think this style makes them look good? Actually, I don’t think looking good, looking attractive, enters into it. They may think it makes them look cool, or tough (especially, I think, tough); and it certainly makes them look like “one of the guys,” since so many men are doing it (and they say women are slaves to fashion). It’s possible that they think looking this particular brand of cool and tough makes them sexier as well; but if they do, oh, ladies, we’ve got to get busy and disabuse them of this notion. Some of them may insist, as my friend Tim does, that the hair style is “so much easier and cooler.” But you notice Tim doesn’t defend it as making him look better.

I swear that men – at least heterosexual men – so rarely care about looking as good as they can look. They care about easy, and comfortable, and manly. They care about “cool” and tough...and what qualifies as that is determined by other men, not women. And they care about fitting in, looking like all the other males in their group, whatever their group may be. What they do not care about is looking a woman’s idea of attractive, except possibly when they first fall in love. In general, women just have to take them as they come.

Including in those damn baggy shorts! I remember when watching a basketball team play had the added attraction (for a woman) of being able to watch all those good-looking legs and male derrieres sprinting up and down the court. Ditto a tennis match. Now the players all look like they’re wearing droopy drawers, and don’t even have derrieres. The man filling his car next to you at the convenience store cum gas station is no better. There are just these sticks that show from below the knee to as far as the inevitable running shoes, with or without socks. Except in grossly fat people, the part of the leg above the knee adds considerably to the aesthetic appeal of the human leg. Men certainly know this as regards women’s legs: they like for as much of it as possible to show (unless the lady in question is the aforementioned grossly fat.) But do they return the favor?

The oversized jeans slung so low you wonder how they keep them up are also utterly without aesthetic appeal. Besides the fact that here again the human form is totally masked, being able to see the top two inches of a young man’s underwear is not a turn-on. Do you suppose they think it is? Or is it simply part of the not-caring mentioned above?

I realize in the General Scheme of Things this is not terribly important, any more than whether or not a woman colors her hair is important. But I do think caring about aesthetics contributes to the overall tone of civilization. It’s a positive to try to make the world a better-looking place, rather than an uglier place, whether it’s by planting a garden, or wearing clothes (or hairstyles) that look good on you. The no-hair and the baggy britches have been around long enough. How do we get guys to grow their hair back, and strut their stuff in real shorts, and trousers that let us know they’re men, not dirty clothes bags?

Of course, men could now take the opportunity to castigate those awful...capri pants?...that look good on almost no woman, unless she’s very slim, the pants are quite form-fitting, and she has on heels...which are an absurdity when you’re doing casual which supposedly these pants are.