4 ms·

You can substitute "horniness" into my comment and the point stands. The Victorians were plenty horny and raunchy too. Fashion is about doing something differe

You can substitute "horniness" into my comment and the point stands. The Victorians were plenty horny and raunchy too. Fashion is about doing something different. If everyone is wearing skimpier and skimpier clothes, it's natural that wearing conservative clothing will become the way to stand out. We should expect this to ebb and flow independent of our sex lives. Not to mention everything presented in the linked article, and that I don't know how people around you are dressing, but people around me are dressing about as conservatively as they always have.

lelanthran 3y ago
> Not to mention everything presented in the linked article, and that I don't know how people around you are dressing, but people around me are dressing about as conservatively as they always have. The thing is, I'm not in the age range that anyone cares about: I'm old enough to already have had all the children a person might want, so don't really socialise much with youngsters in a non-family situation. Since I am unlikely to see how they are dressed when they are going out for the night, I think my opinion on whether the youngsters around me are dressing more or less provocatively is probably irrelevant.
busterarm 3y ago
Victorian clothing was considered flattering to shape and form. It's not about how much skin is showing. Zoomer fashion is about de-accentuation. Looking goofier/dumpier/lankier/etc. Baggy in the wrong places.
- maxbond 3y ago
  Help me understand what the difference is between what you're saying and the fretting that one generation always does about the aesthetic choices of the next generation? To me it sounds like you're saying, "young people are dressing differently, and that's a problem, because they should dress the way I did when I was their age."
  - busterarm 3y ago
    You're reading way too into it. The topic was about zoomers not having as much sex. My point was effectively "of course, this is self-evident, look at how they dress!" because the clothes they wear are a deliberate choice to not be viewed sexually. De-emphasizing sexuality equates with having less of it. It's a kind of puritanism. Sex, especially when you're young, is often spontaneous and driven by sensory stimulus.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      Again, no, it isn't. I'll refer you to the other comments where I made the case. Inferring how much sex a person is having from their clothes is "reading too much into it," people generally don't advertise their sex lives.
      - busterarm 3y ago
        A century plus of research into human behavior and literally the entire advertising industry disagrees with you. Edit: I'm not even going to continue with this thread. There's a significant body of research on fashion psychology and the nonverbal cues communicated by what you wear. Just do a casual google search for all of the advice posts out there on the internet telling people what they should wear in their dating profile photos...this is QED kinda stuff we're talking about here...
        maxbond 3y ago
        You're under no obligation to continue this conversation, but no, you can't tell how much sex people have by the way they dress, that's absurd. Frankly it's pretty objectifying to suggest the only reason people choose to wear skimpy clothes is to get laid, and the only reason they wear conservative clothes is to remain celibate. People often dress to please themselves.
        lelanthran 3y ago
        > Frankly it's pretty objectifying to suggest the only reason people choose to wear skimpy clothes is to get laid, and the only reason they wear conservative clothes is to remain celibate. I don't see where parent suggested that as the "only" consideration people make when choosing clothing. People interested in sex dress very differently to when they aren't interested in sex. That's a very different claim to "people's choices in clothing is driven only by interest in sex." Parent is correct, though, there is an overwhelming body of evidence that people behave and groom themselves differently when looking to hook up.

lelanthran 3y ago

> Not to mention everything presented in the linked article, and that I don't know how people around you are dressing, but people around me are dressing about as conservatively as they always have. The thing is, I'm not in the age range that anyone cares about: I'm old enough to already have had all the children a person might want, so don't really socialise much with youngsters in a non-family situation. Since I am unlikely to see how they are dressed when they are going out for the night, I think my opinion on whether the youngsters around me are dressing more or less provocatively is probably irrelevant.

busterarm 3y ago

Victorian clothing was considered flattering to shape and form. It's not about how much skin is showing. Zoomer fashion is about de-accentuation. Looking goofier/dumpier/lankier/etc. Baggy in the wrong places.

maxbond 3y ago
Help me understand what the difference is between what you're saying and the fretting that one generation always does about the aesthetic choices of the next generation? To me it sounds like you're saying, "young people are dressing differently, and that's a problem, because they should dress the way I did when I was their age."
- busterarm 3y ago
  You're reading way too into it. The topic was about zoomers not having as much sex. My point was effectively "of course, this is self-evident, look at how they dress!" because the clothes they wear are a deliberate choice to not be viewed sexually. De-emphasizing sexuality equates with having less of it. It's a kind of puritanism. Sex, especially when you're young, is often spontaneous and driven by sensory stimulus.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    Again, no, it isn't. I'll refer you to the other comments where I made the case. Inferring how much sex a person is having from their clothes is "reading too much into it," people generally don't advertise their sex lives.
    - busterarm 3y ago
      A century plus of research into human behavior and literally the entire advertising industry disagrees with you. Edit: I'm not even going to continue with this thread. There's a significant body of research on fashion psychology and the nonverbal cues communicated by what you wear. Just do a casual google search for all of the advice posts out there on the internet telling people what they should wear in their dating profile photos...this is QED kinda stuff we're talking about here...
      - maxbond 3y ago
        You're under no obligation to continue this conversation, but no, you can't tell how much sex people have by the way they dress, that's absurd. Frankly it's pretty objectifying to suggest the only reason people choose to wear skimpy clothes is to get laid, and the only reason they wear conservative clothes is to remain celibate. People often dress to please themselves.
        lelanthran 3y ago
        > Frankly it's pretty objectifying to suggest the only reason people choose to wear skimpy clothes is to get laid, and the only reason they wear conservative clothes is to remain celibate. I don't see where parent suggested that as the "only" consideration people make when choosing clothing. People interested in sex dress very differently to when they aren't interested in sex. That's a very different claim to "people's choices in clothing is driven only by interest in sex." Parent is correct, though, there is an overwhelming body of evidence that people behave and groom themselves differently when looking to hook up.