[OT] Age Appropriate Dress?

In article ,
wrote:

Jane wrote:

Is my NAAFA membership showing? lol I hang out with a bunch of fat-
acceptance folks in the DC area, and they're a great group, I tell you.
We have all sorts, good and bad. (A lot of cat lovers, too)

I'm on the fringes of NAAFA, too. Not a full-fleged member, but I have
attended their functions. I used to be a member of the Feminist Caucus
and was responsible for the monthly newsletter for a couple of years.
Went to almost all their conventions.

Where I live there's a lot of fat-acceptance activity, so I can get a
shot of support whenever the general culture's thinness obsession starts
getting to me. But I've been doing it for many years, so I think some of
that positive attitude has sunk in pretty deep - yay!

I'm fond of the slogan "Riots not Diets".

As long as it's understood there are personal decisions and personal
factors in every case. I have metabolic, drug, and lifestyle factors
that cause me to carry too much weight. In my own case, I have solid
measurements, of physiological and biochemical values, that the weight
is bad for me.

The most important thing for me in weight control is exercise, and that
can be hard with work pressures and depression. I have a decent home
gym; I just need to force myself to use it often enough to get into the
habit.

There have been times, however, when I've been lectured -- that verb is
chosen deliberately -- on how I should be accepting of fat. Thank you,
no. It's an unwise decision for me personally.

"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article , Adrian
wrote:

Jo Firey wrote:
"Yoj" wrote in message
. com...
"Wayne Mitchell" wrote in message
news "Yoj" wrote:


A cup of strong black coffee can be a real help in a situation like
that. It contains drugs that are similar to theophylin that help open
up the lungs. Proper treatment is better of course, but coffee can
be a real help in the mean time.

Jo

Also good chocolate, it contains theobromine which is part of the same
family.

The family is the methylxanthines, of which the major members are
caffeine, theophylline, and theobromine. Aminophylline is a modified
form of theophylline that is injectable, but really has no current
place in the treatment of asthma.

Of the three main alkaloids, theophylline, as has been suggested, is
the strongest bronchodilator, which helps in an acute asthma attack.
Of common beverages, strong tea has the greatest amount of actual
theophylline. Coffee has the most caffeine.

I thought tea had the highest caffeine amount

Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:

There have been times, however, when I've been lectured -- that verb is
chosen deliberately -- on how I should be accepting of fat. Thank you,
no. It's an unwise decision for me personally.

What you do with your body is your business. I just ask that you
respect where I am with mine and I will give you (you generic - I
feel this toward everyone) the same courtesy.

Joyce

wrote in message
...

What constitutes beauty isn't a consensus. There are many different kinds
of taste and aesthetics out there. People who think there's one kind of
attractiveness, and then think people should exercise "common sense"
about it, are simply imposing their own standards on the world. There's
nothing "common" about taste - or sense.

Anybody remember the "Drew Carey Show"? Remember his nemesis, Mimi? She
had several men who wanted her, weird clothes and makeup included - and I
found nothing odd about that. Like you said, people have different tastes.
My DH doesn't like "skinny" women. He likes cushiony and comfy and is
totally turned off by "boney".
--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


wrote:
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

I'm certainly NOT saying you shouldn't wear "pretty" clothes - just
that large women should use a little common sense when buying them. Why
"should" they, Evelyn? Why shouldn't they just wear what they
please? What laws are being broken, legal or ethical?

Aesthetic? ;-) Unless a woman really WANTS to look grotesque, common
sense dictates that she not wear something she knows is unflattering!
(Certainly not when there are available alternatives that are more
becoming and minimize her flaws.)

And if you
answer, "aesthetic laws", that is your own subjective opinion. You
don't have a lock on what constitutes beauty.

True. However it's not exactly "subjective" when most people are agreed
upon certain basics! If you don't CARE whether you look your best, and
prefer to wear things that don't suit you, just to make a point, it's not
MY problem. (Although IMO anyone who claims to feel that way should
probably consider therapy.) Those of us who live in the real world prefer
not to appear ridiculous when an easier alternative exists - i.e. to
choose our clothes with care and actually SEE ourselves in them when we
look in a mirror.

Evelyn, there are some people who *DO* see in mirrors what we see, but where
we might not like what we see, they *DO*. And believe me, there are other
people out there, besides them, who also think they look good. As others
have been trying to say, beauty is strictly subjective and different people
have different idea about what is beautiful (from a conservative 3-piece
Armani suit to ragged jeans with holes in the knees - and even like each at
different times!).

Just like some people love the color blue and hate the color orange, there
are people who love the color orange and hate the color blue! Personally,
while I may have my favorites, I tend to like *all* colors. Given the
chance to have a large garden of nothing but gorgeous red roses, and a
garden of every possible flower, including dandelions, I would go for the
second choice. I'm the same way with body types. I like very tall and
skinny men in all their variety of clothes, and I also like short chubby men
in all their variety of clothes - and everything in between (do you get that
I like men in all their aspects? ;).

Maybe it's just because I have ADHD, but if everyone in this world thought
the same way, acted the same way, and dressed the same way - I would be
bored enough to commit suicide! Even those people who annoy me at least
keep me interested!

--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/

wrote:
John F. Eldredge wrote:

Hmm... I know a number of computer geeks who have the same type of
personality you're talking about, and they're total slobs. I think it
has to do with being oriented toward the cerebral, and not paying
that much attention to the physical environment. Two people I'm thinking
of in particular, a couple, have an expensive house on which they have
never spent any time or money in decorating. However, they've filled it
with all sorts of electronic stuff and cool gadgets and toys.

Joyce

You described my son, except for the "expensive house" part. It took me
years to get off his back about it. I realize now that the true
definition of "decorating" or making a home is surrounding yourself
with things you love. Not things your mother loves. Not things your
friends love, not things that look like a decorator magazine. Computer
parts, cables, stereo components and other gadgets are things he loves.


Sherry

Two people I'm thinking
of in particular, a couple, have an expensive house on which they have
never spent any time or money in decorating. However, they've filled it
with all sorts of electronic stuff and cool gadgets and toys.

I realize now that the true
definition of "decorating" or making a home is surrounding yourself
with things you love. Not things your mother loves. Not things your
friends love, not things that look like a decorator magazine. Computer
parts, cables, stereo components and other gadgets are things he loves.


I am suddenly realizing why all my furniture is secondhand, and covered
with a massive collection of transforming robots. Except for the
bookcases, which I bought to hold, um, more transforming robots, DVDs,
and comic books.

Makes sense.

--Fil

Enfilade wrote:
Two people I'm thinking
of in particular, a couple, have an expensive house on which they have
never spent any time or money in decorating. However, they've filled it
with all sorts of electronic stuff and cool gadgets and toys.

I realize now that the true
definition of "decorating" or making a home is surrounding yourself
with things you love. Not things your mother loves. Not things your
friends love, not things that look like a decorator magazine. Computer
parts, cables, stereo components and other gadgets are things he loves.


I am suddenly realizing why all my furniture is secondhand, and covered
with a massive collection of transforming robots. Except for the
bookcases, which I bought to hold, um, more transforming robots, DVDs,
and comic books.

Makes sense.

--Fil

Yes! Exactly. My furniture is all second-hand, too. But every piece has
a "story". Our little kitchen area table was in the first house my
grandparents bought when they married. All my "decorator items" in my
kitchen are from my mother's 1950's kitchen, the things that remind me
of her busy hands. Nothing matches. I'm not sure I'd want it to!

Sherry

Cheryl Perkins wrote:

Beauty actually probably isn't strictly subjective if you go by the
studies in which researchers ask people to rate the beauty of photos of
lots of different people. Sure, some aspects of popularly-recognized
'beauty' is dependent on fashion and culture, but I doubt all of it is.

But we are socialized from birth to respond to different appearances
in certain ways. That doesn't mean we don't also have our individual
taste, but beauty standards are socially constructed, and they contain
within them many values, concious and unconcious, of that social culture.
People in different parts of the world have all sorts of different ideas
of what is beautiful in people.

And I would be somewhat skeptical about studies that "prove" that, for
example, all men look for certain physical qualities in a woman that have
to do with biologically determined standards (and vice versa). I'm not
saying that the results of such studies are outright wrong, or that there
is no biological component to our visual tastes, but I do think the
researchers themselves are biased (because they can't help but be biased),
and that will skew the results, too.

Choosing
clothing involves not only a personal view on what beauty is and a way
for each person to express that, but also suitability and communication.

I think you're talking about two different things. There's the issue
of appropriateness to a specific situation: how you present yourself at
work, home, with friends, family, or just out in public by yourself.
There is a level of conformity to expectations in many situations, and
I'm sure that most people are not arguing about those. I'm certainly
not! I haven't heard anyone say that we should all be able to wear
bikinis to work and if anyone complains, they're a bigot.

What I take issue with is when someone says "She should know better than
to wear that in public", as though we all have agreed-upon standards
about what "looks good" and what doesn't. I'm sure *some* people agree
on certain standards, because that is part of what makes a culture, but
we also live among people with many different cultural and subcultural
notions of attractiveness.

For example, Evelyn believes that it's a fact, and not an opinion, that
a fat woman would look terrible in a tight leather outfit. Well, I know
for a fact that many people would think she looks great. And maybe she
doesn't give a damn what Evelyn thinks - she's dressing for herself and
for those who appreciate her. Perhaps she's not "too stupid" to know
better, after all. Maybe she knows exactly what she's doing, and is
choosing not to be restricted by someone else's social rules.

If I can't look
dispassionately at my appearance and make a pretty good guess at what it
will communicate to people I meet, there may be misunderstanding of a
greater or lesser degree.

Frankly, I think there will be some misunderstanding no matter what you
do, because people have different frames of reference and will infer your
"statement" in different ways. You might have a common cultural
understanding with some group of people about what you're communicating
with your physical presentation, and that might give the impression that
that understanding is universal, but it's not.

Joyce

On 2006-02-05, penned:
John F. Eldredge wrote:

Well, for that matter, I have 20 years experience as a programmer
(and college degrees in both electronics and programming, as well
as a Bachelor's degree in History), and class myself as a "skilled
worker".

That makes sense. Other than the fact that programmers are extremely
well-paid, which makes them middle-class, the work itself is
certainly of the skilled-worker variety.

I'm a little confused. What constitutes a skilled worker? The term
looks like it should mean "someone who's good at what they do and has
invested time and training into doing it well," but I don't think
that's what you mean.

I've always been a bit confused by the white collar / blue collar
distinction. I don't get it, I guess.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca