Saturday, January 16, 2010

How am I supposed to wear this?

I don’t understand fashion.

Almost, if not absolutely, all of the people who read this have seen me in person, so that sentence has almost no redemptive value. You know it already! I leave it only because I needed a sentence to embold. And not in the courageous way.

I’ve heard it said that “one cannot be fashionable unless one likes the feeling of being squeezed, pressed upon, buttoned up.” I think that’s actually a misplaced quote from the Marquis de Sade.

I have a couple of questions, anyway, that the Marquis’s quote doesn’t explain. Today’s “Frozen-Icarus-Doesn’t-Understand-Fashion” (possibly a new feature?) post is dedicated to beaters.

1. What is the point of a beater? If the general point of undershirts is to protect dress shirts from sweat stains, and armpits sweat a lot, and the point of a beater is to not encloth the armpit…there seems to be a major problem here.

2. Now, this isn’t beaters’ problem only, as I’ve (unfortunately) bought t-shirt undershirts with this problem as well – what is the deal with the ridiculous length with which some undershirts are built? These shirts hang down, down, down. Hem of the boxers low. But it’s not like I’ve bought the wrong size – they are the correct fit throughout the shirt section. Did I miss the memo that we’re going back to tunics?

3. Along with that – I have a set of Polo beaters (they were on sale at TJ Maxx, you can’t call me white trash. Although -- I was chuckling to myself when I realized that between the mullet, the goatee, and the beater poking through the unbuttoned top of my dress shirt I look like Ethan Hawke in Reality Bites. Except not pretty. Only a decade left until Y2K!)

Anyway. The emblem on these Polo beaters are on the bottom hem towards the left – and they suffer from what I discussed in #2. So the logo is always tucked in (because I wear them as undershirts) but would likewise remain tucked in even if I decided to dress like white trash for the day.

Because otherwise I’d be wearing a tunic.

So this doesn’t make sense. I don’t understand what capitalist trick they’re playing at. I already know that it’s a Polo shirt, I bought it…isn’t the general idea right now that I’m supposed to be a walking advertisement for the clothing brand I bought?


S.H.S said...

I kick myself for responding to this, but:

First, I say "you have to appreciate the appeal of feeling CINCHED STARCHED BELTED to understand fashion"...see: It doesn't HAVE to sound so sexual.

Second, I agree that the A-SHIRT [preferred terminology] doesn't protect your shirt from your sweaty arpmits (which is a down side), but if one were wearing a proper summer suit [with a very light-weight, see-through dress shirt, a vest, slacks, and a jacket that you want to take off] the A-SHIRT would have the advantage of not being visible THROUGH any of the clothing. You know that look, where you can see the arms of the T-underSHIRT through the dress shirt. Yucky. an ASHIRT is so long so it doesn't come untucked [which would make the hem visible through your dress shirt] and the polo logo is so low so that it will stay tucked in [and won't become visible through your dress shirt]. All is explained.

That being said, wearing an A-SHIRT that was designed to go under your clothes as a shirt by itself is icky. Also: Men should have to shave their armpits if they want to bare them in public.

Andrew said...

I was really really hoping that this would piss you off enough to comment. I'm glad it did. Mwahaha.

But it still doesn't make sense to put the logo on, then, if it's never meant to be seen. Wouldn't it cost less not to embroider it in the first place?

And I thought a-shirts and beaters were different, based on the cut, on how droopy they are away from the neck/chest area... n'est-ce pas?

Justin said...

As a loyal beater-wearer I must side with the Storm on this one.

But of course the fricking logo is madness. Don't know what's up with that one.