/fa/ - Fashion

>>11377102
>if something seems like it is too much effort to be enjoyed, then it is probably something to not pursue.
of course, but I was thinking more as in presenting yourself as something that doesn't represent you. When I wear my stupid baggy clothes everyday, I never feel like I'm dressing up, whereas I definitely would if I was going full /slp/ or something, which you can only truly pull off if you're a genuine rockstar or celebrity. Have a look at the Rick Owens or the (horrible nowadays) WAYWT threads. They're always full of people spending too much money to look like they're playing dress-up rather than appearing natural, which is very unattractive to me.

I feel like /cgl/ might have different opinions on looking like you're dressing up, because you literally are over there, and you're self-aware of it because that's the whole point. However, I still feel like there's a definite line between something sort-of natural like >>11375946, and the common weaboo who wears loud things to feel different and just ends up looking like they're going to a fancy dress party

>>11377102
>if you see some of the theories as to why lolita is so popular internationally, you would see the same type of pseudo-intellectual analysis
what theories are you referring to? Sound interesting. Or is it just about Western whitey's yellow fever influencing them to dress up as schooolgirls and eat sushi so they feel more 'Asian'?

>did not expect that from this board
ha, we're largely divided on it, I think. Androgyny was massive in 2015 as far as runways from the biggest brands go. Never really seen it pulled off irl aside from trendy Acne/cuck core, but it can work really well if you happen to be perfectly sculpted for it (pic related)

>is it dead or...
probably. I think we killed the thread and all subsequent /fa/ x /cgl/ relations with constant long replies ;_;