/fa/ - Fashion

>>8946216
still up, doing some easy responses.

>>8946266
>That being said, I would love to see more inspo that focuses on /out/ activities and function rather the ninja-aesthetic and monochrome fits.

I would, too. My own style takes from both of those, as well as a bunch of other stuff. I haven't found a better way to describe it than the cheeky-but-earnest pic related I made for "describe your style in two words" thread. Hyphen-core.

>>8946280
>generic sneakers

We're not talking Supergas here, although I'd even admit a fit with those if everything else read right. We're talking Nikes, the most advanced, highly engineered athletic footwear on the planet.


Both before and beyond the philosophical stuff I'll cover when I'm not running on fumes, that's the problem with the "it's not tech!" line. It's usually just flat out not correct about something not being technical or functional.

And, like,

>when it rains

But it's not always raining! And even when it is, who decided/why do you feel that weather resistance is the summit or sole, um, barometer of all function? It seems the least important unless you're on a multi-day innawoods trip. Which, by all means, I love mutli-day innawoods trips, but we're not discussing them here.

TBH, it seems like weather resistance and exoticness are the two things stuff is being measured against, and nothing else. That's the only way I can see someone not counting *Nikes*. (Also, note I'm not saying you have to like Nikes, there's plenty of sound reasons you might not, starting with the branding, but I can't see a sound argument to not consider them techncial.)

Finally,

>>8477189
Egh, woops. Tired. I was going to cite techier Undercover as the highest example of what I was talking about before I remembered the picture and forgot to change it.

I'll dump some inspo tomorrow night if the thread is still up.