/fa/ - Fashion

>>6307107
You're thinking too hard into this sheeple.

>>6307107
How would you describe color to a creature without eyes?

To pull something off not because it's such a great piece, but because you have the style and charisma to wear it well

>>6307117
This nigga..

>>6307120

What does that even mean? Should you not be able to answer this basic question if you consider yourself fashionable

>>6307132
Nigga that makes about as much sense as your comment. What kind of weirdo answers a simple q with something like that. Wait, you don't own a fedora do you?

>>6307141

What are you on about. Stop derailing the thread.

Fashion is a mode of expression that goes beyond functionality or even what is good or bad. It is the invention of a new game with it's own rules and language that matter to people who are playing the game. The attraction isn't beauty or aesthetics although individual pieces may be beautiful, the point of fashion like so many other specialized games is novelty.

Being fashionable means you are playing the game and "winning."

>>6307207
Agreed. Especially on that part about winning. It has always been in my mind that to be fashionable one must have a wardrobe which subscribes to various designers who are relevant, favored, and generally in a good light. The outfits composed from this hypothetical wardrobe should naturally be cohesive and balanced, demonstrating knowledge/awareness on the before mentioned designers in a tasteful manner.

A good example would be bai, who always sports new pieces and in great outfits.

Of course you can forfeit from this game altogether.

>>6307107
You can't describe something like that in anything but the vaguest of terms. It's like asking at what point does an image become as pornographic. How can you prove it? IRL of course, we can say something is porn when its intent is to titillate. But how can you prove that intent in court? You can't, the pornographer can always just say he makes art films. The court's answer to this is the concept of 'prurient interest'. It boils down to the notion that the average person will know true obscenity when they see it (and I realize this is a really glib reduction but bear with me). That's it. How do you prove something is X? Because you'll know it when you see it. Everyone knows what X looks like.

I think this example is significant, because even in something as deeply codified & structured as the US legal system, there is at some point a moment to which the entire court bows to simple public common sense in the hopes of arresting a concept that is too slippery to box in with statutes and bylaws.

The notion of defining "Good Fashion" once and for all is a similar concept, tilting at windmills but ultimately bowing to mob rule. The big difference is that in our communities, things like standards and laws are flexible and can change drastically from one audience to the next. There are so many subcultures and looks these days that you can't really quantify things on a universal level. At some point you have to bow to your gut instincts instead of drawing hard & fast lines. Dope fits are like porn - you'll know 'em when you see 'em.

>>6307107
nigga i just try and dress as best i can for some confidence

social life skyrocketed when i got /fa/
good fashion imo is a perfect balance between affordability, sustainability, quality, brand/hype, execution

or like nice clothes worn together well idc lol

make a really compelling proposition and i will consider you to be a good fashion designer.

>>6307480

Are you black? No? Stop saying fucking "nigga" you suburban piece of shit

confidence breeds style

>>6307107
>How would you describe "good" fashion? What does it truly mean to be fashionable?

In my experience, I strive to look acceptable and non-offensive.

What do I mean by "acceptable and non-offensive"?

It means that I, at least, will make an effort to not look sloppy, disheveled, and goofy. I take care of my hygiene. I practice some basic grooming. And, of course, I observe the basics of clothing. The basics are the middle ground, right between "slob" and "well dressed". You've probably seen the basics threads. They mostly consist of raw denim, OBDCs, chinos, and casual shoes. Amidst the meme-spouting this is what some call "boring", even "pleb".

That doesn't matter, anyone in a basic outfit will look better than someone in an relaxed sweatpants + hoodie combo. Now, how does all this answer your question?

"Fashionable" is purely subjective. Fashion changes with the times. There is no universal fashion that will apply to people for all time. However, one can always strive to look "acceptable and non-offensive". This is what separates the /fa/ regulars from the rest of the sloppily dressed college students.

I think we know color coordination and items pairing, as well as a sense of what is appropriate for our surroundings. Now, if you want to be "fashionable" you must know the basics. If you try to be fashionable without having the basics under your belt, you will fail miserably and you will end up in /fa/'s MFA threads.

fashion is like wine. to the average chump, a wine is just a wine no matter how good it actually is. they cannot tell the difference in quality between a very fine vintage bordeaux and whatever comes out of the box of franzia.

fashion is very similar. you really have to know it in order to appreciate it. its the subtle notes, hues, and drapes, and fabrics that make an outfit fashionable and it takes an experienced person to know these things

wearing something that looks good, feels comfortable, and makes you feel confident

>>6307495
nvm saw pleated
it looks amazing

>>6307693
runecloth

>>6307495
whats with the texture? what material is that

>>6307698
ewwwww

>>6307600
this guy knows whats up... basics are important and don't underestimate OCBDS and button ups... You will be wearing them forever.

This is good fashion

>>6307732
>buying expensive clothing for a child who doesn't know how to properly wipe his own ass yet and will outgrow them in 1 year

fucking shiggy

>>6307673
also forgot to mention: anyone can tell if a wine is really bad/spoiled, but only those with the more discerning palettes can tell if it is actually good. the same goes for fashion

>>6307117
like flavor to the tongue. you put a spoonful of smething into your mouth, it can be bright and tangy, it can smoky and dark and spicy. color is just the flavor to your eyes mate.

fashion is bit more abstract, unfortunately

>>6307715
Yes but imo that ties more into "style"
it ties more into forfeiting from the game of fashion altogether

virtually every designer adds there own twist or signature to otherwise "neutral" garments
thats why cp's are popular, it's nice to have a break from higher end sneaks that usually have very distinctive styles (ccp drips, ro dunks)

to be fashionable one should have to be able to mix pieces from many different designers (each with its own signature style) and make cohesive fits
you would also have to always be bringing in new pieces into there wardrobe, to ensure that they are never behind, that they become "boring" and that they are always in the loop

that is my view of the matter. i usually reserve my taste for signature style in my shoes anyway, everything else is pretty unoffensive and basic for me

>>6307732
I am swooning over this lil nigga right now. Lil niggas got class out the sleeves. Ya dig?

>>6307758
Those are good points. Duly noted.

Again, I've always seen the basics as the bottom line. What you need to "master" before you start tackling the fashionable stuff.

Think of the basics as a blank canvas. Now you just need to apply strokes of fashion.

>>6307758
this is the only good post of yours that i have read

>>6307790
right? the rest of that nigga's posts are nothing but impudent drivel

like not a single fit was posted, yet this nerd types 5-paragraph essays every post

>>6307750
>>6307673
problem with that analogy is that in blind taste tests with the most respected sommeliers, again and again, the $15 bottle is indistinguishable from the $150 bottle. sure, if youre talking about the absolute low end, franzia et al. youre gonna be able to tell. but the wine culture in the form of a final end product is absolute hype. no one can tell the difference of supposed "quality" blindly.

which actually does serve a good analogy. many lay people freak out about a $100 t-shirt. and most fashion-conscience people wouldnt be able to tell the difference from a jcrew and a joe mccoy blindly. but the idea is that there is craftmanship, history, and some abstract notion of quality present in one and not the other. same with wine, i guess.

tl;dr - both the wine culture and fashion culture is mostly bullshit, but are able to convince themselves otherwise through ideas of heritage and craftmanship

>>6307785
>Think of the basics as a blank canvas. Now you just need to apply strokes of fashion
exactly. perfect.

>>6307791
the taste tests you are referencing were conducted with laymen; also, the goal was not to demonstrate that people's perception of wine was skewed by the label or price tag, but that the price tag skews perceptions of the product; it was part of a wider study on price.

both superb wine and superb design are easily demonstrable if you possess the vocabulary to "get" it. blind taste test shenanigans only work on the uninitiated.

>>6307802
>most respected sommeliers
not conducted with laymen. and not one study. again, and again, it is shown that the difference between a 100 dollar or a 15 dollar wine is indistinguishable. you can argue that the price is justified through its craftsmanship, heritage, artistry, marketing, etc. but the actual final product (the drinking of the wine) does not justify it.

how comfortable/satisfied the wearer is.

alternatively; the swosh of their HY, the figure out of 10, the cuff precision etc etc

>>6307791

"bullshit" must be your name for culture

>mfw this board discusses "what is fashion"

"Fashion is not something that exists in dresses only. Fashion is in the sky, in the street, fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening."
-Coco Chanel

also being classy and fabulous AF

>>6307802

i would rape a bitch if she wore that, does that make me fashionable?

>>6307820
yes thats pretty neat and all but the premise of this thread is what is means to be fashionable, as in a person

dropping quotes is also a pretty lame way of trying to bring up a point

>>6307816
alright, produce the studies.

>>6307851
no hope for you

>>6307928
dat lip bite

>>6307875
dont have the time to find the actual studies, but here are a few articles written about the idea:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/you-are-not-so-smart-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-decision-tree/201207/cheap-and-expensive-wine-taste-the-same-in-blind-taste-tests

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/frontal-cortex/2012/06/wine-taste.html

>>6307981
>In one experiment, he got 54 oenology (the study of wine tasting and wine making) undergraduates
>undergraduates
>54
>what is sample size
>what is professionalism

>second link doesn't mention a study

>third article references a study that simply compared excellent wines from different countries against one another
>the other study used amateurs

what was that supposed to prove?

To be fashionable means in my opinion to be able to wear clothing in a way that always makes you look presentable and comfortable with your surroundings. You make people think, "Wow, this person looks good." Your style makes them look nicely upon you. You most likely fit in with your surroundings or the crowd. Your clothes just work; they fit a certain pattern or design that is appreciated in the mind.

>>6307981
go away. and stop posting psychology today articles that stuff is bullshit. u r poor, get over it

>>6307107
>How would you describe "good" fashion? What does it truly mean to be fashionable?
Good fashion is not wearing a leather jacket. Leather jackets are anti-fashion. Seriously. Leather jackets are autistic. They just look awful. Leather jackets are pretty much costume wear. You might as well wear a clown outfit, because no one is going to take you seriously when you wear a leather jacket. You probably think you look like Marlon Brando, but the truth is that you don't. You actually look like a nerd that is trying to look badass when wearing a leather jacket.
My advice: Leather jackets. Dont wear 'em. Why shouldn't you wear them? They look like shit. All. The. Time. Get real. Stop trying to look cool, because you are not cool and you are not a badass. Wear something else that looks good and doesn't make you look stupid.
The truth is, leather jackets never look good. You should never wear a leather jacket. They are pretty much the fedora-level jackets. Let me tell you one thing. You will look autistic when you wear a leather jacket. Again, never wear a leather jacket. They look like shit.

>>6308034
i lel'd

captcha: sources byyraha

>>6308034
>>6308005
please. its common fucking knowledge that expensive wine is indistinguishable from mid-tier wine. i thought everyone fucking knew that.
its a poor analogy for fashion, but, i never made that link in the first place.

>>6308095
it's not common knowledge. even if it was, it's fallacious to appeal to its status as common knowledge as proof that it is therefore true. the analogy, in addition to being an inappropriate comparison for fashion, is incorrect.

>>6308095
better article here:
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/11/02/the-subjectivity-of-wine/

fuckin wine experts cant tell that a white wine dyed red wasnt actually a white wine....

>>6308127
well now, they just referenced the study mentioned in the atlantic article you posted in >>6307981 but now the sample size has mysteriously changed, and the students have metamorphisized into experts.

how strange.

I think the idea it its most basic is looking visually pleasing. that said, being fashionable in itself is a personal opinion. What looks good in terms of fashion to one, may be completely completely revolting to another. even the idea of what fashion is may differ from person to person. Very similar to how some people interpret music or artwork differently.

>>6308115
oh shit twerk >>6308141

>>6308134
well i dont give a shit - im drunk off of mediocre bourbon right now. but this is an experiment you can try yourself, since you fancy yourself a wine expert - give yourself a few blind taste tests and report back. but seriously, i dont give a shit.
anyway, youre a tripfag on /fa/, i think its time you reevaluated your life decisions.

>>6307732
>tfw you will never be this /fa/
youngangettinit.jpg

>>6308127
go away. even i could tell a white from a red, and i only drink like a bottle or two a week. having to resort to "scientific" "studies" already shows how much of a pleb u r

>>6308166
>even i could tell a white from a red

actually years ago I conducted an experiment to test the hypothesis if people genuinely preferred name-brand sodas vs. knock-off sodas....and it turned out not only could people not tell which was which but the ALL favored some cheap ass mr. cola......true story
tldr - twerk and fascionfashist are pretentious cacsuckers

>>6308159
>well i dont give a shit
>anyway, youre a tripfag on /fa/, i think its time you reevaluated your life decisions.

the inevitiable conclusion
too much pride to say you might have been a bit too ignorant or foolish with what you were posting
or am i wrong?

>>6308181
what was your sample size and where was the population from

>>6308182
you're wrong.

>>6308182
well hey, lets switch the burden of proof, you started this assertion - show that a very expensive wine is scientifically preferred by those of refined tastes than medium-priced wines.

again, the analogy to fashion is shit, and youre a tripfagger on /fa/. this is not a good thing.

>>6308186
I don't even remember. this was in fucking middle school. but I do remember using all ages and walks of life etc etc....and everyone including my teacher was shocked...esp bc mr cola is like 1/3 of price but everyone buys coke/pepsi bc of label

>>6307566
lol smh @ ur life

>>6308182
>>6308196
sorry, realized you were a different tripfag than the original fucker.
you all kind of look alike to me.

>>6308198
i dont mean to discredit your story but as is you're just providing anecdotal evidence
you're also neglecting addictive properties of coca cola and other effects of caffeine.
your 'study' seems to be on the basis of immediate taste test alone

>>6308198
I guess my whole point in this is MARKETING really throws a monkey wrench into retail.....for instance it costs a lot so the cost of clothing goes up, however if mktg is successful then so is the brand and therefore demand goes up.....bc demand is up theres a perceived value of object that may not be related to labor/textiles/etc used....does this make sense bc im kinda drunk

>>6308210
is this fucker serious?
he fuckin said it was a middle school blind taste test. it wasnt published in fucking nature. but great peer review you professional scientsist you.
the great thing about science is that you can go it yourself for a minimal budget - this dude did, he got results, and if you really dispute those results, either consult the literature or repeat the experiment. that how science fuckin works.

i am a bit skeptical that thered be a statistically significant difference between the samples, but, hey, i doubt hes lying, and i highly doubt that your "addictive properties of coca cola" mean shit.

you fuckin tool

>>6308207
i dont care about your argument with twerk it, it just seems in bad taste and character that you would resort to insulting posters and acting pissy just because they seem to have you cornered

>>6308210
sugar/caffeine levels in colas are basically indistinguishable btwn brands so totally irrelevant in this case
ESP bc were relating this to fashion...unless youre addicted to nikes or something...then I really don't know what to say

>>6308227
he hasnt provided results he provided anecdotal evidence that was my point

>>6308228
nah you just took offense cause of my comment about tripfags. im sure youre a stellar person though, just reeking with individuality.

>>6308196

Most of my wine tasting has been on wines between $6-15 a bottle but the difference is certainly noticeable. The cheap $6 wines tend not to have as much bouquet, the flavor is a less complex and the finish is usually rougher. Once you reach a certain point you can find the qualities that are desirable in wine. However with more expensive wines you can find specific characteristics you might not find in lower end wines. It's not necessarily objectively better but you can certainly say, "This wine fits the profile of what I want better then this other one."

>>6307566
nigga, what the fuck you gettin hype about? if he wants to say it let him say it. it's the people like you that make nigga a race issue.

>>6308237
I provided you with the general results.
also related them to this thread right here >>6308219
sorry I didn't keep the quantitative data from 8th grade science project

>>6308237
what do you want? a fucking p value? damn near anything on 4chan is anecdotal. but i would highly doubt i guy would lie about his middle school experiment. yes, it is a middle school experiment, but if you doubt the results consult the lit or repeat the experiment. jesus. do you really find coke to be so much better than mr coke?

>>6308252
you provided us with our conclusion, not results, you cant use it as anything other than anecdotal evidence

>>6308257
i dont like coke
i just think its likely that he had a small sample size

>>6308245
lol, please dont make this about
there you go again, bleeding in your own ideas into what you want me to be

as soon as twerk it mentioned that those studies seemed shady, you moved into the "idgaf, you're a loser" routine

what i want is for you to be aware of what you did, i'm not trying to really call you out on it

if it hurts your pride, thats one thing. but dont ignore it

>>6308249
well a $6 bottle id say is very low end. im more interested in whether theres a discernible difference between a $15 and a $150 wine.
also, were these tastings of yours blind?

>>6308265
I feel like youre just arguing in the sake of arguing.
also this was an extensive experiment tested on at least a hundred people. yes it included kids as well as parents...yes there were repeated trials...
also I live in a prominent area so it wasn't a bunch of ghetto people if that's what youre getting at

>>6308282
that sounds better
i just dont like when people misuse statistics horribly

>>6308262
well alright, (s)he brought up the analogy, i challenged it, but the burden of proof should rest on the one who makes the claim in the first place. if there are more reputable studies showing otherwise thats up to that fucker to show - so far the evidence that has been presented has shown that the concept of high-tier wine is a sham.

meanwhile youre just a naysaying attention whore fuck. so tell me, miss natalie portland, what does fashion, mean to YOU?

>>6308290
i remember once at youth group i think it was
one of the mentor ladies fed us minties then later we had to do a blind test to distinguish between pepsi and coca cola
a slightly higher number of people (out of the 5 or so that did it) guessed wrong
and the lady goes "WELL i guess that proves it! minties make it so you cant tell the difference between them" and it made me real mad inside

>>6308290
christ you are the worst example of a person i have seen in a shit long while.
what is your goddamn profession? why are you such a stickler for precise and professional soda taste testing science?

>>6308262
omfg im gonna throw up all over myself....
you know Natalie...I was completely wrong about you.
you had me fooled into thinking you weren't a complete caksucker but honestly anyone who blows smoke up twerks ass is NOT chill by any means.

>>6308298
>>6308300
ah sorry. youth group mint-soda-taste test. say no more. these things deserve the best of scientific rigor.

>>6308300
sorry firend

>>6308303
i just said in >>6308228
that i dont care about what he's arguing about
i dont care about anyone except NATALIE!!!!1

>>6308294
yoooooooooooooooouuuuuuuu
>what does fashion, mean to YOU?
i already explained it in
>>6307278
>>6307758
but of course no one on this board reads that and would rather focus on off topic conversation!
theyd rather devolve into prmitive ego battles

just like i mentioned in
>6307878

its okay though

>sweet victory

well im glad that's settled then.

>>6308339
the fuck this monkey on about?
pretentious cunt he looks like.

natalie is so perfect, no one can compete with her

>>6308331
for the record you obviously did care about the argument....at least enough to butt in w/comments

>>6308343
lets see yer tits miss natalie

>>6308342
its a she. and theres nothing pretentious about her...shes the real deal baller status could fuck all these wannabes up in a heartbeat

>>6308275

The tastings were not blind although I'm not sure it is necessary. At this price point the flavor profiles are not very subtle and if you can taste the difference between cola, root beer, and fruit punch you can pick out the differences between wines, although not necessarily identify them.

The thing to remember is that with wine the flavor palette doesn't come from simply adding different flavor additives (there are some exceptions). The flavor comes from the grapes themselves and are released during fermentation. It depends heavily on the varietal of grape, the environment it is grown in and even the specific crop of grapes. One vintage might turn out particularly good but disease might wipe out half the crop so relatively few bottles are made. This alone may drive up the price for that particular vintage, quality combined with scarcity.

>>6308362
are we talking about that monkey pic? or you this anon? or you are this anon?
in any case, i smell a rat.

>>6308348
>>6308348
i care that you derailed the thread only to end with you walking away with having done two things:

A.leaving the thread to slowly decay from poison you fed it
(see >>6307791)

and

B. proven your narcissism by ignorantly refusing to acknowledge the fact that your arguments have been disarmed (and i should remind you that YOU started that off topic argument in the first place)

so you walk in here, contribute your profanity, and when you have the opportunity to relfect upon yourself, your ego refuses to let you look at yourself in a bad light (see >>6308159)


its egotistical, but more importantly it serves no positive benefit to my precious fashion board

/fa/'s collective definition of "fashionable" is to be white tall thin attractive and wear tastefully bland, extravagantly expensive clothes


I'm having a hard time describing my personal definition of fashionable, but it's definitely something someone begins to acquire once they start thinking consciously about the visual rhetoric of the garments they clothe themselves in. Someone who takes personal pleasure in the everyday theatre of getting dressed.

To me, the most exceptionally fashionable people are those who have learned the rules carefully and diligently, and then broken them.

>>6308378
talking about the monkey man calm the fuck down

>>6308376
>tastings were not blind
>not sure it is necessary
thats the whole fucking point of tastings. it has definitely been shown that the presentation and price of a bottle influence a tasters perception. and i do like all of that craftsmanship to wine, just like clothes, but i really am skeptical it is present in the final product (not the same with clothes)

I think people become fashionable when they start giving a fuck about what they're wearing

>>6308388
lol, theres at least two anons your referencing in that post. youre a vain little fuck, aint ya?

>>6308388
aw honey you have the wrong guy...
im the soda experiment anon that dominated this argument like a boss

I know this must be confusing for you....but don't stress it...it is what it is

>>6307693
>not recognizing Pleats Please

>>6308425
>>6308415
my point is that this anon >>6308159
is cancer

>>6308425
and baby i dont stress shit, i got muh natty to always tell me everything is okay

>>6308402
can you pretentious fucktrumpets take your conversation about wine to /ck/, no one here cares but it's sort of cluttering up an otherwise interesting thread

>>6308432
just cause he insulted tripfags, eh?
maybe you should reevaluate your life decisions. are YOU content, ms portman?

>>6308432
>pot calling the kettle black

>>6308438
>otherwise interesting thread
have you seen this thread. have you read this board. there is nothing here of value. it is a clusterfuck of empty drivel. protip: judge a thread by how many pics are posted, cause those are the only thing worth it here. unless of course youre drunk and want to argue with teenagers on the internet, in which case, this is your thread

>>6308463
I second this

>>6308448
noooooo, because he starts this argument and when he gets proven wrong he just insults everyone

he derailed the thread and when the opportunity arises for him to possibly be a bit humble and get something out of what he's done, he's too conceited to accept it

if this is not what happened i hope he tells me otherwise

also i am not a tripfag

>>6308484
are you drunk too?

bc then everything would make a lot more sense

>>6308463
what about the early posts? look at the posts that darkness_and_light gave us. are those just empty drivel?

NO

its just like i said in
>>6307878
all the thoughtful posts are ignored and the ones that strike worthless (or irrelevant rather) controversy are focused on

just look how off topic this thread got

i'm not surprised though, people would rather talk about /fa/ than they would about fashion

>>6308497
explain to me what doesnt make sense in my posts?
dont attack me, attack what i am saying

i am tired of being unheard, all the other anons and tripfags and posters may take your shit but i am tired of dealing with this ignorance

>>6308484
how are you not a tripfag?

>>6308507
lol
hallo?!
maybe if you stopped contradicting yourself it be easier to take you seriously...also those random obscure comments about Natalie leave me questioning your sanity altogether

>>6308523
look into my eyes and try to call me that sweetheart

i am divinity

>>6308528
where do i contradict myself

and dont act like you dont want to see more of my natty

>>6308537
>i am divinity

>>6308540
>hurrdurr I don't care about this argument
keeps arguing
>Im not a tripfag
is a tripfag
>ref to my thoughtfull posts here and there >54437896 >567436783
posts aren't thoughtful

Fashion is whatever you can personally pull off, and it stops being fashion when you stop pulling it off.

>>6308540
>where do i contradict myself

>>6308402

If you want to measure them objectively, you can have a chemical analysis done. The chemical compounds that give different foods their characteristic taste are present in the wines that have those flavors attributed to them. It is very easy to trick our brain but that doesn't mean there is no objective basis for differences between wines.

>>6308550
where have you been? i started to miss you
you are my favorite poster because you attack me at the most extreme level, you desanctify the image of natalie

you have made me strong :)
thank you

dat face

i can do whatever i want!
this is my toy box and you are just my dolls!
at the end of the day you all go back into the same box.

>>6308588
so i dont like it when you guys break the rules you should follow
talk about what you want to see me wearing
talk about clothes

Has Natalie ever posted their face, let along a fit?

>>6308572
well no one is talking about the chemical composition of varying wines, we are talking about the difference in tasting experience from one to the next - which is a product of the brain, which is subjective. in a blind taste test, the point that has been made is that the human brain is unable to differentiate between a high and medium quality wine, despite any objective differences that may or may not exist.

>>6308577
go to sleep lonely ms portman, tonight is not your night

>asleep
>dream time
>on a bus
>nat is sitting next to me
>were holding hands
>she lays over another seat and rests her head on my lap
>wake up
;_; will suicide make the dream last forever

>>6308600
it has come to a point that when i recognize the word Natalie written on my screen, my brain pumps me with chemicals

that bold capital N, the structured form and flow of the a t a l i e

entirely feminine

she's like a drug to me

>>6308620
awwwww :)

>>6308621
so delusional.

you must be a female. or just really creepy idk

>>6308654
the mind is like a machine, we are all like lab rats

we condition ourselves and give associations to everything

dont be surprised if some things in your life have the same effect on you the way natalie does to me

the thing is with natalie its obvious so thats why you might think its strange

whats so wrong about appreciating everything about her?

>>6308665
>>6308621
i want u to no that i appreciate u

exactly bcuz ur prob crazy, u guys add color to ur respective boards

>>6308665
bc you don't appreciate her like "hey shes cool af"....you appreciate her like "omg I wanna rip her skin off and make a sweater out of it and eat whats left of her so shed be a part of me forever"

>>6308665
>>6308621
im defintitely picturing an 18 year old lanky kid in his college dorm writing this shit, and its pretty creepy and disturbing.
fucking 4chan is a weird place, with the likes of this ms. portman.

>>6308677
this is a color that /fa/ would be better without

>>6308602

I'll agree that past a certain point the differences in the quality of a wine become subtle to the point that even the temperate of the room it is served in becomes a larger factor then the wine itself. However you are making a rather broad assertion with the unspoken implication that high quality wines are a farse and a waste of money. Visual perception tricks can radically affect our judgement but does that mean the physical reality is irrelevant? Of course not. Grape juice with alcohol added to it does not taste the same as wine even if you add a fancy bottle, other gradations are less definite but if you're looking for a clear cut line to say, "Wines beyond this price point don't matter" you won't find one, because your own tipping point is subjective.

>>6308679
lol wrong :)

>>6308677
thanks sweetie

>>6308675
i dont have sexual thoughts about her

>>6308692
>i dont have sexual thoughts about her
p. interesting that u instantly associate eating someone and wering ther skin with sex ;)

>>6308702
;)

maybe one day we will get high and have sex to the weeknd and you wont even know that it was with natty portman from /fa/ <3

>>6308708
so its a she?

>>6308708
yes but dont tell no one or else

should i delete all my posts? yes no?

>>6308708
youre a goddamn art/theatre major arent you?

>>6308727
fuck it...as far as i can tell youre allright again
only bc youre almost as wacko as me

>>6308691
yes, of course. it is a fine line and is very subjective. and grape juice with vodka will be called as such by most all palates.
but people speak to there being a discernible difference between a 20 dollar and a 200 dollar wine, and i really dont think thats true in the least.
now, this began as an analogy of quality of clothes, and is a fairly poor example. its good in that branding, craftsmanship, and heritage are both very important, but i think that i could easily tell the difference of a loomwheeled sweatshirt versus a target sweatshirt. they do both serve their function though.

>>6308727
i think you should take about a month away from 4chan and find yourself a purpose in life.
this presentation of your identity does not shine favorably. so yeah, if i would you i would delete all my posts. (they are goddamn shameful.)

>>6308708
sounds like a 10/10 day bb :-----D

>>6308463
this

>>6308776
Because the identity of my online character is completely anonymous, it is fun to see the projections that posters like you throw onto it.