Do All Gay Men Shop At Abercrombie and Fitch?

[nudeyorker]

I have never advertised for someone's label, But I did buy Calvin Klein jeans in the 80's...the cool kids removed the label
At the time I had an idea for Calvin Klein condoms... with the ad line saying " Now everyone can cum inside Calvin Klein"

:biggrin1: There's a reason that, back in the early 1980s when "designer jeans" were becoming all the rage, that I called them "Calvin Klones."

And designer underwear? Designer t-shirts? Designer sweatpants? I just don't get it. Next thing you know, you'll be able to get Prada toilet tissue, a bargain at $150 per roll.You are saying this like it's a bad thing. I would love to rub my shit on Prada!

Buying an exceptionally well-made suit is not the same.

​

 

[EagleCowboy]

I shop at all the lesser-known trendy places like Target (pronounced TAR-zjay) and J.C. Penney (pronounced PENN-Yay). You won't catch me at Needless Markups. (Neiman-Markus)

 

[jockstrap314]

I feel that if I'm going to be a billboard for their company, they should pay *ME* to wear their clothes. So no...I do not shop there. Big lables vomitted all over what I'm wearing isn't my "style".

 

[DC_DEEP]

I feel that if I'm going to be a billboard for their company, they should pay *ME* to wear their clothes. So no...I do not shop there. Big lables vomitted all over what I'm wearing isn't my "style".

Oh, I bet you just LOVE Tommy Hell-finger, don't you?:biggrin1:

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

Since I was old enough to understand what "trendy" meant, I have gone out of my way to avoid trendy fashions.

How does this make you different than someone who does the opposite?

And designer underwear? Designer t-shirts? Designer sweatpants? I just don't get it. Next thing you know, you'll be able to get Prada toilet tissue, a bargain at $150 per roll.

The term designer is a misnomer in that everything you use or wear is designed by someone.

 

[gjorg]

I shop at all the lesser-known trendy places like Target (pronounced TAR-zjay) and J.C. Penney (pronounced PENN-Yay). You won't catch me at Needless Markups. (Neiman-Markus)

Thats JC penAYY---and you wont catch me there either

 

[hypolimnas]

Just thought it was time for another "do all gay men" thread. We have not had enough lately.

If gay men have not had enough sex lately then I have no doubt that shopping can help. I don't think that it will satisfy everyone though.:smile:

 

[DC_DEEP]

How does this make you different than someone who does the opposite?

That doesn't even make sense. Did I touch a sensitive nerve there? Let me guess, you are a part of the fashion industry.

If I go out of my way to avoid being trendy, how does that make me different from someone who goes out of his way to be trendy? You don't understand, honestly? If not, it would not even help for me to explain it to you. It's pretty obvious and self-explanatory.

The term designer is a misnomer in that everything you use or wear is designed by someone.

Well, duh. Also pretty damned obvious. Perhaps I was making a very subtle reference to the fact that I don't fall for those marketing ploys of putting "famous designer" labels on sweat pants.

It doesn't take a design genius to create a pair of boxer shorts or sweat pants or a t-shirt. I understand a man paying a little more for a suit that is better-made, or a woman paying a little more for a well-designed and well-constructed dress. I don't understand someone paying $50 for a t-shirt with Dior or Lauren or Versace or Karan or Hilfiger or Givenchy or Miyake or Joop screen-printed on the front. (or the exhorbitant prices women will pay for a cheaply-made plastic handbag with Givenchy printed all over it)

 

[SeeDickRun]

I ask myself: WHY!?!?!? Why are you advertising for someone else?!?!?!

I'm with you on that one. I've forever refused to wear clothing with the mfg's name splashed across it! Why in the world do some people pay to advertise for someone else? It's a piece of marketing genius. Whoever came up with the idea must have gotten a huge bonus from the company.

However, the greatest marketing coup in history was the guy who guaranteed an immediate 100% increase in product sales. He was the one who used one word on the instructions of the product. It was, "repeat"...... on the label of shampoo. (true story)

 

[Male Bonding etc]

Uh, DC, I'm probably not paying enough attention... and liable to provoke Semper Fi rage, but here's a thought, and not one I've spent a lot of time on, but how do uniforms for military men compare with "designer label" wear? What I'm getting at is that a lot of people love the sight of a "man in uniform" and the men (and women) in them often take a certain amount of pride in attaining "the look." I know there's history and stuff going into this, but isn't there also a certain amount of craving to fit a certain (if not trendy) mold?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Uh, DC, I'm probably not paying enough attention... and liable to provoke Semper Fi rage, but here's a thought, and not one I've spent a lot of time on, but how do uniforms for military men compare with "designer label" wear? What I'm getting at is that a lot of people love the sight of a "man in uniform" and the men (and women) in them often take a certain amount of pride in attaining "the look." I know there's history and stuff going into this, but isn't there also a certain amount of craving to fit a certain (if not trendy) mold?

No, no rage at all. There is a difference, I think, between a military uniform and a trendy label. I enlisted in the Marine Corps for a variety of reasons, but none of them had anything to do with the uniform. I have had a number of jobs which required the wearing of a uniform, including professional musician (tux was the required uni.) It was not a matter of "wear this style to fit in," it was a matter of "wear this style or lose your job." Yes, I took pride in my appearance when in uniform, but it wasn't "attaining the look..." it was taking pride in doing my job well - and wearing the uniform was a part of that job. I was not sloppy when I compiled and filed daily, monthly, quarterly, and annual reports for my unit, or when I submitted transportation requests to the motor pool for my unit, or when one of my Marines handed me leave request papers for processing; and I was not sloppy when wearing my uniform. It was my job, and I was not about to leave anyone any room to say I did not do my job well. I did not do any of that to earn anyone else's admiration, I did it to maintain my own personal pride in my work.

On the other hand, wearing certain brands of clothing to achieve "the look" (in my opinion) is a reflection of only one thing - a desire to impress others. Others may not see it that way, but that's my take on it.

 

[B_RedDude]

I don't understand someone paying $50 for a t-shirt with Dior or Lauren or Versace or Karan or Hilfiger or Givenchy or Miyake or Joop screen-printed on the front.

How about the $200 t-shirts?

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

That doesn't even make sense. Did I touch a sensitive nerve there? Let me guess, you are a part of the fashion industry.

If I go out of my way to avoid being trendy, how does that make me different from someone who goes out of his way to be trendy? You don't understand, honestly? If not, it would not even help for me to explain it to you. It's pretty obvious and self-explanatory.Well, duh. Also pretty damned obvious. Perhaps I was making a very subtle reference to the fact that I don't fall for those marketing ploys of putting "famous designer" labels on sweat pants.

Neither one of you is being original; the so-called trendy person goes out of his way to follow fashion trends, and you go out of your way not to be that person. How does that make you any better than he?

It doesn't take a design genius to create a pair of boxer shorts or sweat pants or a t-shirt. I understand a man paying a little more for a suit that is better-made, or a woman paying a little more for a well-designed and well-constructed dress. I don't understand someone paying $50 for a t-shirt with Dior or Lauren or Versace or Karan or Hilfiger or Givenchy or Miyake or Joop screen-printed on the front. (or the exhorbitant prices women will pay for a cheaply-made plastic handbag with Givenchy printed all over it)

That is not the point. Everything that you buy, use, and wear is designed by someone. These things do not simply make themselves. In this sense, everything is a designer product.

On the other hand, wearing certain brands of clothing to achieve "the look" (in my opinion) is a reflection of only one thing - a desire to impress others. Others may not see it that way, but that's my take on it.

One could say the same of bathing, shaving, styling one's hair, and so on.

 

[DC_DEEP]

How about the $200 t-shirts?

I give. Now you see how much I keep up with the current prices on those sorts of things.

Neither one of you is being original; the so-called trendy person goes out of his way to follow fashion trends, and you go out of your way not to be that person. How does that make you any better than he?

I don't precisely recall saying it does make me better than anyone else. Please point out to me where I did.

That is not the point. Everything that you buy, use, and wear is designed by someone. These things do not simply make themselves. In this sense, everything is a designer product.

Alright, now you are being dense. I acknowledged that in a previous post, and I also explained why I used that terminology. The terminology is part of the marketing ploy. If Calvin Klein designs a t-shirt (?) and sells that design to Fruit of the Loom, and they market that shirt with a Fruit of the Loom label, that label is not a designer label. Yes, the item was designed. The label does not tell the consumer who designed it. If Judy Poopschitz designs a t-shirt (?), sells that design to Fruit of the Loom, and they market that shirt with a Judy Poopschitz label, that label informs the consumer who designed it, and therefore it is a designer label.

One could say the same of bathing, shaving, styling one's hair, and so on.

Again, and I repeat (yes, I said this before) I don't do any of these things to impress any other person. I do it because I want to do it for me.

Now, why does it make you so angry at me when I say I do not care to wear a shirt with the designer's name emblazoned conspicuously across the front?

 

[Male Bonding etc]

Okay, thanks DC for entertaining my light-hearted jab.

I do think we can take ourselves too seriously, though, whether it's getting all the right labels or tweaking the look "just so," or making sure everyone knows WE run the opposite direction.

On the label thing, does anyone remember a movie from decades ago in which Madeline Kahn had EVERYthing Louis Vuitton? Her purse, her luggage, her car... I forget what else... I think the movie was a bomb, but I loved the statement about being a label whore.

 

[D_Harry_Crax]

I have never bought any A&F clothes, but I do subscribe to the catalog.....

 

[D_Harry_Crax]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?eurl=http://tottyworld.blogspot.com/&v=aOArxSTgpqE

 

[Lucky_Luke]

Never shop there. Can't stand the stuff or the staff or the music they blast.

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

I don't precisely recall saying it does make me better than anyone else. Please point out to me where I did.

Since I was old enough to understand what "trendy" meant, I have gone out of my way to avoid trendy fashions.

If you do not believe that there is something wrong with being trendy, then why do you go out of your way "to avoide trendy fashions?"

Alright, now you are being dense. I acknowledged that in a previous post, and I also explained why I used that terminology. The terminology is part of the marketing ploy. If Calvin Klein designs a t-shirt (?) and sells that design to Fruit of the Loom, and they market that shirt with a Fruit of the Loom label, that label is not a designer label. Yes, the item was designed. The label does not tell the consumer who designed it. If Judy Poopschitz designs a t-shirt (?), sells that design to Fruit of the Loom, and they market that shirt with a Judy Poopschitz label, that label informs the consumer who designed it, and therefore it is a designer label.Again, and I repeat (yes, I said this before) I don't do any of these things to impress any other person. I do it because I want to do it for me.

And I explained why that use of the term is a misnomer, so who is being dense?

Now, why does it make you so angry at me when I say I do not care to wear a shirt with the designer's name emblazoned conspicuously across the front?

I do think we can take ourselves too seriously, though, whether it's getting all the right labels or tweaking the look "just so," or making sure everyone knows WE run the opposite direction.

 

[NCbear]

...life-size cardboard cutouts of Ernest Hemingway, etc....

I had to laugh at this one! Let's hope, big dirigible, it was just the in-store display and therefore marked "not for sale."

NCbear (who's been amused by Ernest Hemingway's "literary" "skills" ever since reading The Old Man and the Sea when I was seven)

P.S. Apologies for going off topic. Now back to the usual programming.