> I don't think people ridiculing others for their fashion choices is all that common past teenage years, but I may be wrong.

Try walking around as a man in a dress in 95% of the US.

I feel like cross-dressing is different in kind than wearing yesteryear's trends.

That would probably be quite unfashionable. Or largely ignored, I don't know.

But the parent comment did provide further context:

> Fashion is very much about who is wearing it, why, and how.

In my experience some of the most toxic criticism short of physical violence comes from not acknowledging what someone believes are logical conclusions.

So wearing a dress is fine if the person wearing it is willing to concede at every moment that they're being socially deviant. The moment that you just wear a dress and make no attempt to justify yourself in terms of larger culture is when things get bad. Wearing a dress and acting like it's no big deal is an affront to the logic of someone who knows for a fact what you're doing is deviant..and they're convinced that you deep down know it too. You're more or less saying they think wrong in a very fundamental way. That gets people very upset.

Dunno, if I saw a guy wearing a dress I won't see it as "deviant" at all. I might glance for a second, acknowledge, and continue about my business. I don't care what people wear. That said, many people _do_ care, which I don't really understand. Unless it has racist/sexist/prejudiced text on it, wear whatever you want.

It's deviant in the literal sense - that is, it's not normal. I don't the he was trying to pass moral judgement or suggest that the dress wearer is some sort of pervert.

If you saw a guy in otherwise ordinary circumstances wearing a dress and didn't think it was unusual, well, you lack situational awareness.

And yet... make it plaid and put a belt and sporran on it... you've got a kilt, which is very masculine and likely more accepted (esp at formal events).

There's also the utilikilt...

Today I learned elsewhere that the US ranks high on the masculine.

As ranked in Hofstede

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede's_cultural_dimensions...

https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/the-usa...

I think the distiction you may be missing is between fashion and style. Anyone can be fashionable by buying what's in season or mimicking a celeb. Being stylish is what's beautiful and admirable.

You don't even have to be a mod, rocker, or any of these subcultures. You can be an old bloke on a Segway rocking a Fubu shirt and cargo pants and completely transcend the streetscape.

My favourite stylish people integrate a sense of fun and playfulness to what they wear, but I think the most defining element of style is risk. Having the balls to say you're different.

> Having the balls to say you're different.

While still conforming.

An overweight guy walking around in a loincloth is not going to 'work' for ya even if it may have been in fashion at one point.

Well, many forms of art are more interesting precisely because they have to work within constraints. In this case, the constraints, things like "your clothing has to cover your buttocks and your chest," are not particularly limiting anyway.

Sounds pretty cool to me if he's owning it. All subjective either way.

Agreed. I think the effects are seen more in whom a person associates with. People who wear and are particular about a certain subset of clothing tend to appreciate other people who do the same.