Is an aspie still an aspie

Post Reply New Topic

I agree, and I tried to make that point clear; you can't just wear ANYTHING, it has to be something presentable, but as long as it's presentable, no sensible person will have a problem with it. What I was saying is that those who would normally wear smart sweaters, shirts and Chino jeans - for example, shouldn't start wearing Ralph Lauren Polo shirts and torn jeans just because they've been told that doing so is required to attract women. There was nothing wrong with what they were wearing to begin with, not to mention the fact that what's considered "fashionable" is hideously ugly anyway - when I see men wearing torn jeans, polo shirts and waistcoats, I almost feel embarrassed FOR them.

Personally, I wear suits and ties every day, but that's probably asking too much for most people. As long as you're presentable, what's the big deal?

I have always been a Aspie and will always be a Aspie. Far as "masking" Aspergers,it's pointless.It's stressful and it makes forget who you are as a person. Personally I rather have no human contact at all and be myself than to "mask" my Asperger just so I can have someone to talk to, and plus I strongly dislike a vast majority of NT's anyway.

But other women will. I’ve seen quite a few women say they want to just wear sweatpants and a shirt. There’s lots of memes about it posted on Facebook.
One such one is once I’m dating/married I’m just going wear T-shirt and sweats.

So if everyone just wants to wear comfortable clothes why do we judge and force others to not and they then make us. So most people are just faking it to appease others who are faking it to appease them.

Sounds like a classic but I thought you liked it , when two people both do something they hate cause they thought the other liked it.

No no we all need to go buy expensive suits.

I don't own any sweatpants. I'm sitting on my sofa right now watching Netflix in a pair of cigarette pants from Debenhams.

I mean wearing sweatpants 24/7. Ugh. Yes be comfy at home, but sweatpants for outside the home non-exercise? Just yuck.

Polo shirt are also yuck. Old man clothes. I quite like ripped jeans though.

Lol no. Nice shirt and a pair of jeans is always a winner. He just says he wears suits. Probably for work. Or he's actually Thereportoftheweek.

I wear tan or black cargo pants and a T-shirt.
I don’t even wear sweat pants for when I did go to the gym, got some gym pants things.

And by suit I meant this not a work suit with tie. All the hot attractive guys in shows or movies dress in suits like this.

My reasons for wearing a suit and tie are philosophical, moral and cultural.

You do realise that until the 60s, EVERYBODY wore a suit and tie, almost all the time, and a brimmed hat when out of doors. I bemoan the loss of the days when men had standards.

Personally, I don't even own a pair of sweatpants (I'm guessing that's American for jogging bottoms), though I do have a pair of track suit bottoms for the English countryside on its messier days. Don't own a pair of jeans either torn or no - and I never will, except perhaps if I need to paint the house. Jeans are for angsty teenagers; I cringe every time I see someone nearing retirement age wearing a pair.

The moral part intrigued me.
Am I a damned sinner predestinated to hell because of wearing trekking shoes, hiking pants and a cartoon t-shirt 24/7 unless attending something really big?
Oh, and two ponytails in my 30s. I am a supervillain.

Interesting. In men's fashion forums the "experts" insist that the jacket and pants be made out of the same material.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles ... ifference/
A suit jacket is defined as being such only if it’s matched with trousers made from the same exact swatch of fabric.

In this case the materials for the suit and trousers are different colors.

Disparity between one's trousers and one's blazer is a lovely, casual look that I use all the time. It also saves on dry-cleaning bills because cotton trousers can be machine washed.

The idea that both need to match is a modern imposition used to sell more rubbish.

One owes it to one's ancestors to carry on, with only limited and rational novelties, their traditions.

Then the humanity has always been immoral.



Well, my family traditions say nothing about everyday clothing, actually.

Culture is dynamic not static; changes are okay when they are a natural outcome of the order of things, but not when they are revolutionary in nature.

For example, coloured shirts were considered unacceptable in the 50s for most purposes; this changed over the next few decades as a gradual process. Jeans, on the other hands, emerged in the 60s as a "rebellious", revolutionary change, without any historical context to place themselves in. They were the product of lots of immature, gullible orally-fixated college students deciding they wanted to shock their bourgeois parents, not the result of a serious, mature development carried out by well adjusted adults. As a result, they have to be rejected by one who respects his cultural heritage.

Oh... just like the whole romanticism in the 19th century

Of course, you are entitled to your tastes. I'm just very sensitive to applying moral values to things other than harming or helping some beings.

I think that's nearly always right and my way of dressing.

Vilifying jeans these days is kind of hilarious. And I speak as a smart, somewhat conservative dresser that greatly dislikes "reverse snobbery" (the "you're dressed too well, you think you're better than us" attitude).




For good reason - judging someone's character and moral fibre by the way they dress is both inaccurate and can also be very dangerous.

Sure, we live in times that encourage (more than ever maybe) quick judgements based on appearance, but that doesn't change anything. I understand why someone would dislike and even despise people who follow trends blindly, but the way someone is dressing is usually determined by a variety of factors, and some of them will have nothing to do with a person's character.