Forget Your "Fashion Sex" | Bleader

Forget Your "Fashion Sex"



Predictably, Jezebel is tearing apart the Sunday Times writer who says that women should dress according to their "fashion sex", of which there are only two categories, Girl and Boy. I would argue that this is an oversimplification of a sound fashion concept: finding your personal style and sticking to it.

People's body types can influence their style, no question. Ladies blessed with T&A may gravitate to looks that emphasize those assets (no pun intended), like pencil skirts and body-hugging tops, and to eras that reflect that look, like the 50s and early 60s. The androgynous jeans-and-hoodie look probably won't do much for them. By the same token, the long and lithe may look terrifically glam in 70s, bohemian-influenced designs like clavicle-baring jersey tops and loose trousers, but not quite as striking in a strapless dress with a cinched waist.

But it's not just about physicality—it's an ineffable, perhaps undefinable combination of one's proportions, hair, features, personal preferences, and historical and cultural influences that decides whether a certain look "fits" or whether it resembles a costume. To have style is to have the discipline to reject trends and outfits that aren't quite right on either the physical or psychological level. Maybe Dita Von Teese occasionally looks wistfully at a rack of skinny jeans, but she won't indulge. It's not just about jeans vs. skirts either—it's ruffles vs. seams, embellishment vs. minimalism, flower prints vs. solids. It's too complicated to be easily categorized, which is what makes personal style so intriguing in the first place.