Rants: Style over substance
Jan. 29th, 2005 10:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabotabby"Ra ra Rasputin, Russia's greatest love machine..." Why the fuck are they playing this on CBC? Also, hee.
So I'm hungover and I haven't had my coffee yet. I'm also way behind on teh interweb because of much vigil-ing and drinking last night. Reason #534 why McVeigh's is the Best. Bar. Ever: It's the only pub I've ever been to where the waitress is dragged away from her waitressing duties to sing "The First Cut is the Deepest" with the band, immediately after a random dude from Limerick has gotten dragged on stage to sing "Sean South." Also, the singer was rather impressed with D. and says that if D. ever wants to go to Dublin, he can stay at his da's place. D. is a total novelty there.
Also, to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bike4fish: OMGSQUEEMAO! It's so pretty I want to take the pictures out and frame them instead of writing in it, although presumably I can do both. My favourite is the one of the Maoist drive-by (or cycle-by) shooting. Thanks so much.
But enough of this silliness. It's time for rants on style:
xol0tl wants to know my thoughts on the rise of the fauxhawk.
Those of you who have been privy to conversations with me about goatees ("It shows a lack of commitment," spakelokust, and I am inclined to agree) and mullets ("Office in the front, party in the back...how lame is that?") might think that I would feel similarly about the fauxhawk. And yes, there is some common ground. The advantage of the fauxhawk is that you can wear it as such if you're at a punk show, but you can go to your job on Monday and, well, not look very punk. So on one hand, this does suggest a lack of commitment.
On the other hand, there are extenuating circumstances when it comes to the fauxhawk. You need to bebedhoppngothboi-level of hot to pull off a proper Mohawk, and face it, that's not most people. You can be less hot and still look good in a fauxhawk, though. (And no, I'm not saying that everyone who wears a fauxhawk is ugly. Quite the opposite. It's just that more people look good with them than look good with Mohawks.) It's nice alternative for folks who want to look cute but still be punk.
More and more people are clueing into this, and that's why you have more and more fauxhawks. Also, they're easier to maintain. And so yes, I do approve. Anything that ups the punk aesthetic without the use of glue in one's hair is okay with me.
mr_flabulous wants to know what I think about lime green.
Okay, this is what a lime looks like. This is a range of what's considered "lime green". What the shit is up with that? Some of those colours are good and some are just eye-watering. We don't need to actually get authoritarian and impose a strict definition of what "lime green" is, do we? Because that goes against my anarchist instincts.
But for God's sake, people, please aim for some consistency here, or I will have no idea what you're talking about.
mcsokrates wants to know what I think about pants.
nostalgia_lj's entry about the subject made me realize that our friends across the pond define "pants" a little differently than we do. We mean trousers. Since mcsokrates is on my side of the pond, I assume he means trousers. Bollocks to that. A discussion of the other sort of pants is infinitely more fun. (For the record, my trousers are very fashionable. Except for the baggy camos that I'll probably wear today to do laundry and to fix the trousers I managed to somehow tear last night while I was drunk.)
Okay, so what's the deal with sexy underpants? Who sees them? You, and your intimates. And you should care more about form than function (really, who thinks a thong is comfortable?), and your intimates should care about having them off quickly. What's with all of this frilly, shiny, impractical stuff?
Do other people have vastly different sex lives than I have?
So I'm hungover and I haven't had my coffee yet. I'm also way behind on teh interweb because of much vigil-ing and drinking last night. Reason #534 why McVeigh's is the Best. Bar. Ever: It's the only pub I've ever been to where the waitress is dragged away from her waitressing duties to sing "The First Cut is the Deepest" with the band, immediately after a random dude from Limerick has gotten dragged on stage to sing "Sean South." Also, the singer was rather impressed with D. and says that if D. ever wants to go to Dublin, he can stay at his da's place. D. is a total novelty there.
Also, to
bike4fish: OMGSQUEEMAO! It's so pretty I want to take the pictures out and frame them instead of writing in it, although presumably I can do both. My favourite is the one of the Maoist drive-by (or cycle-by) shooting. Thanks so much.But enough of this silliness. It's time for rants on style:
xol0tl wants to know my thoughts on the rise of the fauxhawk.Those of you who have been privy to conversations with me about goatees ("It shows a lack of commitment," spake
lokust, and I am inclined to agree) and mullets ("Office in the front, party in the back...how lame is that?") might think that I would feel similarly about the fauxhawk. And yes, there is some common ground. The advantage of the fauxhawk is that you can wear it as such if you're at a punk show, but you can go to your job on Monday and, well, not look very punk. So on one hand, this does suggest a lack of commitment.On the other hand, there are extenuating circumstances when it comes to the fauxhawk. You need to be
bedhoppngothboi-level of hot to pull off a proper Mohawk, and face it, that's not most people. You can be less hot and still look good in a fauxhawk, though. (And no, I'm not saying that everyone who wears a fauxhawk is ugly. Quite the opposite. It's just that more people look good with them than look good with Mohawks.) It's nice alternative for folks who want to look cute but still be punk.More and more people are clueing into this, and that's why you have more and more fauxhawks. Also, they're easier to maintain. And so yes, I do approve. Anything that ups the punk aesthetic without the use of glue in one's hair is okay with me.
mr_flabulous wants to know what I think about lime green.Okay, this is what a lime looks like. This is a range of what's considered "lime green". What the shit is up with that? Some of those colours are good and some are just eye-watering. We don't need to actually get authoritarian and impose a strict definition of what "lime green" is, do we? Because that goes against my anarchist instincts.
But for God's sake, people, please aim for some consistency here, or I will have no idea what you're talking about.
mcsokrates wants to know what I think about pants.nostalgia_lj's entry about the subject made me realize that our friends across the pond define "pants" a little differently than we do. We mean trousers. Since mcsokrates is on my side of the pond, I assume he means trousers. Bollocks to that. A discussion of the other sort of pants is infinitely more fun. (For the record, my trousers are very fashionable. Except for the baggy camos that I'll probably wear today to do laundry and to fix the trousers I managed to somehow tear last night while I was drunk.)Okay, so what's the deal with sexy underpants? Who sees them? You, and your intimates. And you should care more about form than function (really, who thinks a thong is comfortable?), and your intimates should care about having them off quickly. What's with all of this frilly, shiny, impractical stuff?
Do other people have vastly different sex lives than I have?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-29 04:43 pm (UTC)I missed the bloody intro waiting for the streetcar with Laura. Came back to hear Lister Sinclair's patented dulcet tones and debonnair accent introducing ... disco?
Bloody weird radio morning.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-29 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-29 05:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-29 08:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-29 08:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 12:05 am (UTC)Plus my Rolling Stones pants I got at the gig are pricey but exceedingly comfortable AND gloriously tastelss.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 12:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 12:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 12:16 am (UTC)My pants are all exceedingly boring, with the exception of the pair that say D.I.Y.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 12:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 12:21 am (UTC)::now stuck with image of underwear with logos of local punk bands, which would be fine were it not that punk bands around these parts have names like Shitloads of Fuck All::
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 12:32 am (UTC)I'm currently after a pair of Motorhead pants.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 12:37 am (UTC)Aaaand I'm kicking myself again for giving away Motorhead jean jacket. What was I thinking?
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 12:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 12:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 12:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 12:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 02:46 am (UTC)Because the evidence is in a museum and all over the internet. Eeew. (not work safe)
Okay, so what's the deal with sexy underpants? Who sees them? You, and your intimates. And you should care more about form than function (really, who thinks a thong is comfortable?), and your intimates should care about having them off quickly. What's with all of this frilly, shiny, impractical stuff?
I have been saying this for years on end.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 02:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 04:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 06:01 am (UTC)on goatees: they certainly do speak more than beards about commitment to personal grooming.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 04:14 pm (UTC)I would think pulling a thong aside would be a bit uncomfortable, but that may be TMI.