Pants that are not relaxed/loose don't really fit me right. I'm not obese but I have a nice badunkadunk and big thighs from bicycling. All my pants are Gap relaxed/loose fit, and my shirts are L or XL loose fits, I have one slim fit tshirt and it is XXL and I wouldn't want anything tighter. I'm not exceptionally fat or anything. Do any designer brands make any sense for me? Like, I'm looking at these $1500 cargo pants and at that price point shouldn't I go to a tailor and get some made for me that would probably fit better? Is that a thing? Can I get cargo pants made for me? The Gap pants are comfy but I want something with a higher end material, I'm willing to spend $1500-2000 on the right pair. Can someone explain to me what to do?
>>18540658They are untailored to your specific body, you buy "off the rack"
>>18540658>$1500 cargo pantsVidda pros are like $160. The fuck are you doing
>>18541079these look bad
>>18541108They're actual cargo pants and considered some of the best you can buy with money.
>>18541127Even heritage larp iron heart cargo pants in double black 14oz selvege with brass hardwear maxes out at $424 with twill options in the 300s. What low durability retarded shit have you been looking at exactly?
>>18540658Yeah, I can explain them. They're not for you. >>18541127>considered some of the best by who? Some loser hikers who look like shit? How are you on a fashion board but have no idea where aesthetic objects primarily derive their value from? Here's a hint: it's not from their functional qualities.
>>18541550I care about quality materials and functional design. Clothing is a tool and pretty much everything we wear was designed as such with a functional purpose in mind. Most else is a bastardization of what once was a functional tool. Cargo pants are a military garment invented for holding ammunition, rations, maps, etc. If you buy clothing without functional purpose in mind without regard for material properties or duribility you may as well just be a woman.
>>18541581imagine the smell of this post lmao
>>18541550Form and function cannot be separated. Saying that form is the primary value of clothing is objectively untrue. Saying that you personally do is fine. All design is a balance of both and it's value is subjective.
>>18541581Most people live in cities where the purpose of clothing has changed from functional to performative signalling.This is why carhartt jackets are now worn by coffee shop hipsters with exposed ankles and ARC'TERYX jackets and salomon runners are for walking in the park with a dog. This again is an example of a personal philosophy. Not a rule. There is a strong argument for clothing that puts form before function in a city environment since most of the previously ascribed functional needs are now outmoded and there are new ones. It's function is form, so to speak.
>>18541609Gaaaaaaaaaay
>>18541607I commend them for the directional bellows as those will absolute catch on something and tear. That said, being baggy like that everything will flop around and yank behind the knee if you ever actually use it.
>>18540658>I'm looking at these $1500 cargo pants and at that price point shouldn't I go to a tailor and get some made for me that would probably fit better?That's like polishing a turd. You could get the most beautiful turd in the world, but it would still be a piece of shit.
>>18541607Value is intersubjective, solipsism isn't real. This isn't about 'me' or 'you' or what we find individually interesting or valuable about clothing and fashion, this isn't even about divorcing aesthetics from functionality from the other in some kind of pseudo-philosophical sense like you're trying to ascribe to me. This is how fashion works in the real world, and how society currently assigns value to these objects. Any moron can go on an e-commerce site right this second and see that the primary differentiation in pricing across brands and retailers does not stem from the functional aspects of a garment but the aesthetic ones. Do you really think a Hermes bag is 50x more functional than a coach bag? that it's leather is 50x higher quality? Be serious. Does an Acronym or Visvim jacket hold your wallet and keys 10x better than whatever garbage you buy at Walmart? Is it 10x more comfortable and practical when you drive to Whole Foods in your Prius than any other Gore-Tex shell for a fifth of the cost? Be serious. >>18541581If you only care about the functional aspects of clothing(you don't actually only care about functionality, or even primarily care about functionality beyond a certain expected baseline, and are lying right now because you've never actually interrogated why you are drawn to specific objects), why are you on a fashion board? Also, I'll point out that my comment doesn't preclude functionality having any effect on value, that's why the modifier 'primarily' is in the post you illiterates. You're both posting sets of retarded platitudes without understanding the comment you're replying to and both reflexively sperging out over things that weren't said or implied. >>18541609Your post is a straightforward observation of how people wear clothes, unless you forgot to include you didn't actually say "this is what i believe fashion should be and is about, and I endorse this kind of consumerism" I don't see how it's a 'personal philosophy'
>>18541920>or even primarily care about functionality beyond a certain expected baseline, and are lying right now because you've never actually interrogated why you are drawn to specific objects), why are you on a fashion board?To discuss what the highest quality clothes are, best value, and their use and history. If buying clothes, they should have a usecase.
>>18542135Clothes' use case is, again, primarily aesthetic-based, lol. Beyond a certain baseline level(which almost all clothes conform to btw), things like quality or 'function' are just copes to justify consumption. Believe it or not, people complete 3,000m elevation hikes in shorts, a t-shirt, and Crocs all the time. The 'gains' your 150 usd cargo pants give you are marginal if not outright non-existent
