In Defense of Informal / 'Bad' dressing

I have often been accused of having an... eccentric sense of dressing. Peers and parents find my apparel lacking in panache at an alarmingly regular basis. And this when-all modesty aside- I am not your average slob. In fact I'm often depressingly neat. Why then this constant antipathy towards my vetements? Faced with continuous persecution, hounding even, I have taken a decision. I'm the self appointed defense attorney trying to make a case for the much prosecuted Bad dressers and Bad dressing as a unit.

What is the general criteria for "good" dressing? And how can that criteria be general? Especially when what is great dressing for Aishwarya Rai is plain disaster for the normal. Good dressing is too volatile a concept to be a convention. Why,fur and bones are the epitome of good dressing among some tribals. What is good dressing but a pandering to reigning stereotypes of society and accepted norms. But I forget myself. This is a defense, not an offense.

The simplest synonym of 'well-dressed' is 'presentable'. And that usually means the individual is well covered, tastefully attired and the apparel carried off well.We are agreed. Then why, I ask, do people have a problem with others wearing something simple, practical and trend setting even, as your father's shirt?? It is large and roomy- therefore no questions on the covering issue. It has a panache of it's own that comes from complete comfort. And as for tasteful- I think we've already established that tastes differ. It's tasteful to the wearer, then what's the big deal.

Several esteemed members of the opposition mention the situation of interviews and important occasions. First the interview. As Pride And Prejudice (whose working title was 'First Impressions') tells us in no uncertain terms of the unreliability of first impressions I feel there is no need foe me to go on about that. I would like to add to the inimitable lady's thesis, though. Prospective employers must actually insist that their prospective employees appear in their most informal clothes. To use a general maxim of 'well-dressed'- Clothes reflect the personality of the wearer. In which case,companies-who perennially harp on personnel counseling and what not- could save several cheques by observing the employee at her/his most casual and 'worst' dressed(humph!). Next we come to the cousin issue of the same misconception. If the occasions are special themselves, there is no need for the individual to be pinned into something s/he doesn't and will not usually wear. The opposition brings out family clause at this juncture. Family special occasions, in my view, are the perfect example of the special occasion theory.And besides, your family would have seen you at your worst at several occasions. Who are the parents trying to fool by 'neatening' you up. A related topic is the finery and straight-jacketing expected from those attending marriages. First of all the attending of these functions itself gives rise to a gargantuan "WHY?". But that is beside the point. My contention is, when it isn't you who are getting married, then why in the world must you force yourself into uncomfortable silks and whatnots. In fact even it was you who were getting married, why the dress up? The greatest argument for the cause of 'bad dressing' is the comfort clause. As long as you are comfortable what does it matter whether you are well-dressed or "badly'-dressed? And it is a known fact that the latter definitely has an edge over the former on the comfort count.

In conclusion to this minor rant, I declare that 'bad' dressing is an assertion of self:to squash it would be to curtail a fundamental right.I declare that all those who bother about the 'bad dressing' of others, should take a crash course on "Minding your own business". I declare that 'bad dressing' is not bad at all. In fact being badly dressed is better than being well dressed.