Fashion Men | Milan | News

Are You a Well-Turned-Out Male?

Mcqueen

According to Agence France Presse, "Fur will be de rigueur for next winter's well-turned-out male, whether he is refined or goes for the bad-boy look, some of Italy's top designers decreed at Milan's catwalk presentations this week."

Is this Alexander McQueen "outsized chapka" the 'refined' look or the 'bad-boy' look?
Or simply the in-bad-taste look?

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. My God! It's "Linc" from "The Mod Squad"... only white!

    Posted by: Rad | Jan 18, 2008 4:26:24 PM


  2. I thought purses made out of Alexander McQueen's saggy old backside were the next big thing?

    Anyone who wears fur should have to trap, kill and skin it first. If only to get a sense of the horror they're actually wearing. I can't even speak to people who do it.

    Posted by: FASTLAD | Jan 18, 2008 4:30:41 PM


  3. I think the expression on his face says it all. I would be pissed, too, if I had to wear a rotting carcass on my head.

    Posted by: Animals are not clothing | Jan 18, 2008 4:31:57 PM


  4. It's as if a Pomeranian mated with Tina Turner's head. Not a big fan of fur, so I guess I'll join the ranks of the non well-turned out males and be happy.

    Posted by: mikey | Jan 18, 2008 4:34:04 PM


  5. I don't think Mr. Honey looks too thrilled at being "turned out" a-tall.

    Posted by: Banjiboi | Jan 18, 2008 4:38:46 PM


  6. I have nothing against fur in general. However, men who wear fur all look like drag queens to me. So, as Tim Gunn would say, "if that's the look you were going for, you got it!"

    Posted by: DNashty | Jan 18, 2008 4:45:42 PM


  7. We don't need another hero...

    Posted by: David S | Jan 18, 2008 4:49:59 PM


  8. I have it on the best authority that all the fur modeled in McQueen's show was taken from the carcasses of the nearly 3,000 pets that PETA itself euthanized just last year. Fucking hypocrites.

    http://www.kalb.com/index.php/news/article/consumer-group-asks-va-government-to-reclassify-peta/2706/

    Posted by: 24play | Jan 18, 2008 4:51:14 PM


  9. What on earth does that Tribble have on its ass?

    Posted by: tjc | Jan 18, 2008 4:54:03 PM


  10. Sad that an animal had to die so he could look ridiculous.

    Posted by: Bud | Jan 18, 2008 5:06:34 PM


  11. I KNEW Chewbacca was gay!

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 18, 2008 5:31:01 PM


  12. Fashion “designers” and Anna Wintour of Vogue having turned women’s fashions into hooker wear complete with size zero (ie ten pounds of shit stuffed into a five pound bag), ass cracks, bare midriffs and RuPaul make-up now turn their energy towards men. Man bags, dingbat knit hats, fur pieces, and granny panties; tell them sissy boy is here.

    Posted by: ggreen | Jan 18, 2008 5:42:07 PM


  13. Alexander McQueen is a fucking genius, but I would'nt be caught dead under that hat.

    Posted by: michael | Jan 18, 2008 5:45:27 PM


  14. TJC,

    LOL @the Tribble comment.

    The killing of animals for vanity is a contemptible practice.

    Posted by: nic | Jan 18, 2008 6:15:30 PM


  15. Touché, TJC. Touché.

    Posted by: lia | Jan 18, 2008 6:48:39 PM


  16. I hope all you queens aren't wearing leather shoes........

    Posted by: busytimmy | Jan 18, 2008 6:51:31 PM


  17. A 'mo fro

    Posted by: Kai in NYC | Jan 18, 2008 6:57:47 PM


  18. Well, all I have to say is he is hot looking, and, even though the hat is tacky and, no man would wear it, good to see fur back in, just to shut up Peta, biggest hypocrites around.

    Posted by: Sebastian | Jan 18, 2008 6:59:14 PM


  19. I don't think this look will get far of the runway...

    Posted by: Guy P | Jan 18, 2008 7:00:57 PM


  20. There is absolutely no excuse for wearing fur. It's not glamorous, it's not stylish, and it' not trendsetting. In fact, it's mean, inhumane, disgusting, and repulsive. There is no excuse whatsoever for wearing it.

    Posted by: Dr. Christopher Blackwell | Jan 18, 2008 8:28:55 PM


  21. 24Play:

    That comes from the CCF, which is just a mouth piece for the tobacco and restaurant industry run by lobbyists. They've even gone after Mothers’ Against Drunk Driving before. They're skewing the facts. You would know that if you researched the issue.

    Yes, PETA euthanizes. What else are they supposed to do with animals that aren't adoptable (id est aggressive or extremely sick animals)? Just let them roam the streets freely?

    So unless you personally want to pay to house animals indefinitely that aren't adoptable (which is inhumane): Shut the f&ck up!

    Posted by: RP | Jan 18, 2008 9:04:55 PM


  22. Good God! His blow dryer turned on him. I don't think that style will be all the rage but I've been wrong before. I can see it now, all the mallrats bobbing around the mall looking like a pack of rabid pomeranians.

    Posted by: Island Girly | Jan 18, 2008 9:04:59 PM


  23. Damn. he looks like a refugee from a tour company of Cats....

    Posted by: Darren | Jan 18, 2008 11:38:44 PM


  24. RP,

    Yes, it is the CCF that is making hay with the numbers of pets PETA slaughtered last year. And yes, CCF is a lobbying group with a definite agenda.

    So what? The kill statistics they're publicizing were self-reported by the so-called animal rights organization:

    "An official report filed by PETA itself shows that the animal rights group put to death nearly every dog, cat, and other pet it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 animals. Not counting pets brought to PETA for spaying or neutering, the organization killed 2,981 of the 3,061 “companion animals” it took in. According to VDACS [Virginia’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services], the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in Virginia was 34.7 percent in 2006. PETA’s “kill rate” was 97.4 percent..."

    Those are the facts. There's not much spin going on in that paragraph. And I don't believe anyone has contested the validity of those statistics.

    So PETA's kill rate is almost 3 times the average for all VA humane societies. I don't see anything to suggest that the pets PETA takes in are unusually "aggressive or extremely sick animals," as you seem to suggest. So I'd say PETA is an inhumane society. Or maybe just incredibly lazy. Or as I've already said, a bunch of fucking hypocritical publicity whores. Given that reality, I don't see how I, or even CCF, should be the ones to shut up here.

    And no, I don't want to house any animals myself. I live in a small apartment in NYC and, while I'd love to adopt a dog (a Boston terrier, to be exact), I think it's inhumane to have one in the city.

    Posted by: 24play | Jan 19, 2008 12:18:38 AM


  25. from PETA's message board:

    PETA makes no secret of having to euthanize most of the animals we take in. Although we do not run an adoption facility (we refer most adoptable animals to well-known shelters with a high rate of public traffic), we have managed to place animals in excellent, lifelong homes. For many of the animals we do accept-such as those who are injured, elderly, aggressive, or otherwise unadoptable-we are a "shelter of last resort," offering a humane death to those who would otherwise suffer a slow and painful end.

    http://www.peta.org/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1341

    Posted by: PhillipSD | Jan 19, 2008 1:11:23 AM


  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Tom Cruise and Scientology are on the Loose!« «