Thoughts for Tuesday, v. 15: Fashion's Obsession with Thylane Loubry Blondeau

Yes, I've been slacking off - it's summer and my mind is already in London. Instead of waxing poetic about my hopes and expectations, I've temporarily halted my Thoughts for Tuesday column. While I can't guarantee this post marks its official revival, I can't help the urge to write when disturbed.

Thylane Loubry Blondeau is a French model, with long hair, striking eyes... and she's just ten years old. Even so, child models and actors exist, frequently without controversy ('Toddlers and Tiaras' excluded from "the norm"). She graced the cover of Vogue Enfant, shown frolicking as many children do. Now she's made her way into the pages of Vogue Paris, not without dispute, however.

At ten, she's barely younger than the teenage models seen in the same publications and on fashion runways. As much as the industry is criticized for infantilizing women, it's no stranger to middle-school aged girls dressing in a way many people consider "too mature." Daphne Groeneveld, for instance, was only fifteen when featured on the cover of the same magazine containing an infamous Blondeau editorial (Vogue Paris, January 2011, guest-edited by Tom Ford). Alongside Tom Ford, she conveyed youth, beauty, and luxury.

In Groeneveld's case, it was hardly a satirical move - it's arguably normal. Yet defenders of Thylane's oft-provocative editorials cite satire as a driving force and inspiration. Little girls play dress up in the mothers' and sisters' clothes, right? Yet there's a difference placing a young girl in an adult setting, in "adult" clothing, in "adult" make up, in "adult" poses for an adult industry. It's hardly attempting to sell a product other than controversy itself.

Commenters at Fashionista argue it's perfectly fine if her parents allow it and if she simultaneously enjoys it. Yet is a ten year old capable of consenting to implied nude photos (photos taken sans-shirt, in this case, though her torso is covered by beaded necklaces in a style popularized by hippies). Furthermore, if her parents allow this, does it make it acceptable? While her mother does claim to have her best interests in mind, it is important to remember that parents can be guilty of exploiting their own children - their discretion doesn't automatically make it right.

Other commenters claim if one views the photos as sexual, then there's something wrong with the viewer. The nature of these photographs does not justify any harassment. Period. None of her photographs reach the horrendous level of child pornography, but some claim that these actions, by default, objectify the child.

It isn't a matter of whether the viewer herself (or himself) is aroused by images. It's more of acknowledging the sad truth that there are people who do enjoy it, and knowing this can promote a feeling of discomfort in the viewer.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday: Knockoffs: Plagiarism? (on Chictopia)

En lieu of this week's Thought for Tuesday post, check out my latest article on Chictopia's Everybody is Ugly, concerning knockoffs in fashion.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.13: June 14, World Blood Donor Day

Recently, I've been pondering my beliefs relative to my actions. There's so many issues I do care about, but getting involved and actually doing something has proven a bit more difficult. Case in point: today is World Blood Donor Day, and I've never donated blood. By the time I turned sixteen, I had lost too much weight and wasn't eligible. In accordance with the Red Cross guidelines, I'm still technically not able.

However, that doesn't mean I can't do anything. As with many issues such as these, raising awareness can be incredibly important. I've heard people ask why there's so many walks for breast cancer and other diseases and illness, stating that simply walking does nothing. But it's not just taking a walk. Along with fund raising, events such as these raise awareness.

Nexcare has created a line of colorful, fun bandages with the word "give" boldly written across. Along with being arguably more stylish than your typical bandage, the message is there. However, there's more to it - Nexcare is in its third year of a collaboration with the American Red Cross and Niki Taylor, a model who suffered a nearly-fatal car accident and has since become an advocate for this cause.

Truth be told, I have wanted to donate blood for years, as I've mentioned, but I never fully realized how important it is. Blood centers typically face shortages at this time of year, and on average, someone in the country needs a blood donation every two seconds. Yet only 8% of people eligible to give blood do.

I've set a goal for myself to become more involved with charities and causes I consider important, such as environmental issues, animal cruelty, and yes, blood donation. Even if I can't donate, such as in this scenario, I can still raise my voice.



xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.12: Sincerity in Blogging, and Life

It's not seldom that someone (in real life) calls me rude. I'm a bit introverted, a little awkward, I daydream frequently (thus distracting myself), and my sense of humor heavily relies on sarcasm. I do not believe I am rude - my voice is quiet, often to an inaudible degree, I suppose. Friends, family, and whoever else told me I needed to become more outgoing. Long story short, I accepted that I'm just not a social butterfly and my personality is a little awkward (but endearing). So what?

My real-life demeanor is barely evident on my blog. My writing is indeed personal, but my carefree attitude isn't always displayed to onlookers. I've been told I'm too serious, but once someone gets to know me, he or she would say otherwise. However, amongst people I don't know too well, I'm a different person. Perhaps it's partly due to my natural shyness, but regardless, it can feel a little fake. There's a time and place for certain behavior, and I often feel that my true personality does come off as rude. So I ditch it.

I'll switch the focus to how this relates in blogging, since I've been talking about myself nonstop on here. We can all appreciate niceness, but there's a point at which someone may seem too polite. It doesn't seem sincere. Not always, anyway.

I'm just as guilty. Come on, I think we can all admit to commenting on other blogs just for the sake of commenting and possibly gaining exposure. It's this type, from my observation, that tend to be inauthentic. Granted, one doesn't typically make an effort to comment on something a little lackluster, but telling another her dress is nice and typing all those characters into the word verification box is barely worth it. Unless of course, you're trying to reach out in as few words as possible. Or maybe you're just too tired or lack time. I can't speak for everyone, but it happens.

I suppose I'm one of those people who believes sincerity and being genuine have merit, and that a good personality is truly valuable. Maybe that's bullshit, but why pretend to give a damn when you don't?

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.10: Male vs. Female Fashion Designers

"Men are often better designers for women than other women... Of course there are many more gay male designers. I think we are more objective. We don't come with the baggage of hating certain parts of our bodies... Sometimes women are trapped by their own views of themselves, but some have built careers around that. Donna Karan was obsessed with her hips and used her own idiosyncrasies to define her brand." - Tom Ford

Despite fashion being something frequently associated with a fancy of women, it is arguable that men dominate the field as designers, photographers, and in some cases, even models.

Some say that men (gay men in particular) are simply better for this industry. If one looks at a list of winners of the Council of Fashion Designers of America awards from years past, it is evident that male designers prevail. This year, the Womenswear Designer of the Year award nominees include Alexander Wang, Jack McCollough and Lazaro Hernandez (the duo at Proenza Schouler), and Marc Jacobs. The Swarovski Award for Womenswear nominates Joseph Altuzarra, Prabal Gurung, but only one female team (Mary-Kate and Ashely Olsen at The Row). Similarly, all menswear nominees are indeed men.

All nominees are talented designers, but it is illustrated that the proportion of prominent designers is not equal among both genders, despite that fashion school students are mostly female (usually 85 to 95 percent). Of course, this could be influenced by a variety of things, from the fact that professional women have only climbed to the top relatively recently, Anna Wintour's alleged preference of male designers, or the camaraderie between men as opposed to the perceived rivalry between women.

But what about highly influential female designers - Coco Chanel? Miuccia Prada? Donna Karan? Kate and Laura Mulleavy at Rodarte? And a personal favorite, Stella McCartney? These women are not just female designers, though. They stand alongside their male peers, equally. It's ridiculous to say that only male designers have achieved success.

Compared to other industries, fashion is accepting of and accessible to women, but there's still a handful more men that get ahead. I have no idea if "things are changing," nor does there seem to be any evidence that there is a disparity (thus no suggestion that the gap is lessening).

What are your thoughts?

For more reading, check out "In Fashion, Who Really Gets Ahead?" by Eric Wilson.

xox Catherine

PS I've become obsessed with Tumblr. You can check mine out here.

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.9: Oh, she deserved it for dressing like that...

I'm in the middle of studying for my psych final, which is actually inspiring my thought process. Yet again, I haven't planned anything to write for this week's post. So this helps.

My blogger friend Alex addressed receiving attention for dressing in a manner that skews from common attire. (You know, flowy skirts and blouses instead of microminis and tank tops.) Such attention can range from stares, to glares, to compliments, snarky remarks or blatant insults. Yeah, it happens, whether from female or male observers.

I choose not to be a victim of this type of negativity. My high school is relatively small, and I firmly believe that the majority of my classmates will not matter to me in the future. If for whatever chance they do, it's not as if what I wear now will have much influence then. Bitter questions about why I'm so dressed up - in a tshirt and skirt, no less? Whatever. So I wear what I damn well please, within the boundaries of what my closet has to offer, of course.

One of such negativity's different facets, however, hits a little harder. There's the common perception that females are catty and malicious, whereas the male population is incredibly perverted. I generally eschew these opinions, but it's shockingly common for my peers of both sexes to justify sexual harassment stemming from clothing.

A girl is wearing a low-cut top, so she must be seeking male attention or conforming to the male gaze? I don't know. I'd like to believe she's dressing in a way that's self-satisfying, but as we know, that's not always the case. Regardless, wearing a certain type of clothing does not warrant sexual harassment. Ever.

No one's body is public property, though society often treats a female's body as exactly that. It's too usual that someone will remark on how a woman should expect to be treated inappropriately if she's dressed revealingly.

Yet it's not limited to skin-tight, skin-showing garments. A few months ago, a guy made a comment about my crew-neck tshirt related to my breasts. So I spoke out within the class, and an ally of the harasser defended him, suggesting I was making it up and that I shouldn't wear such clothes if I don't want to hear such things. (Trust me, I fired back.)

Clearly, misogynistic attitudes hold strong among others. This is going to sound completely cliche, but you can change that. Guilty of calling a girl a slut for wearing a short skirt? Try to stop. Hear someone say "she deserves it"? Speak up.

xox Catherine

PS Due to unforeseen circumstances, I had to cancel the giveaway I previously posted. I'm terribly, terribly sorry for this.

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.7: The Irony of Anti-Thinspo

Just a note: sorry for the late posting! I'm completely overwhelming myself. It's bad. But anyway...

"I mean, is 'fat' really the worst thing a human being can be? Is 'fat' worse than 'vindictive', 'jealous', 'shallow', 'vain', 'boring' or 'cruel'? Not to me; but then, you might retort, what do I know about the pressure to be skinny? ... Maybe all this seems funny, or trivial, but it's really not. It's about what girls want to be, what they're told they should be, and how they feel about who they are." - J.K.Rowling

Recently on Tumblr, a certain post pertaining to body image came to my attention. I suppose it was intending to spread a positive message (NOTE: I do not know how to reblog GIFs, perfection was crossed out and replaced with "pizza" in an edited version), but it sat a little sourly with me. If you eat, you're might get fat. But they're okay with that! Bring it!

Since my sarcasm translates poorly through writing, just know, I mean no hard feelings. However, just the mere feeling of guilt that stirs when I simply use the word fat shows how obsessed we are with weight, but more specifically, being thin.

Within the past few years, I've unintentionally lost a significant amount of weight. I was comfortable with myself, but all of a sudden I became surprisingly toothpick-thin. My friends, family, and even acquaintances complimented me on my "new" appearance. Or, at least they believed their words were compliments. "You're so skinny! I wish I looked like that!"

It didn't cease until I finally revealed that I took it as an insult. Ironically, the recent surge of accepting "real" model bodies had something to do with it. Magazine articles embraced curves - the body of a real woman. A feminine shape. Not a boyish twig. And of course, ever so proud of their own opinions, they enforced that real women have curves.

What about the rest of us? The aforementioned Tumblr post included shockingly negative opinions toward skinny girls. "I just don't like extremely thin girls," said one. Another admitted, "I think super skinny girls are kinda scary..." And many have cited the ugliness of protruding bones. Even those who admitted to - gasp - eating and having visible bones stated that thigh gaps are gross. (Yep, mine refuse to touch unless I'm sitting, and my bones commit the horrid crime of sticking out from my skin.)

Yet if anyone said this about a fat girl, it would be mean. It would be hurtful. Telling someone she needs to eat less is a stab at her self esteem, but suggesting a thin girl eat more is just as bad. Obviously, there's a double standard at play here. Naturally, there's still many that bash larger gals, citing unhealthiness and claiming skinny is synonymous with health. But assuming smaller girls are unhealthy and anorexic? No one bats an eyelash.

Everyone deserves to love her (or his) own body. No one should feel shamed by others for mere appearance. I strongly hold the attitude that those who mind don't matter, but in most cases it's easier said than done. Accept yourself and others, thick or thin, short or tall, or any other lovely combination. There's not just one body type that's beautiful, despite whatever anyone may tell you. You are beautiful. You just have to believe it.

EDIT, 4/27/11: Just for clarification, I am not trying to induce sympathy for skinny girls, sound whiny about my own experiences, or say that it's difficult to be thin. I just intended to point out a bit of hypocrisy and suggest that accepting one body type shouldn't come at the expense of another.

xox Catherine

PS If you ever want to discuss any of the topics featured in my Thoughts for Tuesday columns, don't hesitate to email me! I'd love to hear your feedback, and if there's anything I can help with, I'd be more than happy to.

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.6: Is Fashion Art? Or Just Plain Useless?

I recently visited the Roberto Capucci "Art Into Fashion" exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. For those unfamiliar with his work, he came to fame in the 1950's as a brilliant young Italian designer. Over the years, his work became more sculptural. Garments from his recent collections (not shown on a regular basis, just when he has a solid round-up) are hardly even wearable. They're art.

What we see in mass-retail stores is obviously not on par with Capucci or other couturiers' work. Regardless, some consider fashion superficial, or completely consumerist based. Only a self-obsessed, insecure woman would spend $1000 on a pair of structural Balenciaga heels (A/W 2010), right? However, for just as many that blindly follow fashion, there are those women and men that value design and craftsmanship. Yet such aspects of fashion go unnoticed by many, and the fashion world remains impenetrable.

Some cannot justify spending a couple thousand dollars on any single item, nor may they have the funds to do so. (Myself included.) But in this context, fashion is comparable to any functional art. However, as I've mentioned, it's looked down upon. As stated by Oscar Wilde, "fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." Then again, it's constantly evolving, not merely changing. Fashion exists for aesthetic value as well as basic necessity, but it also mirrors the state of society. It can push boundaries or stay within the social norms.

Obviously, contemporary lines are more commercial than ready-to-wear, and ready-to-wear is more commercial than haute couture. In most of these, we see design instead of simple knockoffs. While contemporary and ready-to-wear fashion are marketed to a specific consumer, it is evident that there is thought behind the fabric (especially in the latter). Haute couture, though not for everyday use, is undeniably art in the sense of thought and technique.

With that being said, someone can dress herself or himself creatively, no matter where the clothing comes from. Wearing expensive clothes doesn't even guarantee that person will be dressed creatively. As we know, it's completely possible to put together an artistic ensemble using any sort of garments. But I digress.

Let's return to the claims that fashion is materialistic and essentially useless. If that's true, isn't all art materialist? Especially that which serves no purpose to the audience other than aesthetic value? And useless? If you live in the US, chances are, there's a few laws applicable regarding clothing oneself.

There's nothing wrong with not having a favorite designer or simply not giving a damn about the industry itself, as it's not everyone's cup of tea. Following fashion obsessively isn't necessary to appreciate or respect what it is.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.5: "Boyfriend Stealing" and Name Calling

I apologize that this is being posted rather late! I've been incredibly busy trying to find an internship for school, doing other schoolwork, and enjoying the glorious weather we had.

I've been thrilled to have been part of the ongoing conversation about feminism and miscellaneous issues within a few blogs. Annebeth from The Styling Dutchman brought up something I'm still thinking about: it's very common for women to be mean toward one another. From making a general statement such as "girls are bitches," or being down right vicious and spreading rumors about a so-called friend, I've witnessed it. I've been a victim. Haven't we all?

Today, while flipping through Cosmopolitan , I read an article entitled "I Exposed a Boyfriend Stealer". Perhaps this sounds good, ridding evil amongst female peers, but the photo was captioned "sigh... another skank bites the dust". Apparently, the woman was wrong for being a slut and compulsively stealing boyfriends.

Yeah, I know many of us gals detest or simply shun the opinions of the misogynist magazine, but this happens outside the men-centric pages as well. I'm very reluctant to take the phrase "boyfriend stealing" seriously. As much as women are objectified and sometimes treated poorly in relationships, stealing implies ownership. And women don't own men, just as men don't own women.

I'm firm to believe the males are at wrong in these scenarios - seduction only goes so far. There's a crucial part of this equation that many seem to miss: his consent. I highly doubt that in these situations, the men are being forced against their will. He enabled it. He actively participated, making him just as guilty, if not more.

So why blame the other woman? Yes, a friend should respect the boundaries of a relationship her friend is in. Yes, she might have started it. However, that doesn't make her a slut. I know this happens between guys too. I've witnessed several physical fights over a lady. But you don't hear one calling the other - the alleged culprit - a slut, whore, skank, bitch, etc.

We do that. It's unfortunate. Sometimes women take pride in being a so-called bitch. There's a bit of irony in that, but it's acknowledging and arguably not dispelling this self-hating thing us women have going on. Of course, we're less likely to pride ourselves in being "sluts". But calling a friend a slut or whore as a term of endearment - something I've been guilty of - has the same effect. We're just pushing that it's okay to call each other sluts and whores.

Words are just words, but these are loaded with highly negative connotations. Seems we (collectively) have a way to go in terms of dealing with fellow women on a civil basis. How sad.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.4: Those Jeffrey Campbell shoes, that Topshop dress...

"Fashion fades, style is eternal." - Yves Saint Laurent

I have to admit, I was pretty stumped for a topic for today's edition of Thoughts for Tuesday. Most of my thoughts have been continuations of previous posts, without much variation, however. This is the first time I've sat down and read blogs since Sunday, and with nearly 200 posts, I thought it would take forever. Not so.

The amount seemed daunting, but paging through takes no time when there's several posts featuring those shoes and a wispy Topshop dress. Okay, perhaps I'm a little bitter - I only buy used leather/new synthetic materials, and no one gives up their JC shoes, so they're out of the question for me. Topshop has a nice selection but prices I cannot justify, thus they too are not very realistic for me to consider.

I get it - both brands produce more thoughtfully designed, contemporary goods than many super-commercial shops. Astronomically high shoes with a chunky wooden heel in a mall department store? Are you nuts? Peter pan collars constructed of real silk... in the woman's section?! Gasp.

Contrary to what the blogosphere may have you believe, not everyone is clad in a pretty Topshop dress nor do they stomp around in sky-high platforms. I do think that most of us bloggers - and blog readers - do this to go against the norm, to form a community with each other, etc. While one may stand out among a sea of Express-wearing-twenty-somethings, when thrown together, it can be difficult to distinguish an individual.

Within fashion, it's difficult to do something truly original. However, wearing a subtle mix of trendy wares barely constitutes anything groundbreaking, let alone style. Perhaps I'm guilty of this too - no, I know I am - but lusting over the same items and proceeding to purchase them produces monotony.

I can't say much about how personal style blogging used to be, or when exactly these brands stole the hearts of girls wishing to dress differently than their peers. I suppose some similarity is inevitable, but I'd hope to believe that bloggers would want to take pride in putting together unique outfits. But it seems that a fancy camera, a thrifted floral-print item, those shoes, and that bag form a stylish blogger.

I don't have a problem with any of the brands I mentioned in this post - as I said, I do admire quite a few of the designs they create. But there's only so much variation, so much remixing that one person - or a bundle of ladies with the same item - can handle with these brands alone.

xox Catherine

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.3: The Irony of Midi Skirts

We've seen it all over the runways these past few seasons - the mid-length skirt. Rebellious, isn't it? After all, it's a sure departure from the mini skirts my age group favors. On a recent post showcasing my favorite outfits from other bloggers, a reader commented stating she wished she could pull off long skirts.

In my head, I said the same thing. I'm considerably short, and many "experts" advise petite girls against wearing longer lengths. Midi skirts may come to an awkward, unflattering length; while maxi skirts may drag on the ground and make one seem a tiny but frumpy cat lady. Or so we're told.

I've worn both - a pleated white skirt with a bubble hem, and a simple, body-hugging maxi dress. I've received compliments on both, and I didn't fidget throughout the day or feel the need to wear shorts underneath to prevent exposure. It was comfortable. However, nearly every compliment was accompanied with an "...oh, but I could never pull that off". And then there's the "what is she wearing?!" glares from my peers. Yeah, you know the ones.

So enters the irony of the midi skirt. Perhaps not as trendy or beach-friendly as its longer counterpart, it offers a middle ground, as the name implies. No one would dare call a girl wearing a calve-grazing skirt a whore (nothing I condone, for the record), though one wearing a super-short skirt may be subjected to such. Instead, it's cute in a womanly sort of way, and comparatively modest.

In theory, it's safe. When mini skirts came about, they were rebellious, daring, etc. But I think we can agree upon the monotony produced by tons and tons of denim mini skirts from mall favorites, no? With this being said, and for the sake of my argument, midi-skirts are more daring among a younger set. And as we know, any young person going against the grain puts herself (or himself) at a supposed target for insecure peers.

We can accept or reject comments from peers, but many times, such acknowledgments can result in self-consciousness. I've long told myself that anyone who cares about what I wear isn't worth my time, but still, there's that voice suggesting I can't pull it off even though I have and I most certainly can again.

Going against the grain just gets one noticed - positively or negatively - even if the object isn't too far from the original norm.

xox Catherine

PS Please excuse any spelling or grammatical errors. I'm tired and my attention is scattered in a million different places. On a positive note, I took the plunge and bought a D3000. Expect outfit post tomorrow if I decide against taking my frustrations out on clay, or if I miraculously don't end up covered.

Thoughts for Tuesday, v.1: Femininity in Fashion

"A lot of people in fashion don't love women. They impose their own ego upon women, whether they're men or self-hating women." - Zac Posen

While perusing through Cosmopolitan, I came across an article about nightgowns. I'm willing to believe most young people wear t-shirts and sweatpants to sleep nowadays, but I read on. Strangely enough, the article wasn't instructing me to purchase anything to make my man go crazy (I don't even have a man, for that matter), but rather what I should burn to please him. Apparently, men don't like women who wear frumpy nightgowns.

I'm a feminist, which has earned me personal criticism, as well as impersonal criticism from nonbelievers who just associate feminism with hairy legs and such. Cosmo is akin to the woman/girl who I almost feel bad for because she seems to hate herself so much, but what right does anyone have to tell another that it's unacceptable to wear whatever she or he pleases?

A nightgown is immensely different from a dress designated for public wear, but the message struck a chord. Why is it assumed readers will listen to this advice? A possible theory: in some cases, fashion is misogynistic. Yes, yes, this may sound extreme, and indeed it feels a little ludicrous to make such a claim. But let's explore this argument.

High heels and tight dresses may be restricting and flashy, so in order to demand respect, a woman might opt for a pants suit and more sensible shoes. This esteemed look is derived from typical menswear, suggesting that feminine shapes are incapable of earning respect. Of course, many women enjoy menswear-inspired styles - to each her own. But to make oneself seem competent, capable? It's unnecessary.

Of course, things are changing, and this may no longer be the case. I'll admit that I'm not really in the market for career-wear, so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about. However, any spectator can agree with my next point: most runway models have boyish shapes. I wholeheartedly support embracing whatever size or shape one is, but someone is making a decision to employ these models as opposed to women who resemble the designer's clientele.

I don't know that designers are always attempting to capture femininity. What does that mean, anyway? Women can be masculine, and men can be feminine. (Neither of these should have a negative connotation, in any context.) But during a fashion show - in an industry which has received fire for implying that thin is the only beautiful - displaying pure masculinity directed at women seems insulting.

It's important to take any message sent to us with a grain of salt. If a woman wants to wear a smart blazer with tailored pants, that's just as well as a woman wearing a cardigan a silk dress in a New Look silhouette. Or anything else. We can accept or reject advice at our own discretion, but associating one particular style with power is just bullshit.

xox Catherine

My Favorite Fashion Discovery

Upon reading Park & Cube, I discovered the Battle of the Bloggers run by Asos. Naturally, this is just another reason I wish I lived in the UK, but residence aside, I quite liked the topic to write about.

I'm young, and I've been young forever. I frequently feel that I never change - my appearance, my personality, my taste in music, etc. But inevitably, after long enough, nothing is the same. Of course, uniformity and too much similarity makes me crazy. Sometimes it's difficult to gauge time, so little changes are easier to take note of, and to carry with me into the future as a time-marker. And naturally, I look back too much.

Take the example of my clothing log. I've actually never designated a name for it, but I've been keeping track of what I've been wearing since March 20, 2006 as a seventh grader, six days before my thirteenth birthday. How do I remember the date so well? Perhaps I have a keen memory, but perhaps it's because I remember what I wore.

I suppose I've always had a weird relationship with clothes... as a preschooler, I would insist upon wearing the same dress nearly everyday. The top had black long sleeves with a heart in the middle, and the skirt was black and white gingham. Throughout elementary school, I insisted that every item in my wardrobe was purple. I also remember the Maryjane sneakers (in purple, naturally) that I wore everyday in kindergarten. With the exception of my beloved preschool dress, most items I used to wear have since been discarded in some manner.

Incidentally, when I woke up this morning, I was overcome with a desire to sort through my clothes. It's been nearly a year since my last closet clean-out, but I don't feel that much has changed. Over the past year while my weight has been constantly fluctuating (to my dismay), I've focused more on my shoe collection. Admittedly, it's still relatively small - by no means am I a shopaholic nor do I have sufficient funds to buy pair after pair of shoes.

My room is cluttered to the brim with various "stuff." It builds up, and my environmental science class has instilled in my head that there is no "away." There's sample size products that I've never used, but still have around. But I digress - this is about clothing. However, as it turns out, clothing, style and fashion are not synonymous. I suppose I should have known this forever, but during the first couple years of my adolescence, I found great pleasure in buying the latest items from my favorite stores. Fortunately for my present-day self, these pieces were more likely to come from H&M or Forever 21 than the ubiquitous coveted middle school brands - Hollister, Aeropostale, American Eagle, or Abercrombie.

Despite my distaste towards such "mall brands" as I used to refer to them, I enjoyed the irony of wearing a pair of Hollister jeans with a studded belt. Unfortunately, I must have sold out in some sort, since it's not as though their jeans fit me particularly well. In fact, they were completely wrong for me. But I couldn't resist the faux-Californian vibe these stores tried to present.

Let me add something - the summer after eighth grade, I took a fashion construction summer course at Moore College. I was by far one of the least "fashionable" persons there, and my style was hardly defined. I cited my favorite designers as Chanel and Betsey Johnson - the first two that came into my mind. But I attributed my love of fashion to my aunt and grandmother... countless nights I had sat in my aunt's guestroom, reading fashion books and flipping through every September issue (since the early 1970's, I believe) of Vogue.

As I journeyed through high school, I grew nauseated at the thought of dressing like everyone else clad in Ugg boots and strangely colored tshirts decorated with the logos of "mall brands." Slowly, I put my Hollister jeans away, exchanging them for dresses. However, with this new found anti-high-school-fashion attitude, there is another conformity to be confronted. Sure, I enjoy reading style blogs, but I grow tired of seeing the same Jeffrey Campbell shoes paired with some dress from Topshop.

I've found that most girls in my age bracket spend hours getting ready, regardless of where they shop. Frankly, I can't be bothered to wear something that takes effort to think of. I've grown so familiar with the pieces in my closet that I just brainstorm combinations without ever opening the door. And a majority of the time, I wear outfits that were created in my head.

I suppose I'm not the best dressed person around, nor is my shoe collection highly noteworthy. I've discovered clothing is necessary, style is personal but somewhat superficial, while fashion is the entirely optional part of the equation. My choices are unlimited, and as cliche as this sounds, what I wear is up to me. I can choose to disregard "fashion" in exchange for my comfiest tshirt, or I can wear a new pair of high heels in attempt to break them in. Or both. Ultimately, what's left is style.