I’ve thought about our disagreement, and I think there are several important points.
First, at the risk of sounding vain, it is possible that I’m biased because I’m handsome enough that I didn’t have problems attracting attention even in the most misguided years of my youth. (My problem was that I’d usually be oblivious to indications of interest, or I’d sabotage myself by responding to them in naive and clumsy ways, not that I was invisible to girls.) It is possible that for less handsome men, being invisible in the crowd is a big enough obstacle that trying to break it by peacocking is a better option than I’d think.
Then, it also depends on what exactly your goal is. If you’re striving to become a full-blown player—which I never did, both because I was already a bit too old to start working on it when I realized that it’s actually a feasible goal, and also because it doesn’t suit me temperamentally—then I suppose more extreme options like heavy peacocking become the order of the day. For less adventurous goals, however, I still think that working on a strong and solid “normal” image is overall a better option for most men.
I’ve already pointed out that if your face or head shape is not very handsome, you can significantly improve your looks with a suitably shaped haircut. But if you already look handsome with a buzz cut, there are rapidly diminishing returns to what you can do with your hair, if we consider it in terms of handsomeness rather than peacocking. (I hope it’s clear what I mean by that distinction.)
Regarding various subcultural styles, I’ll reply in a separate comment.
Otherwise, I agree that our age is probably too restrictive in what passes for mainstream respectable men’s fashion, and has in fact been ever since the early-to-mid 19th century. I find the 18th century aristocratic men’s fashion very appealing, and the 17th century Cavalier style even more.
I’ve thought about our disagreement, and I think there are several important points.
First, at the risk of sounding vain, it is possible that I’m biased because I’m handsome enough that I didn’t have problems attracting attention even in the most misguided years of my youth. (My problem was that I’d usually be oblivious to indications of interest, or I’d sabotage myself by responding to them in naive and clumsy ways, not that I was invisible to girls.) It is possible that for less handsome men, being invisible in the crowd is a big enough obstacle that trying to break it by peacocking is a better option than I’d think.
Then, it also depends on what exactly your goal is. If you’re striving to become a full-blown player—which I never did, both because I was already a bit too old to start working on it when I realized that it’s actually a feasible goal, and also because it doesn’t suit me temperamentally—then I suppose more extreme options like heavy peacocking become the order of the day. For less adventurous goals, however, I still think that working on a strong and solid “normal” image is overall a better option for most men.
I’ve already pointed out that if your face or head shape is not very handsome, you can significantly improve your looks with a suitably shaped haircut. But if you already look handsome with a buzz cut, there are rapidly diminishing returns to what you can do with your hair, if we consider it in terms of handsomeness rather than peacocking. (I hope it’s clear what I mean by that distinction.)
Regarding various subcultural styles, I’ll reply in a separate comment.
Otherwise, I agree that our age is probably too restrictive in what passes for mainstream respectable men’s fashion, and has in fact been ever since the early-to-mid 19th century. I find the 18th century aristocratic men’s fashion very appealing, and the 17th century Cavalier style even more.