CultureFeast

Fashion

Is Bamboo the New Cotton?

By Sarah Tohler on

The first few times I came across bamboo sheets, the thought of panda snacks rubbing against my skin didn’t seem especially velvety. I was interested, though, and took the bait. Upon first touch I was shocked… bamboo fibers are surprisingly soft.

In fact, the bamboo sheets I felt in Oak Cliff’s Bishop Street Market were silkier than standard cotton sheets. Since my first encounter with bamboo fabric a few months ago, it seems to be popping up everywhere.

Tees from New Balance. Tops from Gap. Even linens from Target.

But people aren’t breaking up with cotton and switching to bamboo based on texture alone. Bamboo fabric has all the qualities of cotton that Americans have grown to love, but the cultivation and harvesting processes of bamboo are much easier on our planet (in most cases, harvesting is the general equivalent of mowing your lawn).

Like many crops, cotton needs oceans of pesticides to be productive and profitable. Most bamboo is organically grown and naturally irrigated. In the right climate, bamboo can literally grow like a weed — up to three feet per day — and the plants can reach 100 feet tall.

There are over 1,000 different kinds of bamboo and some are stronger than steel.In certain parts of the world where bamboo grows on every corner, it’s used as a substitute for steel when building homes, boats and even bridges. So it’s strange then, that fabric made from bamboo can be as soft as cashmere. And unlike cashmere, no goats are harmed in the process.

Bamboo fabrics are more porous than cotton and because of this, they don’t require as much dye in order to become your sheets, towels or tees. The fabric also has a natural moisture wicking property that keeps moisture out. This not only means a more comfy night’s sleep and a quicker dry-off, but it also makes the material antibacterial and odor resistant… qualities cotton simply can’t compete with.

Like all green products, there are still questions to consider before you go refitting your entire home linen collection or wardrobe with bamboo:

  • Bamboo is greener than cotton, but still less green than soy.
  • Not all bamboo is green! Question if the bamboo you buy was grown sustainably. (A concern is that bamboo farming might lead to deforestation in China.)
  • Not all bamboo is organic! It’s usually a perennial crop that can grow naturally without fertilizers, pesticides or irrigation, but unless it’s from a certified farm, it’s not organic.
  • Like cotton, bamboo fabric will shrink the first time you wash it, just not as much.
  • Bamboo fabric is sturdy, but is still best washed on the delicate cycle. Fabric softeners and chlorine bleach are no-nos.
  • The fabric is best air-dried or put in the dryer on the “fluff” cycle. No need to iron since the fabric is wrinkle-free.

Fur Fashion Dilemmas: Sustainable Product or Animal Cruelty?

By Lucy Debenham on
seal

Over the past twenty years, the wearing of fur has provoked some hot debate, with PETA often leading the assault against fur farmers and fur wearers alike. SO it’s no surprise to learn that PETA recently launched an attack on none other than Ms. Elizabeth Hurley, British actress and the new face of American fur house Blackglama.

The photographs of Hurley, many of which feature the actress clad in nothing but her own skin and a fur coat, have sparked much controversy and induced continued debate about the wearing of fur. PETA’s anti-fur stance is well known. During the 1990s, campaigns such as PETA’s ‘I’d rather go naked than wear fur’ brought the ethical issues with fur production well and truly into the public consciousness.

Subsequently, the wearing and production of fur and other controversial animal products such as sealskin fell out of favor. But recently there seems to have been a turning of the tables. Fur farmers, fashionistas and fur fans alike have begun to hit back with a new angle, claiming that fur is environmentally friendly and sustainable, and as such should be seen as an acceptable clothing choice.

However, Hurley isn’t the only celebrity to have recently provoked outrage for wearing animal products. ‘Greenie’ Gwyneth Paltrow – wife of Fair Trade fanatic Coldplay frontman Chris Martin, and herself an eco-friendly champion – was also recently photographed sporting a prominent fur stole as part of an advertising campaign for an Italian fashion house that also uses snakeskin, fox fur and ostrich products.

Paltrow has since apologised to PETA and its supporters for her ‘indiscretion’, claiming that she “didn’t notice” the fur stole being draped over her shoulders by the stylist on the shoot. But interestingly, Hurley – who owns an organic farm in the UK – has declined to comment on her decision to model for Blackglama.

Many that are pro-fur are happy to back the argument that fur is a sustainable, eco-friendly material; particularly in contrast to the petrochemical-based faux furs and fur alternatives currently available. They also claim that fur farms in the West operate under stringent welfare laws, and that banning the farming of fur will mean that suppliers will look elsewhere, where farming standards are not as well regulated. In addition, there is also the argument that wearing vintage fur is a means of recycling.

Whilst in some respects wearing vintage fur could be seen as ethical for the planet, can one really still wear fur, new or vintage, with a clear conscience? On the other hand, what about those countries, such as Iceland and Greenland, who have a significant population whose livelihood depends on the fur industry?

The fact is that many people are still struggling with the notion of ‘ethical fur’ production. Does such a thing really exist? The horrific videos released by PETA and other animal welfare groups may not represent every single fur farm currently in operation. But the fact that these devastatingly sad pieces of footage exist is testament to the fact that even with regulation, animals continue suffer in the name of vanity, some would say unnecessarily.

Because after all, the vast majority of people can get away without wearing fur, and perhaps more importantly have no real need to wear it. Likewise, essentially faux fur is just a fashion fix. We could easily do without it.

For some people the question is a purely ethical one – welfare vs. vanity. However the debate often extends to the difference between wearing leather – for the most part, a bi-product of the meat industry – and wearing fur. Can people who consume meat really have a leg to stand on when protesting about the use of fur in fashion? 

Another pro-fur argument centres around population and environmental control. For instance, the fur of possums in New Zealand can be a bi-product of a ‘vermin’ control programme, due to the vast number of non-indigenous possums that are currently wreaking havoc on native flora and fauna, and agricultural land.. If these animals are going to be ‘destroyed’ anyway, does the fact that they’ve lived a free life, and the fact that their pelts will then be used, make wearing their fur any more acceptable?

Is ‘wild’ fur any more ethical or environmentally friendly than farmed fur? And if demand for fur increased, would the methods used to trap or kill greater numbers of wild animals for their fur become more or less efficient (read: quick and painless death)?

Similarly, if the demand for fur increases, then by default so too does the number of animals killed for their fur. Typically, a mink fur coat will be made from around 50 mink pelts. So we can assume greater acceptance of fur farming by mainstream society will lead to a greater demand. But surely if the food industry is anything to go by, when demand and ‘output’ increases, ultimately it is not the welfare of the animal that suffers? Think: battery hens, white meat veal calves and gestation-crate imprisoned pigs, just as a few examples.

All victims of our supposedly highly-regulated ‘efficient’ meat industry. And in environmental terms, more fur farms would surely equate to greater volumes of animal feed, animal waste and sewerage? Sustainable fur may be, but ethical and environmentally-friendly? I’m not so sure I’ll ever be won over by that argument.

Style A to Zoe: A Fashion Book Review

By Rachel Hines on
book cover of Style A to Zoe by Rachel Zoe

I have never thought of myself, by any means, as a fashionista. However, I do like to keep up with what the latest styles, trends and “it” whatevers are. I never identified with one style icon, but rather took aspects from different women in the fashion and entertainment world that stood out to me.

As I have matured, so have my fashion and style sense. I know how to coordinate outfits, add accessories, match shoes and even offer my opinion to whoever will listen; but I am not a professional.

Rachel Zoe, the famous celebrity stylist is. I made a recent trip to my local library and stumbled across her book, Style A to Zoe: The Art of Fashion, Beauty & Everything Glamour, purely by accident. The colour of the cover did not jump out at me, but the words “Style A to Zoe” did. I inquisitively picked up the book, leafed though the pages, and saw that it was more than just your regular picture book of celebrities.

Reading this book, I was extremely surprised at how talented and knowledgeable Zoe is. The tabloids and gossip blogs have obviously done her no justice. For the past few years, all the information I was getting about Rachel Zoe was from online tabloids that only associated her with Lindsay Lohan and Mischa Barton and their “not so great” fashion selections.

author Rachel Zoe

This is far from the truth. Zoe offers personal photographs of how she works and whom she works with. Included are personal entries from top designers, including Valentino and Frank Zambrelli who praise Zoe’s talent and eye for all things style related.

Zoe’s book is made up of eight chapters, including a detailed introduction of her life and the reasons why she became interested in the fashion industry and why she became a stylist. Included in her stylebook is a glossary of terms (A to Zoe), something that I thought was a cheeky way to finalize her work.

Throughout the pages, Zoe dishes about how to properly accessorize (or as she puts it, “excessorizing”), how to pair chunky jewelery with smaller pieces, selecting the right shoes for the right outfit, selecting a classic bag over the “It” bag, how to correctly apply makeup, and even offers tips on how to design and style your home by incorporating art, fabrics and functional furniture.  

What I enjoyed the most about reading Rachel Zoe’s book was the fact that she related to every female in every age demographic and every salary bracket. Zoe insisted throughout to explore vintage and thrift stores in search of jewellery and signature pieces that make you the fabulous woman that you are.

She encourages everyone reading to host their own red carpet event and not to be afraid of getting dressed up and looking (and feeling) great.

Rachel Zoe’s expertise with style and fashion was a great and easy read. Her tone was set as if she was sitting across from me as we chatted over lunch or coffee. Her tips were fabulous and any woman who thinks of herself as being fashion forward (or not), should pick up this book because they will find at least one piece of advice to take home with them to use over and over again.

Papaya Clothing Store

By Daniel Dessinger on · Follow: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter

I’m not a woman, but if I was I would surely visit Papaya clothing stores on a regular basis. My wife loves it. Their clothes are trendy and affordable. No, really affordable.

My wife has been building a collection of basic colors and shirt styles, and she buys some of her shirts for three dollars!!!!!!! Yes, I said $3. For less than a value meal, she can choose from an array of seasonal colors.

She just came home from a Grapevine Mills Outlet Mall excursion where she bought one pair of jeans, one pair of khaki pants, one long sleeve shirt, and two short sleeve shirts all for less than $80. You can’t beat that without shopping at Wal-Mart or Target (or Goodwill – which I must confess we have).

Seriously, one pair of MY jeans from The Buckle costs at least $80!

Even if I didn’t get the other pair of pants, I’d be seriously stoked if I could get a pair of jeans and three shirts for eighty bucks. Life just isn’t fair. They charge the heck out of us because they know we don’t mix and match as much.

That means we don’t buy as much, which means they’ve gotta milk us for all we’ve got. Back to the subject… Look for the launching of the Papaya website, which is currently under construction.

The deals are so good that even if you shop at three or four other favorite stores, you can save some serious cash getting at least some of your basics for way less than the competition.

If you are in the Dallas / Fort Worth area, you can visit Papaya at Grapevine Mills in Grapevine or at Galleria Mall in north Dallas.

How To Choose What To Wear To A Church Service

By Daniel Dessinger on · Follow: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter

It occurred to me the other day that I wear different styles of clothing to church based upon my expectation of the service. When I first accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior ten years ago, I began attending church in a t-shirt and jeans because they were all that I owned.

I found that I could engage more completely in worship because I had no expectations of being viewed by other people as cool or attractive. I was able to leave my self image at home and participate with total focus.

As I should have expected, that reality did not last very long. I inevitably gained more clothing through birthday gifts and sheer necessity, and Sunday morning church became an opportunity to attract the opposite sex. Honestly, if one is to look for a partner, there is no better place to look than one’s own church or university (as applicable).

But the simple truth is that the moment I dressed in nice clothes for church, I knew I would get more attention from people. I expected more attention.

I could no longer worship at the front of the sanctuary because I was sure that I was being watched and I worried too much how I looked – if my hair was in place, my shirt tucked nicely and unwrinkled, etc. Even after marriage, self image wasn’t automatically thrown out the window.

Image consciousness morphs a little to make sense (hence the soccer mom image in the nice SUV). We no longer try to send out the message to the opposite sex that we are both available and desirable, but there is still something within us that wants our peers to know we are living a good life.

We want their respect for our lifestyle choices and even their admiration for our tastes in fashion, architecture, art, decor, and music. The question remains: What is your primary purpose for attending services? Is it to mingle? Is it to walk the runway? Is it to worship?

There will always be exceptions to every rule. While this is true, most people will always be self conscious in public if they spend too much time and attention preparing their clothes, hair, makeup, etc. No one wants to spend a lot of time getting ready only to have their hair flop over or stick up, or to have their shirt bunch up at the sides.

We want what we took the time to make right to stay right. Unfortunately, that means we often are too distracted to participate in corporate worship. How can we really focus on the majesty of God when Guy X or Girl Z two rows back may be wondering why we chose this outfit?

I’ve found that for me personally, it’s best to go au naturale… No, not without clothes. I just go to church wearing the same normal clothes I wear each day.

It may be a little boring, but I don’t dress on Sunday to entertain. I need that corporate time in worship. I don’t have time to waste on what other people think of me, and the best way to avoid that problem is dress in such a way as to guarantee I won’t draw attention.

The Metrosexual Defined

By Daniel Dessinger on · Follow: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter

My curiosity got the better of me. What on earth is a metrosexual? Who came up with this term and why? Is it the sum of effeminate qualities and undisclosed orientation?

I have several friends (men) who buy and wear women’s jeans because they like the cut and fit better. they buy bath products from Victoria Secret or Bath and Body Works. They occasionally wear eye liner when they go downtown for concerts and clubs. They own too many bottles of fragrance (not all for men either). They spend more time in front of mirrors than i spend eating meals each day.

I don’t know how, but i have an idea of what “metrosexual” means. I don’t know where it came from. But i’ve looked into it, and here’s what I’ve come up with…

“Metrosexual” is a term coined in 1994 by British journalist Mark Simpson, who used it to refer to an urban male of any sexual orientation who has a strong aesthetic sense and spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle. the term comes from the combination of two words: metropolitan heterosexual. it refers to a young man concerned with self-image, self-indulgence, and money

He is the fasion-conscious target audience of men’s magazines.

Metrosexuality was promoted primarily by magazines such as GQ, The Face, Esquire, Arena, and FHM. they filled their magazines with images of narcissistic young men sporting fashionable clothes and accessories. and they persuaded other young men to study them with a mixture of envy and desire.

Outside Britain, metrosexual has congealed into something more digestible: a heterosexual male who is in touch with his feminine side – he color coordinates, cares deeply about exfoliation, and has perhaps “manscaped.”

In major urban areas such as San Francisco, Boston, NYC, Seattle, and Dallas, the metrosexual may be seen as a modern day fop or dandy. Like Victorian-era gentlemen, metrosexuals are sometimes considered especially masculine in the sense that they can relate to and empathize with women in an attempt to foster a relationship (or a sexual tryst) with them.

Mark Simpson’s own definition of 2002 is “The typical metrosexual is a young man with money to spend, living in or within easy reach of a metropolis — because that’s where all the best shops, clubs, gyms and hairdressers are. He might be officially gay, straight or bisexual, but this is utterly immaterial because he has clearly taken himself as his own love object and pleasure as his sexual preference.

Particular professions, such as modelling, waiting tables, media, pop music and, nowadays, sport, seem to attract them but, truth be told, like male vanity products and herpes, they’re pretty much everywhere.”

David Beckham, international soccer superstar, is the metrosexual icon. He’s athletic and capable. He’s very good looking. He spends unimaginable amounts of time and money on his appearance. He’s worshipped and adored by millions of young men and women.

Strangely enough, the term is used as a sort of parisian, upper class sophisticate/cool compliment at times, but was coined as a satirical criticism of the impact of consumerism and vanity upon traditional masculinity through media such as glossy men’s magazines.

A metrosexual is vain. vanity is required. a retrosexual is someone who rejects being finicky about physical appearance. he would be the opposite of the metrosexual.

the retrosexual lifestyle is most popular and societally accepted among men aged 18-24. however, the term is rarely used as in self-description by those men. they prefer terms such as “real man”, “old school”, or “masculine”. They reject the term “retrosexual” because the very use of it implies the normality of metrosexuality and the need of a similar term to describe its opposite.

A retrosexual may also be known as a man who rejects casual sex as mindless and immoral.

Recent Posts

✕

Connect With Us

Archive