foolish

randa—22

[closure]

[miss-ya]

[sss]

[childmagazine]

[pipeedreamn]

my spotify - listen ! 

[sss]

[sealush]

[birdasaurus]

Abbey Ginns

[svnbabe]

emmaleger via instagram

[punlovsin]

source

shesmidas

[a-joyfuljourney]

[greeneyes55-deactivated20140920]

[aepex]

[langleavpoetry]

“In time she will learn, not to miss them.”

— Lang Leav (via lang-leav)

[alien]

[igmakeup]

[cowpokeprose]

The idea that denim on denim is a fashion crime exists only because it looks working class and the worst thing you can do in a capitalist society is look like you perform manual labour. 

[cowpokeprose]

Also part of the rebellion of punk was looking unashamedly poor. In the 60s and 70s calling someone “tidy” or “neatly dressed” was a genuine compliment. Untidiness defined the counter cultures of this time and looking clean cut was considered essential for mainstream beauty. So in the 70s and 80s when punks started looking sloppy, looking poor, wearing old battered clothes that were ripped and held together with patches and safety pins, this was rebellion against the middle/upper class ideal that everyone must emulate the tidiness of wealth. 

What is considered “good fashion” is always defined as what looks wealthy. Short dresses and plastic heels and jackets that aren’t designed to close are luxurious, impractical, and flashy. Breezy collared shirts, crossbody bags, and slides are good for lounging by your pool, not for working. The fashion industry sells luxury so its important to look out for what it bags on. When the fashion industry decides that something looks ugly we should all ask “why?” Because there’s a high likelihood it simply looks poor.