A lot of people having been saying that only Y2K technology can be retro, but I must ask, how many people in the year 2000 dressed like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Flesh_tunnel_20mm.jpg

Scene fashion has its origins in the late 90s, but it was only a British underground subculture at first and didn't really evolve until the mid-2000s. In 2008, it became mainstream.

Someone asked in an earlier thread "where is the retro in dressing like a year 2000 person?" For one, you probably wouldn't be wearing any scene clothing like you might wear to a 2011 party.

Some might say "But I could wear my shirt from 2000 today without looking odd." Guess what? I bet Bobby Finstock could wear his 1985 shirt today without looking odd too.

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/EkHmXIkFPN8/hqdefault.jpg

Maybe 2000's retro is more what people DIDN'T wear than what they DID, but I'm still curious as to why people think 2000 and 2013 fashion is basically the same and I stand by my comment that 2000 clothes look a bit more "dull and plain" compared to 2013 fashion.

A simple way to help answer this question would be to look at your high school yearbook if you attended in the 00s. As you look at all the snap shots, ask yourself, "Would I wear that to the mall today?"

Also, it's always the trendy or bizarre fashions that get remembered. I'm pretty sure most adults dressed more or less the same then and now.

1. I knew a lot of people in the 90s who wore big gauge earrings like that, and few now.
2. WTF is scene clothing?
3. Are you just trying to get people to admit there's a difference between today's new clothes and those of 14 years ago? Fine, there is.

You really care about this a lot

This is a website about the past. Why shouldn't I care? My username even has Care Bear in it. The Care Bears always care.

This is a website about the past. Why shouldn't I care? My username even has Care Bear in it. The Care Bears always care.

Alright, let me break it down for you Care Bear. The reason people don't see any difference in the fashion of today is because the bright colors, chunky haircuts, big sneakers, wild prints and sunglasses, ET CETERA look to those of us who were there an awful lot like a wannabe 80s revival/throwback. Pop fashion might have changed in the past ten years, but it doesn't look new by any means.

You can back this up by analyzing this supposed dominant subculture, "scene". What is that? It means nothing. Scene needs a modifier. The punk scene, the footwork scene, the art gallery scene, and so forth. Those mean something. The scene you describe now has nothing, is nothing, and that's why it has no name. It's an entity of tenuous existence at best. And that's why people are unaware of current fashion trends: There isn't truly anything new to speak of.

Yes I looked at that. That's how I know it involves bright colors and all that other stuff I listed off. Also there is nothing more MAINSTREAM right now than Justin Beaver which is where I see the things described in that page being popular. Now that we've both repeated ourselves, I'm further doubting you found anything in your attic. I think you're just trying to prove a point that nobody here cares about.

To repeat myself AGAIN. I was saying nobody cares about the difference between 2000 and 2013, you stubborn halfwit.

Both of you guys need to agree to disagree. Anymore back and forth banter and I might have to lock the thread.