Just the other day, Bruno, who was a Californian stray but is now a Canadian house-kitty, escaped into the night. Being a mysterious figure and a Sacramento celebrity, I assumed he was embarking on some fantastic adventure.

A few hours later, he returned.  Upon his white neck was a spot of bright red blood.  Offering no explanation, he just found a good place to lick himself and fell asleep.  Interesting, I thought.  That’s how I used to behave.

But that splash of blood reminded me of a tie. This realization brought me back to some first principles of clothing, derived not from culture but nature itself.

The Handicap Principle

The handicap principle is a gene based form of conspicuous consumption.  Instead of senselessly spending money to show you have it, you also do visibly uncomfortable things to prove you can.  The danger it incurs is offset by its ability to attract a mate.

The peacock’s massive tail shows that he’s healthy enough to carry this ridiculous but beautiful burden and crafty enough to avoid predation while so encumbered. When the peahen looks at that, she thinks:  He must be one strong, smart bird to carry that tail, let alone not get his ass kicked for doing it.

Mr. T’s gold chains and most of female fashion belongs in this category.

Wearing designer high heel shoes show that a woman can afford them but, also, that she can walk in them.  The more uncomfortable the shoe, the better the signal that she is one strong, smart lady.  Mr. T’s chains say something similar.

Crypsis

Crypsis just means camouflage.  It is the idea of dressing to blend in and avoid notice.  It’s used by predator and prey alike and is a resilient, sensible strategy.

But, contrary to common belief, chameleons do not employ this method.  They actually change colours to express their mood — not to match their environment.

When I think of crypsis in human clothing, I don’t think so much of the solider hiding in bushes but of the man in the grey flannel suit, expressing conformity, afraid to attract attention and blending in.  It’s also a normal strategy for men at formal, black-tie events. Any sort of dress code advocates crypsis.

pic nicked from here

This is interesting because humans are not only the camouflaged animals but also the environment they seek to blend into.

Aposematism

Aposematism is the exact opposite of cryptis. A venomous, foul tasting or otherwise dangerous animal warns predators by being brightly coloured.  It seeks to identify itself.

A skunk has a huge white stripe because, if you know its a skunk, you’ll leave it alone. Bees, wasps and many poisonous snakes also employ this strategy.

A point of interest about humans is that we dress other humans according to aposematistic principles.  Think of a prisoner’s bright orange jumpsuit or white and black stripes.  These make the person easy to spot and also indicate danger.

This style of dress, with a solid dose of the handicap principle, reaches its peak with the American pimp.

Mimicry

Because aposetism works so well, non-venomous creatures copy the markings and reap the benefits.  But some poisonous creatures also copy the markings of other poisonous creatures, making them all more readily identifiable.  This is mimicry.

In humans, it might be called being a poseur.

Or belonging to a club.

This is why gangsters often look like gangsters and people who aren’t gangsters often look like gangsters.  But not too much like them.

Humans fiercely protect aposetistic markings from mimicry.  Not belonging to a biker gang but sporting their colours is as dangerous an offence as impersonating a police officer.  Mimicry dilutes the effectiveness of apostetism.

How to Apply Your Newfound Bio-Sartorialism

What we’ve learned here is that in nature as in humans, feathers and fur are a mixture of truth and deception.  But humans differ from other animals in some fairly important ways. We become the environment we inhabit.  Whether blending in or standing out, we do so against a canvass of other people.

We ruthlessly punish mimicry.  Before dressing beyond what your personality can  back up, you must remember the lesson of the sparrows:

“These signals – such as the dark throat-patch on a dominant male sparrow – are called “conventional signals” or “badges or status.” Such signals are thought to remain honest because of their indirect consequences: signal receivers will severely punish those who are caught sending misleading signals. For example, Rohwer (1977) and Moeller (1987) found that when a sparrow’s throat badge was artificially augmented with a dark dye, making him appear more dominant than he truly was, other sparrows soon saw through the deception and viscously attacked the dyed individual.”

In practical terms, one should be aware that bright colours assert danger, that dull safe clothes will hide you and, to attract the interest of the opposite sex, you should have a cumbersome, pointless accessory.   Preferably a visibly expensive one.  I’m thinking of pushing a golden wheelchair around.

These bio-sartorial principles are just some of the reasons I consider the suit to be the very last word in western male clothing.  Its uniformity is camouflage, its colours can be bright and the tie is a pointless and cumbersome accessory that  interests the opposite sex while expressing dominance in the manner of a sparrow’s dark neck patch.

There is certainly something to that dark neck patch.

In my upcoming suit, which I today met my tailor to discuss, I’m attempting to consciously employ all of these bio-sartorial principles while balancing them against each other.  I don’t mean to brag, but it should be the very pinnacle of all evolution that has ever happened on this planet.

The suit itself will be black and the three shirts that go with it are all eye-shockingly bright. One of these shirts –red and white in honour of Bruno’s helpful insight– will employ the handicap of an extremely high collar and long cuffs.

If I only look half as dashing as Bruno, I will count this suit as a great success.