Aesthetic Policing Isn’t Progress in Fashion

Let me set this straight: just because your critique lands in the comments doesn’t make it gospel. Fashion has always been a battlefield between creativity and conformity, between performance and purpose, and lately, too many folks online are mistaking representation for regulation. Case in point? The Sweet Chilling runway post NFM shared today that had one follower foaming at the fingertips because, brace yourself, they didn’t see themselves in the cast. The show featured mostly Asian models (SW is an Asian brand), thoughtful styling, and a cowboycore remix with bite, but somehow the critique boiled down to: “Why isn’t there a plus-sized model or one visibly Black model?” Receipts showed there were in fact, at least six women of black roots. Just not roots black as night but that's a story for another day, fam.

Don’t get it twisted. I’m here for equity. I’m a five-foot powerhouse of Black girl magic raised on radical grace, Brooklyn roots, and big fashion dreams but this wasn’t a thoughtful critique. It was a self-centered deflection disguised as activism. If your only takeaway from a culturally layered, stylistically sharp collection is that it didn’t mirror your identity, you’re not fighting for inclusion. You’re aesthetic policing.

Here’s the truth: “Reducing everything to a checklist of identity boxes without recognizing artistry, rebellion, and the literal fashion of it all? That’s not advocacy. That’s aesthetic policing.”

Let’s talk about it.

What Aesthetic Policing Really Is Aesthetic policing happens when folks critique fashion, or any art form, not based on creativity, innovation, or intention, but on whether it performs a specific kind of visual diversity checklist. Didn’t see a dark-skinned model? Show must be trash. Didn’t clock a visibly plus-size or trans body? Time to drag it.

This mindset pops up everywhere. TikTok. Threads. The group chats. Quote-tweets with "This ain’t it 💀" before they’ve even bothered to learn what the show was trying to say.

Yes, we need more plus-size, trans, disabled, dark-skinned, and neurodiverse bodies on runways. Badly. But demanding every brand hit every checkbox in every show with no room for nuance? That’s not liberation. That’s turning inclusivity into a punishment system.

Fashion as Story, Not Spreadsheet Fashion isn’t a formula. It’s a living, breathing language. Spoken through cuts, textures, color theory, chaos, restraint, rebellion. At its best, it tells stories.

Especially for indie, femme, queer, and BIPOC-led labels, casting isn’t random. It’s built on intention. Designers aren’t dodging representation, they’re building mood boards from memory, family archives, street style, grief, joy, and the people in their immediate creative circles. Demanding that they cater to every visual expectation from the public is like yelling at a poet for not using your favorite metaphor.

Sweet Chilling’s show was a remix of American South meets East Asian futurism. They gave us dusty denim silhouettes, twisted Americana, Y2K-play in spurs. These indie designers and brands are telling rich, complicated stories and building legacy in real time often without the safety net of fashion PR firms or legacy wealth. It wasn’t shallow. It was interpretation. It was a commentary but instead of engaging with that? People made it about what they didn’t see. These indie designers and brands are telling rich, complicated stories and building legacy in real time often without the safety net of fashion PR firms or legacy wealth.

That’s not critique. That’s ego.

Intent vs Optics Not every show is going to reflect every identity and not every show that doesn’t is inherently problematic.

We have to stop punishing indie creatives for not casting to perfection while letting legacy brands slide when they tokenize or exploit. There’s a bias in callout culture that disproportionately targets smaller, more vulnerable creatives, especially when they’re foreign, femme, queer, or of color. That’s not activism. That’s aesthetic surveillance.

You want to go off about accountability? Cool. Let’s talk about the designers still using “urban” as shorthand for Black or the houses that hire trans models for Pride and ghost them by August. Call them out.

Don’t throw shade at experimental shows with tight budgets and big ideas because they didn’t showcase your type this round. Inclusion is a movement, not a mirror. Let them breathe. Let them cook.

What Gets a Shaelene “Hell Yes” Let me be crystal: I’m not giving anybody gold stars just for existing outside the mainstream. I’m picky. If you want a Shaelene “hell yes,” you better come with:

• Narrative risk: Are you saying something? Or just styling for vibes?

• Thoughtful casting: Not perfect, but purposeful. Does the casting mean something?

• Real disruption: Are you doing something new—or just new to you?

• Cultural credit: You name names? You cite influences? You pay people?

Sweet Chilling? They hit most of those marks. So do brands like Kenneth Nicholson, Tia Adeola, Anatome, and COLRS. These folks aren’t trend-chasing. They’re story-building.

If you want revolution, you better stop expecting perfection. Let the art breathe.

Fashion Isn’t a Courtroom

You don’t get to burn down a runway because you didn’t see your reflection in every model’s face. Fashion isn’t a courtroom. It’s a canvas.

You want change? Elevate the work. Share the credits. Support the brands doing it imperfectly but intentionally.

Stop turning identity into a weapon of critique and start using your lens to witness more. Listen more. Learn more.

Why? 'Cause the second you demand every show reflect you perfectly, you’re not calling for inclusion. You’re enforcing uniformity.

And fashion? She doesn’t do uniform. She does edge. She does tension. She does transformation.

Me? I don’t do beige. Imagine if every brand conformed, shared the same... how boring AF? That why we love authenticity and niche brands.

Tag us in the fire shows. Mute the performance critiques. Let the artists cook.

—Shaelene