The Rise of Romanticism in Men’s Fashion

It’s no coincidence that actor Jacob Elordi wears women’s fashion from Chanel or Bottega Veneta off the red carpet. Nor is it a coincidence that musician A$AP Rocky became the face of Chanel, even though the French fashion house does not offer a men’s collection. What makes these moments significant is not the behavior of the celebrities themselves, but what they say about the consumers behind them.

More than half of Gen Z consumers believe gender-neutral clothing is the future of fashion. 56 percent prefer brands that offer gender-neutral options, while 33 percent have already purchased clothing from relevant collections. The global unisex apparel market, which was worth $11.73 billion in 2024, is expected to reach $62 billion by 2033.

Fashion professionals should therefore ask themselves the following question: If consumers have already evolved, what is the industry waiting for?

Are the rules being rewritten?

Gender-specific clothing categories are not a law of nature. For most of human history, clothing distinguished social status far more than gender. Egyptians, Greeks and Romans wore draped and wrapped garments across genders. Differences were expressed through material and decoration, not through binary forms.

It wasn’t until the late 18th century that Western men’s fashion underwent what psychoanalyst John Carl Flugel called the “great male renunciation.” This was a crucial cultural shift in which men eschewed jewelry in favor of sobriety and restraint. Visual expression was practically outsourced to women’s fashion. Previously, the color pink was associated with financial power and physical courage. Decoration signaled status, not gender.

The binary structure on which the modern fashion industry is built is both historically new and culturally specific. This is worth remembering at the next buying meeting where “menswear” and “womenswear” are treated as self-evident, enduring categories. However, the industry continues to rely on assumptions that are rarely questioned.

For example, have you ever wondered why tweed is considered feminine? It was originally woven for men on the Scottish moors. The French fashion designer Coco Chanel adapted it for women and made it an icon. Or is sheer fabric inherently feminine because it is delicate? Is a suit masculine because it has structure? These distinctions determine how collections are designed, how stores are organized and how consumers are guided through the shopping process. They are historical coincidences – and right now they are beginning to unravel.

The long road to today

Fashion has challenged these rules before, but mostly from the fringes of society. Musicians like David Bowie in a dress, Prince in lingerie on stage or Kurt Cobain in floral dresses were perceived as provocations. These moments were culturally significant, but remained exceptions.

What has changed today is the scale and normalization. Harry Styles’ 2020 Vogue cover translated gender fluidity into a form the mainstream could digest. This was followed by a generation of cultural figures such as Timothée Chalamet and Jacob Elordi. They don’t dress to make a statement – they just dress. Chalamet’s sheer blouses and embellished suits are no longer considered controversial. Elordi wore a women’s Chanel jacket during the Wuthering Heights press tour – with no styling instructions and no sponsorship. Today he is considered one of the best dressed men by many publications.

These men are not the cause of change, but rather its consequence. The cause is structural: a generation of male consumers increasingly comfortable with ambiguity, sensitivity and self-expression in their clothing.

That is the real change. For fashion professionals, the crucial question is less whether it will take place, but rather what it means for business.

What this means for buyers and brands

The male consumer grappling with this change is not a niche customer. He tends to spend more, be more brand loyal and less dependent on trend cycles than the streetwear audience that has dominated the last decade.

Independent retailers who responded early are already seeing commercial success. They have included labels such as Séfr, Bode, Auralee and COS in their range. These brands represent craftsmanship, texture and an emotional component: chunky knits, worn-in suits made from natural fibers, earthy color palettes and thoughtful silhouettes.

One example is men’s bags, which have quietly become a retail category in their own right. Search data proves this: According to Google Trends, interest in men’s bags increased by 3,750 percent in the last twelve months – more than for women’s bags, whose search volume increased by 2,400 percent in the same period. Search terms such as “tote bag”, “men’s tote bag” or “men’s beach bag” are growing particularly strongly. This signals the normalization of products that were previously feminine.

This has a practical consequence for buyers: it’s about the product mix, not about identity. Which categories can be transferred? Which labels are already working in this area? And how do you present the offer without it seeming like a short-term trend?

The most successful retailers focus on quality and craftsmanship instead of the gender debate. The customer doesn’t buy an ideology – he buys a wardrobe.

The global men’s fashion market is expected to grow from $620 billion in 2024 to nearly $1 trillion by 2033. Changing gender norms are explicitly mentioned as a structural growth driver, a strong commercial signal.

Where is men’s fashion heading?

Not towards androgyny as a conscious statement, but towards something more commercially viable that can be described as “romantic realism”: a softening of the male wardrobe that is less about transgression and more about texture, craftsmanship and emotional depth.

The crucial question now is whether the existing industry infrastructure is prepared for this. This includes retail space, brand categories, trade fair formats and even the language used to describe clothing.

“Men’s fashion” and “women’s fashion” as rigid categories were a product of the world created by the “great male renunciation”. This world no longer exists. Brands and retailers that recognize this early – not as a social attitude, but as an economic reality – will be best positioned for the future.

Clothing has no gender. And actually she never had. The industry has nevertheless built its entire structure on this. Now it is faced with the task of reorganizing itself, and those who start early will have an advantage.