Bolded: It only comes with the territory for people who place clothing on the list of things a gentleman has to have, or eventually grow into.
If you're saying that you decided to add your own definition to the word, I'm ok with that, but I've yet to see a definition, that would be widely accepted by the entire world, that even mentions clothing or appearance, much less places it at or near the top of the list.
I just can't imagine that there are enough pretentious people in this world that would refuse an act of Gentlemaness, or not use that word when describing someone who has done something nice for them, simply because the person didn't adhere to their clothing or grooming standards. This whole thing has an air of elitism to me.
For the record, I'm not specifically singling out anyone in my last sentence, it's just a statement.
Elitism is the point really don't you think? Gentlemen, true gentlemen are few and rare, rarer still these days. Time past was most men aspired to be gentleman, parents reinforced the message about gentlemanly behavior, peers reinforced the message, as did society and schools. Exhibiting the characteristics of behavior, speech, and dress in aspiration of becoming a gentleman, is not the same as being a gentleman. Trouble today is, most men would alter the definition of gentleman, substitute their interpretation of the behaviors, and their desire to behave, and dress as they see fit. Wear unkept clothing, display unkept grooming, speak in slang or other mannerism, call oneself a gentleman. But few are fooled save the claimant. That is why few are true gentlemen: they simply cannot or will not meet the standard; failing to understand the standard does not bend to suit their desire or approval. A classical man would know this from an early age.