Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hemming Shorts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Matchbook View Post
    What size Chubbies do you wear? I've been thinking of buying a pair or two for a while now...just unsure of what size. Anyways, I thought we had similar bottom half proportions, iirc. 31" waist, ~40-41" seat, 24.5" thigh.
    I am sort of between a small or a medium, usually go for small.

    I'd probably recommend you try a medium first... I am a little smaller than you, my actual waist is 28" (tho I usually take a 30-31" trouser waist), seat 37", thighs 23".
    Ben

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by hockeysc23 View Post
      To me the short shorts is a fashion trend (one I hope will die out again soon). In most people I talk to the girls don't like it and I as a guy don't like seeing that much thigh. It's one thing if you are at the beach but for just strolling around I think a classic look of an inch or two above the knee is much better. To me the graphic illustration above doesn't work because you can still have tailored shorts that are longer.
      Shorts length is obviously a fashion trend, just like trouser break and bagginess. I'm not sure longer is actually more classic though. The long shorts thing happened in the 90s and 00s, but if you look at other "modern" eras (pre modern era, shorts were generally not a thing adult men would wear anyway), shorts were often shorter, hitting at least a few inches above the knee and often higher. When I see 70 year old men wearing shorts, they're often flashing some thigh, so I don't buy that this is just a recent trend.

      I don't personally put much stock into anecdotal surveys about fashion, either. Many men probably say they like longer shorts because it's what they're comfortable in themselves. They've been wearing it for the past two decades. That doesn't mean it actually looks better, and many of those same guys are probably wearing 12" cargo shorts. For the women you've asked, I'm inclined to suspect sampling bias and/or confirmation bias, as you ask women who will tell you what you want to hear. I mostly buy the idea that a huge chunk of men are buying into a fashion trend that women don't like. Either your sample is not representative, or fashionable men are buying into a trend women don't like, or women don't actually dislike the short shorts trend (which might mean they just don't care).

      Comment


        #33
        Yeah, I don't buy an argument against mid-length shorts based on "classicism."

        First of all, shorts' appearance as a component of a grown man's public attire is a very recent development. It's really only been half a century or so that shorts have been a part of the standard male wardrobe, and even more recently than that that they have become acceptable to wear as everyday attire. There is not much "classical" about them.

        Second, "short shorts" - including shorts significantly shorter than those currently in fashion - have been worn at least as long as longer shorts. To the extent there is such a thing as "classic" shorts, I tend to think of the 3" inseam variety that my dad's generation might have worn in the '70s and '80s much moreso than anything resembling the baggy britches popularized in the '90s and '00s.

        IMO you are deliberately abdicating classicism when you choose to wear shorts. Rather than appealing to authority to decide what the best style is, IMO you have to gauge by comfort, utility, aesthetics, and yes, reference to contemporary trends.

        I know, objectively speaking, that a shorter short is physically more comfortable. The argument that there is something aesthetically offensive about male thighs holds no water for me. To the contrary, I think I've shown that longer shorts are not inherently more flattering, and may be less flattering, as they tend to make a person look short, dumpy, and bottom-heavy. And if you've got nice legs, there is nothing wrong with showing them off a little. A few inches of thigh is not going to give anyone any heart palpitations.
        Ben

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by Pepetito View Post
          Just personal preference I guess but everything you pictured is much too short in my opinion.
          Agreed. The shot on the balcony looks very 70's to me, and not in a good way.

          Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
          I may not be super tall (5'9", 31" inseam) but I'm hardly a munchkin, and a 5" short still hits solidly mid-thigh for me. Anything longer than 7" and I feel like I've swaddled my knees in fabric and I might as well just be wearing pants.
          This defies mathematical logic. Even a 10" inseam is less than 1/3 of your pants inseam. How is a 7" inseam still wearing pants?

          Originally posted by Token View Post
          7" and shorter seems to be the fashionable trend. If you look at Bonobos offerings for example, they go 5, 7, 9, 11.
          While I may see this push from marketers, I rarely see it in practice. If you go in store at J.Crew for example, you'll notice that the longer inseam shorts in common waist sizes are sold out; however, with the short inseam shorts there is an abundance of stock. I really only see people pushing the short shorts agenda on this forum. I'm at the swim club outdoor pool 3-nights a week and at the beach every weekend. While I see a few more swim-trunks than I used to, longer inseam board shorts are still dominant. Particularly among the younger 20's crowd which tend to dictate the terms of fashion (not style) trends like this. I have only seen Chubbies worn a handful of times at the shore by a couple of frat-douches that looked overwhelmingly douchey.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by connersw View Post
            While I may see this push from marketers, I rarely see it in practice. If you go in store at J.Crew for example, you'll notice that the longer inseam shorts in common waist sizes are sold out; however, with the short inseam shorts there is an abundance of stock. I really only see people pushing the short shorts agenda on this forum. I'm at the swim club outdoor pool 3-nights a week and at the beach every weekend. While I see a few more swim-trunks than I used to, longer inseam board shorts are still dominant. Particularly among the younger 20's crowd which tend to dictate the terms of fashion (not style) trends like this. I have only seen Chubbies worn a handful of times at the shore by a couple of frat-douches that looked overwhelmingly douchey.
            The shorter shorts trend is definitely pushed hard in magazines like GQ or Esquire, and I'm not sure how many people are actually on board with it. I agree with you that I don't really see that many short shorts out there, but then again half the guys I see will wear a black belt with tan shoes, so I try to avoid drawing any conclusions based on the people I see.
            Instagram: WoofOrWeft

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
              Yeah, I don't buy an argument against mid-length shorts based on "classicism."

              Second, "short shorts" - including shorts significantly shorter than those currently in fashion - have been worn at least as long as longer shorts. To the extent there is such a thing as "classic" shorts, I tend to think of the 3" inseam variety that my dad's generation might have worn in the '70s and '80s much moreso than anything resembling the baggy britches popularized in the '90s and '00s.
              I'm of your dad's "generation". In the 70's and early 80's I don't think any of my shorts were longer than 5". I remember cut off tops and shorts that were indeed 3.5 inches with running style slits up the side. Most of the shorts I wore were cut offs as did a lot of other teens at that time. My mom cut em just below the pockets, and that's what length they turned out to be. I remember a few guys having their pockets sticking out as the threads unraveled from the un-stitched cuts. Un-stitched was the fashion.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by connersw View Post
                Agreed. The shot on the balcony looks very 70's to me, and not in a good way.



                This defies mathematical logic. Even a 10" inseam is less than 1/3 of your pants inseam. How is a 7" inseam still wearing pants?



                While I may see this push from marketers, I rarely see it in practice. If you go in store at J.Crew for example, you'll notice that the longer inseam shorts in common waist sizes are sold out; however, with the short inseam shorts there is an abundance of stock. I really only see people pushing the short shorts agenda on this forum. I'm at the swim club outdoor pool 3-nights a week and at the beach every weekend. While I see a few more swim-trunks than I used to, longer inseam board shorts are still dominant. Particularly among the younger 20's crowd which tend to dictate the terms of fashion (not style) trends like this. I have only seen Chubbies worn a handful of times at the shore by a couple of frat-douches that looked overwhelmingly douchey.
                I agree with this statement to a T.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by connersw View Post
                  Agreed. The shot on the balcony looks very 70's to me, and not in a good way.



                  This defies mathematical logic. Even a 10" inseam is less than 1/3 of your pants inseam. How is a 7" inseam still wearing pants?



                  While I may see this push from marketers, I rarely see it in practice. If you go in store at J.Crew for example, you'll notice that the longer inseam shorts in common waist sizes are sold out; however, with the short inseam shorts there is an abundance of stock. I really only see people pushing the short shorts agenda on this forum. I'm at the swim club outdoor pool 3-nights a week and at the beach every weekend. While I see a few more swim-trunks than I used to, longer inseam board shorts are still dominant. Particularly among the younger 20's crowd which tend to dictate the terms of fashion (not style) trends like this. I have only seen Chubbies worn a handful of times at the shore by a couple of frat-douches that looked overwhelmingly douchey.
                  That's because J Crew has had their 10.5" (and even 9" shorts) marked down all season lol. Just look at their current sale online, and you'll know what isn't selling based on what's on sale.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    "I really only see people pushing the short shorts agenda on this forum."

                    Ell oh ell at "short shorts agenda." Oooookay.

                    I guess I shouldn't be surprised that none of the short shorts-naysayers here have posted images of themselves in long shorts to prove how much better long shorts are. It's easy to be a critic from the sidelines. None of the subjective "this looks too short" comments about my pic have given me any reason to question that my legs and I both look damn good in mid-length shorts.

                    As someone who used to prefer long shorts and eventually converted to shorter ones for comfort and aesthetic reasons, to me it's pretty apparent that the hostility toward mid-length shorts is really driven by male self-consciousness. Dudes have been taught that their legs are weird, that showing too much leg is weird or effeminate, they get self-conscious about their legs, they grow up wearing shorts down to their knees or even longer. Even when trends shift, the self-consciousness they have developed does not.
                    Ben

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
                      As someone who used to prefer long shorts and eventually converted to shorter ones for comfort and aesthetic reasons
                      I fall in this boat too. I'm taller (6'2") so I always thought it was odd to show off a lot of leg. I was in the below the knee Dickies group in high school, but moved to about knee length as my style changed. Now as I've gotten more muscular over the past ten years, shorter shorts feel and look better. If you have nice legs, show them off; shorts or swim trunks. Don't wear daisies, but let those beautiful slabs of man meat bask in the sun.
                      We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.” ― Charles Bukowski

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by APinNC View Post
                        Don't wear daisies, but let those beautiful slabs of man meat bask in the sun.
                        [MENTION=14885]APinNC[/MENTION] wins the internet with that statement

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by APinNC View Post
                          Don't wear daisies, but let those beautiful slabs of man meat bask in the sun.
                          Originally posted by JohnG View Post
                          [MENTION=14885]APinNC[/MENTION] wins the internet with that statement
                          Ben

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
                            "I really only see people pushing the short shorts agenda on this forum."


                            As someone who used to prefer long shorts and eventually converted to shorter ones for comfort and aesthetic reasons, to me it's pretty apparent that the hostility toward mid-length shorts is really driven by male self-consciousness. Dudes have been taught that their legs are weird, that showing too much leg is weird or effeminate, they get self-conscious about their legs, they grow up wearing shorts down to their knees or even longer. Even when trends shift, the self-consciousness they have developed does not.
                            That's pretty much it. I think showing that much leg is weird and looks feminine.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              I have a grand total of 2 pairs of non-swimming or athletic shorts, and both have about a 9" inseam, which is about 2" above the knee for me. If I were to buy any more I would probably look at 7", I don't think I would be comfortable any shorter. But I only wear shorts if its going to be dog-ass hot out and I'm in a super casual environment with like only friends and family. Otherwise I wear pants.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
                                Ell oh ell at "short shorts agenda." Oooookay.
                                How old are you?

                                Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
                                I guess I shouldn't be surprised that none of the short shorts-naysayers here have posted images of themselves in long shorts to prove how much better long shorts are. It's easy to be a critic from the sidelines.




                                Both shorts are J.Crew Club.

                                Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
                                None of the subjective "this looks too short" comments about my pic have given me any reason to question that my legs and I both look damn good in mid-length shorts.
                                That's quite an inflated sense of self-worth you have there. It's not about who looks better than who. I was merely pointing out that the idea of 5" or 7" inseam shorts is not currently the norm that I see in public, despite what is posted on this forum or what marketers would like you to buy (so that you can get all new shorts). If you like wearing shorter shorts, then by all means, wear shorter shorts.

                                Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
                                As someone who used to prefer long shorts and eventually converted to shorter ones for comfort and aesthetic reasons, to me it's pretty apparent that the hostility toward mid-length shorts is really driven by male self-consciousness.
                                Sorry, but I'm not self-conscious about my body. I work hard to stay in shape, and I'm quite confident with myself naked considering I'm in my mid-40's. I wear a swim suit like this one when I lap swim:

                                I have no problem wearing something that short, when it is appropriate for the occasion. Walking around on US beaches is not such an occasion.

                                Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
                                Dudes have been taught that their legs are weird, that showing too much leg is weird or effeminate, they get self-conscious about their legs, they grow up wearing shorts down to their knees or even longer.
                                Again, it's not about being self-conscious. Personally, I just think it looks weird. Like you are trying to show something off or you have something to prove. Peacocky maybe? Call it anecdotal, but I'm with [MENTION=13934]hockeysc23[/MENTION] that most women I know don't like it and think it looks creepy. I've always been one to dress in what makes me comfortable and women find attractive, but that's just me.
                                Last edited by connersw; July 15, 2016, 02:55 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X