Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hemming Shorts

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

  • dpark
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • LesserBlackDog
    replied
    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • Matchbook
    replied
    Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
    This is bizarre to me. 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. My Chubbies shorts have about a 5" inseam and they are hardly hot pants on me:



    For swim trunks I'm comfortable going even shorter, 3.5-4.5". My favorite swim trunks by far are a pair of 4.5" Sundeks I recently found on sale.


    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • hockeysc23
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • devastitis
    replied
    Originally posted by dpark View Post
    The trade-off with shorter shorts is that they ride up when sitting. I feel like mid thigh looks pretty good when standing (especially for guys who have some leg muscle), but they can end up pretty high when sitting.

    I'm about 5'7" and prefer about 8" shorts overall. But I'm also not aiming for mid-thigh when standing. I'm aiming for about 3/4 thigh, which turns into mid thigh when I sit.
    This is exactly why I prefer 8-9" inseams. Feel too exposed when sitting if the inseam is smaller, not that I go commando or anything, but still.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pepetito
    replied
    5'7" here and I rock 10"/10.5" which, after washing, is just slightly above or at the top of knee. Anything else is just far too much thigh for me. Seems like many on here disagree but mid-thigh to me is not a good look.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I actually just mentioned tailoring shorts in another thread. I do it all the time because 9" shorts from J Crew usually clearance deeper and faster.

    As for length, I'm 5'8" and mostly go with a 7" inseam but have a couple 6". (I could probably pull off 5" no problem, but seated that exposes quite a bit of leg). If you ever rock the tucked in look or have a polo or t-shirt that hits just below the waist, then anything longer throw proportions way off. It looks goofy. See painting above lol.
    Last edited by mistabutters; July 14, 2016, 03:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dpark
    replied
    Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
    Yes... if you have a big ass and thunder thighs, mid-length shorts are really the most comfortable and flattering option.
    The trade-off with shorter shorts is that they ride up when sitting. I feel like mid thigh looks pretty good when standing (especially for guys who have some leg muscle), but they can end up pretty high when sitting.

    I'm about 5'7" and prefer about 8" shorts overall. But I'm also not aiming for mid-thigh when standing. I'm aiming for about 3/4 thigh, which turns into mid thigh when I sit.

    Leave a comment:


  • wmilas
    replied
    Heh! I'm 6'2" 189 lbs. I in no way have thunder thighs/large ass. Its just that a 32" waist lends itself to small leg opening and my muscular legs get bound up in em when I sit down.

    Your point on the picture and the tapering is spot on though.

    Leave a comment:


  • LesserBlackDog
    replied
    Yes... if you have a big ass and thunder thighs, mid-length shorts are really the most comfortable and flattering option. I actually made this goofy graphic last year to visually demonstrate the problem:



    Any knee-length short that is roomy enough to accommodate a big ass and thighs is generally going to look like a baggy, flappy mess at the knees, unless the shorts are aggressively tapered. That looks and sounds immensely uncomfortable to me, both from the material being restrictive as well as mucking up the air flow/breathability that is the whole point of wearing shorts in the first place. As the image shows, longer shorts on bigger legs will also visually weigh the wearer down, making them look dumpy and bottom-heavy. In my experience and from my observation of others, a mid-length short is always a better option, both aesthetically and comfort-wise, for a guy with big legs.

    Leave a comment:


  • wmilas
    replied
    Originally posted by Pepetito View Post
    Totally agree. Anything under 9", let alone 7" is too much leg. 10" is my sweet spot.
    Personal Preference. I prefer 5.5" or so and I'm 6'2". Then again I have pretty large quads that don't play nice with skinny shorts.
    People make fun of Chubbies shorts, but for lounging around the house, they are pretty damn comfortable.
    Not me, but I own these pair.



    Let the quads roam free!

    Leave a comment:


  • wmilas
    replied
    Originally posted by armedferret View Post
    This should never be an issue because if they're cargo shorts, you take them to goodwill.....not the tailor.
    Truth!

    Leave a comment:


  • Hierophant
    replied
    Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
    This is bizarre to me. 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. My Chubbies shorts have about a 5" inseam and they are hardly hot pants on me:



    For swim trunks I'm comfortable going even shorter, 3.5-4.5". My favorite swim trunks by far are a pair of 4.5" Sundeks I recently found on sale.

    Looks good to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pepetito
    replied
    Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
    This is bizarre to me. 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. My Chubbies shorts have about a 5" inseam and they are hardly hot pants on me:



    For swim trunks I'm comfortable going even shorter, 3.5-4.5". My favorite swim trunks by far are a pair of 4.5" Sundeks I recently found on sale.

    Just personal preference I guess but everything you pictured is much too short in my opinion.

    Sent from my VS820 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • LesserBlackDog
    replied
    Originally posted by Pepetito View Post
    Totally agree. Anything under 9", let alone 7" is too much leg. 10" is my sweet spot.
    This is bizarre to me. 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. My Chubbies shorts have about a 5" inseam and they are hardly hot pants on me:



    For swim trunks I'm comfortable going even shorter, 3.5-4.5". My favorite swim trunks by far are a pair of 4.5" Sundeks I recently found on sale.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X