Originally posted by thedrake
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Can a heterosexual man wear a pair of swimtrunks like these?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
-
Originally posted by robottawa View PostYeah, what's wrong with people you don't know assuming you're gay? Are you afraid a gay man might try to flirt with you and you will be too nervous to say that you're straight?
They're flashy and very short, but some people can pull them off. I'm sure there are quite a few gay men who wouldn't look good in them, actually. But most people who think about whether or not an article of clothing will make them look gay would probably tease you about them because of their own insecurities. The question is whether you have those same insecurities or care about what those kinds of people would think.
Comment
-
This wouldn't really make most people in the NY area blink an eye. YMMV if you're in a less progressive area. Not sure if you'll get much more than that. You can't predict how people will judge you overall.
As [MENTION=14167]julius12[/MENTION] mentioned, these look a little baggy for what I'd expect from that inseam. They almost remind me more of kickboxing shorts vs. swimtrunks, but could just be the picture (could easily fit well IRL). I also tend to prefer patterns or solids (vs. a picture/scene) style, but that's just personal preference. I don't think the above are particularly geared toward gay wearers vs. others.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hornsup84 View PostThis wouldn't really make most people in the NY area blink an eye. YMMV if you're in a less progressive area. Not sure if you'll get much more than that. You can't predict how people will judge you overall.
As [MENTION=14167]julius12[/MENTION] mentioned, these look a little baggy for what I'd expect from that inseam. They almost remind me more of kickboxing shorts vs. swimtrunks, but could just be the picture (could easily fit well IRL). I also tend to prefer patterns or solids (vs. a picture/scene) style, but that's just personal preference. I don't think the above are particularly geared toward gay wearers vs. others.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Brandonlorenzen View PostThank you for the insight, I was planning on wearing these in Clearwater Beach, Florida, not sure if they're more progressive or conservative there
I'd also stick to relatively basic/solid other items with it, lest you get too busy on your outfit as a whole. Statement pieces are great, but too many at once gets garbled.
Comment
-
Originally posted by julius12 View PostLet's be real for a second and stop being overly PC. Some guys don't like chunky cardigans coz it makes them look old, and it just so happens that most old guys prefer that garment (or at least that's how they're portrayed in movies). It doesn't mean they hate or look down on old people, they just don't want to project that image. For me, despite being considered a classic, I wouldn't wear a leather perfecto biker jacket. It gives off a rocker/biker image and that's just not me, so I go for a cafe racer instead. It doesn't mean I hate rockers or bikers. It's the same thing with avoiding styles that most gay guys go for, like short shorts. I have several gay friends, and have hung out with them where I was the only straight guy, but I don't wanna dress like them.
Enough with the virtue signaling, guys.
Edit because it just occurred to me: The responses here are all the more frustrating given the recent thread on a James Dean article in which someone essentially accused the author of willfully whitewashing Dean's sexuality by failing to mention it due to Dean's style and sexuality being inextricably linked. Are style and sexuality linked or not? If so, can we have a grown-up discussion about it? Are we able to ask questions? Is that answer conditional on the identity of the person asking? Which is it guys?Last edited by Burner; November 27, 2018, 05:08 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Burner View PostI agree with this. If someone posted a pic of a Filson Mackinaw Jacket in buffalo plaid and asked if people would assume he was a lumberjack and wanted, in good faith, an honest assessment, no one would say "dude, who cares, wear what you want" or suggest it's a troll post. He is asking about the signals that a particular item may send, which is what we do here. All. The. Time. In fact, I've seen people here make the explicit claim that they care about fashion primarily because of the what garments say about the wearer. But in this case, a guy wishes to not to convey a particular signal, in good faith, because that signal would not accurately reflect him and he's accused of being homophobic or gay himself (as if it's an insult, which is very ironic).
Enough with the virtue signaling, guys.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Burner View PostI agree with this. If someone posted a pic of a Filson Mackinaw Jacket in buffalo plaid and asked if people would assume he was a lumberjack and wanted, in good faith, an honest assessment, no one would say "dude, who cares, wear what you want" or suggest it's a troll post. He is asking about the signals that a particular item may send, which is what we do here. All. The. Time. In fact, I've seen people here make the explicit claim that they care about fashion primarily because of the what garments say about the wearer. But in this case, a guy wishes to not convey a particular signal, in good faith, because that signal would not accurately reflect him and he's accused of being homophobic or gay himself (as if it's an insult, which is very ironic).
Enough with the virtue signaling, guys.
Edit because it just occurred to me: The responses here are all the more frustrating given the recent thread on a James Dean article in which someone essentially accused the author of willfully whitewashing Dean's sexuality by failing to mention it due to Dean's style and sexuality being inextricably linked. Are style and sexuality linked or not? If so, can we have a grown-up discussion about it? Are we able to ask questions? Is that answer conditional on the identity of the person asking? Which is it guys?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Burner View PostI agree with this. If someone posted a pic of a Filson Mackinaw Jacket in buffalo plaid and asked if people would assume he was a lumberjack and wanted, in good faith, an honest assessment, no one would say "dude, who cares, wear what you want" or suggest it's a troll post. He is asking about the signals that a particular item may send, which is what we do here. All. The. Time. In fact, I've seen people here make the explicit claim that they care about fashion primarily because of the what garments say about the wearer. But in this case, a guy wishes to not convey a particular signal, in good faith, because that signal would not accurately reflect him and he's accused of being homophobic or gay himself (as if it's an insult, which is very ironic).
Enough with the virtue signaling, guys.
Edit because it just occurred to me: The responses here are all the more frustrating given the recent thread on a James Dean article in which someone essentially accused the author of willfully whitewashing Dean's sexuality by failing to mention it due to Dean's style and sexuality being inextricably linked. Are style and sexuality linked or not? If so, can we have a grown-up discussion about it? Are we able to ask questions? Is that answer conditional on the identity of the person asking? Which is it guys?
How's this. Try "I personally think (insert innocuous clothing item here) is very stylish. However, I am worried (insert innocuous clothing item here) might convey to others around me that I am a Jew." See if you still think it's such a harmless, "good faith" question. Ask yourself why anyone would care about "looking like" a Jew, or what a person must believe about Jewish people or the way that Jewish people are or ought to be treated that they would be fearful of being mistaken for one.Ben
Comment
Comment