July 31, 2008

Yes, I've seen it. You can stop alerting me.

I know the NYT published an article today on one of my longtime topics: men in shorts. I am only posting about it to put an end to your worries that I somehow missed it. I consider it a very poorly thought out article — shocking proof that the NYT passively observes fashion and lacks critical faculties. Excerpt:
“The idea of being threatened by the objectified male body has gone, the process is complete,” explained Aaron Hicklin, the editor in chief of Out magazine. “Men are the same as women now.”
Per Out magazine!
... A question arises, though, of what respectability looks like when underwear is routinely worn as outerwear and people travel in get-ups that look like onesies and the combined effects of a cosmetic surgery boom and an epidemic of obesity have given us all an uncommon level of intimacy with the contours of one another’s bodies.
So grotesque flesh spillage legitimates further grotesque flesh spillage. You want to know "what respectability looks like"? Apply some standards! Don't just glimpse about getting ideas about how all the standards have gone to hell.

If you're not going to be an arbiter of taste, why are you writing fashion articles? Or is the truth that fashion criticism in the New York Times has devolved into pop culture reportage. Sad!

95 comments:

Trooper York said...

I got on the elevator to come home today and a guy got on the next floor. He was wearing a kilt. A Utilikilt which was sort of carpenter pants as a kilt. I mean he had a tape measure attached and screwdrivers in various compartments and a hammer hanging from a loop. All I could think of was, if Althouse were here her head would explode.

Methadras said...

The pictures in the NYT article of showing men in shorts is fucking gay. Really, seriously, downright gay. Even guys who wear shorts, man shorts, seeing a guy like that walking down the street is going to get his balls busted. Even those male models looks wholly uncomfortable wearing those atrocities.

Revenant said...

I probably look like some freakish man-child in shorts and a t-shirt.

But I'm going to keep wearing them anyway, because they're comfortable. Comfort is the #1 most important thing in clothes. If you're not aiming to get laid tonight, at least.

And I disagree with Methadras' "gay" comment -- I don't know any man, gay OR straight, who would dress like that. Especially the guy on the left; he looks like he's auditioning to play Tiny Tim in the community theater Christmas pageant.

steven said...

I'm a mailman and I wear shorts all the time in the summer when I am on the job. Sure, I could wear the long pants, if I wanted to roast. It can get to over a 100 degrees with the humidity here in the midwest during the summer. It's all about comfort for me. Couldn't care less what anyone thinks of my legs. I wonder if Althouse would consider a compromise. How about men in capris? Would you at least allow me to show my ankles?

rhhardin said...

I don't think Althouse realizes that fashion is unimportant to guys.

Where does she think the stereotype ``You're not going out like that, are you?'' joke comes from?

Bissage said...

Well that settles it!

Tonight I’m shaving my legs and tomorrow I’m wearing short shorts and no socks!

Madge can objectify my love!

Ann Althouse said...

steven, it's one thing if it is over 100 (or even 85) degrees, but in Madison, the mailmen wear shorts when it's 50 degrees. That's completely unnecessary.

XWL said...

Hmmm, I only get alerted by the few people who still read my blog when anything especially 'hippie'-ish is reported in the news.

As far as shorts go, I'm wearing a pair right now, but then, I have excellent calves, I'm at home lounging, and if I planned on doing anything in public more than taking the doggie on a late afternoon stroll, I would change.

1jpb said...

trooper york,

You haven't seen the worst of the utilikilt.

I know someone who acts a bit like Titus while wearing one of these; it's green-camouflage, often paired with a pink shirt that says "real men wear pink," always with big black boots, supposedly sans underwear, and lots of talk about unsheathing......

And surprisingly this fellow isn't particularly young. And, he's x-military, now a civilian in a high security position in a government agency.

p.s. He's very hetero, if that was in doubt.

p.p.s He likes to have folks stretch out their hand, then he drops a small metal bar with screw on bulbs on both ends into their hand, then he tells them that this bar is from a piercing, and he asks them to guess where he's pierced. You don't want to know the answer.

Trooper York said...

1jpb, the guy who was wearing it was a burly hetero looking guy so I make no conclusions one way another. Whatever floats his boat. It was just weird. Now he seemed like he was one of these American Irish guys who have to out-irish the real irish who also work a lot of construction. At least it is better then what those wanna bees did during the 80's. Then when they wanted to show how "Irish" they were, they would beat up a protestant.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

OldGrouchy said...

Humrph, women should stop wearing pants or skirts. They need to wear only burkas and this country needs to institute the practice of purdah immediately otherwise men will assault women just for appearing on the street in their so-called pants and or skirts.

PS: I always wear cargo shorts when it's over 55-degrees Fahrenheit; hot summer in Minnesota. To heck with those who hate them, it's my ding-dang choice, so go fish!

Trooper York said...

That one was for you Pastor Jeff.

steven said...

Yeah, 50 degrees is ridiculous for shorts. I know a couple of guys who wear them in that kind of temperature. They believe they are some kind of he-men for wearing them. Maybe they think they are impressing women. I don't know. As for me, I break out the long pants for that kind of weather. I would rather be a warm wimp than a cold he-man

Ralph said...

After seeing the gallery of photos, I may never buy shorts again. The ones that didn't look fruity looked dopey.

I never wore shorts in public as a an adult until I was over 40. Now I rarely wear long pants for 4-5 months of the year.

Althouse posted a photo some time ago of a young man in shorts that she said was acceptable. Did we ever determine what made it so? Shirt tucked in?

Meade said...

I wouldn't mess with Pastor Jeff. He'll break your skinny little short-pantsed legs quicker'n you can turn the other cheek.

Balfegor said...

Blazers and shorts are acceptable only if you are a child or in Bermuda. And even in Bermuda, I am given to understand, there are standards for correct dress. Those first two pictures there are abominations. Unless the second guy is in Bermuda, in which case he needs some socks.

The fact that suits are hot in the summer is no excuse either, for interns, lawyers, bankers, etc. Look at Hong Kong or Tokyo -- suits all summer, and it's a lot hotter and stickier there than in New York. The trick is in getting a very light open weave and a shirt that won't stifle you. Also ought to go for 3/4 lining on the jacket (just the shoulders and sleeves), to maximise airflow. They sell them in the department stores over there -- I'm sure one can find them somewhere in NYC.

Humrph, women should stop wearing pants or skirts. They need to wear only burkas and this country needs to institute the practice of purdah immediately otherwise men will assault women just for appearing on the street in their so-called pants and or skirts.

Oh come now. You leave out uncovered meat, cats will come and eat it. I thought everyone knew that.

fcai said...

Jesus God - who the hell would dress like that? I live in an extremely leftist town in the south and wear cutoff jeans and ragged t-shirts - it's a hot monday-friday out there. But Schnike Above - any man who dressed like those fruits in the article, even here in Freaktown would get stared at. Stared at only, if the dweebie sob was lucky.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

What bothers me is the juxtaposition of the ties and dress shirts with the shorts. If you're going to wear shorts, wear them with a t-shirt or something short sleeved and not a button-up.

That being said, the guy in the photo slide show with the article, #8, is really hot.

vnjagvet said...

Weekends, yes.

If anyone wore the pictured outfits to my office, they would be laughed out of the place.

It ain't the legs that are the problem, it's the extreme ugliness of the clothing.

rcocean said...

These pictures give men's shorts a bad name. I want to beat these twee goofs senseless.

Am I overreacting?

mountainshout said...

After seeing this goofy article today, I have been swayed by the sensibilities of Althouse. Though I feel that my 22 year old legs are indeed gorgeous, theres no way in hell I'd ever be caught in that sorry wardrobe. The poor guy on the left looks like he's waiting for his mother to fix him up.

TitusBlue Devils said...

"Left, Tanner Morrill applies for a job at Richter7 in Salt Lake City. Mr. Morrill was informed of the company's "no pants" policy and wore the shorts to the interview along with his shirt and tie."

Wow, who would of thought of something like this in Salt Lake City?

Also, Kilts are so 1992-they are over.

Also, I don't wear shorts hardly ever. Unless it is over 90 degrees. I hate my legs and plus I think they look gay.

Also, people you have the wrong impression of me. Yes, I am a gay whore but I am a straight acting gay whore. That is part of my appeal.

In the gay world if you are going to nap yourself a hottie (for 10 minutes) you must not look gay.

Therefore, it is always jeans and tshirts for me in the summer. Sure, I have the designer looks for work but when I am out looking for hog you will find me in a tshirt, jeans, and tennis shoes. And this look generally pays dividends.

TitusBlue Devils said...

Also, none of my gay friends would be caught dead in any of those shorts in that article.

Those shorts are for metrosexual straighties and maybe some model guys who are straight.

Most gays try and stear clear of anything that remotely looks gay. Why, because we want to get some?

TitusBlue Devils said...

Also, no gay male would wear a kilt in the year 2008. They would be laughed at by their brethren.

TitusBlue Devils said...

"I know someone who acts a bit like Titus while wearing one of these; it's green-camouflage, often paired with a pink shirt that says "real men wear pink," always with big black boots, supposedly sans underwear, and lots of talk about unsheathing......"

I would never wear anything like that...ever.

I do wear shorts when I am home though.

Maggie45 said...

There's another slide show featuring shorts, and these guys don't look half bad:

http://tinyurl.com/56ydna

Also, I like looking at the UPS guys in the summer with their bermudas. Most UPS guys are in good shape, or at least the ones I've seen. I think it's from all that hopping on and off the trucks, then running to deliver the package. ;)

Susan said...

All
a pair of shorts needs is the perfect jacket.

Ann Althouse said...

Titus, what is the appeal of "tennis shoes"? Why not some casual, summery leather shoes?

Ralph said...

Susan, thanks, I feel so much better about my Penney's and Walmart wardrobe. I hope those models are paid handsomely for their humiliation.

Titus, what about the hair removal? (though it is catching on with young straight guys for some reason) And the rare clumbers?

blake said...

I just skip pants altogether.

Meade said...

That's all, Blake?

TitusBlue Devils said...

Althouse, I am glad you asked regarding the tennis shoes.

Because they represent athletics-i.e.jock.

Any other type of "leather shoes" represent GAY and that just won't work.

And as a result you won't get any. Also, tennis shoes hold up well in marshy bushes. You will ruin your "leather type" shoes in some situations.

Also, tennis shoes, cut the length of the jeans so it makes you look beefier. Some flat leather shoes tend to make a longer leg and as a result you don't look as stocky....and butch.

TitusBlue Devils said...

No white tennis shoes though-those are awful and a major faux pas!

TitusBlue Devils said...

also fyi white tennis shoes represent bridge and tunnel or for those of you in Madison imagine Oregon and Waunakee-OKAYYYYYYYYYYY.

Middle Class Guy said...

"If you're not going to be an arbiter of taste, why are you writing fashion articles? Or is the truth that fashion criticism in the New York Times has devolved into pop culture reportage. Sad!"


The NYT is the arbiter of nothing. They have not only devolved into pop culture reportage, they have devolved into an unreliable, unethical, and shameful example of journalism.

blake said...

That's all, Blake?

Forgot to turn off the damn webcam again, didn't I?

vbspurs said...

OT:

Look, since we're on the general topic of shorts and suchlike, may I ask experts here for advice?

I am starting to get back into jock-mode -- I am taking up athletics seriously again.

I want to run a marathon next year, but first, I must practise.

Which running shoes and socks do you guys recommend?

Please feel free to respond over at my blog. Thank you so much!

Cheers,
Victoria

blake said...

Bare feet, Victoria. Bare feet.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Well ok those guys in the NY Times article simply look ridiculous (ten bucks the guy on the far left is Titus).

The only shorts I ever wear are cargo shorts, hem around the knee. I'm a cyclist and ride around 25-30miles a day so I'm not the least bit concerned how my legs look to the public.

Maybe lay off guys with shorts and complain about chunky girls with mid-riffs who display more muffin top than the Pillsbury Doughboy.

Pogo said...

1. The NY Times continues its decline into irrelevancy. They couln't figure out how to insert a pro-Obama/anti-McCain comment and left the whole thing as originally written by the 22-year-old intern, Mindy from Ohio.

2. The men in the photos are not gay but feminized. They appear to have been dressed by their mother, Joan Crawford.

3. Hetero men don't give a shit what they look like, as long as they look vaguely like other hetero men in the cultural moment. They recognize they are not, most of them, handsome or much to look at at all. Men aren't peacocks. They wear the uniform of their culture, trying merely to blend in. Men are more like cows in a field, one much like the rest. Comfort fits in, but it's mainly being inobtrusive.

4. Expecting men to do otherwise feminizes them, and diminishes them. Hetero men recognize that the most gorgeous humans are female, and revel in their seemingly effortless grace and style and beauty.

5. Hetero men really don't care. We can clean up pretty good, but really now, what's the point? To merely avoid looking like the dipshits in the photo is success enough.

Middle Class Guy said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
Maybe lay off guys with shorts and complain about chunky girls with mid-riffs who display more muffin top than the Pillsbury Doughboy.


Looking at it from the other side, so to speak, there are also the, ahem, triple barstool girls with the low rider pants and the "plumber's crack".

Meade said...

Not to be argumentative but, I don't know, I think Blake is sort of extraordinarily gorgeous with seemingly effortless grace, style , and beauty.

Pogo said...

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Roger J. said...

What Pogo said; and rhhardini and others--I dont think most men really care--the shorts outfits in the pics are certainly not what I would wear. When I am not a work, its cargo shorts and tee shirts--and since I am now labelling both side of my shirt for different days I can wear the same t shirt twice by turning it inside out.

As I said, most men are really going out looking like that! Sad but true, Professor. I fear your shorts fixation will continue to be frustrating.

Oligonicella said...

The juxtaposition of a screed about shorts only a few inches below an add featuring Pamela Anderson's legs up to her ass and her globes only sans nips is delightfully hypocritical. Apparently a little money trumps adamant social stricture.

dmfoiemjsof said...

All these comments that men don't care miss the point. Of course mend don't care.

But women do care, so if men care what women think, then shouldn't they care too?

Also, keep in mind Althouse's age and sensibilities affect her taste. There are many younger women, or women more interested in outdoor activities, who can appreciate a nice set of bare legs.

Salamandyr said...

Shorts are fine as long they're shorts. The other day I bought a pair, brought them home and found out they actually extend all the way past the knee. What's the point of that? They're as hot as pants and twice as ridiculous as regular shorts. The y look like big boy pants.

Cargo shorts and a casual shirt look fine. It's this attempt to combine them with formal attire that is atrocious.

Oligonicella said...

dmfoiemjsof --

"But women do care, so if men care what women think, then shouldn't they care too?"

But men don't care, so if women care what men think, then they shouldn't care either, right?

Smilin' Jack said...

If you're not going to be an arbiter of taste, why are you writing fashion articles?

Ah, the prescriptive/descriptive feud again. The descriptivists have decisively won in the field of grammar--can fashion be far behind?

But even the staunchest descriptivist must draw a line somewhere, and the "fashion" in those pictures is definitely on the other side.

Anthony said...

Only one man can get away with dressing like a schoolboy in shorts.

Trooper York said...

Blame the epidemic of extra long short on Michael Jordan. He was the first ballplayer to wear extra long shorts at North Carolina. Since he was such a great player, everyone copied him. If you look at old footage, you will see that the uniform shorts were, well, short almost like hot pants. So when Jordan popularized the look it leaked over to men's fashion. You see everyone wanted to "Be like Mike."

Roger J. said...

Trooper--I had forgotten about those terrible shorts--the NBA uniform was short shorts and knee high socks. Coupled with the attrocious 1970s era hair styles, it was fashion hell.

Balfegor said...

Shorts are fine as long they're shorts. The other day I bought a pair, brought them home and found out they actually extend all the way past the knee. What's the point of that?

Are they plus-fours?

wanderlust747 said...

i'm wearing a cut-off pair right now (they've been chopped off for the past 2 summers). i happen to think they're more comfortable especially in a muggy new york summer day.

this article i suspect would not resonate outside of the city. perhaps for that reason, i don't see it as pop culture reportage but rather a validation (?)of what a segment of new york men are wearing. isn't this how it comes into pop consciousness?

TitusBlue Devils said...

None of those pictures make me horny and that is the usual question I tend to ask, does it make me horny?

Wurly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Todd said...

Sorry guys but just say no to shorts THAT SHORT! I myself prefer cargo shorts that are knee length (as does my wife) not because I don't have nice looking legs (I do) but because I just don't think the shorter shorts look 'manly'. Shorts that are more than 4 inches over the knee, to me look like 'little boy shorts' and not man shorts and when they are that short, you either learn too much when the guy is standing up or too much when he sits down (depending on how loose the shorts are, when they are that short). More information than I want to know, thank you very much.

Also, can that first guy look any more creepy? I mean, I would seriously consider crossing the street if I saw that coming at me.

Bruce Rheinstein said...

I think Ann has it wrong. The NYT is clearly trying to shame men into not wearing shorts by showing only pictures of outfits that make you look like a slob or a retard.

rjschwarz said...

The shorts are not the problem. Shorts with a t-shirt or golf shirt can look good. They belong together. Shorts with button-down or coat look like a British schoolboy. The look is incongrous and just plain silly on a man.

sammy990099 said...

I having a hard time reading this:

"So grotesque flesh spillage legitimates further grotesque flesh spillage. You want to know "what respectability looks like"? Apply some standards! Don't just glimpse about getting ideas about how all the standards have gone to hell."

Right next to a shot of Pamela Anderson's fleshy unclad boobs in my face.

Really, Ann, "glass houses...."

TitusBlue Devils said...

I don't mind men wearing gym shorts at the gym with no underwear.

What I like about it is the you can see the outline of the hog and watch it bounce back and forth which is somewhat stimulating.

Paul from Hamburg said...

I am 40 year old man. I wear shorts in public but not to work and mostly with sneakers and a t-shirt. Over the past 20 years, no fewer than 3 women have told me I have nice legs, so I feel that I have some obligation to keep showing off my calves. For the record, question is definitely not a gay or hetero issue. The men in the article just look like DORKS.

Ann Althouse said...

sammy, I've never rejected an ad. I've seen ads with all sorts of jarring images -- monsters, dead animals -- so I'm certain that a picture in an ad is not automatically a recommendation of how you ought to look. It is a come-on to make you click. That fashion article in the NYT was (I think!).

sammy990099 said...

Not applying any "standards" then are you?

TitusBlue Devils said...

Also, seeing the head of a hog in a pair of men's gym shorts at the gym is fun.

Especially, if it is a big mushroom head. If it is an uncut hog than it just looks like a little weiner but with not definition or countours. I am fine with either though because when the uncut hog gets erect the head generally peaks out of the covering-sometimes you have to help it a little by pulling back the skin-but that's ok. It's a little extra work but not to time consuming.

TitusBlue Devils said...

Seeing a queave, when women wear shorts, on the other hand, is gross.

Trooper York said...

I have to say that camel toe is indeed a terrible problem. That's why at the next Magic show we will be on search for leggings that a woman can wear which will be form fitting and shapely without making her look like Celine Dion on a bad day.

Trooper York said...

Celine Dion is the queen of camel toe.

Trooper York said...

If you look up camel toe in the dictionary, you will see a picture of Celene Dion.

And it’s not her face.

Trooper York said...

And I spelled her name wrong because I hate her so.

It's Celine. Sorry.

But she's not sorry about that damn camel toe jumpsuit, the bitch.

Foobarista said...

I wear shorts all the time, and in my field, wearing shorts to work is quite common. About the most "formal" I ever try to be when wearing shorts is khaki shorts with a knit shirt. And I did wear shorts continuously one year when I worked at a university.

But shorts are by definition informal and "un-stylish", so what's up with the goofy ties?

Smilin' Jack said...

A shorts-related anecdote: when Arnold started bodybuilding, his calves were his weakest point. So at the gym he would wear a baggy long-sleeve sweatshirt and baggy pants--but cut off at the knees, so that only his calves showed. He was so ashamed every time he saw them in the mirror that it gave him the motivation to train them extra hard, and they soon became his strong point.

Too many people have no sense of shame.

Peter said...

I've been told that in the Victorian era, people were scandalized by the sight of a woman's unclothed ankles.

These days it's mens' legs that set the prudes all a-twitter. Such is progress.

Rob said...

What about ass-less chaps?!?

Really Ann, 50 degrees in Madison is 80 degrees above the wintertime low temps...give the postal men a break.

I would agree with a vendetta against men wearing dark socks with sandals but shorts are necessary in really hot weather - *never* in the office.

Balfegor said...

I've been told that in the Victorian era, people were scandalized by the sight of a woman's unclothed ankles.

These days it's mens' legs that set the prudes all a-twitter. Such is progress.


That is because the late Victorians had the decency to wear spats. Of course, before Victoria, there was the Price Regent, in the vile and shameless immodesty of his knee-baring kilts. Cover it up! No one wants to look at your knobbly knees!

blake said...

Not to be argumentative but, I don't know, I think Blake is sort of extraordinarily gorgeous with seemingly effortless grace, style , and beauty.

Meade,

Th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th-That's gay, folks!

Actually, I suppose it's more bestiality. But I suppose should turn off the web cam.

blake said...

Titus is Austin Powers!

blake said...

Although I suppose it's the usual set of "You, a law professor" scolds, it should be pointed out that, you know, that's not actually Ann Althouse there on the sidebar.

I mean, she shows guys in shorts all the time on the blog. It's not a stamp of approval.

The Senator said...

I know a bunch of guys who have Utilikilts and absolutely LOVE them. I've got to admit that I'm a fan, too; it takes a confident man to pull off a Utilikilt.

It's especially entertaining to see people gawk at them in public.

Mitch said...

Relax, guys, this will soon go the way of the man-purse. Until then, Ann, please let us know if you hear of an attorney appearing in court wearing one of these get-ups. That would be much more newsworthy than a model appearing in the New York Times wearing something ridiculous, which is clearly in the dog-bites-man category.

Bruce from DC said...

I agree with the majority here. These guys look ridiculous. Having been to Bermuda a couple of times in the warm weather season, I will say that the Bermudians manage to pull of the "dressed for business in shorts" thing quite well and without looking like these dorks. You can walk in downtown Hamilton and see this any business day. IIRC, it involves, among other things, longer shorts (just above the knee), over the calf socks, a button-down shirt, a blazer and a tie. These Bermudians did not strike me as the least bit dorky.

Secondly, its a myth that shorts are the way to keep cool in hot weather. In the Virgin Islands, I've seen the local constabulary dressed in long, dark blue wool pants . . . in the summer. While I wouldn't recommend that, a pair of straight-leg linen trousers in a light or white color is quite comfortable. If they're baggy, the flapping when you walk generates its own breeze against your legs.

Finally, there is the question of skin color. There is nothing more disgusting than pasty white flesh with a thin covering of black hair. If your skin is dark (whether African or just a white guy who tans well), then things look a lot better (or if you have lighter-colored hair).

Kevin said...

Could be worse. Watch an old video of a basketball game, or any men in workout shorts, from the 1980s. Looks like freakin porn.

Kurt said...

Now this discussion is starting to remind me of the time I interviewed for a job at a New York financial firm without a dress code a little more than a decade ago. One of my interviewers came in wearing some things that looked like cut off shorts and some trendy-style t-shirt. He also had something strange going on with his hair. He took one look at me in my dark suit, and I could tell he didn't like me. When it came time for me to ask questions, I asked what characteristics were most important in candidates for that particular job; he responded: "You have to be very smart, arrogantly smart, almost." And I thought to myself: "Well, he certainly has the arrogant part down."

Ann Althouse said...

"Not applying any "standards" then are you?"

Sure I am. I believe in free speech and making money, so I set a very low standard for ads. Now, if you want to know how I dress myself or how I write about fashion, I don't have low standards.

Balfegor said...

Until then, Ann, please let us know if you hear of an attorney appearing in court wearing one of these get-ups. That would be much more newsworthy than a model appearing in the New York Times wearing something ridiculous, which is clearly in the dog-bites-man category.

Well yes. But you can't even wear an ascot in Court.

TitusBlue Devils said...

Camel Toe is an awful word.

So is smegma.

TitusBlue Devils said...

dingleberry on the other hand is a happy and fun word.

Klinker is just and average word.

TitusBlue Devils said...

Vart is another word that sounds kind of interesting but it's definition is gross.

Vart.

TitusBlue Devils said...

I imagining two lips saying Vart like they used to do in the old Sesame Street shows.


V....Art

Vart.

TitusBlue Devils said...

"You can stop alerting me"

You are a snappy pants thats what you are.

jaymaster said...

Sigh.

Why can’t women judge a man by his intelligence?

Its always about the appearance….

Kev said...

Althouse wrote:
steven, it's one thing if it is over 100 (or even 85) degrees

That's been my argument all along. Here in Dallas, it's been in the 90's since May (I think it hit 104 this afternoon). I'm absolutely wearing shorts unless I'm teaching class; even then, most of the class members will have shorts on, and some are in their 40s and 50s. Even the 70-year-old wears them on occasion.

bruce from dc wrote:
Secondly, its a myth that shorts are the way to keep cool in hot weather.

Eh, I think this is a "your mileage may vary" area. If I'm outside and wearing long pants on a 90+ degree day, my legs will become uncomfortably warm within minutes. I change into shorts, and all is well. From where I sit, comfort trumps all (and yes, I'm thankful not to be in the business world, where style seems to win out over substance).

blake said...

I imagining two lips saying Vart like they used to do in the old Sesame Street shows.

V....Art


"Electric Company"

Meade said...

Pogo said...
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
8:01 AM


I would argue that there IS something wrong with that. Something terribly terribly wrong.

jhon said...

nice post love it
Womens Leather Blazer