Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Oh, but the trick is know if you can.I'm told I can!
Getting them to put pants on isn't the end of the problem, Ann.Pull your fucking pants up, holmes.
Ann,Me thinks your man in shorts would be very popular in the Castro district of San Francisco.
That guys looks like a complete dweeb, like most people in shorts.
Again with the shorts. You thought about getting therapy for this aversion, professor? ;)
He may look like a complete dweeb to you, Joe, but guaranteed all the women are kvelling.
He looks like a mime before makeup or the guy that rows the gondola in Venice.
As a guy who looks good in shorts I give the model guy low marks on his wardrobe. Horizontal stripes tucked into shorts with a tight waist are a mistake, even on lean bodies. He should go with a solid color and not tuck the shirt in. The long sleeves are fine in winter or on cool evenings year round.
Florida wrote:Getting them to put pants on isn't the end of the problem, Ann.Pull your fucking pants up, holmes.Sometimes it takes an extreme example of stupidity to put things in perspective and this is that example. Suddenly wearing shorts doesn't seem so bad.What is it with hip hop culture that they keep coming out with stupid fashion ideas. Before it was Kris Kross with the backwards clothing and now it's the pants falling down look. I like how, though his pants are falling down he still has a belt on, which makes this look doubly stupid. I also can't imagine it's easy to walk with your pants on your hips, but to each his own I guess.Here's an idea for the next dumb fashion idea. Pants around the ankles. And the pants are backwards. And underneath instead of underwear they wear shorts, which are backwards!
The guy's OK, it's the shorts that look awful.
Is he playing a Frenchman in a play?
The British khaki Gurkhas are comfy, utilitarian shorts...but the twee Breton shirt is rediculous.
That picture is painful to look at—and at the same time kinda funny. It’s not nearly as funny as all the fawning comments, however.
The sissy should stop borrowing clothes from his sister.
That guy isn't wearing shorts. Those are high end diapers.
A Frenchman from the north, wearing an incomplete set of Lederhosen.The Germans are laughing.
Crack Emcee has it pegged...
"Is he playing a Frenchman in a play?"Exactly what I was thinking. All he needs is a baguette under his arm and a beret.
That would be "homes", not "holmes" (as in Sherlock) - short for "homeboys" or "homies".Agree 1000% that dude's a mime in mufti. VW = fifyinFixin it for you 'in
Why is it women always like the way gay guys dress?I quit wearing shorts because I have to wear a knee high compression sock on my left leg due to a sports injury. Before then I was told my legs were beautiful and women always wanted to caress them.
Why is it women always like the way gay guys dress?Not sure exactly what you mean, but there's a big difference between appreciating a guy who looks >ahem< "dapper" and being attracted to him.For the record, I don't actually like how this shorts dude looks. But unless he's Andre 3000 or Prince, I just don't like a man to look like he spent a tremendous amount of time on his appearance.
"the trick is know if you can"I can too! → → → → "All he needs is a baguette under his arm and a beret."Foux du Fa Fa.
Is he playing a Frenchman in a play?He would have a beret if that were the case.
How about this drunk trying his shorts on...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPtpZZNWgFs
More important is to determine if you give a rat's ass and, perhaps, even more important, that you're in a place where it doesn't matter a rat's ass.Much of life comes down to that, doesn't it?
holdfast wrote:That would be "homes", not "holmes" (as in Sherlock) - short for "homeboys" or "homies".Ah, but what if this guy's name really was Holmes? Like Antonine Holmes or something similar. Also, what if Sherlock Holmes was a home boy, like say to Watson. Would you call him Holmes? or Homes?
Not sure exactly what you mean, but there's a big difference between appreciating a guy who looks >ahem< "dapper"...Maybe it's just my ex. She has a non-sexual infatuation with gay guys. This week she's in Gatlinburg, TN on vacation but has made sure to make an appointment with her gay hairdresser in Knoxville she used 20 years ago when we lived there. She pick a gay guy doing her hair over a woman any day. The actual quality of the cut doesn't seem to matter that much as her hair always looks the same.When I was in college I took an acting class. There was one guy in there that all the girls were crazy about. I never realized it until several years later when I happened to see him in a different setting, but he was flaming. It's almost stereotypical how many women I've seen go non-sexually gaga over a gay guy.BTW - do you know what the Castro district of San Fran is? I can clarify if you need. SBVOR had inspired me some.
I don't believe the commenters at the satorialist are real people. I think it's a couple of comedy writers. I don't want to share the world with anyone who would write those things seriously. I refuse to accept their existence.
So, if you're a man, it's ok to wear shorts if you look like a woman. That boy makes Christina Hendricks look positively masculine.
I don't believe the commenters at the satorialist are real people. I think it's a couple of comedy writers. I don't want to share the world with anyone who would write those things seriously. I refuse to accept their existence.Maybe I'm overly conspiratorial, but on the left there's an ad for american apparel and it keeps rotating everytime you update the ad, and the clothing on the guy looks very similar when it gets to the american male picture. He's wearing a striped shirt and long pants, but it looks like similar clothing. So my guess is, all the people saying how nice he looks are employees of the company and are merely shilling their clothes. And yes the guy is a flamer.
I often wear shorts, but I don't try to pretend that they're some sort of "fashion". They're comfortable - just like my sandals.And as a Silicon Valley programmer, I won't often encounter law-prof clotheshorses from Minnesota, so Ann doesn't have to worry about my fashion-disaster wardrobe making her head explode...
At the high school where I teach, there are boys whose pants are held up, it appears, by their private parts and by spreading their legs as they walk with an odd side-to-side waddle. This is compounded with the latest skinny jeans fad that prevents the boys from pulling up their pants; they can't because the pants are too tight at the bottoms to get them over their calves. As a result, their underwear is almost completely exposed when they sit at their desks. And they don't seem to understand the grossness of their underwear-to-chair contact when I ask them to pull up their pants. Curiously, there are girls on campus who've told me that they find the sagging look "sexy," but these are typically girls of lower ambition. Perhaps it's the attraction to the tough guys on campus, the rebels.
ew. not sexy.
Those shorts are REALLY dorky looking, even on this model. I can only imagine how dorky they'd look on most everyone else. I do like his shirt, though.
As someone here and on the Sartorialist site pointed out, these are British Army uniform shorts, and similar to other uniforms worn by manly military men in the tropics. There's a great essay in a collection of war literature edited by John Keegan, by a guy who posts to a Ghurka regiment in the Himalayas during British rule there, who describes in great detail his uniform, which includes shorts similar to this.I'm glad to see these, as they always come to my mind as the refutation of the "guys look bad in shorts" position. Guys and girls look silly in short shorts. Guys especially look fantastic in longish shorts with thongs, no socks (which is what I bet this dude is wearing).He does look really gay, but that's the sailor shirt, not the shorts.
Like the pictures on that site.Can't stand the comments though. Hundreds on each post and not one that says anything
``... [These are] British Army uniform shorts, and similar to other uniforms worn by manly military men in the tropics.''Thanks for pointing that out. Anyone else remember those WWII-era photos of Australian soldiers and (shortly thereafter) the Israeli soldiers of both sexes? All of 'em wearing shorts, and absolutely nothing girly about the men.
I don't know who Christina Hendricks is (and I'm not going to look just now), but I did enjoy Rialby's comment about that guy's picture.Also, with regard to New York's observation that the comments on that website don't say anything, I'd disagree only to the extent that I appreciated the comment (by Claudia C. at 10:01 a.m.) which I interpreted (perhaps misinterpreted) as implicitly comparing that guy with Audrey Hepburn (though unlike said commenter, I didn't think it was "so cool!!!").wv: drehed
I mostly like the Sartorialist for his pictures of people on bicycles. As a bicycle rider, I need inspiration. Most of the bicycle riders here in central Florida fall into one of only two looks: 1. homeless person and 2. rider in the Tour de France.
This is compounded with the latest skinny jeans fad that prevents the boys from pulling up their pants; they can't because the pants are too tight at the bottoms to get them over their calves. Skinny jeans look awful on men. They are quintessentially feminine, and should never make contact with any male who's not in a 70s glam rock band.* Don't really like them on women either. They just radiate uncomfortable. Even more so than high heeled shoes.
Post a Comment