# General Discussion > Opinions >  Cargo Shorts-Yes or No?

## Angela

Listen, if the WSJ can post about it, it's serious enough for discussion.  :Smile: 
"Nice Cargo Shorts! You're sleeping on the sofa"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nice-car...ofa-1470082856

Ok, my response is no and no and no. The pictures in the article say it all, but this is pretty good as well. Even the young look terrible, and as for older men, well, words fail me.


If you have to wear shorts with pockets, please observe...Oh, and the tan is mandatory even if it has to be sprayed on.  :Grin: 



Better yet:


There's just nothing particularly attractive about men's calves.

Lest I be accused of giving women a pass, one of the worst fashion inventions ever are "Capri" pants. I suppose I could find a picture of a fit young woman who accessorizes them correctly etc., but the real devotees are middle-aged women who have a few too many pounds, wear the kind that sort of "bell" out, not the rolled kind, and wear the wrong shoes.

So, no to this even though she's thin:


Can those few inches less fabric really make you cooler? Wear golf skorts or skirts or tennis skirts for sports.

This is the look to strive for in terms of summer pants in my opinion, no shorter unless you go for *real* shorts, and then normally only if you're under 30 or you're the exception:


Or skip the pants entirely:

----------


## sparkey

I guess cargo stuff is out of fashion, but I still wear them (pants more than shorts) because it's a comfortable way to put my wallet, phone, etc. somewhere and not have to carry a bag.

Future generations are going to look at your in-fashion suggestions and find them even more ridiculous than you find cargo shorts, I'm afraid.

----------


## arvistro

Sparkey is right, fashion is not universal and linked to the moment. Some 80ies fashion in old music videos look stupid today.
I wear shorts when it is hot and I am on vacation. Not cargo ones though..
And
Yeah, skip them pants!

----------


## Angela

> I guess cargo stuff is out of fashion, but I still wear them (pants more than shorts) because it's a comfortable way to put my wallet, phone, etc. somewhere and not have to carry a bag.
> 
> Future generations are going to look at your in-fashion suggestions and find them even more ridiculous than you find cargo shorts, I'm afraid.


I think not; in fact, I'm sure not. :) 

They might not wear them, depending on how important it is to them to be "of the moment" or they might. Regardless, those outfits would never be found ridiculous by anyone who has a fashion sense. Anyone in the fashion industry would tell you that elegant lines and well made, well fitted, clothes are always recognized and admired, and some can be worn for decades. 

This could be worn today by some starlet on the red carpet, and she'd get rave reviews:


This too:


For men, the thirties and forties were great for beautiful fashion. They have books and books on Fred Astaire, although Cary Grant and others like him are always a source of inspiration:




Certain designers in the past got it so right that people wear their clothes decades later, and also designers just shamelessly copy the original, as is the case with Chanel. This is vintage Chanel, but you can find knock off copies of the various Chanel jackets in every designer line. 

There's "classic" fashion, which anyone interested in fashion recognizes and appreciates, and then there's the trendy "fashion" created to slough off on the unsuspecting public in order to make a buck, and then over and beyond that, there's the fact that what might originally have been a decent style is made hideous by wearing it in the wrong size, tattered, and wrinkled. 

As for needing pockets, I suppose this is a no,no for you?


An unmade bed look is never attractive.

Oh, not that I'm accusing you of that, of course. Just look at the article pictures and the one of that unfortunate young man to see what I mean.

@Arvistro,

I see I have to send you both to remedial fashion class!  :Grin:  It's rather a surprise to me that so many men prefer to see women in dresses and skirts rather than pants; you're not the only one I've heard that from. I personally don't see anything attractive in knees.  :Confused: 

Just a word to the wise, too, sometimes it's not about wearing what's comfortable; it's about pleasing the other sex. I assure you that stiletto heels are not comfortable. They're beautiful though, especially for setting off a nice calf, and men seem to love them.

----------


## arvistro

> @Arvistro,
> 
> I see I have to send you both to remedial fashion class!  It's rather a surprise to me that so many men prefer to see women in dresses and skirts rather than pants; you're not the only one I've heard that from. *I personally don't see anything attractive in knees.*


Ha ha. Me too, me too. 




> Just a word to the wise, too, sometimes it's not about wearing what's comfortable;* it's about pleasing the other sex*. I assure you that stiletto heels are not comfortable. They're beautiful though, especially for setting off a nice calf, and men seem to love them.


I know what you are speaking about. When I made hair like 2016, and put on cloth like 2016. And went outside then whatever I could achieve with big smile and being super polite before, now I could get just by appearing. Women, they don't just care about your beautiful soul.......

But nah, that is not my normal me. I find it difficult to swallow that I need to follow some strange advice that says in 2016 spring your hair should look like this, and in 2016 autumn like that. And this is 2 years old and can't be used now.. :) 

The through the times thing might work better. Especially if I could find something that is 
a) comfortable
b) put in washing machine, take out, put on
c) forever in trend
I would be happy. I can and I live without c, especially when on vacations. F*ck that opposite sex and their opinions! :)

If nitpick. I could be wrong being beginner in this fashion world, but - The guy in picture, these pants do not look like being trendy now, do they?

----------


## sparkey

There are many things I remember fondly of the 1710s, but I must say, the extravagant coat pockets are not one!


"Thou art sleeping on the double Windsor chairs!" she thinks.

Might I instead suggest this fashion?


If you must have pockets, consider a haversack!

----------


## bicicleur

today these are football shorts




when I was young I scored in these

----------


## Angela

I'm not into super trendy for men or women. For one thing, who can afford to throw everything out every season? I follow the old rules about buying the most well made, well cut, classic pieces you can afford, and then updating a bit with accessories etc and maybe a couple of new pieces each season to mix with the older pieces, but always with an eye to picking something that while it may be in the "in" color, or whatever, isn't too trendy. 

My son doesn't care what he wears either, which is strange because his father has always been a clothes horse, worse than I am by far. However, between what I sneak into his closet, and what his girlfriends have made him buy over the years there's some good pieces in there. I make sure he has a good blue blazer for winter, cream one for summer, very well cut black pants for winter, a couple of grey or black tops for them, a few well cut jeans, blue, but also black for winter and white for summer, khaki colored pants for sommer and some nice shirts to mix and match. Then he can fill it up with junk if he wants.

If you meant the jeans picture, that's Mariano de Vaio. I look at his blog when I want to pick up something for my son. I think he has an unerring eye both for what looks good and what looks, forgive me, "hot" on men. :) He doesn't wear those saggy crotch pants very much, for example. Everything is usually body fitting. If he's in doubt in a store,I tell my son to turn helpless (more helpless than usual, that is) and ask women what they like. I've never known a women to like those pants. Some of what Mariano de Vaio wears is too trendy, especially for the U.S., but at least it gives me an idea of what's out there. This is up to the minute, July 2016.

http://www.mdvstyle.com/mariano-di-v...tti-uomo-2016/

You can't do better than this if you're going to wear shorts, in my opinion:


Or, maybe something as simple as this:
http://cdn1-www.thefashionspot.com/a...-rs16-0404.jpg



Speaking of the U.S., these fashions filter over here, it just takes a while. This is from J Crew. I bought a couple of things from them.
http://www.thefashionisto.com/jcrew-...ptions-spring/

Those are all pretty comfortable, right?


I look at Pitti Uomo street syle, too, although a lot of it is too trendy or not something my son would be comfortable wearing. The guy in front here is a little edgy, but wow!


Before you even go there, :), I'm all for men peacocking around and all that, but I don't know why Italian men are so into red or sometimes yellow jeans. I don't really mind it, but here we call them golf pants; you wouldn't wear them out to eat or whatever.

Ed.
There you go, for very casual, follow Bicicleur's advice: football shorts. :)

----------


## Angela

@Sparkey,

Ah, Sparkey, Sparkey, did I offend? I didn't mean to...if it's fine with you and your significant other, then it's all good, but some of our members are young men; they still have to project that "hotness" factor before they can let themselves go.

As for your examples, of course I wouldn't wear most of those women's clothes, and my husband wouldn't wear the men's , but in some eras the clothes are ridiculous and ugly, and in some they aren't. 

This is ridiculous; it's one of Marie Antoinette's dresses:
 

The Empress Josephine: this dress could be worn tomorrow.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...338039a91a.jpg


The clothing for women in the classical era was stunning:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...86bfe119ee.jpg

We keep copying it and copying it with just little variations:


Certain Medieval clothing was quite lovely too. This is Agnes Sorel; the French have always known how to dress, or undress. (We're all over 13 here, yes?)Diane de Poitiers also had great style, always in black and white. 
http://world4.eu/wp-content/uploads/...-dress-613.jpg



So, it depends. :)

----------


## Auld Reekie

Very interesting. Sometimes I'm appalled at the lack of fashion sense in the U.S. that isn't NYC or LA. Somewhere I read Italian men and French women are the best dressed. I tend to agree. I'd say traveling through Europe the Romance countries tend to be more fashionable than the rest of Europe, not that the rest of Europe has all bad fashion but it's just the mentality of how to dress where and when even when it is scorching hot. My experience in Italy was men wear scarfs in the autumn when it was "cold" out and a new winter jacket. The British, Americans and Germans were still wearing cargo shorts and sandals. In lots of the U.S. dressing up is regarded as snobbish which is ridiculous, but found that was also a little true in Denmark and Australia. I've experience in parts of the U.S., especially in a lot of guys, that view being fashionable is something to be derided and ridiculed. Maybe we could look into history and trends to explain this.

----------


## Angela

> Very interesting. Sometimes I'm appalled at the lack of fashion sense in the U.S. that isn't NYC or LA. Somewhere I read Italian men and French women are the best dressed. I tend to agree. I'd say traveling through Europe the Romance countries tend to be more fashionable than the rest of Europe, not that the rest of Europe has all bad fashion but it's just the mentality of how to dress where and when even when it is scorching hot. My experience in Italy was men wear scarfs in the autumn when it was "cold" out and a new winter jacket. The British, Americans and Germans were still wearing cargo shorts and sandals. In lots of the U.S. dressing up is regarded as snobbish which is ridiculous, but found that was also a little true in Denmark and Australia. I've experience in parts of the U.S., especially in a lot of guys, that view being fashionable is something to be derided and ridiculed. Maybe we could look into history and trends to explain this.


That's an interesting question. British men weren't always averse to fashion. In the Regency Era they were very into their looks, their collars especially, and the cut of those skin tight trousers and their leather boots.

Beau Brummel built a whole career out of it:




I approve of the pants and the boots and the hair, but Sparkey is right, the "stock", that really high white scarf they tied is sort of ridiculous. 

I remember reading that Byron would spend a lot of time in front of his mirror artfully disarranging his dark curls,and was very upset that his hairline started to recede so early. :)


We know that in the Renaissance and in the 17th century they liked to strut around like popinjays, so what happened? That's how it is in the natural world too, after all, with the male of the species the one who is so gaudily colored, and his mate is in duns and greys.

Robert Dudley-Earl of Leicester:




Was it Victoria perhaps? Did she have more influence on the British and Germans, through her King Consort, than in other parts of Europe? In the U.S. and Australia perhaps it's that whole frontier mentality?

Maybe not, though. I mean look at the Puritans and the Amish and those kinds of sects. I can't imagine Italian men ever adopting a religion that made them dress like that. :)

----------


## davef

My idea of fashion is (during the warmer months) wearing a black colored t-shirt almost every day, usually with a condiment stain on it (when I'm too lazy to get a napkin so i just rub it in so to speak) and light brown cargo shorts. I have a preference for dark colored shirts. Same situation with winter, aside from longer "sleeves". I also love my brown moccasins. 

When I work out, I traditionally wear a red t-shirt. It's been that way for years. 

Maybe one day I'll convince myself to purchase an adult sized t-shirt depicting the ninja turtles or sesame st characters holding guns and knives. Everyone else can wear ties and tux's.

I'm such a millennial. Lol. I had to rely on spell check to spell millennial for me. 

Oh and YES TO CARGO PANTS

----------


## Angela

I rest my case.

----------


## Maleth

I wear Cargo shorts when I used to go on hikes and walks, but never to go out in the evening in summer, unless its something really casual. They can look ok if you are slim, but when you start expanding from the waist (like me) they look aweful :)

----------


## Auld Reekie

[email protected] It's interesting that you mention Britain. I think they are an interesting case. I've been told numerous times half of Britain prefers things American and the other half more French or European. I don't know if that's true. I do know that in the Protestant world England is an interesting case. Countries with more Roman influence had more failed reformations with the exception of England, Protestant Europe tended to be areas outside the old Romano-sphere. In England it was split. Anglicans were still predominately Catholic in their practices, while Puritans and the lot were not. The Jacobites tended to be culturally linked to France and Spain to the dismay of the English people and flirted with Catholicism. They (the Stuarts) were always accused of their extravagant lifestyles by their more Puritan subjects. While Cromwell, while his portrait was given, asked to be painted as he was, with imperfections and all. Not to mention the dislike of dancing, the theatre and Catholic holidays that were banned during Cromwell's Republican England. Even in Massachusetts colony, a Puritan stronghold, they banned frivolous clothing on it's citizens, including frills on the neck or cuffs or be fined or jailed. It's said that Puritanism has the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. Maybe it goes back to the differences between Angle-Saxon and Norman cultures. Even in the English language the "true Anglo-Danish words tend to be plain or straight forward, while the French influence is more elaborate and refined. 

Also, the way we view style is different today than 50 or more years ago, especially by men. American men socially were expected to dress with a suit and tie which was not considered "fancy" or dandified. Today, it's only in the work environment that it's expected. People always ask me, (btw I'm a guy in my young 30's) "why are you so dressed up?" and I say because I am a Jacobite. Hah not really, if I did their heads would spin right off.

----------


## Angela

> [email protected] It's interesting that you mention Britain. I think they are an interesting case. I've been told numerous times half of Britain prefers things American and the other half more French or European. I don't know if that's true. I do know that in the Protestant world England is an interesting case. Countries with more Roman influence had more failed reformations with the exception of England, Protestant Europe tended to be areas outside the old Romano-sphere. In England it was split. Anglicans were still predominately Catholic in their practices, while Puritans and the lot were not. The Jacobites tended to be culturally linked to France and Spain to the dismay of the English people and flirted with Catholicism. They (the Stuarts) were always accused of their extravagant lifestyles by their more Puritan subjects. While Cromwell, while his portrait was given, asked to be painted as he was, with imperfections and all. Not to mention the dislike of dancing, the theatre and Catholic holidays that were banned during Cromwell's Republican England. Even in Massachusetts colony, a Puritan stronghold, they banned frivolous clothing on it's citizens, including frills on the neck or cuffs or be fined or jailed. It's said that Puritanism has the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. Maybe it goes back to the differences between Angle-Saxon and Norman cultures. Even in the English language the "true Anglo-Danish words tend to be plain or straight forward, while the French influence is more elaborate and refined. 
> 
> Also, the way we view style is different today than 50 or more years ago, especially by men. American men socially were expected to dress with a suit and tie which was not considered "fancy" or dandified. Today, it's only in the work environment that it's expected. *People always ask me, (btw I'm a guy in my young 30's) "why are you so dressed up?" and I say because I am a Jacobite.* Hah not really, if I did their heads would spin right off.


What a treat to meet someone, even virtually, who has the background and the wit to make a joke like that. :)

Indeed, there are two strains in Britain. I became quite an Anglophile after coming to America, all of it having to do with their literature and theater, although it branched off into their history in order to learn the first two, but I had my definite preferences, and one of them was Jacobites versus Hanover. I'm sure some of it had to do with the fact that the Jacobites were either Catholic or leaning that way, given that I was in Catholic schools, and some had to do with the fact that lost causes are always more romantic, but a big part of it is what you alluded to when you said Puritans were always haunted by the fear someone might be having a good time somewhere. :) The Hanoverian line, while not Puritan, was grey and dull and clod like.

Of course, now that I'm more informed, I know that Mary Stuart was either a very light minded woman in her youth, or suffered from porphyria, and that Elizabeth was a much better queen, but still...

In my humble view God, if he exists, gave you your senses to enjoy the world, and there's nothing wrong with that, so long as you don't let them rule you. So, I like delicious,flavor-full food, a well made house and pretty interiors, lovely, well fitting clothes that reveal and flatter the human body, good music, fine wine, and so forth.

Maybe it's genetic and not everyone is born with as finely tuned an aesthetic sense, or maybe some people "enjoy" the life of the senses more, I don't know, but to me these things make life more worth living. 

I think it's also true that if, like the Puritans, you try to tamp down on the life of the senses too much you just distort them, no matter the group. For example, the Puritans were great hypocrites in terms of sexuality, in my opinion, like the Victorians, another group of repressed people. If you study some of the early Puritan leaders, with their ten or more children, the body of the first wife was barely cold in the ground when they were marrying some nubile sixteen year old. As for the Victorian Era, their pornography tells you what their fantasy life was like. Why not just admit you like the "carnal" life? Maybe then you wouldn't pervert it and wind up hurting children among other things.

This has some application in terms of religious experience too. There's no mysticism in Protestantism, have you ever noticed? There's lots of rules, and legalisms, but no mysticism. Mysticism is "feeling" based, in my opinion, "sense" based, or at least your senses can draw you into it. That's what all the colors, and Gregorian chant ,and incense is all about...to draw you into a mystical experience. 

Anyway, it's always made perfect sense to me that Calvinism was never successful in Italy. It didn't even ultimately make it in France.

----------


## sparkey

> This has some application in terms of religious experience too. There's no mysticism in Protestantism, have you ever noticed? There's lots of rules, and legalisms, but no mysticism. Mysticism is "feeling" based, in my opinion, "sense" based, or at least your senses can draw you into it. That's what all the colors, and Gregorian chant ,and incense is all about...to draw you into a mystical experience.




Sure there is! It just depends on which Protestants we're talking about.

(Admittedly, as someone who likes pockets, I probably shouldn't be citing George Fox.)

----------


## Angela

> Sure there is! It just depends on which Protestants we're talking about.
> 
> (Admittedly, as someone who likes pockets, I probably shouldn't be citing George Fox.)


You definitely shouldn't. :)

Yes, I forgot the Quakers. I like the "meeting house" experience, although I tend to react as I do during yoga...I start making lists of what I have to do, or buy at the market, etc...

I guess I need the sensory aides...

Very nice looking, imposing looking man, George Fox. See, I can't help myself! :)

I don't get a lot of those "clothing" restrictions, like the no buttons thing for some of the Amish, if I remember correctly. I definitely wouldn't like going around with those straight pins everywhere, although I suppose it helps in keeping everyone's hands away from everyone else. I won't even get into the whole underwear thing, although the nuns told us when they were little they had to bathe with a "bathing gown" on so they couldn't see their bodies. True, I swear.

----------


## Auld Reekie

[email protected]
Thanks for the compliment :). I was thinking about what I said earlier about the Romano-sphere being better dressed. Maybe it was more the Gauls that were better dressed. I've read about ancient Rome's view during the Republic on their "barbarian" neighbors to the north, they begrudgingly admitted that they were well groomed, the gold and bronze jewelry and the bright colors they chose to wear and their use of hair dyes and makeup on both the men and women made them seem particularly flamboyant to the average Roman. While the Greeks to the south and east of them influenced them with more their philosophical and culinary culture, how to eat and live well (which I think is true even today). When living in Italy I've noticed the choice of colors worn tended to be different in each region, north of Rome tended to range from natural earthy colors to bright reds, greens and yellows. Emilia Romagna I thought were the best dressed. While the further south I went the clothes tended to be more black or pure white. I know there is generational differences and rural vs city/town life plus the economic discrepancy in the Mezzogiorno. Though I would say Naples and Lecce were the exception, their style were as inconsistent as their architecture from being elegant to simple. Not to say everyone is stylish in the north. I stayed in a small village in the north of Tuscany called Gorfigliano and they weren't stylish by any means, thought that's what you'd expect from a mining town I suppose. These are just my simple observations and probably aren't completely accurate.

----------


## Angela

> [email protected]
> Thanks for the compliment :). I was thinking about what I said earlier about the Romano-sphere being better dressed. Maybe it was more the Gauls that were better dressed. I've read about ancient Rome's view during the Republic on their "barbarian" neighbors to the north, they begrudgingly admitted that they were well groomed, the gold and bronze jewelry and the bright colors they chose to wear and their use of hair dyes and makeup on both the men and women made them seem particularly flamboyant to the average Roman. While the Greeks to the south and east of them influenced them with more their philosophical and culinary culture, how to eat and live well (which I think is true even today). When living in Italy I've noticed the choice of colors worn tended to be different in each region, north of Rome tended to range from natural earthy colors to bright reds, greens and yellows. Emilia Romagna I thought were the best dressed. While the further south I went the clothes tended to be more black or pure white. I know there is generational differences and rural vs city/town life plus the economic discrepancy in the Mezzogiorno. Though I would say Naples and Lecce were the exception, their style were as inconsistent as their architecture from being elegant to simple. Not to say everyone is stylish in the north. I stayed in a small village in the north of Tuscany called Gorfigliano and they weren't stylish by any means, thought that's what you'd expect from a mining town I suppose. These are just my simple observations and probably aren't completely accurate.


Some of the Romans of the Republican Era were indeed a pretty dour lot in some ways. 

A lot of the frippery that they were railing against came from the Near East but Greece wasn't monochrome either. Since their architecture and statuary is white today, I think there's a tendency to think they always looked that way, when we are discovering now that in certain periods they were all brightly painted. 

A Greek statue as it would have looked at the time:


The Parthenon as it looked at the time:


Also, the Romans, and through them the Italians, have been mightily influenced by the Etruscans. I think a case could be made that what we think of as "Roman", is many times "Etruscan". The latter seem to have loved color and fine garments, and good food and wine.


Anyway, as to Italy, things have changed, but when I was growing up an Italian woman would never have worn bright colors. My mother's rules were rigid: an elegant woman wears black, white, cream, navy, beige, grey, maybe brown. Less is always more. Every single time I got dolled up to go out and went to show my mother she'd say: take off most of that jewelry; you look like a gypsy! I'm sorry to say that to her that was pretty bad. 

It seems to me that most French women still keep to that general palette for everyday living. Some of our French members can correct me if that's incorrect. My friends in Italy, mostly from Emilia Romagna, Toscana, and Liguria still tend to go neutral, especially in winter, but colors do come in a bit during the summer months. They're rather conservative types, however, and they're not millennials. :) 

Bold colors have definitely come more into style in recent times. Part of that comes from designers like Missoni, Versace (who was from Calabria, btw), etc., and partly from influence from abroad, but in smaller cities, and definitely in rural areas, the old rules still apply to a great extent. There's also a difference by class. I think the south is just more conservative in this as in other things, not that there's anything wrong with that. Emilia Romagna has no excuse not to be the best dressed, as it often comes in as the most affluent province in Italy, and one of the most affluent regions in Europe, alternating occasionally with the Veneto.

This is an art gallery in La Spezia, which is "my" town, Ligurian, provincial, maybe 100,000 people...still a very muted color palette, I think. The first woman is wearing one of my summer "uniforms"...navy blazer and white trousers. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7qR9L2ScoQ

There's even a guy wearing cargo shorts! Quick, call Sparkey!  :Grin: 

Right down the coast from me, an easy drive away, is Forte dei Marmi, in the Lucca province of Toscana. It's the most chic summer resort in Italy. The Agnellis have been going there for generations, Renzi usually goes there. It's the Hamptons of Italy, if you're familiar with them.

Starting at 6:00, it shows the evening stroll. There are a few spots of color, but there's an awful lot of black, white, cream, beige and tan...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y18ElpUcWc

It's no different in New York. One night recently I went to dinner in the city, downtown, in the more "artsy" area : I was the only person in the dining room, male or female, who wasn't dressed head to foot in black! I mean, I love black, I wear it a lot, but it's become like a uniform.

I once posted a picture of Renzi's "women": the women in his cabinet. It gives you an idea too. The women wearing those bright colored jackets a la Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel were excoriated unmercifully. I'm afraid I have to agree...not chic.

----------


## ethelcurtis

thanks for sharing!!

----------


## ethelcurtis

*i wear Match Men’s Wild Cargo Pants and i recommend you to try this once*

----------


## Wheal

My husband and I both wear cargo shorts... when we are hiking. I can store that tick remover right where it's handy. That's what they are ideal for. 

@Angela, I agree with your recommendation about buying the best quality ... I love the pink jacket.

----------


## Angela

> My husband and I both wear cargo shorts... when we are hiking. I can store that tick remover right where it's handy. That's what they are ideal for. 
> 
> @Angela, I agree with your recommendation about buying the best quality ... I love the pink jacket.


This was such a fun thread. All in good humor. :)

I adore Chanel type jackets. Unfortunately, even at my absolute skinniest I've always been too busty for them. You have to know your own body type as well as what is good design. 

Gosh, I'm not as brave as you when I go hiking. I wear long pants, high socks, long sleeves, the works, but then we're infested with the ticks that cause lyme disease here. I know a few people who got it. 

I'm worried about my dog now, and me, because he's taken to sleeping with me, even though I swore I wouldn't allow it.

----------


## Wheal

We always had labrador retrievers, 80-110 pounds. They always believed they were lap dogs. As our last one got older, my oldest son put a ottoman next to his bed so "Gus" could get up on the bed easier at night. They do become one of our family members. I would love to have another dog now, but I'm looking at a Cavalier King Charles because it would really be lap sized.

----------


## Angela

> We always had labrador retrievers, 80-110 pounds. They always believed they were lap dogs. As our last one got older, my oldest son put a ottoman next to his bed so "Gus" could get up on the bed easier at night. They do become one of our family members. I would love to have another dog now, but I'm looking at a Cavalier King Charles because it would really be lap sized.


Same here. :) He's already 60 pounds and he's only nine months old. He has no idea he's not supposed to be a lap dog. Every I sit down or go to sleep he plops down next to me or on me. If I'm cooking, he lays down at my feet. He's like a big shadow. 

He's also a "licker". I swore I'd never allow that either, given what they lick, but all the "hygiene" rules seem to be going out the window. Those are his only "bad" habits really. Well, he's still digging holes. That's the last bit of training left. He's so good otherwise, a wonderful watch dog and protector, great with other dogs and our cats, walking next to me, not bolting, totally housebroken, no more chewing, not destructive, just a beautifully behaved dog, and the sweetest thing ever. He's the star of the dog park where I take him. Everybody wants to pet Polo. :)

It's hard to deny him the bed or the sofa, or refuse those kisses. Oh well, just more washing, of both the bedding and us. :)

----------


## Strudel

*A Brief History of Shorts*


Great Britain, Gurkha soldiers, Bermuda and the Boy Scouts


_“Shorts owe much of their contemporary origins to the military. Possibly the earliest example (1880’s) of modern-day shorts, is the uniform of the heavily respected Gurkha soldiers of the Nepalese army. (Much like our khaki shorts of today, but four generous pockets and a distinctive cummerbund waistband with buckles and adjustable straps) The British East India Company defeated the Gurkha soldiers in The Anglo-Nepalese War, but upon surrender had such respect for the bravery and ability of the Gurkha soldiers, that part of the treaty stipulated that Britain could employ their soldiers to fight alongside the British in future battles. Present day, it is a statue of a Ghurka soldier that stands guard in front of The Ministry of Defense at Whitehall, in the heart of the British Empire._ 


_During World War I, Britain set up its North American Headquarters in Bermuda. There was a single tea shop on the island and because of the British soldiers, business boomed. The summer heat and the steaming pots of tea made the temperature inside the little tea shop often times unbearable. The owner, not wanting to spend money on new uniforms for his staff, took all the khaki trousers and cut them just above the knee. Rear Admiral Mason Berridge, who took his tea in this little shop, adopted the style for his fellow officers and named them “Bermuda Shorts”. The British Navy founded the yacht clubs in Hamilton & St. George, soon officers of the British Army serving elsewhere began adopting the smart looking, summer version of the khaki military uniform. Before long the men in London, who made such uniform decisions on behalf of the military, stated that standard dress was to be khaki shorts amongst all British soldiers serving elsewhere in the sub-tropics of The Old British Empire._


_The local people of Bermuda certainly began noticing the smartly dressed British officers milling around the yacht clubs and tailors began copy and modify the style for civilian use. This helped to establish it and by the 1920’s it had become the standard business attire of the local men. At the time, Bermuda was a very popular steamship destination and tourists arriving for winter holiday helped to spread the style back to the United States and elsewhere around the world._


_The style was also picked up by the Boy Scouts, whose founder, Lord Baden-Powell, himself a major General for the British Army. As these school children grew up and began to become adults in the world, gradually shorts became more acceptable in society, first, with outdoor activities like hiking and golf and then they made the very public jump to tennis. In 1932, when Britain’s top ranked tennis player, Bunny Austin appeared in the U.S. National Championships in Forrest Hills, Long Island, he wore flannel shorts instead of the standard white trousers.”_


Source Link: https://www.oldbullshorts.com/history-of-shorts




_“The pairing of the shorts with the socks came about during WW2 when there was a shortage of clothing in Bermuda. Legend has it that the managers of the two banks in Bermuda arranged for a local tailor to make two pairs of shorts for each of their male employees modeled on the shorts from the British Military that Coxon and Berridge had made famous. The employees were also supplied with long socks to wear with the shorts. The look was a success and local departments stores started selling the shorts in a range of bright hues and the rest of the world quickly caught on._

_Too much leg?_

_However, many gentleman thought the shortness of Bermuda Shorts inappropriate. So a law was passed to ensure propriety and policemen, armed with a tape measure and warning tickets, scoured the island for men showing more the 6 inches of leg. Officially Bermuda Shorts should not be worn more then 6 inches above the knee, but 2-3 inches is preferable._

_Today, Bermuda Shorts are the island's national dress and you will see businessmen wearing Bermuda Shorts with long socks and a blazer all year long.”_


Source Link: https://www.tabsbermuda.com/pages/knee-deep-in-history







Statue of a Gurkha soldier at Whitehall, Westminster, England

Bermuda shorts

Boy Scouts demonstrating First Aid to General Baden-Powell, Vancouver, B.C. 1910


Sans Culottes: The French Revolution’s long vs short effect on men’s wear


_“The name literally means ‘without culottes’, a culotte being a form of knee high clothing that only the wealthier members of French society wore. By identifying themselves as ‘without culottes’ they were stressing their differences from the upper classes of French society. Together with the Bonnet Rouge and the triple colored cockade, the power of the Sans-culottes was such that this became a quasi-uniform of revolution. Wearing culottes could get you into trouble if you ran into the wrong people during the revolution; as a result, even upper-class French people sported the sans-culottes clothing to avoid potential confrontations.”
_
Source Link: https://www.thoughtco.com/who-were-t...lottes-1221898


_“To call the French Revolution a watershed event would not be an exaggeration. Lasting from 1789 until 1799, this period of tremendous upheaval forever transformed France and its effects stretched_ far beyond the French borders_. In Canada (or rather British North America), changes could not only be felt politically and socially, but even in the fashion realm as well.”
_
_“The French Revolution really brought about the old cliche “clothes make the man,” because fashion became a political statement. No matter how rich a guy was, he was dressing like a commoner; like a san-culottes. Part of this was to save his neck. Literally. The other part was that the spread of democratic ideals meant a shift away from aristocratic symbols, particularly clothes. Lace cuffs, knee breeches, ruffles, frills, frockcoats, lighter colors, high heels, big wigs, the flamboyant_ Macaroni style_—all of this fell out of favor. In its place came the rise of darker clothes, ankle-length trousers, matching jackets, suits, and short, natural hair. If that sounds kinda like modern masculine wear that’s because it is. The French Revolution (in addition to the American Revolution) sparked that lasting change because they were the start of the slow process towards the democratization of Western society.”_

Source Link: https://cdnhistorybits.wordpress.com...ion-1790-1810/



Ancien Régime 

Les Sans Culottes

----------


## Strudel

> Ok, my response is no and no and no. The pictures in the article say it all, but this is pretty good as well. Even the young look terrible, and as for older men, well, words fail me.



Ha. :) Interesting. Well, my vote goes for no in general to shorts of any kind for the city, for both men and women. In my opinion this garment in any form should be reserved for recreation or the countryside, aside from very young children. I do agree with you Angela that the shorts worn in the photo above are an eye-sore. But, that is because they are too big, sloppily worn and a particularly poorly made pair. 

As per the cargo style of shorts being worse than others, my opinion is no. I don’t find anything wrong if worn properly, as in the right size, cut and fabric and only for casual wear. The problem is mainly in North America (and perhaps to some extent in the U.K.) in which shorts, not to mention pants in general, are worn too baggy or sloppy. I’m not just referring to the drop crotch gangster style that needs to suffer a death, but that too many NA men wear their clothes too large. As other’s have said, the side pockets do come in handy and I personally don’t find them particularly unsightly, when designed and manufactured well.

Somethng like these, I find perfectly fine for "bumming around" and not managing to look like a bum. :) 










I actually own a pair of dark solid olive cargo pants to the ankle and with the closed ankle. There is a name for this style, that I forget at the moment and I love them. I have had compliments wearing them, so I think I am safe. They are my favourite go-to’s for running around getting chores done like going to the market, or road trips, antiquing. Funnily enough, I don’t wear them hiking or camping to save them from ruin. But, they aren’t made for those activities. The fabric is a brushed blend. 

I would hazard to say that cargo-anything is an outdoorsy (and thus pocket-y) fashion genre that appeals to a certain taste and kind of clothing identity segment of the population, but not to everyone, of course. Like any style genre if made and/or worn badly, it becomes ripe picking for fashion policing. 




> If you have to wear shorts with pockets, please observe...Oh, and the tan is mandatory even if it has to be sprayed on. 
> 
> Better yet:
> 
> 
> 
> There's just nothing particularly attractive about men's calves.




 :Thinking: Really? Oh, strong calves on a man are definitely attractive to me! This is a physical feature I notice and like. To me, good strong muscled calves say: hardy, active, robust and strong. This is my ideal: 



 :Heart: 


I guess, I am on the other side of the fence from this as well. I don’t care for skinny jeans on men and the only women they look marginally acceptable on are truly skinny young women. But, than I am not a fan of jeans to begin with. 


As for tans, I don’t find having a tan to be mandatory for attractiveness . In fact, there are skin types that don’t tan well if at all and it’s unsafe to do so - just more pink to lobster or only a slight beige tan or freckles. I happen to be one those freckled paper-whities, so I have sympathy for the tanning handicap. But, also I just honestly don’t find really tanned particularly more attractive than not tanned. Fake tans, which I can spot from a mile off are horrid-looking, in my opinion. I hope that doesn’t offend, as I am all for vive la difference when it comes to personal taste. To me, whatever is natural to the person’s birthday suit skin tone with a bit of sun effect in the summer, so one doesn’t look like a vampire if naturally pale, is best. 

If a man is going to wear shorts, which is let’s face it a warm weather garment, linen is the way to go. In my opinion linen is a beautiful and practical fabric for the heat, both tropical and dessert-like. When cut well as shorts they look great on young, old and in between, alike. For that matter, even full length linen trousers are comfortable in the heat and long pants have the added bonus of not looking quite as juvenile as do shorts for anything besides recreational activities.

----------


## TomHadson

Shorts are men’s best friends. Men's shorts have gone from knee length to cargos to above the knee length incorporating print, patterns, solid and textures. I have recently buy cargo short in Kenya.

----------


## Angela

^^Sorry, people. Yes, it's better if they fit properly, i.e.not too loose, and are clean. However, even then, a man in shorts doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned. Most men's knobby knees (I don't even like knees on women, and think a skirt hitting mid knee at the shortest is the most universally becoming.), and hairy, knotty calves (the ugliest part of a female ballerina's body is her feet, but second is her calves), or, even worse, bowed legs, pretty common among athletic men, and which is one of my husband's few flaws, are just not attractive, imo. Now, in the appropriate setting, I'm all for sleeveless shirts and singlets. :)

Ditto for pasty white skin, and I have it. Every little imperfection shows up, as Kristina pointed out above or in another thread, I'm not sure. You can see women's varicose veins from across the room practically, and "dimpling" or cellulite shows up much more, with age it can get covered with marks from sun damage, and it's often freckled if there are any genes for red hair in the family. My aunts tell me that as young girls or women they were constantly dabbing on milk, or buttermilk, all to no avail. One of my first cousins had so many freckles in the summer that they ran into each other and became big blotches. He had a cow lick too. He looked like a red-haired Dennis the Menace. I adored him. :) I would have liked to have my aunts' carnelian red hair, but I'm glad the freckles skipped me even though I carry one of the alleles for red hair.






Of course, tastes differ.

----------


## Strudel

> ^^Sorry, people. Yes, it's better if they fit properly, i.e.not too loose, and are clean. However, even then, a man in shorts doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned. Most men's knobby knees (I don't even like knees on women, and think a skirt hitting mid knee at the shortest is the most universally becoming.), and hairy, knotty calves (the ugliest part of a female ballerina's body is her feet, but second is her calves), or, even worse, bowed legs, pretty common among athletic men, and which is one of my husband's few flaws, are just not attractive, imo. Now, in the appropriate setting, I'm all for sleeveless shirts and singlets. :)


Ah, so this more about what body parts and how or whether they are shown , rather than the clothes themselves? I hadn't considered this part of the equation, to be honsest, but in reading your replies, Angela and thinking how I look at "clothes and the man", body parts shown vs not shown I guess was not on my radar. You learn something new every day, as the saying goes. 

I don't have the distaste for how you put it as "knotty kneees". Maybe I don't see them as much? As for sleeveless shirts on men; I detest them. So, you are quite right. Tastes do differ, substantially it seems. 




> Ditto for pasty white skin, and I have it. Every little imperfection shows up, as Kristina pointed out above or in another thread, I'm not sure. You can see women's varicose veins from across the room practically, and "dimpling" or cellulite shows up much more, with age it can get covered with marks from sun damage, and it's often freckled if there are any genes for red hair in the family. My aunts tell me that as young girls or women they were constantly dabbing on milk, or buttermilk, all to no avail. One of my first cousins had so many freckles in the summer that they ran into each other and became big blotches. He had a cow lick too. He looked like a red-haired Dennis the Menace. I adored him. :) I would have liked to have my aunts' carnelian red hair, but I'm glad the freckles skipped me even though I carry one of the alleles for red hair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, tastes differ.


I have the type of skin that is transcluecent and shows my veins. Never felt this was unsightly. But, then I grew up in a predominantly very pale Anglo-Saxon enclave, and this was the norm. For most of my what I shall call "younger days" life as in when I gave a ---- about negativity to physical characteristics, my freckles did bother me, as they tended to get noticed and remarks, mostly good-natured, simple kind of nicknames. But, being sensitive to marked out difference this was unwanted, so I did the usual lemon juice. That experiment lasted all of one try and I said, "Forget this silliness and live with it."

----------


## melissachris

Those are some nice quality looking clothes, I had bought the same shorts for my boyfriend online when they were offering 25% discount. So, I bought it to go on a picnic & it was really comfortable as he says.

----------

