Help me to understand the rules of fashion, as applied to men

I wear shorts during summer, I wear black Reeboks in general. If people have a problem with that, that's THEIR worry, not mine!

".. i feel horrible right now, like no one gives a shit about what i've got on the inside.."

The truth is that they'll only want to find out about the inside when they're content with the outside. I would just try some new stuff - see what works for you, what you feel comfortable in, etc. For me, alot of guys make mistakes in the choice of cut - at least here in San Francisco, you don't want baggy Tommy shirts for instance. Make some modest experiments and take it from there. Fashion is supposed to be fun, not worriesome. It can be quite cheap, too. I know this homeless teen that hangs out in front of my building, and he ALWAYS looks good, and I don't think he spends a cent, literally.

i guess so, but sometimes you want to consider how you come across to others.

why? = because it just LOOKS terrible.

im not saying you have you spend a fortune on a designer pair of jeans, but come on boys...girls wont look twice at a guy who's thrown on a pair of baggy, relaxed-fit, light colored denim jeans (god forbid they be pleated, pegged, or stonewashed, unless youre So Fashion that you can actually pull that off. in that case, why the hell are you reading this post??) think about it like this: for the most part, jeans are the staple of your wardrobe, right? right. so i dont understand why i constantly see boys making this mistake...not that im a huge fan, but The Gap makes it so easy and inexpensive for guys to buy a beginner pair of nice, properly fitting jeans that pay some attention to detail (bootcut? antiqued? etc.). give it a go. i promise youll look and feel better with a hot pair of jeans. they make all your ratty tshirts look 'vintage' and all your collared shirts look 'GQ'. you can dress them up with a blazer or wear them with chucks and a hoodie and be caj.

god, i feel like whatshisname from Queer Eye. but im a girl.
okay, im thinking of more.

true.
the homeless look is very in right now. not kidding. bohomeless.
haha.

- "what works for you": problem is, i wore dark socks with shorts for years, and had no idea it was such a blunder! i hate, hate, hate white socks, but i can't wear shoes without socks or my feet stink. so there it was.

- sheep: yes, that was one of the cynical thoughts i alluded to.

maybe i shouldn't have used the word "fashion". i don't want to be "fashionable" or trendy, i just want my choice of clothing to not be held against me. more examples of faux pas, please!

xpost: thanks shh! but i don't understand:

"(god forbid they be pleated, pegged, or stonewashed)"

why? why is this so awful? especially the pleats, why do people freak out about this so much? what are the mechanics of it?

(for what it's worth the jeans i own are mostly european, and don't seem too baggy to me)

shorts (unless you are exercising, or are already unbearably attractive)
pleated trousers
team jerseys
tucked in t shirts
moon shoes
puka shell necklaces
shiny shirts
if you are going to wear a buttoned down shirt for night spend an extra $10-$20 bucks and get it tailored so it doesn't look all boxy and crap
if your hair is short let it grow out a bit and then go to a salon instead of the barber

I walk everywhere and the second category is accurate by default, so yay me!

you can get half socks which don't show above the shoe, or just roll down the normal socks. white sport socks aren't so bad though, you can try and rock the preppy tennis look.

so don't wear shoes

http://www.gluecksbambus.de/shop/images/flipflops-zimt.jpg

then how are we supposed to keep cool in the summertime, exactly? (cynical thoughts rising...)

pleated trousers

again, why??

(xpost: well, i have a bit of a paunch, and am trying to get rid of it. i'm skinny otherwise, though, which makes it surprisingly tricky to buy clothes.) (also i'm dirt poor.)

and most of all:

I don't consider men who wear the following attractive:

seriously? like, you wouldn't even give the guy a second look? i just completely can't relate to this, i can't think of anything a woman could wear, short of an "I LOVE THE KKK" t-shirt or something like that, that would make me have that reaction. it seems awfully shallow to me.

Plus, on the brightside, armed with such information it may well turn out that your friend is a dork who doesn't know fashion from his right armpit and that you are a trailblazer in the halls of couture.

i do wear sandals, in the summer. but it's hard to keep them unstinky.

i have siblings, but they live far away.

shopping with someone fashionable, i've tried that, with some success. but i don't know anyone like that who i feel really understands me as a person, and i want a look that reflects who i am, not something that shoehorns me into preppy-ization, GQ-ization, and so on. i have a strong aversion to dressing in a way that lets me be easily pigeonholed, much as i suspect that i've been unwittingly doing that (file under "dork").

who i am vs. suave: that seems to be a matter of debate on this thread, the question of how often you're going to get past "GO" if you're not well-dressed.

more "why", please!

Shorts on guys are just...no. Unless you are exercising etc etc.

why? why is this so awful? especially the pleats, why do people freak out about this so much? what are the mechanics of it?

well...when you look at people wearing pleated, pegged, or stonewashed jeans, do you find it attractive or becoming? as someone said, pleated jeans make you look a bit poochy around the abdomen. i tease my brother and tell him that it sorta looks like he crapped his pants and turned them around the wrong way (sorry to be gross, haha). pegged jeans/pants, while popular for the 80's comeback set or the super-punks, are harder to pull off unless youre rail thin. they make your thighs look large and then your legs taper off so that your body looks as though its resting on a weird upside-down triangle. stonewashed jeans arent cool unless youre AC Slater.

it's quite hard to avoid this - most clothes which go naturally with each other will fit into some sort of fashion archetype. and if they don't you'll just get pigeonholed as a fashionista. having various styles is key - looking preppy one day, GQ another day, depending on mood/climate/circumstances etc.

shorts on guys are unavoidable, you just need to accept that you won't look super-great in them - just try to colour co-ordinate as much as possible.

i cant imagine why your sandals would stink?? sounds like you might have very sweaty feet, which you can take pills for. that would solve your sock problem too. although shoes with no socks are kinda grody anyway.

on the sandal note...what kind of sandals are they? cause unfortunately, most sandals on boys are pretty unattractive in general, save flip flops on beach boys or birkenstocks to go with the crunchy lot.

cynical response: a lot of men's clothing seems to basically revolve around "how much money do you make"?

If I wear a t shirt and shorts to walk to the store, I am not expecting someone to try to pick me up, but if I am actually going out to meet people, of course I am going to put effort into how I am dressed.

i think many women look a lot more attractive "dressed down", actually.

Shorts on guys are just...no. Unless you are exercising etc etc.

so again, wtf are we supposed to do? roast? i don't have the money to afford to run the a/c twenty-four hours a day, nor to fix the a/c in my car. is the male body so hideous that it needs to be hidden, even if it means getting a crushing headache because you're wearing long pants in 90-plus degree heat? that seems to embody everything i think is shitty about fashion. i'm not trying to start a fight here, but i have to say, if this is representative of what most women think, i'm deeply troubled.

The most important thing when buying clothes is to make sure it fits you.

no doubt, that makes plenty of sense. unfortunately i don't think i'm very good at doing this.

shh!: ok, that makes more sense. it still seems a little doctrinaire, but that's not your fault, i guess it's just the way things are. thanks!

(xposts)

unless youre wearing them in a cut-off semi-ironic way. and thats hard to define or argue, so as a rule...no denim shorts. they just look tacky and cheap.

also, can someone PLEASE get rid of cargo anything? the only reson you need those stupid looking pockets are if youre working production (tv or movies), construction (and isnt that what tool belts are for?), are hiking (again, backpacks anyone?), or shoplifting. but seriously...THEYRE AWFUL. especially on jeans.

again, why? what is it exactly that's so wrong about them? i've never been bothered by seeing other guys in shorts. explain it to me as you would an alien, if you were helping them understand "clothing styles in the early 21st century".

sounds like you might have very sweaty feet, which you can take pills for.

what kind? prescription? (i have no health insurance.)

on the sandal note...what kind of sandals are they? cause unfortunately, most sandals on boys are pretty unattractive in general

they're what i could afford, relatively cheap department store specials that i picked because a friend's girlfriend said he wore them.

can you elaborate on why sandals are unattractive on men, and yet ok on women?

xpost: i do want to change, but i want to understand, not to feel like i'm following a bunch of things that either seem (a) totally arbitrary, or (b) like they're tropes for evaluating my economic viability. i don't think that's unreasonable!

forget the pills -- go to a sporting goods store and buy a pair of moisture-wicking socks. they'll cost you, but if you wash them regularly they'll become the only socks you ever wear.

xpost jody OTM re: those socks. you can get these sheer sock liners, too, which i think are mainly for hiking. you'd think wearing a second layer of material on your foot would make you sweat more but they feel gorgeously cool on your skin. plus, if you play basketball or tennis, they'll prevent you from blistering.

but isn't there a middle ground between "fashion plate" and "shabby dork"? one where you feel like you can be yourself, without having to spend four digits (US$) on clothing every year?

xposts: jed that's actually not far off from what i'm starting to shift towards. the last few shirts i've bought have all been plain, solid-color t-shirts (dark blue, khaki, black). big revelation recently has been realizing that i need to wear a size S, i always thought i was an M but it's too big on me.

i thought socks were verboten with sandals, though?

I've found light grey jeans are good to have around- they go equally well with black and white garments or bright colors (grey and pink especially)

FASHION QUESTION

ok really a decorum/norms of decency question

when, where, and why is the visibility of a man's white undershirt considered a norm violation?

how so, when (if it is, as often, just a t-shirt that is white) a man wearing a white t-shirt in many other circumstances would just be… decent, appropriately dressed?

I'm a-okay with just about any visible undershirt. Others will vehemently disagree.

yeah me too, but i was reading a field report for work, about how a customer representative was dressed, and it called attention to the visibility of the shirt underneath, and i was like, o rite, ppl are like that

maybe they think it's one stop away from yer drawwws hangin out or smthn

but i doubt when workers show up at their house they're like ERMAHGERD I SEE YR UNDERSHIRT, SCANDALIZED

when, where, and why is the visibility of a man's white undershirt considered a norm violation?

1. all the time
2. anytime you leave the house
3. because an undershirt is underwear

crew-neck undershirts are made for wearing under a shirt that will be buttoned to the top button with a tie. that's their lineage. nowadays lots of people don't wear ties and wear the top button open. that's perfectly fine (in some respects) but if you do it your crew-neck undershirt will look sloppy and aesthetically displeasing. no one wants to see it.

luckily there is an incredibly simple solution to this problem, it is called the v-neck undershirt.

wearing a white t-shirt as a top layer is completely fine as it exists in a much much lower strata of formality (presumably not one you're allowed to apply at your job). basically dress to the appropriate formality and pay attention to details.

i realize i'm running way way against the wind on this but it is just so much more pleasant not to see someone's white undershirt.

cad otm

btw i googled this topic for the hell of it and lol, these guys are using a hammer to perform neurosurgery: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sloanemen/the-invisible-undershirt

because what we really need are skin-tight undershirts made of pantyhose material.

It's not a norm violation though if your dress shirt is so thin / translucent that you can see the undershirt

If you have a translucent dress shirt, seeing someone's undershirt is better than seeing their nipples

luckily there is an incredibly simple solution to this problem, it is called the v-neck undershirt.

so skin and chest hair are considered more appropriate than the sight of the shirt??

Yeah

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/05/article-2319977-19A10389000005DC-271_634x1043.jpg

xp is this you?

I've noticed some people leaving two buttons unbuttoned

Banker types

seriously leaving the top button unbuttoned should not result in an unacceptable amount of chest exposure.

leaving two buttons opened is apparently some kind of alpha move we shouldn't get into right now.

i thought the underlying reason for the undershirt not showing is that it was a reminder of what it concealed, THE BODY

so how can revealing the body rather than concealing it be better??

Well you might as well just skip the dress shirt and wear the undershirt only

Also, you don't need a v-neck with many shirts, especially if you have good collar stays. Crew works just fine and isn't visible. Generally I hate v-necks.

i thought the underlying reason for the undershirt not showing is that it was a reminder of what it concealed, THE BODY

you were wrong

ty cad

this is not about body shaming or reverse body shaming or w/e, it's about not looking like a schlubby middle manager

this is naked shirteronormativity

Tucking undershirt into underwear - malarkey or effective way?

i'm sure your middle upper chest/start of neck is beautiful, just let it out there man

Tucking undershirt into underwear - malarkey or effective way?

― how's life, Thursday, October 23, 2014 5:45 PM (8 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

wait what?

no

no

certainly not

that's all wrong

what % of ilx men wear vests/undershirts?

visible white crew neck is literally worse than genocide

j/k but it is the comic sans of dressing, a person can accuse another person of being a snob for taking that position but the first person is still the one wearing comic sans.

You're not gonna see chest hair just bc someone's wearing a V-neck undershirt unless they have a hairy neck. In addition to being underwear, the profile of a white crewneck just really disrupts the elegance of a dress or sportshirt collar, sort of in the same way that white socks don't look good with a nice pair of shoes.

j/k but it is the comic sans of dressing, a person can accuse another person of being a snob for taking that position but the first person is still the one wearing comic sans.

― mattresslessness, Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:57 PM (3 minutes ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_equality

visible crewneck under a buttonup is essential to normcore business casual

I don't like only having the top button unbuttoned but going any deeper reveals way too much chest hair for me. A black undershirt is my compromise.

this is not about body shaming or reverse body shaming or w/e, it's about not looking like a schlubby middle manager

― call all destroyer, Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:32 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

But that's my career aspiration!!! Need to look the part to get the job done.

Is today the day I admit to tucking my undershirt into my underwear? No, not today.

a personal appeal then. this is everywhere. in my uncool city it is the omnipresent sign of pure derp. j. you are more interesting than that, please apply your sophistication to how you look in a some kind of engaged way, it does not have to be outlandish, cost money or betray your commitment to negative dialectics.

xp get r done *farts*

am i not human

do i not derp

visible crewneck under a buttonup is essential to normcore business casual

― phil phish (diamonddave85), Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:04 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

hope you're muffin-topping the shirt too then

tucking one's undershirt into one's underwear sounds incredibly weird and uncomfortable for me personally but i guess i'll never know if someone is actually doing it

xps less nascar than boy scout bible camp oblivious puritanism

I do think there ought to be some kind of button or clip or something on the inside of trousers that helps shirts stay properly tucked. Does that exist?

Just get the undershirts that advertise themselves as 'extra long'

American Apparel shirts are actually pretty long

Expensive to just serve as an undershirt tho

undershirt

u mean vest?

I do think there ought to be some kind of button or clip or something on the inside of trousers that helps shirts stay properly tucked. Does that exist?

― my jaw left (Hurting 2), Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:05 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

are you talking about undershirts or regular shirts?

in general sounds like you need to get some longer shirts.

http://www.galls.com/photos/styles/QM/ZOOM/Q51-315.JPG

police use them

Brilliant. Solves two problems!

doesnt solve the problem of sitting down

the police are too vigilant to sit down

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18982-when-local-police-become-a-standing-army

I mean dress shirts. They're not coming untucked they just never hold that crisp tuck.