Skinny jeans and grandad trousers with orange F's

I hear you OP, in my opinion 'fashionable' skinny ultra tight and/or too short or low arse exposing men's trousers are one of the worst styles arguably in the history of all clothing, being potentially sperm count lowering, constrictive ball huggers that are modelled on womens jeans styles from the 1950's and make pretty much any man wearing them look like some degree of a tool, I know that's harsh, but I'm just calling as I see it.

Super skinny trousers have had their place as part of the underground punk scene for decades granted, but since around 2008 they've been mystifyingly incorporated into all sorts of obnoxiously 'ballin' or hipster and subsequently mainstream styles, twinned with anything from afghan scarves to bowties to flatpeak baseball caps with the stickers left on. In all cases they pretty much look ridiculous, but again that's just my opinion.

In fairness flares did the same thing for around 10 years in the 60s/70s. Take a look at old photos from that time - they look completely ridiculous but at least they looked comfortable. I'm pretty certain skinny trousers and men's jeggins in particular will be a similar case for derision in years to come.

People can wear what they want and I don't want to criticise anyone unfairly, so all power to you if you like the style or have grown up with it and think it looks cool, but in my opinion the classic and centuries enduring style of baggy or straight fit trousers for men are a much more comfortable and practical style that are getting harder to find in most men's stores these days thanks to what I perceive as a temporary fad for skinny, and pretty much feminine cut trousers for men.

Advocates of them are only wearing them because they're following fashion or have grown up with them, not that there's anything wrong with that, but that's basically what it is. Their time will pass and soon most outlets will go back to a classic fit dominating the selection again, it always happens with any extreme style, and I think that's what a lot of us don't like about them, they're a consciously fashionable extreme style over their function just like flares were, we just want practical, classic fitting trousers and not fashion statements with low pocket space and constrictive function.
 
Your just jealous of how good they look.

A big no.


B4yN1ji.jpg
 
What i think looks worse than slightly baggy trousers is when they legs are tight and the crotch is not. Don't know if anyone would agree with that.

http://thumbs4.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/muF4gqwxFDVetfv6x7vROCw.jpg

This sort of thing.

The guy at work even said to me "its not the 90s any more" because i wear size 38 straight cut levi jeans, i think they are 505 or 514. They are a bit baggy but not mc hammer pants, definitely baggier than my new chino from crew though. What fuels this hate for slightly baggy pants any way?
 
Last edited:
The guy at work even said to me "its not the 90s any more" because i wear size 38 straight cut levi jeans, i think they are 505 or 514. They are a bit baggy but not mc hammer pants, definitely baggier than my new chino from crew though. What fuels this hate for slightly baggy pants any way?

I guess he was referring to spliffy jeans? anyone who can't tell the difference between them and levi straights really doesn't get to comment on fashion :s
 
As I'm hardly a paragon of fashion, I get most of my jeans and casual trousers at either Tesco or Primarni.

Primark do a wide variety of styles of jeans, from skinny boy band up to comfy slouchy fatty jeans like I wear.
 
How about you all get a grip on reality and accept that all men (and women) are different sizes and heights, and have different fashion styles. Just because you don't like skinny jeans and the 9 stone bloke next to you does, you are no more of a man than he.

Never have I seen so many supposedly grown men be such pathetic bitches about what we wear. Jesus.

skinny jeans are a ****ing abomination, they're bloody impossible to get off in a hurry :(

and they always have that crappy baggy saggy ass/groin region. why just why be skin tight around the rather unsexy skinny calf but then hide the ass? least be skin tight in the attractive places.
 
Last edited:
The only men who should be wearing skin tight jeans are skin heads and that chap from Right said Fred.

Man up and understand your not a marketeers dream and fashion really is for losers.

2 Suits
2 Jeans
Trainers
Brown shoes
T shirts (unlimited)
Work Shirts

This is all you will need to see you through life son, save your money and buy you are your man-lady friend a meal out.
 
I'm the lankiest mofo about, 6' 3-4" and look really lanky in general (don't know what it is). Have a 34" waist, which many people who say I am skinny have a smaller size than (some as low as 28" and only got a few inches on them :confused:).

I don't know what it is, but I suppose its a good foundation if I ever went down to the gym in force :p
 
[..]
The guy at work even said to me "its not the 90s any more" because i wear size 38 straight cut levi jeans, i think they are 505 or 514. They are a bit baggy but not mc hammer pants, definitely baggier than my new chino from crew though. What fuels this hate for slightly baggy pants any way?

Fashion. It's a very silly idea, but it's very common and probably always has been. Certainly in any even fairly rich society. It changes faster in modern times, probably partly from being driven by a more organised fashion industry. It's all about profit - the faster businesses can change fashion, the more insecure they can make people and the more profit they can extract from them. It's been around at least throughout recorded history though, e.g. short dresses were traditionally fashionable for men in ancient Rome.

I have a simple solution - I don't care. I buy clothing to protect me from the elements and to avoid being arrested. I neither know nor care if it's fashionable this week. I also have no interest in being as androgynous as possible to conform to the currently popular belief that male = bad and wrong, so I don't have to care about that either. It's liberating to not care.
 
Last edited:
Tucked in shirt at work, untucked when no, or wear a tee.

There is no excuse for tucking a shirt in outside the office, unless accompanied by white socks and sandals.


Disagree. The vast majority of times I see people with a shirt which isn't tucked in it's way too long/baggy. Shirts with tails should be tucked in, casual or otherwise - the only exception is if you're going for the rebellious school child look.
 
Disagree. The vast majority of times I see people with a shirt which isn't tucked in it's way too long/baggy. Shirts with tails should be tucked in, casual or otherwise - the only exception is if you're going for the rebellious school child look.

Agreed - I like tucking my shirts in, unless as stated they are smaller shirts that aren't long and are designed to be casual and not tucked in. Almost like a "sports" shirt.
 
well for giggles heres my current stats.

37 years old, 6'3 and currently damaging scales around the 22st 10lbs mark, down from my high of over 23st 7lbs and slowly dropping now im working. chest is around 56" :D

as for the big leg brigade when i last picked up a pair of black trousers i had to get 52" waist so i can get my legs in them thighs are down a tad at 28" now but depending how the gym goes and if i try to kill myself totally playing american football again who knows :)

ERMERGERD NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE OVER 15ST THERE'S NO EXCUSE EVER! :mad:
 
Disagree. The vast majority of times I see people with a shirt which isn't tucked in it's way too long/baggy. Shirts with tails should be tucked in, casual or otherwise - the only exception is if you're going for the rebellious school child look.

Haven't you heard? Long t-shirts are "in" now. :rolleyes:

Wish I was joking.

tshirt.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom