current dress trends

[Noirblack]

I agree. There are some men who simply do not want to dress like an adult. I have seen the same thing others here have seen. A father and his teen-age son dressed almost exactly alike. The father dressed like his teen-age son, that is. Rebellion may have started it at first, but then rebellion becomes the norm. Their desire to be different has backfired. These people have to choose...either decide to look like an adult and accept the fact that a 50 year old man in baggy jeans, ball cap turned backward with large shirt untucked looks ridiculous or keep re-inventing themselves every time pop culture deems it necessary.

Usually the older fellows dress a bit too young. However this discussion made me think of the Alex Keaton character from Family Ties. He rebelled against his parents (who were former hippies). Alex was in high school and he typically wore ties, suits, slacks and sport coats. So if you want your kids to dress up, you should dress down a bit.

 

[Edward]

Usually the older fellows dress a bit too young. However this discussion made me think of the Alex Keaton character from Family Ties. He rebelled against his parents (who were former hippies). Alex was in high school and he typically wore ties, suits, slacks and sport coats. So if you want your kids to dress up, you should dress down a bit.

It's all cyclical - eventually this will happen. Lapels will get wider, legs will get wider, waists will get higher. It's the only thing left to do now they've pushed the pendulum as far as it will go one way. And, of course, after all these years of giving off about how terribly the mainstream dress and how I can't find anything, I'll instantly bitch and moan about how they're all stealing my look - why can't they leave us alone,etc..... lol

 

[Atticus Finch]

The pants-worn-low look did originate in prison, but it had nothing to do with prisoners not having belts. Prisoners generally do wear belts unless they have been deemed to be a particularly high risk for suicide or other violence.

The pants-worn-low look actually began among certain prisoners to advertise their availability to other prisoners.

AF

 

[Pompidou]

Seems to me, it'd be more accurate to say that adults don't dress like they used to, rather than adults don't dress like adults. It's not historically unprecedented for kids and adults to wear the same look. The only difference being, when we look at paintings of life hundreds of years ago, we assume the kids were dressing like adults, and not vice versa. The idea of two separate dress codes based on age is a relatively recent one, and, if this thread is an indicator, a relatively brief one. Instead of dressing like a kid or dressing like an adult, we're just dressing. There's a huge spectrum of different looks out there, and there's not much ground for picking one and saying this is what adults do, especially when not just adults do it, but also kids in certain circles of society as well. All kind of arbitrary.

 

[Atticus Finch]

I'm here to tell you...nothing is funnier than watching a dash-cam video of a fat, wheezing deputy chasing a teenager who is trying to run with his pants down around his knees.

AF

 

[Undertow]

...I'm particularly interested in is finding out what is it about that specific look that modern people think *looks good?* Nobody deliberately goes out dressed in a way that they themselves think makes them look ridiculous, so what's the aesthetic explanation for an exaggerated long torso, such as you get with a long, untucked shirt, and short stubby legs such as you get from low-riding pants? It's been suggested that this is a look that "chicks dig,"...why is this look popular? Analyze, please.

There are number of things I haven't seen mentioned in this particular thread. First is the tendency to keep these clothes PRISTINE in appareance and cleanliness. I've known a few fellows that spent $150 on a pair of tennis shoes and when those shoes were scuffed that night at the club, these guys reluctantly tossed the shoes.

Second, some fellas also find it absolutely necessary to match colors; e.g. red hat, red shirt, red leather jacket, red pants and red shoes. This likely started with "gang colors" but has taken a new form as Midwest kids who aren't in gangs find the matching appealing.

Third, some fellas are quite serious about their hat collections and as you've seen (and I'm sure others here have mocked at one point or another) they leave the bill of their ball caps uncreased and tags intact.

Last, there are some guys who obsess over the crease in their khakis/jeans, as well as the cuffs.

I hate to say it, but these habits aren't far from what some guys are doing on the Lounge. We may have better sense than to throw away a pair of shoes, or a jacket, but what man here isn't a little anal about the condition of his clothes? We obsess over moth holes, or stains. I'm sure there are a few of us that would gladly throw away a jacket that's torn and can't be sewn. Same goes for our hat collections. Some fellas here wear their Stetsons, or Akubras, or Dobbs straight out of the box with the pre-creased crown. I think color matching is not as popular, we go for coordinating colors on the Lounge. Then again, plenty of gay men are stereotyped by their love of color coordination. [huh]

My point is that many of the same motivations in modern men's dress are at play here on the Lounge. The only difference is the style of clothing, and the adherence to proportions.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm here to tell you...nothing is funnier than watching a dash-cam video of a fat, wheezing deputy chasing a teenager who is trying to run with his pants down around his knees.

AF

Add that Benny Hill saxophone music, and you'd have the biggest hit on Yoo Toob.

 

[Otateral]

An excellent point, about the idea of different styles based on age being a new thing. I've heard "dress your age" a million times, and it never occured to me that that saying would have baffled someone a few decades ago.

 

[Pompidou]

There are number of things I haven't seen mentioned in this particular thread. First is the tendency to keep these clothes PRISTINE in appareance and cleanliness. I've known a few fellows that spent $150 on a pair of tennis shoes and when those shoes were scuffed that night at the club, these guys reluctantly tossed the shoes.

Second, some fellas also find it absolutely necessary to match colors; e.g. red hat, red shirt, red leather jacket, red pants and red shoes. This likely started with "gang colors" but has taken a new form as Midwest kids who aren't in gangs find the matching appealing.

Third, some fellas are quite serious about their hat collections and as you've seen (and I'm sure others here have mocked at one point or another) they leave the bill of their ball caps uncreased and tags intact.

Last, there are some guys who obsess over the crease in their khakis/jeans, as well as the cuffs.

I hate to say it, but these habits aren't far from what some guys are doing on the Lounge. We may have better sense than to throw away a pair of shoes, or a jacket, but what man here isn't a little anal about the condition of his clothes? We obsess over moth holes, or stains. I'm sure there are a few of us that would gladly throw away a jacket that's torn and can't be sewn. Same goes for our hat collections. Some fellas here wear their Stetsons, or Akubras, or Dobbs straight out of the box with the pre-creased crown. I think color matching is not as popular, we go for coordinating colors on the Lounge. Then again, plenty of gay men are stereotyped by their love of color coordination. [huh]

My point is that many of the same motivations in modern men's dress are at play here on the Lounge. The only difference is the style of clothing, and the adherence to proportions.

One of the best posts yet.

 

[Edward]

My point is that many of the same motivations in modern men's dress are at play here on the Lounge. The only difference is the style of clothing, and the adherence to proportions.

The logical question then becomes whether or how do these kids find a gateway into vintage.... It makes a lot of sense that they might - as per what you point out. Also, as I have often said on the FL, well over half the vintage scene folks in the UK, at least those of us much over 25, were previously (still are, under the skin) punks, goths, psychobillies.... all other subcultures very much associated with tribal forms of dress. FWIW, I began to appreciate what the hip hop kids are dong an awful lot more when I realised that of the random comments I get on the street, if they come from most anyone under fifty who isn't also a vintage person, it's a hip hop kid. They appreciate what it is to put together a look.

 

[Mario]

fftopic: Edward...your PM box is FULL! Do some spring cleaning...

 

[LizzieMaine]

Around here, hip-hop influence is minimal -- we're the whitest state in the union, by far, and the teenagers are far more likely to go around dressed in a pastiche of 1970s punk rock regalia than they are anything "urban." But their fathers, most of whom never neither hipped nor hopped in their lives, go in for a very distinctive low-slung pants look: the pants are not baggy or saggy or draggy, they're conventionally cut, but the waist comes to about four inches below the natural waistline, so that they cinch under the universally-overhanging belly. Sometimes the underside of the belly is on full display underneath the hem of the t-shirt and develops a unique tan line in the summer. And the effect on the legs is to make it look as though the wearer has no shins at all.

I know absolutely nothing about modern men's pants so is this the only way you can get them nowadays? Is the real problem with a clothing industry that refuses to acknowledge the duckpin-like shape of many modern-day adult males?

Regarding "dress your age," in the Era -- which is the period that concerns most of us here, what the Romans or Papuans or Yaqui Indians did or do isn't especially relevant -- there were very distinct cultural rules for age-appropriate clothing, descended from rules that extended at least to the middle of the 19th century. Children born around the turn of the century would likely have worn dresses until the age of four or five or so, regardless of sex. Boys of five would have worn shorts or knickers, and would have continued in them until some indefinite point in the early teens -- the first pair of long pants was a ritual of impending adulthood, and after the first longies were bestowed, the youth would dress in a scaled down version of adult clothing. Girls wore short dresses until approximately the same age that boys were given long pants, after which time hem length was proportionate to that of adult women.

Knicker suits were not uncommon among adult men for casual/informal wear, but a man going out on the street in a pair of shorts might very well hear kids yelling in his wake "GET SOME LONG PANTS MISTER!" And the only woman who could get away with dressing in little-girl style clothing without being razzed about it was Mary Pickford.

There were distinctive "teenage/college" styles in the twenties and thirties, and an actual teenage-girl subculture really took hold during the war years, in which the girls dressed in cast-off men's clothes and greatly annoyed their parents. But you'd never see a middle-aged woman copying their style, jumping up and down and squealing for Frankie. For the period that concerns us, "Dress Your Age" was a definite rule.

And before someone yawps up with "but that's irrelevant, this is 2012" keep in mind that this isn't the Backwards Ballcap Lounge. A lot of us are here because we're actually interested in the culture and mores of the Era or were raised to a greater or lesser extent under the influence of that culture, and you shouldn't be horrified or shocked or offended to see us examining and even criticising modern culture thru that lens. After all, Keeping The Culture of The Greatest Generation is our mission statement here.

 

[Chaps]

Around here, hip-hop influence is minimal -- we're the whitest state in the union, by far, and the teenagers are far more likely to go around dressed in a pastiche of 1970s punk rock regalia than they are anything "urban." But their fathers, most of whom never neither hipped nor hopped in their lives, go in for a very distinctive low-slung pants look: the pants are not baggy or saggy or draggy, they're conventionally cut, but the waist comes to about four inches below the natural waistline, so that they cinch under the universally-overhanging belly. Sometimes the underside of the belly is on full display underneath the hem of the t-shirt and develops a unique tan line in the summer. And the effect on the legs is to make it look as though the wearer has no shins at all.

I know absolutely nothing about modern men's pants so is this the only way you can get them nowadays? Is the real problem with a clothing industry that refuses to acknowledge the duckpin-like shape of many modern-day adult males?

Regarding "dress your age," in the Era -- which is the period that concerns most of us here, what the Romans or Papuans or Yaqui Indians did or do isn't especially relevant -- there were very distinct cultural rules for age-appropriate clothing, descended from rules that extended at least to the middle of the 19th century. Children born around the turn of the century would likely have worn dresses until the age of four or five or so, regardless of sex. Boys of five would have worn shorts or knickers, and would have continued in them until some indefinite point in the early teens -- the first pair of long pants was a ritual of impending adulthood, and after the first longies were bestowed, the youth would dress in a scaled down version of adult clothing. Girls wore short dresses until approximately the same age that boys were given long pants, after which time hem length was proportionate to that of adult women.

Knicker suits were not uncommon among adult men for casual/informal wear, but a man going out on the street in a pair of shorts might very well hear kids yelling in his wake "GET SOME LONG PANTS MISTER!" And the only woman who could get away with dressing in little-girl style clothing without being razzed about it was Mary Pickford.

There were distinctive "teenage/college" styles in the twenties and thirties, and an actual teenage-girl subculture really took hold during the war years, in which the girls dressed in cast-off men's clothes and greatly annoyed their parents. But you'd never see a middle-aged woman copying their style, jumping up and down and squealing for Frankie. For the period that concerns us, "Dress Your Age" was a definite rule.

And before someone yawps up with "but that's irrelevant, this is 2012" keep in mind that this isn't the Backwards Ballcap Lounge. A lot of us are here because we're actually interested in the culture and mores of the Era or were raised to a greater or lesser extent under the influence of that culture, and you shouldn't be horrified or shocked or offended to see us examining and even criticising modern culture thru that lens. After all, Keeping The Culture of The Greatest Generation is our mission statement here.

AMEN, Lizzie!

 

[Noirblack]

The pants-worn-low look did originate in prison, but it had nothing to do with prisoners not having belts. Prisoners generally do wear belts unless they have been deemed to be a particularly high risk for suicide or other violence.

The pants-worn-low look actually began among certain prisoners to advertise their availability to other prisoners.

AF

How sweet is that? A little jail house love.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

[video=youtube;g6dMTwURRns]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6dMTwURRns[/video]

We are like the guys in this movie.

 

[Noirblack]

I know absolutely nothing about modern men's pants so is this the only way you can get them nowadays? Is the real problem with a clothing industry that refuses to acknowledge the duckpin-like shape of many modern-day adult males?

The men with the big bellies just seem to buy their pants too small. They would definitely look better with a higher waist. As it is, their pants are low on the waist while the belly hangs over the belt. Add to that a shirt that is so tight that it's straining at the buttons. That look does nothing but make the belly more pronounced. It would be a much nicer silhouette if the pants were up covering the belly. Think of Alfred Hitchcock. As big as he was, he new how to dress himself. Sebastian Cabot also comes to mind as a large man who looked great in his clothes.

Clearly I'm picturing men who made the effort to dress well. If the big belly is filling up a wife beater and hanging down over the waist band of an old pair of jeans, the location of the waist band isn't what makes the ensemble look like crap.

 

[rue]

And before someone yawps up with "but that's irrelevant, this is 2012" keep in mind that this isn't the Backwards Ballcap Lounge. A lot of us are here because we're actually interested in the culture and mores of the Era or were raised to a greater or lesser extent under the influence of that culture, and you shouldn't be horrified or shocked or offended to see us examining and even criticising modern culture thru that lens. After all, Keeping The Culture of The Greatest Generation is our mission statement here.

This should be posted on the front page of the Lounge. Seriously.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

T. Think of Alfred Hitchcock. As big as he was, he new how to dress himself. Sebastian Cabot also comes to mind as a large man who looked great in his clothes.

Also Jackie Gleason

 

[LizzieMaine]

There were a lot of good looking, well dressed fat men in the Era. A pendulous belly is no excuse for looking slovenly.

 

[katiesparkles]

Can I just state my frustration about grown women wearing these out in public?

They're slippers, for Heaven's sake.. slippers. For at home. Not for your work place. How can I take my peers seriously if they prance around in slippers like the office is their goshdarn living room? UGH!