Cargo Shorts-Yes or No?

[Angela]

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

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! :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.

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 2]

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-vaio-at-pitti-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/...-2016-street-style/milano-m-moc-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-2016-mens-style-options-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/236x/bb/53/ed/bb53eda2d5625e7e4c6b13338039a91a.jpg

The clothing for women in the classical era was stunning:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d4/a5/3c/d4a53c5b95ad467cd54b6786bfe119ee.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/2013/05/middle-ages-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]

Angela@ 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]

Angela@ 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]

Angela@
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]

Angela@
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.