« Triathlons kill |
| Obama the law professor »
According to a NY Times article, people are now wearing shorts to work.
The “shorts suit” looks downright gay. I can’t imagine a straight man wearing that to work.
July 31, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf6ae53ef00e553c599738833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Casual gets more casual:
As men's suits are the most evil form of clothing ever invented, anything is an improvement!
July 31, 2008 at 09:13 AM
I would thought that golf shirts were the most evil form of clothing invented.
The tried this in the 1980's and it did not work either. It also goes to bright colored suits or plaid suits.
They are probably OK for rappers, the MTV set, and gay men but that is the last thing that I would want my attorney wearing if I got busted for insider trading.
July 31, 2008 at 09:38 AM
The last image is the only that doesn't immediately suggest New York Hipster or flaming homosexuality. It does suggest a fool easily parted with his money for silly trends.
And super's last comment is hilarious and exactly right.
July 31, 2008 at 09:48 AM
Didn't people in Bermuda wear that kind of thing? However, I was there recently and I didn't see anyone in "shorts suits" althought plenty of men wore shorts with socks pulled up to their knees. This fashion statement was probably brought to us by the same morons who came up with the "skinny jeans" look, which nobody, even attractive women, look good in although plenty of stupid emo kids insist on wearing them.
July 31, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Not necessarily. In fact, I'm actually wearing a golf shirt right now, which I will point out is a very nice one from Nordstrom's, with super-smooth fabric and an excellent fit.*
Consider the analogy with kitchen knives. A kitchen knife can be used for a good purpose, preparing a gourmet meal, and also for a bad purpose, slashing an innocent person's throat. The mere fact that an item can be misused does not, without more, make it inherently evil.
And so it is with golf shirts. The mere fact that they can be used for purposes of evil, namely, playing God-damned cartball, does not make them inherently evil.
* = what's especially nice is that the shirt is size Large and fits quite loosely through the stomach. It's not as loose through the chest and shoulders, but of course that's good. As recently as a year ago I wore size Extra Large and some of them could be a little tight in spots.
July 31, 2008 at 10:42 AM
So it has now gotten to the point where you can get a long article published in the Times for something that isnt even a trend?
That may be. Yet none of the New York City banks, law firms, stock brokerages or hospitals contacted by a reporter last week considered shorts an acceptable part of a work uniform, and for reasons that varied from the need to preserve institutional decorum to hygiene (imagine a hairy leg in an O.R.)
The only examples they have is from a 3rd tier ad agency in Utah, hockey player who is an intern and a editor at a gay magazine.
And would people buy anything from that guy in the first picture? He looks like a homeless dude who got a thrift suit and scissored it down.
July 31, 2008 at 10:55 AM
darn didnt close the tag
July 31, 2008 at 10:57 AM
This web page:
seems to suggest that the shorts-suit is still de rigeur in Bermuda. I have never been there so perhaps it's a case of the official line trying desperately to cling to a long-gone distinguishing feature of a place.
I also wholheartedly agree with Turambar about how the press now manufactures trends out of thin air, especially when it comes to fashion and "lifestyle" issues.
In a related development, last week I read about a postman somewhere on the West Coast who is trying to get the kilt accepted as sanctioned mail carrier attire. I don't see under what principle he should be denied, given that the USPS is a government agency and thus supposedly non-discriminatory to a fault.
July 31, 2008 at 11:21 AM
as long as you don't have to meet clients, i say be comfortable--WTF
i've been wearing sandals into work every day this summer, and no one cares
BTW--highly suggest birkenstoclk's with the new soft cushion--and chaco's, from colorado, which is an amazing sandal
July 31, 2008 at 12:32 PM
The buff hockey player just wanted to show off his muscular calves so he could shamelessly flirt with the cute young interns and cement his alpha status even at work. In the 21st century even the workplace is becoming more sexual.
July 31, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Dress shoes without socks is the more alarming trend here.... disgusting.
July 31, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Steve Johnson |
July 31, 2008 at 12:56 PM
I don't know about sexual orientation, but men's legs,on balance, are ugly. It's a violation of civility to expose coworkers to hairy varicose legs.
July 31, 2008 at 01:01 PM
Posted by:Buckwheat | July 31, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Go roll a joint ya fuckin' hippy!
Hardhat riot |
July 31, 2008 at 01:12 PM
"don't know about sexual orientation, but men's legs,on balance, are ugly. It's a violation of civility to expose coworkers to hairy varicose legs [sic; see "veins"]."
Posted by:doctor | July 31, 2008 at 01:01
I'm sure Michelangelo and Raphael would agree with you. Do you consider willies to be ugly, too?
July 31, 2008 at 01:13 PM
I can only imagine what Madison Avenue was thinking when they came up with this. Some of us might remember that some years ago, outfits like this were typically only worn by small juvenile boys; the transition to long pants was indicative of the transition from boyhood to manhood. Perhaps the Madison Avenue homosexuals who revived this want adult men to resemble small boys...
July 31, 2008 at 01:33 PM
Perhaps the Madison Avenue homosexuals who revived this want adult men to resemble small boys...
They do. The fashion designer queers certainly want the female models on the runway to as well. I mean shit, not a female feature on some of them. I remember the "heroin chic" look. What a winner. Be a junkie, or just look like one!
July 31, 2008 at 01:40 PM
They do. The fashion designer queers certainly want the female models on the runway to as well. I mean shit, not a female feature on some of them.
I'm thinking of one thing in particular ...
July 31, 2008 at 02:37 PM
I haven't worn shorts in 8 years. Swimming trunks and running gear don't count.
I agree with half, what a bunch of homos. Regardless of what they're wearing while modeling, male models are friggin' homos.
Jim Beam |
July 31, 2008 at 03:25 PM
If a straight male designer tried to start a schoolgirl trend (like middle or high school), he'd be blasted as a pedophile. Some fag lives out his fantasy of buggering a 13 year-old British boarding schoolboy, and it's endearing.
July 31, 2008 at 05:04 PM
It's different. So on the one hand, one shouldn't freak out at difference but maybe some of us wouldn't find ourselves here reading this if we weren't predisposed to strong reactions to difference. On the other hand, this seems more like a bit propaganda, an attempt to get males excited about the sexuality and sensuality of the bare leg (hedonists make good consumers) and over paying for less fabric (shorts).
I am not sure what these pants have to do with the work environment and getting things done. It's hard for me to imagine there would be a day where the men who wear long pants work for the men who wear long pants.
July 31, 2008 at 08:30 PM
Speaking of gay, what's up with these tiny posts?
July 31, 2008 at 09:34 PM
Short suits? How utterly ridiculous, and ugly too.
Lawful Neutral |
August 01, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Aiya! I meant "...where the men who wear long pants work for the men who wear short pants."
August 01, 2008 at 01:11 AM
Looks like Lt. Ron Dangle from Reno 911!
August 01, 2008 at 08:48 AM
OK, what's funny about being/looking gay?
are you afraid of the sweet allure of a gloriously hirsute tookes staring you in the face?
August 01, 2008 at 10:37 AM
"Speaking of gay, what's up with these tiny posts?"
Are you saying that tiny posts are the mark of a deeply repressed gay struggling with his inner demons of queerness who is so deep in the closet he can't find the light? If so I just hope that anyone who lives in the breadbox of homosexuality doesn't settle for the crumbs!
Straight, but not narrow |
August 01, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Didn't British Army Officers wear shorts in India? And in North Africa?
Robert Hume |
August 01, 2008 at 10:58 AM
"...On the other hand, this seems more like a bit propaganda, an attempt to get males excited about the sexuality and sensuality of the bare leg (hedonists make good consumers) and over paying for less fabric (shorts)."
Excited over their own legs or some other guy's? Possibly the gayest thing ever written here, ever. Your're keeping the place warm with a comment like that.
August 01, 2008 at 11:17 AM
"Didn't British Army Officers wear shorts in India? And in North Africa?"
They did; so did the Germans and Italians. But, you look substantially less gay when you are heavily armed and not wearing loafers with no socks.
August 04, 2008 at 05:27 PM
I was responding to the post about whether British Army officers wore shorts in tropical places, but the quote got cut off.
August 04, 2008 at 05:29 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.