Readers, some of you may think I'm a flamboyant person, but when it comes to day-to-day dressing, I'm actually rather conservative. I'm perfectly comfortable on the beach in a short bathing suit but you'll never see me walking down the street with my shirt unbuttoned or rocking a pair of Daisy Dukes. It's just not the vibe I want to give off.
So now that I'm getting close to cutting my fabric for my vintage Seventies Op shorts knock-off, I'm wondering if this is a look I'm going to feel comfortable in. It's not that I don't think I can wear them, it's whether I actually will. It's not 1978 anymore and my teen idol days are long past, even if I'm not quite ready for Celebrity Fit Club.
In the city, short-shorts feel very exposed to me. I read a few years ago that the look was coming back, but I rarely see it. Do you see it where you live?
Anyway, I've already retraced my vintage Seventies mens shorts pattern, Simplicity 5044, along with the Op style pocket.
I also cut up that old jumpsuit I made two years ago (I never wore it) and used it as a muslin to test rise and hem length.
So now the question is, which length?
Shorter length:
Longer length:
I know the shorter length is truer to the original Op short, but I'm just not sure I'm comfortable in it. Those extra two inches make a big difference (to me).
I know short-shorts can be cute on some...
...but I'm wondering if sometimes more isn't more, if you know what I mean.
What do you think? Original Seventies hot pants length or something a little more -- dare I say it? -- age appropriate?
What length shorts does the man in your life currently wear or, if you're a man, do you wear?
Is there some sort of rule about this -- say, 1/4 inch added for every year you are over 40, or just whatever floats your boat? Thoughts?
Have a great day, everybody!
Posts
I rather prefer longer shorts for men like the first runway guy, but my city is quite conservative regarding men`s clothing so I might be biased!
ReplyDeleteShort shorts are terrific on guys doing athletic things, but I'm not a big fan of them for just walking around town.
ReplyDeleteMy votes for the longer length. (1) You're more comfortable in that length (comfortable physically and mentally is key for me) and (2) never been a fan of the short-shorts on men for casual city/suburban wear.
ReplyDeleteMy guy wears his shorts in the middle of his knee (his trunks are just over the knee) and that is with the waist sitting where it should be and not around his butt (worst offense!).
I even wear my shorts long and 90% of them are from the boys department (they have pockets!! So many USEFUL pockets!!)
Short-shorts are good for the beach, athletics, and home lounging in the summer.
I have to ask... if you're not comfortable in the shorter length, why are you even asking for a "vote"?
ReplyDeleteThat said, I agree with everyone who's posted so far. I like the longer length.
You've got some shapely pins, Peter, but I think you'd feel too self-conscious in the shorter length. To my eye, the longer length looks better.
ReplyDeleteYou should go shorter and consider this to be a vacation piece, not to be worn in the city. I have no idea why I think this.
ReplyDeleteI think shorter length is fine for sports and sport-related activities for men.
ReplyDeleteLonger length looks much nicer on your legs. (same thing with my husband...)
Longer if you want to wear them. Shorter if you don't.
ReplyDeleteFor walking around the City, I would go with just above the knee.
ReplyDeleteUnless you're on the beach, planning to take a dip, go for the longer look! Even the tennis world is doing longer these days.
ReplyDeleteYou've got the legs for either, but I prefer the longer. It also shows off those cool pockets better, I think.
ReplyDeleteMy husband's shorts hit him a couple inches above the knee, but he's got long legs like Magnum PI there.
Glad to see you are using that pattern I found for you again. Even if the jumpsuit didn't work out, the pockets are a nice detail on the shorts.
Of the two lengths you've tried I think that the shorter one is definitely best (it's not like it's super-short). If you wanted longer then I think that they should be much nearer knee length. That not-particularly-short but not-exactly-lomg-either length just looks 'old man' to me.
ReplyDeleteMy vote is longer... I am not sure "daisy dukes" are appropriate for anyone but Daisy Duke (wishing I had her legs).
ReplyDeleteEven though you have the legs to rock them short, I think they flatter your leg better at the longer length you had shown because they end at the thinner part of your thigh. Either way, they'd be cool, but I vote for the longer.
ReplyDeleteJust like with a skirt (especially a fitted one), you have to take into account, not only the length while standing, but the length if you sit down. There's a reason short-shorts give off an extremely retro vibe...it just isn't a practical enough length to be classic. I mean classic in the sense of being a wardrobe staple that one reaches for repeatedly, and that can be found in ready-to-wear stores season after season. I vote for the longer length for wearability.
ReplyDeleteOMG that Tom Selleck is an eternal hunk!!! I took up watching Friends again when he reappeared. He gets better with age!
ReplyDeleteLonger. You can always take them up at a later date, but you can't add a frill if you overdo it! Well, you can, but you wouldn't...would you?
As far as the length of my husband's shorts. I am reminded of the Calvin and Hobbes comic that ends with Calvin yelling, "Short pants touch my feet, OK?" My husband is 5'4", and finding shorts that are just the right length (right above the knee) but that still have cargo pockets and are made of out just the right fabric is a giant pain. I'd make him some, but just thinking about how many pockets multiple pairs of cargo shorts would entail is exhausting.
ReplyDeletePersonally I like them a bit longer. I'd say go with what makes you most comfortable. This is a garment that you are making to wear on regular days so just do what makes you happy.
ReplyDeleteI really must say that my eyebrow was raised when you first proposed to make those shorts! Whatever you do don't go any shorter than the length you show here. Certain things should remain in their time lock.......hot pants and bell bottoms being two. You would never see a guy here in Hartford wearing the micro-shorts on the guy in the center picture up top. There are fashion designer who want to grab press attention and show things of that kind. It's like the skinny pants that they were trying to push......it never went over, at least not up here in the home of the Connecticut Yankee! Now if only this damn trend of wearing your pants down around your knees would just die! WHY WON'T IT JUST GO AWAY!!!! lol!!!
ReplyDeleteI think the longer shorts are wore versatile. Short shorts are more for the tennis court or the beach whereas, the longer ones are good for around town and the beach (and the tennis court). Also, if you go with the longer shorts and then decide you want shorter, just change it later. I have a few items that I made and haven't worn because they aren't in my comfort zone. So I say, play it safe and make changes later if need be.
ReplyDeleteMy vote is for the longer shorts. I think that depending on a person's height, etc., the overall look would come into play. Long waist/legs or short waist/legs - balance. I hope that makes sense.
ReplyDeleteThe longer length is more flattering if you intend to really wear them. Just because you can wear the shorter length/ smaller size,/ whatever doesn't mean you have too. It is more elegant to be comfortable. I enjoy your blog immensely, it's one my treats of the day when you write, thanks.
ReplyDeleteactually i prefer them short. I don't like long shorts, they look a bit as bags... It is sad that in men's fashion the shorts are longer nowadays. I never look at football games an TV. But last year I saw a sfew minutes of a match, by accident... And I asked my dada : since when do they wear those bags instead of normal shorts ? Already a few years I learned.
ReplyDeleteThe same thing with swimming suits for men. I don't like swiming boxer shorts with loose pipes... It is zo ugly !
Yak !
Maybe i'm a bit oldfashioned ;)
Longer, not that your legs aren't good enough for the short ones because they are, but personally, I prefer the longer ones - you also have to think about sitting etc - sitting down in short shorts in the wrong underwear can lead to embarrassing slippage :D
ReplyDeleteew, ew, ew. I can think of nothing more unattractive on a man than short-shorts...except maybe a fat ass.
ReplyDeleteAs miniskirts are to ladies, 70s NBA shorts are to men. One must be young and firm to flaunt all that flesh.
ReplyDeleteI was just given a pair of shorts for my birthday with a 10 inch inseam (knee skimming - are they still "shorts"?). THAT may be a bit lengthy, as 9 inch, or even 8 inch is tastefully above the knee, and appropriate for the middle-aged scamp I've become.
Have to say, there's something a bit sorrowful about older men trying too hard to be young. The graceful aging folks are actually the most appealing - it's their genuine comfort with where they are in life.
The longer looks more balanced with the type of pocket that it has. (The shorter would be better with a hidden type pocket)
ReplyDeleteIn fitting anything there is a magical length that stops the eye at a narrow place on the leg. Very individual. In your case the shorter length stops the eye at a wider place on your leg than the longer one, see? So when we are fitting a dress, skirt, capri pants, or whatever, for each individual leg you want the line to be at a narrower, not wider horizontal. Does this make sense? This is why even with my "cankles" I prefer a long skirt or cropped pants that just hover above the ankle, because it only gets wider from there! These shorts are great. Can't wait to see the finished product.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting theory, Steffani. I'm going to have to ponder this a bit. :)
DeleteThis is exactly the point I was trying to make...that the longer ones stop at your narrowest part of your thigh, where your adductors just start to bulk up....so ya, I agree wholeheartedly with Steffani!
DeleteIt's also why guys look good in t-shirts that cut the arm mid bicep (makes the bicep look bigger) and lots of ladies prefer 3/4 length sleeves or cap sleeve because it doesn't draw a strong horizontal line through the widest part of the arm. May be why Cathy looks so fantastic in those "New Look" silhouettes. ; )
DeleteI agree with the masses, the longer length suits you better.
ReplyDeleteI think that you can get away with the short ones but if you are never going to wear them you'd better hem them longer. I like shorter shorts as a teenager of the 70's. I enjoy vision of our Aussie Rules footballers from those days for that reason. Their assets were nicely showcased! By the way you have a picture of Billy Slater our best Aussie Rugby League player - cute all round and a magical sportsman.
ReplyDeletePeter:
ReplyDeleteThe longer of the two lengths is the better look for you, even though your legs are quite good. The shorter length is too "Bruno."
Men's shorts change in length according to fashion, and right now they're too long, if you ask me - look how good those guys with shorts four inches above the knee look.
There is, however, one unbreakable rule for men's shorts - they have to be decent even without underwear. As we all know, this varies from wearer to wearer, but ANY cameo appearances by Mr. Happy and the Boyz are a huge no-no.
To say nothing of a huge turn-off.
Or in my case, an "average" turn-off. ;)
DeleteIf you looked like Tom Selleck, you would probably get away with any length.
ReplyDeleteBut in a practical sense,the slightly longer length is better. I have worn my fair share of mini skirts and hotpant outfits (do you remember those?). Believe me, slightly longer is better.
Mmmm. Rugby players in short shorts....
ReplyDeleteWhere I live I've noticed in the last two years mens shorts are getting shorter and tighter. In the summer just past, most guys were wearing them at the 'longer' length you have pictured, which I think looks awfully flattering. You have lovely pins for sure - but I definitely prefer the look of the longer of the short shorts. :)
Muscular legs deserve short shorts. Thinner, longer legs deserve longer, narrower shorts. That's how I see them.
ReplyDeleteTom Selleck, phew... I won't comment, except that it's more a question of with or without shorts! Ditto Bjorn Borg.
You have nice legs, shorter is sexier, in my biased opinion.
Max
I have three brothers, and all three of them would simply laugh at me if I made them shorts shorter than, say, knee length! (They did laugh at the swimsuit I made for our nephew--which was short and spandex!)
ReplyDeleteYou have the badonk badonk for the short-shorts, for sure. But I think you'll get more wear out of the longer version (and, next year you can always make them shorter if you want to, right?).
ReplyDeleteIn any event, you'll look great!
I personally would prefer the longer mid-thigh length. My guy wears his shorts down to his knee caps, which is fine, but I do think mid-thigh length is coming back! A few of my soccer playing guy friends wear shorter swim shorts (they have gorgeous legs!!) and I think they enjoy the attention they get for wearing shorter shorts (they aren't Daisy Duke short tho!). My vote is for the longer length you are showing Peter--it's still shorter than knee cap length, it shows some thigh, but it isn't overly short.
ReplyDeleteYou definitely have the legs for both, but I would vote for the longer length. Others have given some great reasons. You’ll feel more comfortable and won’t have to worry about what to do if you drop something and need to bend over to pick it up.
ReplyDeleteI never see any guys in short shorts these days, but rather the too long and droopy look. Your proposed longer length seems perfect for getting around town and they present a neat appearance. If your plans are for the beach, then shorter would work (but if I recall correctly, you’re not that much of a beach person).
In the early 70's -- a far different era in many respects -- MLB baseball players and NBA basketball players worn skin hugging pants/shorts. Seeing some vintage baseball clips I wondered just how they managed to slide into base without breaking EVERY seam on their pants. Same same NBA players. Today, NBA players look like they are wearing a bath towel. I am sure the Commissioner has so ruled.
ReplyDeleteAs you have noted before, men's clothing styles are slooooooooooooooooooooow to change.
Current fashion in men's pants/shorts is still rather lose with little form fitting definition, though "things" are getting a little tighter. Forty years from now they'll probably look like dancer's tights again.
Mass market men's jeans today have lots of "freedom of movement", though not as bad as the "take three steps forward, the pants take two steps" of the ghetto jeans of ten years ago. To buy men's jeans today with a modicum of fit requires spending over $200 on up to over $400. STILL not the jeans of rock bands in the 1970's then available at every Gap.
Men's shorts for city/shopping mall/picnic in the park/browsing books at B&N might probably best be rather a bit longer than shorts for social events where hunting in is order. When shopping one might want to be noticed, but hunting one might want to be SEEN.
Different situations, different goals, different effects, different results.
Peter, you have gorgeous legs. I vote for the shorter shorts! I think this whole "long shorts on men" fashion is ridiculous. If you have it, flaunt it!
ReplyDeleteStart with the longer length. Your version of long is short by kid standards. Wear them a couple of weeks. Then you'll have a baseline. Go shorter if you get bored and don't sufficiently feel that 70's vibe.
ReplyDeleteI recall that Bill Clinton used to go jogging in super short athletic shorts when he was President. It was not a good look, but that's a whole different situation.
OMG - longer shorts! This short short thing is not good unless you're in your garden or on Nantucket. Of course, that's judgmental of me, but that's how I feel.
ReplyDeleteFor me, it's not the length of the shorts but the lowness of the waist. When the top of the shorts fall way below the hipbone, I find the shorts a bit lewd. Tops of legs aren't bad. When the tops of shorts make public the pubic area, I get grossed out.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the masses, longer length is just a better fit for you.
ReplyDeleteAlso, thank you for the Magnum pic, man I love him even though he's probably old enough to be my grandpa.
Short would look great on you, but unless like Magnum you live in Hawaii or by the beach, long is a better everyday length for walking around the city.
ReplyDeleteAh yes, Magnum, P.I.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is/ should be a 'rule' for length. Go with whatever you will enjoy wearing.
Personally, my rule of thumb for summer-city-livin' length is to ask myself how much of someone else's butt print I want on my legs while traveling by bus or subway. With that in mind, I tend to go for the longer lengths.
I wonder if there is a term for ball cleavage? Whatever that term is, avoid it and you'll be okay. You have nice legs, the short ones were not gawk-worthy at all. I grew up in Florida so I clearly remember the Op shorts. I had a pair and wore them all thru high school and I graduated in 2000. I don't think it was a look that ever really went "out" for some people. On men, well, my dad still wears shorts above the knee and it doesn't look weird. I draw the line at knee high socks though.
ReplyDelete"I wonder if there is a term for ball cleavage?"
ReplyDeleteThere is. "Nut" as in pistachio nuts or walnuts. And "huggers" as in one close to the other holding on very dearly and affectionately.
Lol, my husband said "moose knuckles" was also appropriate, similar to the classic "camel toe".
DeleteOMG!! The things I learn on this blog! SO educataional!
ReplyDeleteTell me about it. ;)
DeleteLonger shorts. Always.
ReplyDeleteShort-shorts on men invariably remind me of the unfortunate incident of the gym teacher who inadvertantly flashed rather a lot of junior-high age girls.
Longer shorts. Always.
I think it really all comes down to the width of the thighs, and what makes a pleasing proportion. I'm in the same boat with making my 70's inspired shorts...
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, as a guy that didn't grow up in that era, but definitely lived in its aftermath, I find myself going back to that time and finding inspiration. There's something UN-apologetically masculine about the men of the time that appeals to me. Smooth or hairy, muscled or leaned, guys embraced themselves the way they were. Perhaps that's why I find the influence of that time so appealing and always have.
Back to your shorts, I sort of think that the opening of the legs shouldn't "flap" too much. There shouldn't be too much ease around the leg opening, both for modesty and for aesthetics.
As a guy that goes to the gym on a regular basis, I like to have my shorts ride as high as mid-thigh when going for athletic wear, and stick to the a few inches above the knee when dressing for day-to-day wear. In general I think most men want to have their clothing cut at the widest part of their extremities to appear more toned, or muscular as Steffani mentioned above.
I say cut the shorts at a widest part of your lower thigh, and have the leg openings about 1.5" wider on each side when looking from the front.
My husband wears shorts an inch or two above the knee. He says that he rocked short shorts in the '70s.
ReplyDeleteYou've got the legs for the shorter version, but if you know you wouldn't be comfortable I would say go for the longer version. We Australians are used to seeing short shorts (is that an Aussie footballer at the top?) and given that I come from a seaside subtropical environment I'm accustomed to men dressed like Tom Selleck in the supermarket or at the bank but maybe that's not appropriate for NYC.
ReplyDeleteI forgot to mention the famous Stubbies shorts that all workmen in Australia have worn (and still do). They brand appealed to tradies because a stubby is also a small beer bottle in Australia.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stubbies.com.au/
Yeah short shorts are hot but the exposure!
ReplyDeleteTake 'em down and just gaze at our footballers in there tiny ones (another Aussie chiming in)
Definitely longer, preferably just above knee if you plan to wear them around town. You can always shorten them later:)
ReplyDeleteConsidering that the younger men around here seem bent on obliterating any differentiation between bottom and leg, you'd think I'd say short - but I won't.
ReplyDeleteWhenever I see short shorts on some hapless gent I am concerned there will be a wardrobe malfunction. That is rather awkward.
At some point the aesthetic proportions will look right again for those itty bitty shorts but for now, No.
Besides, aren't the boys happier in a more relaxed environment?
Oh gosh, that Mick Jagger photo...
ReplyDeleteI think you look fine in the shorts at either length, but you should make what you will feel comfortable wearing. It would be such a waste to make them and not want to wear them out!
It took me a long time to learn that there is no age-appropriate for hem-length...there is only what works best for each individual body. I am (ahem) above the age where most American style guides say shorter skirts are inappropriate, but for my frame they are far more flattering than longer lengths, so now I go with what looks and feels right to me. In your case, you could carry either length, but the longer length is more versatile, it hits at a particularly flattering area of your legs, and most importantly it's the length You feel most comfortable with, so hands down it's the winner.
ReplyDeleteMy vote is for just above the knee. I would not let my husband out the door with short shorts on!
ReplyDeleteIt's not that you don't look fine in them, but more is more.. I say this as the unwilling recipient of many unintended viewings from short running shorts in the 70s, and never mind upside-down dogs in yoga classes. Shudder.
ReplyDeleteYou absolutely have the legs for the short shorts (good legs must be a family trait, just look at cousin Cathy!). However, the fact that you even asked the question suggests that you're not totally comfortable in them and the pocket detail is better in the longer version. They're still short in comparison to the hideous baggy, underpant flashing versions we see everywhere. I'm seriously considering giving out fliers to young guys who think they're rocking that look - yeuch. What do they think they look like? My husband said I was not to 'have a quiet word' with the lad at Miami airport whose shorts were so low slung tou could see the entirety of his underwear and the hem of his long shorts was at ankle length! Good grief. Apart from anything else he was very short in the leg and this look wasn't helping to balance out his proportions but my husband didn't think he'd be interested in my resasoning - I am turning into my grandmother, and I used to think she was embarassing!
ReplyDeleteMy name is Maddie Flanigan and I just stumbled upon your blog when Sallie of Sallie Oh referred to you in a guest post she did for me today. Can I just say that I'm your newest fan! I love seeing a man sewing and not ashamed of it! Bravo bravo! Keep up the good work and be sure to check out Sallie's post on my blog today!
ReplyDeletewww.madalynne.com
Peter, I think the longer lenghth looks more attractive on you. The lenght of the short depends on the person wearing them. What looks good on one person can make another person look silly.
ReplyDeleteNadine
Thank you, thank you for the picture of Tom Selleck, Magnum PI still makes my heart beat faster.
ReplyDeleteAs for the shorts, go with comfort, mental and physical.
I agree with the general consensus here. Short looks good, long looks better. And you'll likely get more wear out of them too.
ReplyDeleteAnd, I must say, that photo of Mick Jagger nearly made me lose my breakfast.
I vote longer length. The shorter length makes your lower leg appear disproportionately short (which I'm sure it isn't!).
ReplyDeleteLonger length and BTW thanks for the yummy photo of young Tom Selleck.
ReplyDeleteIt's about proportion. From crotch to knee, shorts should be at least 1/3 rd of this measurement.
ReplyDeleteThe only person I can think of that still wears short shorts any time other than actually participating in sports is Richard Simmons. Which might not be bad except for that post you wrote a while back of becoming a caricature of yourself.
ReplyDeleteI'm voting for longer shorts, as I agree with many others who commented that if you're asking, you probably will not wear the shorter version.
I have a guy at work well over 60 that sports his old jeans short-shorts with rope belt from the 70s. I guess I'm a bit conservative too, Peter, 'cause it kind of makes me uncomfortable :).
ReplyDeleteI think you have great legs and could totally wear the shorter length. But why spend time on making something you already know you won't feel comfortable wearing?
You've got great gams Peter! My vote is for the longer length. It's much more flattering on men. Much more self-confident looking too. I looked up the stubbies shorts--no, no, no! I don't even think Selleck pulls off those awful tulip sided hemmed things! DH thought he was quite sporting in them until I showed him of a photo of him wear them. The 70's were full of really bad fashion. I also don't particularly want to see big Jim and the twins pent up in some cod-like garment either. Speedos were meant only for perfectly toned Olympic swimmers.
ReplyDeletewhatever you do, DON'T try what my son thinks suits him (he's wrong, but he never had much fashion sense) and wear long (mid-calf length?) cargo shorts, with steelcapped boots and socks pulled up almost to the knee.
ReplyDeleteStubbies are really only for footy players and building site workers. (Oh, and my old maths teacher who wore the same pair of short shorts with to-the-knee socks every day of my highschool life. He graduated to long pants after he got married, I'm told.) On men, I prefer to see shorts at or almost at knee length.
PS why is Mick Jagger wearing Kylie Minogue's metallic hotpants? Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
ReplyDeleteI vote for the longer length, they seem to be suited better to you.
ReplyDeleteI think you should wear what you feel comfortable in and go hang the age appropriateness of them. I think you could actually wear either both the long ans short look good on you but if you are more likely to wear the long then make them as you won't get the wear out of them.
ReplyDeleteLonger shorts, I think. Thanks for the pic of Tom Selleck!
ReplyDeleteI'm so late to this party, I'm sure the shorts are done and already in the back of the closet (wink), but that's just what I was thinking, Valerie! Like a half-inch shorter than the longer length.
ReplyDeleteShorts should never be past the knee. Otherwise what's the point. I come from the OP / Levi cutoff era. I usually wear regular Levi shorts nowadays but my thighs are long so the end up a good 4 inches above my knee.
ReplyDeleteI don't think length is as important as whether they fit. The shorts in your 1978 picture look right because you "have them on" instead of just standing inside of them. The reason the baggy clown-shorts that were in style over much of the past 20 years were so ugly is not that they were long; they resembled oversized pillow cases that just happened to have part of a person in them. Loose, kaki-style shorts are only less ugly because they occupy less space, they still don't really fit. If your not quite the shape to dress like Magnum PI, just find whatever length makes you comfortable and get something that's neither baggy nor skin tight, the same way most guys pick jeans sizes.
ReplyDeleteI prefer shorter shorts because I tan, shave and work out spending a lot of time on my legs. So I want to show them off. And yes I am a Guy.
ReplyDeleteI live in a Beachy City in Australia, the Shorter the better for guys, we all do it here. the bottom of our shorts rarely touch Half way to our knee's and all boys under 20 shave their legs/thighs, Tan and work-out often. Those that don't are either socially awkward or will be single forever. often at big parties, the guys that get the most action aren't seen in anything more than short-pants, Socks and Shoes even on the coldest nights.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog. I wonder what you decided. Stumbling across your blog helped me be a bit more adventurous and invest in some new summer clothes. I really like the shorter shorts that are now on trend and bought two pairs from H&M. Even being over forty I can pull them off with some smart loafers and a shirt with the sleeves rolled up. I'd normally have been more conservative but I think to get a vintage influenced look shorts need to be...short.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteI was actually searching for patterns for shorts and came to your site and your question. I'd love to comment. I am six feet tall and trim like T. Selleck and his shorts are just right but they are gym shorts or swim shorts. Now, I get shorts from thrift shops and cut the legs to 4 in. and then create a cuff that ends up being 3 in. from the crotch seam or depending on how the butt looks hem inside without a cuff and the distance from the crotch is 2 in. I then take in the sides creating a dart and sewing it up. These are called Proper Shorts. Period. I am appalled at the huge baggy knee length bloomers being foisted off on the public. I am also 68 years old, a tanned sunbather, naturist and swimmer. Sometimes I get a comment like; why do you wear such short shorts. I reply "why I have nice long legs!" By the way, they should be high rise. For a while I was buying women's shorts because they were shorter but also low rise and I realized that this does not look good. Age appropriate? Are you kidding me?
Is so simple and easy. Im bisexual, but am male too. I love wearing short shorts, not too tight but fit enough to give shape to the legs. I think the length of the short, not depends on legs but instead on how well developed your legs are. You'll never know if don't squat bra!
ReplyDeleteI have worn short shorts all my life,2 to 2.5 inch inseam ,but I can not find them anymore. Short shorts for men are supposed to be coming back in style,but can not find any place who sells them. I have 1 pair left,they are 5 pocket pluejean ,3inch inseam with 2inch side splits hemed.Where can I find any more? R.K.
ReplyDeleteYea! Bring back shorts that don't look like pants left in the dryer too long! So what if I am kicking 50 and packing a few extra inches, I still want to wear shorts that are shorts. I hate to hike up the hem to sit down, I hate to look like a hobo, I like to be on the edgy side. I am tired of ripping seams and re-hemming shants! Give me 5" or 3" inseams.
ReplyDelete