Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Anyone who spends $600+ on any one article of clothing needs their head examined.Maybe by that country doctor with the power drill.
Maybe if they came with the model in them...
Classic Tee-Shirts #23: "Let An Electrician Check Your Shorts."
The $300 a pair of men's Blue Jeans always seemed like a rip off too. They are only cheap working man's clothes used to create a sexy chic in the big city.
Thank God for the fashionistas, both male and female; they keep the downscale market fresh.The Target version at $22.95 will come out in 4 months, if you're so inclined.Seriously, I encourage the spendthriftiness of the well-heeled. It provides much and costs me nothing. What's not to like? I can even bitch about it, and mock their vanity or whatever. They don't give a shit what I think, so win-win.
"Maybe if they came with the model in them..."I can get you hotter boys with better clothes, less attitude and bigger cocks for a lot less than 600 dollars.
I've always wondered - does anyone really wear the clothes that are worn on fashion runways?As for me - jeans are $30 at LLBean. Shorts are $12 at Sams Club.
Thanks, dearest, but I'm happy with what I've got; and I quit doing Puerto Ricans 10 years ago.
The average shorts-shopping male, psychologically or morally unprepared to face three-digit price tags, will find few options outside of mall chains.That's good because the average shorts-shopping male pretty much exclusively gets his shorts from mall chains.I have a conflicted view about fashion. On the one hand, I like to think of myself as appreciating art in various forms. And I see and find value in the art of clothing design, even if it doesn't quite make its way to my wardrobe. But its rare that I can read an article on fashion without cringing. This article reads like there is a sizable population of men who can and will pay hundreds of dollars for a pair of shorts and refuse to shop at chain stores (it hadn't occurred to me that was something to be ashamed of). WTF? That group of men is very, very small. This kind of writing really makes the NYT look like the effete privileged stereotype it presumably wants to avoid.
The metro sexual styles at Sacks are expensive as a way to show that the wearer has all the money he needs and does not waste his money on a wife and children.
"That group of men is very, very small. This kind of writing really makes the NYT look like the effete privileged stereotype it presumably wants to avoid."Hello! The NYTs entire readership is composed of the effete privileged stereotype demographic. They write to satisfy that vanishingly small cadre of vulgarians. Why do you think they're teetering on the edge of financial collapse?
Well I'm in their readership as are a lot of other chain-store-clad professionals. I think its less the NYT than fashion writing in general that bothers me, but in this case the latter reinforces a negative image about the former.
Fancy shorts look creepy anyway,This is the quote I thought you'd highlight.
You want these babies. They last forever, no holes in pockets, 5" inseam so you get lots of cooling.I favor British Tan.
Labels: fashion, men in shorts Real men don't have fashion; real men have style.And who buys shorts anyway? If you want shorts you just cut the legs off some old pants.
Palladian said "...for a lot less than 600 dollars."But you get to keep the shorts.
My shorts go to 11...
I too hate men in shorts. I only wear gym shorts to the gym...in the summer when it is 90.One summer in NYC there were men wearing shorts that were part of a suit. So tragic.Otherwise, never shorts. Thank God I am not into them. That is another expense I do not have to worry about.
If you lived in the hot, muggy south, you would wear shorts whenever you could.
If you lived in the hot, muggy south, you would wear shorts whenever you could.That is what undershirts and linen and tropical weight worsteds are for. And seersucker, I suppose, if you're an old man.
Post a Comment