▲ 237 points
back
193 comments
This is a premise I can get behind.
One of the silliest battles I have found myself fighting against society has been my search for comfortable yet attractive men's pants. I deeply dislike the restricting fit of modern pants, especially tighter fitting jeans, but also the semi-current fashion in suits and pants in general.
It may be that a catalyst for this conflict has been my anatomy. My thighs and butt are huge, compared to other guys of similar proportions, and so apparently they cannot be contained by modern fashions. Every time I try to put on a pair, they're either too loose in the waist, or too tight in the thighs, and always sit too low for my liking, digging into my groin if I force the belt to sit at my waist. And should i find a pair that feels acceptable at first, my optimism only lasts until I have to sit down and feel the edge of these clothes digging uncomfortably into my flesh, rekindling my hatred for these trends and their designers.
The current resolution to my woes has been Darcy Clothing's line of suspender pants[1], which I have had tailored after purchase to taper and fit my height. However, this look is quite jarring in a modern environment, so I tend to wear a sweater over the suspenders. Still, I sometimes need to take it off, and wearing something like this day in and out puts quite a label on you.
Still to this day I keep my eyes open, hoping that the pants of my desires will appear in a shop somewhere, or that trends will change, and we get style in service of comfort, instead of discomfort in service of style.
Same here. The secret I’ve found: look for athletic cut. That’s the cut many hockey players wear, who typically have huge thighs and a rumble seat because of the muscles skating works. Those are the only pants I buy now.
I even got Michael Strahan suit pants recently, since they were the only ones in the store that fit me nicely.
My solution for years is to hit the thrift store and opportunistically grab pants that are in good shape but too big, and then take them for alteration. For a few bucks plus tailoring, I can have something that will fit me better than anything off the rack.
I have similar issues. Thick thighs and meaty butt, I had some nice looking pants that used to allow me full range of movement that I had used for a while but a few weeks ago I tore a pair when squatting down. I'm now currently resigned to joggers for the time being. It feels like there are no decent pants out there for men who lift
Have you tried the J.Crew 1040 Athletic tapered-fit stretch chino pant? It's designed with a bigger thigh for guys who don't skip leg day -- https://www.jcrew.com/m/mens/categories/clothing/pants-and-c...
I too have recently adopted a suspender lifestyle while in search of comfortable trouser fits. The main annoyance I've encountered is the need to remove all top clothing layers when using a toilet. This should be less of a problem in the upcoming warmer months, though they will also provide less opportunity for suspender concealment.
I don't know if you've tried it, but there are places that can sell you custom tailored jeans, usually in the form of raw denim that -- because it will do such a great job of conforming to exactly your shape, to the point of 'remembering' your wallet -- are generally built about a half-size too large and shrunk to fit by washing.
> My thighs and butt are huge, compared to other guys of similar proportions
Have you considered looking at the women’s? Might be no better in the end, but this reads like what’s conventionally a feminine anatomy, and garment designers will generally go with conventional anatomy, if not outright prescribe completely imaginary ones you have to conform to.
> hoping that the pants of my desires will appear in a shop somewhere
An early-web startup did custom-cut khakis. CNC cut, manually stitched in one of the last US factories doing such, and overnighted. Acquired by bigco, and death by mismanagement. Patents should be expired now, so perhaps progress can resume?
You’ll be happy to know that we are entering a ten-year cycle of loosefitting pants. Tight fitting slim cut pants are on their way out trend wise.
Have you considered a kilt, like these [1]?
No idea what you look like, but Lululemon sells their ABC Pants - https://shop.lululemon.com/search?Ntt=abc%20pants
The have a gusset, and offer a full size range in multiple fits and fabrics. Very comfortable.
Livsn is great. I'm a powerlifter so a lot of pants don't fit and I need to tailor them. Livsn pants look great and are really tough.
I'm not affiliated in any way, just a very happy customer.
Why do you need suspenders if you've had the pants tailored? What's your bmi?
Speak for us!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channar_revolt
In Kerala, Southern India, which had the wierdest system of caste and associated rules of segregation, women had start with the struggle to clothe their upper body.
The article has a Controversy section:
> The CBSE in December 2016 issued a circular to all 19,000 affiliated schools under it asking that a section 'Caste Conflict and Dress Change' – a chapter that included the Channar revolt – be omitted from the curriculum with effect from 2017
which links to https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/after-long-delayed-tri...
Why was it banned, and how did it turn out?
The opposite of "free the nipple"!
It's kind of scary that this looks so quaint and antiquated but we still live in a time when the dress of women is limited both legally and socially, with restrictions on everything from where they can breastfeed to the number of pockets they can get.
The older I get the more egrarious it all feels. It also seems more normalised for younger men to hold explicitly misogynistic viewpoints about these issues.
I think the opposite is true. For example, formal outfits for men are restricted to suits, while for women a much wider range of outfits and colors is acceptable. You can see this on group photos of politicians.
I think there's a limit to freedom as a compass, especially if we emphasise social limitations. At some point you're not after freedom. You're after change to social norms, not people's right to break them.
Depending on the specific beach/society/group bikinis can be either normative or anti-normative.
IE, a woman can, and likely will feel pressured to conform. A 1950s bathing gown or a modern burkini is often as unacceptable at a bikini beach as a skimpy bikini is in religious/conservative spaces. A woman who leaves her seat in a cafe to breastfeed in the baby change stall or toilet can be ashamed in company that considers public breastfeeding a basic norm.
I'm all for broad and free. We're not great at this, and should be better. But, I also think there are always norms and "culture wars" are about the norms. Not just the freedom to violate norms. What the norms are, because norms will continue to exist.
I think you are mixing two things: dressing "correctly" is a status symbol and always will be even if it tends to be silly (number of pockets for woman, number of buttons for mens suits).
The extreme we should keep fighting is when the norm becomes prohibitive, as in no breast feeding or not being able to ride a bike.
Which country do you live in?
Can you make a list of clothes that are supposedly legally or even socially prohibited?
I have no idea what you refer to.
What do you mean with the number of pockets? Presumably there are 4-6 pockets on trousers, both for men and women?
At the same time, various US states have introduced "anti-drag" laws to enforce gendered clothing. Intended to be used against gay men and trans women, just like the conditions that led to the Stonewall riot.
> number of pockets they can get
Does this come under the "legally" or "socially"?
Comments like this are so weird. It's like you put women on the same level as children or animals. Like they just get what they're given and have to put up with it.
Women are free to choose their own clothes. They are free to make their own clothes or start their own clothing companies. If they really wanted clothes with pockets then they would get them. But they don't.
I think it's a bit silly that I can't just urinate in a bush in a public park or something when I need to go. Why do I need to seek out a toilet? Everyone urinates. It's natural. But I'm not going to start urinating in public. It's just not compatible with society. That's why most women choose not to breast feed in public too.
Dress rehearsal for:
https://live.staticflickr.com/754/23070284806_5a81f5805e_o.j...
My wife (and most other modern women too probably) would add “pockets on everything” and “more than a single dimension on pant sizes”.
Women's clothing at the time of the Rational Dress Society (1880s) was beginning to shift moving from huge pockets, to adopting menswear integrated pockets. Older pockets were typically little bags that were worn under the dress[1].
Modern people interested in historical costuming and clothing are trying to bring back the pocket[2]. Bernadette Banner also has a video on the history of pockets in women's clothing[3].
Personally, I don't care about pockets in pants--pockets in skirts/dresses are where it's at.
[1]: https://kingandallen.co.uk/journal/2020/the-surprising-histo...
I've never understood this. If women want clothes that have pockets, why don't they buy clothes that have pockets?
Only points 1 through 3 and the latter half of point 4 are "rational".
Because Points 4 and 5 conflict with points 1 through 3.
"Grace and beauty" is culturally determined and is in the subjective eye of the beholder.
Optimizing a given piece of clothing for "grace and beauty" and "Not departing too conspicuously from the ordinary dress of the time", often inherently entails de-prioritizing the rational ideals laid out in points 1 through 3, and the latter half of point 4.
I am someone who used a fanny pack back when it was "in fashion"(according to some), and kept wearing it even when it went "out of fashion"(according to some), and I still keep wearing it, and I'm told by some that it's starting to come back to being "in fashion" again.
I don't care about "grace and beauty" and conforming to the ever-changing arbitrary dressing norms(whims) of society.
The fanny pack is extremely useful to me.
And so are cargo pants.
I wore and still wear cargo pants, sweatpants, and shorts, pretty much everywhere. Even to weddings.
Yeah, I get weird looks.
I do it regardless. I don't care.
If you don't want to associate with me for this reason, good riddance, I say.
My insistence on wearing cargo pants and fanny packs serves as an incidentally beneficial filter against conformist people.
If I had to observe points 4 and 5, I will have had to redesign the fanny pack and cargo pants and sweatpants, nerfing its functionality, going against points 1 through 3.
I haven't purchased new piece of clothing over 20 years and I don't see myself ever needing to do so ever again.
So I would add a point 6 - * "Only buy clothes that last. Buy once. Use forever. Also learn to mend your clothes." *
Wikipedia is my favorite source of fun facts. Most folks don’t know this but there is a “random” button on Wikipedia that will take you to a random article! It’s a great way to spend an afternoon.
If the noise/signal ratio with that button is too high, I built wikiscroll.blankenship.io for my own use (built on a similar mechanism) you’re free to use it!
A well-made corset is a snug, comfortable, supportive garment that doesn't impede movement.
Walking between articles starting from this one, an hour later I'm reading about royal cypher
Curious, and relevant. Certain fashion choices¹ will just collide with the way bicycles work — be it today or in the past.
¹ back then women certainly didn't have that much choice, or they had but it came with it's own set of consequences
Being at the bottom of the slippery slope more than a century later of what women wear out is kind of fun with the parade of "scrunch butt" leggings I've been seeing at the gym lately. I wonder what they'll come up with next. Maybe they'll make them largely transparent? Isn't the march of progress just wonderful?
Oscar Wilde and Karl Marx and Engels all wrote for the New York Tribute. It also published the very same man who founded both the Republican Party and The New York Times.
I guess that's the proof things are going backwards in the UK, they've recently gotten rid of no. 1 - "Freedom of Movement": https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-and-s...
I think we need this today for mens trousers. Some of those are so low that they seriously impede movements and lead to tripping and falling. High heels can also be a serious danger to the wearer. Probably some other things too. I don't really know fashion, but it would be great if people finally after all these years started a movement to evaluate fashion according to rational principles.
It reminds me the Diderot effect which was discussed here a week ago.
Sounds like Bauhaus
Proto hipsters in a good way
Unfortunately, popular music of this era lacked both the speed and momentum sufficient to power the movement.
It wasn't until James P. Johnson's invention of his famous Charleston engine in the 1920s that women's dresses were finally able to reach escape velocity.
Edit: get that pun right!
Wait till you learn about the Sunday Lecture Society.
There's nothing particularly rational about this.
Like so much or modernity, it's just a set of aesthetic preferences dressed up in the mantle of rationalism.