Man Purse

[quote]AndrewG909 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]AndrewG909 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
Please, find me one Spanish player to dress anything like Ronaldo. That cabron has been blowing kisses and prancing around long before he ever stepped foot in Spain.[/quote]
Francisco JimÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?©nez Tejada, Spanish soccer player! You’re right tho, Cristiano is giving them spaniards a bad name.

European = Ghey! [/quote]

I hate to break this to you but Xisco is gay. A gay man kissing other gay men? Who could imagine such a thing. Since there are American homosexuals and homosexuals playing in American sports I suppose America is also gay.[/quote]

well no shit he’s ghey! THats my point, you made it seem like Ronaldo was some sort of phenomenon and no Spaniard soccer player wears such attire. Xisco probably wears pink thongs under his soccer shorts, therefor Cristiano isn’t the only panzy soccer player in Spain. Dude admit it, Europeans are ghey and even if they aren’t truly ghey compared to American TMen they look ghey!

Back to murses!!!

The only other time it’s okay to wear anything with a shoulder strap is if you are being liften in a forklift to do repairs on a high voltage power line and you have you’re tool bag on your shoulder. Anyone willing to actively do maintenance on high power lines that you don’t even have to touch to kill you is allowed to wear whatever they want![/quote]

America is actually really gay, just a different kind of gay. It’s a defensive gay, it’s yet to step out of its Ed Hardy ridden closet.

[quote]redstar144 wrote:
He eats them in the film too, admits to eating the brains of the model he killed when he rings his lawyer. He keeps her head in his fridge. The shit he gets up to in the book is infinitely more disturbed.[/quote]

I know, I read reviews that it was a dark comedy, uh, the book did not make me laugh. Maybe the movie is better.

[quote]dianab wrote:
I really think most of you do not know the difference between being gay and looking nice.
If you like cawk and carry the bag on the left, you are clearly gay.
If you have some fashion sense and some stuff to carry, the bag on the right is amazing and girls will notice that. [/quote]

First of all, I think if you like cawk and you like the bag on the right, you’re gay too. Secondly, how many women out there decide whether or not a guy is attractive and/or noticeable based on what kind of bag they use? Is this really the make-or-break deal clincher for you women out there? If all other things were equal, and I’m wearing a nice worsted wool 2-button suit and carrying a briefcase and another guy is wearing the same sort of suit but using a carryall, is the carryall going to be what separates us? I hope not.

[quote]dianab wrote:

[quote]redstar144 wrote:
He eats them in the film too, admits to eating the brains of the model he killed when he rings his lawyer. He keeps her head in his fridge. The shit he gets up to in the book is infinitely more disturbed.[/quote]

I know, I read reviews that it was a dark comedy, uh, the book did not make me laugh. Maybe the movie is better.[/quote]

I thought the book was hysterical. But I have a very German sense of humor.

[quote]dianab wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
US fashion is so behind the rest of the world. The cross shoulder messenger bag (and related arguments about man purses etc) were going on in the UK about 10 years ago.
[/quote]

this is true beyond true.
I’ve worked in fashion for 20+ years and it’s always like this in our US stores, way behind and reluctant to change. We sell more fashion forward stuff in very small Canadian markets then what is sold in larger US urban markets (with some exceptions like NY and LA).[/quote]

And the designers who are designing these new clothes are a good majority of them women or gay and the one’s that arent gay, would you say they could be classified as metro? hmm… something to think about

[quote]dianab wrote:

[quote]redstar144 wrote:
He eats them in the film too, admits to eating the brains of the model he killed when he rings his lawyer. He keeps her head in his fridge. The shit he gets up to in the book is infinitely more disturbed.[/quote]

I know, I read reviews that it was a dark comedy, uh, the book did not make me laugh. Maybe the movie is better.[/quote]

Certain parts of the book are beyond fucked up but most of it is utterly brilliant. The film is easier on the stomach, still hilarious but perhaps not quite so complete. If your sense of humour is dark and slightly twisted I cannot recommend the film highly enough.

On a side note I rock a satchel backpacks are for 12 year olds, briefcases for old men. Anyone who thinks a satchel is gay needs to grow up.

[quote]AndrewG909 wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
Anyone who starts a thread on this topic is automatically ghey.

No…wait…[/quote]

Call me ghey again and I’m gunna eat your dick!!!

Like Kobayashi!

I’ve done it before, but it was in international waters so they couldn’t prosecute me![/quote]

Probably no one remembers, I started a similar thread a few years back.

If its necessary for your line of work…its a tool. If it isn’t then use a briefcase or even wear a backpack.

DBCooper is right…

It is field Tested… going out with a hand carried briefcase or lattop bag makes a man look 2x more Alpha than having a shoulder strap.

If you have your own doubts, go outside and test it (pay attention to the way women and people in general look/treat you).

see…

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]AndrewG909 wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
Anyone who starts a thread on this topic is automatically ghey.

No…wait…[/quote]

Call me ghey again and I’m gunna eat your dick!!!

Like Kobayashi!

I’ve done it before, but it was in international waters so they couldn’t prosecute me![/quote]

Probably no one remembers, I started a similar thread a few years back.[/quote]

I threatened to eat your dick and thats what you came back with? Really?

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Go ahead, we won’t judge. smirk. I thought all Californians had these.[/quote]

Bastard!

You are incorrect, however, I think there might be a law in San Francisco that requires all males riding fixed gear/racing bikes to utilize one of these satchels. Whether it is related or not, these males are also much more likely to get hit by cars.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
The only way it isn’t gay is if it is Maxpedition gear and you can holster a gun in it.

Otherwise it is gay. if you need something to carry your crap in, it would include a gun. Pockets are also an option. If you have more stuff than you can fit in your pockets that does not involve survival, you are a girl.[/quote]

still seems kind of gay, i mean only women and old people carry there guns in a bag rather than on there hip, under there shoulder, or on there 6 where you can actually get to it.

From GQ.com:

A friend and I had a discussion the other day about the appropriate cargo-carrying accessory for a twentysomething executive. My friend says a young businessman should tote a soft-sided leather satchel instead of a traditional hinged, hard leather briefcase. I prefer the latter, but I am afraid of being perceived as something of a fossil.As James Brown once sang, I got a bag of my own. And thatâ??s the way it ought to be. This is a matter of personal taste, although both bags have their advantages. The hard case protects laptops and other breakable gear. Itâ??s a much better shield against attacks and was preferred by Roman legionnaires three to one over soft leather. Soft briefcases are often more crammable, and they have a definite bedside mannerâ??just ask any doctor. I have both, as well as a discreet shoulder bag thatâ??s serious enough for most business meetings but will also accommodate my phone book, notebook and gym gear. What I do think is appropriate for twentysomething executives is being independent enough to resist the rising tide of fashion-cloaked conformity.

Next time you decide to choose between a briefcase and a shoulder-strap carryall, just keep in mind this: you can always stay a little modern with a soft-leather satchel instead of using a carryall. And the next time you have to pick between the two, just ask yourself this: would Miles Davis ever use a shoulder-strap carryall? No fucking way…and Miles Davis was the epitome of cool.

And also, did you catch the part about Roman legionnaires preferring hard leather?

[quote]AndrewG909 wrote:

[quote]dianab wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
US fashion is so behind the rest of the world. The cross shoulder messenger bag (and related arguments about man purses etc) were going on in the UK about 10 years ago.
[/quote]

this is true beyond true.
I’ve worked in fashion for 20+ years and it’s always like this in our US stores, way behind and reluctant to change. We sell more fashion forward stuff in very small Canadian markets then what is sold in larger US urban markets (with some exceptions like NY and LA).[/quote]

And the designers who are designing these new clothes are a good majority of them women or gay and the one’s that arent gay, would you say they could be classified as metro? hmm… something to think about[/quote]

I didn’t say anything about clothes, I work in bags and footwear. However, I do see your point that most designers are gay. I work with a lot of gay and metro guys. But you have to understand that designers don’t design or knock off styles to appeal to a gay or metro only crowd, if they did then the product would not be mass marketable. The bag I posted in black distressed leather would work for any average, hetro guy.
To each their own, I like my guy to look like he knows how to dress. That means no grandad briefcase, no short sleeve dress shirts (unless you live in the sun belt, then I’d make an exception) no high waisted jeans and shoes from this season.
BTW, I’ve got one of my gay co-workers saying “That’s so gay” at really openly gay stuff. Thought that was funny.

[quote]dianab wrote:

[quote]AndrewG909 wrote:

[quote]dianab wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
US fashion is so behind the rest of the world. The cross shoulder messenger bag (and related arguments about man purses etc) were going on in the UK about 10 years ago.
[/quote]

this is true beyond true.
I’ve worked in fashion for 20+ years and it’s always like this in our US stores, way behind and reluctant to change. We sell more fashion forward stuff in very small Canadian markets then what is sold in larger US urban markets (with some exceptions like NY and LA).[/quote]

And the designers who are designing these new clothes are a good majority of them women or gay and the one’s that arent gay, would you say they could be classified as metro? hmm… something to think about[/quote]

I didn’t say anything about clothes, I work in bags and footwear. However, I do see your point that most designers are gay. I work with a lot of gay and metro guys. But you have to understand that designers don’t design or knock off styles to appeal to a gay or metro only crowd, if they did then the product would not be mass marketable. The bag I posted in black distressed leather would work for any average, hetro guy.
To each their own, I like my guy to look like he knows how to dress. That means no grandad briefcase, no short sleeve dress shirts (unless you live in the sun belt, then I’d make an exception) no high waisted jeans and shoes from this season.
BTW, I’ve got one of my gay co-workers saying “That’s so gay” at really openly gay stuff. Thought that was funny.[/quote]

Does your gay co-worker think satchels are gay? lol I’m not saying they design for gay men, I just think they are a bit more open to converting historically feminie products into a unisex item and their designs reflect their sexual preference IMO. I doubt a completely straight man would think to put tight skinny jeans on a grown male, and a vneck shirt that goes damn near to the midchest. To me those seem to be inspired by homo tendencies. haha

I challenge you to find me a picture of a manly man, I don’t mean the 140lb models that ambercrombie uses, but a rugged outdoorsy looking muscular man rocking a satchel and you can’t use indiana jones. To me the satchel represents inner city fashion and the obsession to be trendy and up on styles, which is why you mostly see metro men rockin purses and skinny jeans or dress shoes with no socks (I FKN HATE THAT by the way).

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Okay, let’s address these points one by one. First of all, never take men’s fashion advice from a woman. I know that us men should try to do whatever we can to get laid and that on surface this may include listening to the fashion advice of women, but that’s how you end up wearing pirate shirts like that Seinfeld episode. Men should take fashion advice from well-dressed men, not women. Do you take fashion advice from straight men? Probably not. Do you ask men what kind of dress you should wear on a night out with a new man? No. Anyways back to your points.

1.Timeless does not equal old and dated. Timeless looks have the advantage of being unencumbered by the slavish current trends and as a result, a man with a timeless look radiates confidence, self-assuredness and independence.

2.You’re right: there is nothing wrong with a shoulder-strap worn crossbody…if you’re Indiana Jones

3.Again, you’re right: T-Man is a stupid term and I regret using it. But do not let that distract from the fact that a nice briefcase is never an old man look, unless used in a casual situation where a backpack or a laptop case w/o shoulder-strap is more appropriate

4.It is no secret that I am attracted to men, like Count Rockula. I want men to think that there is something entirely gay about wearing a carryall so that only gay men use them and I can avoid any awkward situations when prowling the streets in search of disease-free asshole. Just kidding. Seriously though, the shoulder-strap carry-all simply doesn’t carry the same visual connotation that a nice briefcase (when worn in conjunction with a nice suit) does. If you are wearing anything from a suit to a nice pair of slacks and a collared shirt, a briefcase is more than appropriate and is a better choice than a carryall.

5.Patrick Bateman may indeed have eaten people and walked around his penthouse apartment with the severed heads of women on his erect dick, but he looked damned good while carrying on with this “gross” behavior, so where’s the beef with his fashion choices?

[/quote]

OK
How about never take fashion advice from a woman IF you don’t like how she dresses. I would most definitely take fashion advice from men (and I have), gay or straight. But only ones who dress well and respect my sense of style. If you wear a pirate shirt to get laid, I think you’d be better of just staying in and jerking it.

Timeless is just another word for old. Did you ever notice how the “timeless” look from the 40’s comes back every 10 years or so? The difference is that the look is updated, the little black dress is paired with lacy leggings fro example. The briefcase has become a messenger bag, or a soft sided carry all. If you want to be timeless and look like you live in the present decade, you have to update.

I’m pretty sure you couldn’t carry the Indiana Jones look. Not many people can without looking retarded. However if you insist, Tilly has some great hats and shoulder bags.

A breifcase is fine if you want to look very conservative. If you work in a bank, or you are a lawyer, or you live in small town USA. Sometimes the society we live and work in dictates fashion. I’m thankful I live in a fashion forward city though, conservative dress bores me.

If you really want that Ct.Rockula dude, I’d advise buying a burka and give your dick a real hard and tight tuck. Practice “eieieieieieieiei” with a glottal stop for when he plugs you. This may please him enough to actually spit on it first. Oh and rub falafel under your pits before you hook up.

The Bateman character looked great, for the 80’s (from the clips I’ve seen, I’ll have to rent the movie). Personally, I don’t want to dress like it’s the 80’s. (See the above about updating.)

Anyways thanks DB, your posts amuse me and this thread kept me from working too hard this afternoon.

[quote]AndrewG909 wrote:

I challenge you to find me a picture of a manly man, I don’t mean the 140lb models that ambercrombie uses, but a rugged outdoorsy looking muscular man rocking a satchel and you can’t use indiana jones. To me the satchel represents inner city fashion and the obsession to be trendy and up on styles, which is why you mostly see metro men rockin purses and skinny jeans or dress shoes with no socks (I FKN HATE THAT by the way).[/quote]

I wish I could take a picture of one of the buyers I work with. He is fucking beautiful. About 6’ maybe 220ish, perfect smile, nice ass and great shoes. He carries a satchel sometimes.
You know I do agree with you on inner city fashion thing but it’s not so much the style, it’s the fabrics and finishes that make a satchel look overly metro or gay.
Skinny jeans, v-necks etc. are kids stuff. You don’t see men wearing these things.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

First of all, I think if you like cawk and you like the bag on the right, you’re gay too. Secondly, how many women out there decide whether or not a guy is attractive and/or noticeable based on what kind of bag they use? Is this really the make-or-break deal clincher for you women out there? If all other things were equal, and I’m wearing a nice worsted wool 2-button suit and carrying a briefcase and another guy is wearing the same sort of suit but using a carryall, is the carryall going to be what separates us? I hope not.[/quote]

Good point.
and yes, all things being otherwise equal, the messenger bag seals the deal over the briefcase. The first things I notice about a guy are his smile and his shoes and/or any accessories.
LOL that’s enough!