I found some pics of those metro wussy boys in CP’s latest article.
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
Most of my posts on this thread have been tongue-in-cheek to fan the flames. But to claim that social class has nothing to do with clothing styles is crazy-talk.
DB[/quote]
Hence the capri wearing, bright color wearing is picking up in popularity. Because all the country club Faconnable boys and polo-ed alcoholed trust fund babys are wearing them, and some people associate that with wealth-and thus start wearing it to make them look like the rich
sighs basically, all this is because of men not traditionally having the upper hand in fashion. But all these male designer fashionistas, gay guys, anorexic male models, country clubbies, odd tennis players (Im not talking about average tennis players but some of the wierd male model/in fashion ones of tv, including capri flaunting Rafael Nadal) and anyone who wants to emulate them are changing that. But, as you can see, it IS going to change. More and more men are going to be wearing brighter colors in the future, fashion will open up for men whether it be for the good or the bad. I cant see how it could be bad but I cant see how it not doing so would be good either (though thats me, Im tied between wanting a guy who looks like he has a dick to being embarrased when my friends teased me that my (now ex) boyfriend was scared of a color
(and yes, it was pink)). There you can see the shift too, 60-50-whatever years ago would anybody of teased my ex bout that?
There arent any great arguements against the change really, except the insults brought by it being untraditional and unfamiliar.
[quote]pbody03 wrote:
I found some pics of those metro wussy boys in CP’s latest article.[/quote]
And I bet at least half of them are very metro. Military boys, especially those in the early 20’s are some of the most metro people I have ever met. This is more true of those stationed in Southern California. The SoCal club scene is a heavy influence on these midwestern kids, southern kids, and kids from other states. They have shaved legs and chests, trendy wardrobes, and pedicures. Make no mistake, the military is very metro.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Shorts below the knee is teenage gangsta NBA wannabee. Add a t shirt that hangs to the mid thigh too and you are fully there…
[/quote]
Shorts below the knee are not teenage gangsta. Add the XXXL shirts and stiff brimmed hats and oversized, untied jordans, then maybe you have teenage gangsta. But the shorts alone don’t do it.
I guess it depends on your height, but I think acceptable range is about an inch below the knee to about an inch above the knee.
Also, Rockscar, aren’t you like 5’7"? Exactly how short are your shorts if they’re 2 inches above your knee?
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Shorts below the knee is teenage gangsta NBA wannabee. Add a t shirt that hangs to the mid thigh too and you are fully there…
Shorts below the knee are not teenage gangsta. Add the XXXL shirts and stiff brimmed hats and oversized, untied jordans, then maybe you have teenage gangsta. But the shorts alone don’t do it.
I guess it depends on your height, but I think acceptable range is about an inch below the knee to about an inch above the knee.
Also, Rockscar, aren’t you like 5’7"? Exactly how short are your shorts if they’re 2 inches above your knee?[/quote]
My whole point with that pic is just what you said above. Shorts below the knee are no more gangsta than shorts above the knee being metro. Who determine these rules and what’s acceptable? So 1.5" above the knee isn’t acceptable? Bullshit. What happened to individuality. Is everyone supposed to do what the majority does? If that’s the case then we should all stop trying to build muscle, sit on our asses and get fat. Funny I thought this was T-Nation. not Sheeep-Nation.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
Most of my posts on this thread have been tongue-in-cheek to fan the flames. But to claim that social class has nothing to do with clothing styles is crazy-talk.
DB
Social class doesn’t dictate clothing style. If I dress more urban hip-hop, I have to be from a certain economic class? It is about culture more than economy and while they may often have something to do with the other, to claim that all of any certain people dress the same based on income is ridiculous. Once again, you can walk into ANY sporting goods store and most of their shorts are to the knee or below. Most of my shorts are below the knee (including my Under Armour shorts) and I don’t fit your stereotypical income class. Basically you are saying only poor people wear basketball jerseys and shorts and all upper middle class and upper class are prancing around in super short cargo shorts.[/quote]
I’ll give you props Prof. Nobody can take a couple of words and run with them like you. I never said income class dictates clothing style. There is also a difference between socio-economic and income class. While it is admittedly a slight difference, it is an important distinction.
Regardless, my point was that to dissociate the two is wrong, because it does impact clothing styles. Furthermore, if your closet is stocked completely from a sporting goods store, more power to you.
But this nonsensical debate between us has gone on long enough, imo. I’m going to go slip into a banana hammock and loafers, sans socks and don my sailing hat and light up a nice haversham. Care to join me for a Fresca? Hmmm?
DB
[quote]malonetd wrote:
pbody03 wrote:
I found some pics of those metro wussy boys in CP’s latest article.
And I bet at least half of them are very metro. Military boys, especially those in the early 20’s are some of the most metro people I have ever met. This is more true of those stationed in Southern California. The SoCal club scene is a heavy influence on these midwestern kids, southern kids, and kids from other states. They have shaved legs and chests, trendy wardrobes, and pedicures. Make no mistake, the military is very metro.[/quote]
At least 3 of the patients that came through the clinic today had highlights in their hair, gelled to perfection.
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
But this nonsensical debate between us has gone on long enough, imo.
[/quote]
Part of me agrees. This discussion is absolutely nonsensical. The entire thread is full of ignorant generalizations, ridiculous stereotypes and repeated contradictions by individual posters.
On the other hand, part of me would like to read the full gamut of what a ‘real man’ looks like so that I can be sure to raise my son the right way. So, c’mon … let’s hear it. I’m genuinely interested in the following:
What colors should real men avoid? Patterns? Fabrics? Styles? Length?
What size thighs and biceps are an absolute minimum? What age should these minimums be attained?
What hair products are acceptable? Which hygeine regimens? Cosmetic procedures?
Is there a resource one can turn to about whether a certain look is manly enough, or does a real man just know instinctively what’s right and wrong? For example, what if a guy wants to roll up his sleeves but doesn’t know whether he’ll come across as a pansy by doing so? From whom would he seek guidance?
I’ve got several more questions, but this’ll be a good start.
[quote]SBB wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
But this nonsensical debate between us has gone on long enough, imo.
Part of me agrees. This discussion is absolutely nonsensical. The entire thread is full of ignorant generalizations, ridiculous stereotypes and repeated contradictions by individual posters.
On the other hand, part of me would like to read the full gamut of what a ‘real man’ looks like so that I can be sure to raise my son the right way. So, c’mon … let’s hear it. I’m genuinely interested in the following:
What colors should real men avoid? Patterns? Fabrics? Styles? Length?
What size thighs and biceps are an absolute minimum? What age should these minimums be attained?
What hair products are acceptable? Which hygeine regimens? Cosmetic procedures?
Is there a resource one can turn to about whether a certain look is manly enough, or does a real man just know instinctively what’s right and wrong? For example, what if a guy wants to roll up his sleeves but doesn’t know whether he’ll come across as a pansy by doing so? From whom would he seek guidance?
I’ve got several more questions, but this’ll be a good start.
[/quote]
I’ll hook ya up SBB… you seem to be confused yourself, along with the rest of the nancy boys.
Criteria for manlyness:
- nothing in particular
- total package is the determining factor
- indicator for manlyness will depend on your resemblance…
If you resemble Russell Crowe in “Gladiator”… you’re even alowed to wear a skirt or kilt…
On the other hand, if you resemble Orlando Bloom in any movie he’s done… chances are it doesn’t matter what you wear, a bulletproof armored suit won’t make you look any more manly
…There you have it, try to resemble the former not the latter if you want to be taken seriously as a man and have the term “manly” directed your way.
Most of my shorts are above the knee. I like to give my penis a little air and occasionally have it flap in the wind.
Is that so wrong???
shudders
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Most of my shorts are above the knee. I like to give my penis a little air and occasionally have it flap in the wind.
Is that so wrong???[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
malonetd wrote:
pbody03 wrote:
I found some pics of those metro wussy boys in CP’s latest article.
And I bet at least half of them are very metro. Military boys, especially those in the early 20’s are some of the most metro people I have ever met. This is more true of those stationed in Southern California. The SoCal club scene is a heavy influence on these midwestern kids, southern kids, and kids from other states. They have shaved legs and chests, trendy wardrobes, and pedicures. Make no mistake, the military is very metro.
At least 3 of the patients that came through the clinic today had highlights in their hair, gelled to perfection.[/quote]
Wow that sucks. Why would you want to work in a place that is rife with metros? According to maltoned it appears to be a well know fact.
[quote]pbody03 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
malonetd wrote:
pbody03 wrote:
I found some pics of those metro wussy boys in CP’s latest article.
And I bet at least half of them are very metro. Military boys, especially those in the early 20’s are some of the most metro people I have ever met. This is more true of those stationed in Southern California. The SoCal club scene is a heavy influence on these midwestern kids, southern kids, and kids from other states. They have shaved legs and chests, trendy wardrobes, and pedicures. Make no mistake, the military is very metro.
At least 3 of the patients that came through the clinic today had highlights in their hair, gelled to perfection.
Wow that sucks. Why would you want to work in a place that is rife with metros? According to maltoned it appears to be a well know fact.
[/quote]
Dude, in reality I could care less how someone styles their hair. I was just going off of what he posted and yes, there are all personality types EVERYWHERE, including the military. Military PT gear is some of the gayest I have ever seen. The shorts we have to wear are shorter than my boxers so I would never base PT gear in the military on what is socially acceptable.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
pbody03 wrote:
I found some pics of those metro wussy boys in CP’s latest article.
And I bet at least half of them are very metro. Military boys, especially those in the early 20’s are some of the most metro people I have ever met. This is more true of those stationed in Southern California. The SoCal club scene is a heavy influence on these midwestern kids, southern kids, and kids from other states. They have shaved legs and chests, trendy wardrobes, and pedicures. Make no mistake, the military is very metro.[/quote]
I gotta defend the Marine Corps “green-on-green” PT uniform in that picture. Most of us hate those short shorts, but that’s what the Corps says we have to wear. The Corps has never been known for it’s trendiness. We all look a little rediculous in those shorts, but we’re Marines so we can get away with it. Now, when I see guys wear those shorts off-duty to the gym, I just shake my head and laugh.
Marines have only two things on their mind: getting drunk and getting laid. And it’s a much stronger urge in the Marines than in other services or in college because Marines spend the majority of their day separated from women. Girls like metro so there you go. I had to counsel a bunch of Marines lately for going to gay bars. Say it ain’t so! They went to the gay bars because the beer was cheaper and that’s where the women are.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
Most of my posts on this thread have been tongue-in-cheek to fan the flames. But to claim that social class has nothing to do with clothing styles is crazy-talk.
DB
Social class doesn’t dictate clothing style. If I dress more urban hip-hop, I have to be from a certain economic class? It is about culture more than economy and while they may often have something to do with the other, to claim that all of any certain people dress the same based on income is ridiculous. Once again, you can walk into ANY sporting goods store and most of their shorts are to the knee or below. Most of my shorts are below the knee (including my Under Armour shorts) and I don’t fit your stereotypical income class. Basically you are saying only poor people wear basketball jerseys and shorts and all upper middle class and upper class are prancing around in super short cargo shorts.[/quote]
But your culture is going to be determined by your relationship to your economic standing [not the same as your class itself, but close]. It’s too much to explain here, but there are mounds of evidence that what you think of as “your” style is determined by how you perceive your economic status.
[quote]Captain Glanton wrote:
But your culture is going to be determined by your relationship to your economic standing [not the same as your class itself, but close]. It’s too much to explain here, but there are mounds of evidence that what you think of as “your” style is determined by how you perceive your economic status.
[/quote]
Bullshit. My “economic status” is different now than when I was in school. My style is simply a variation of what is was previously meaning your study can take a hike unless it can prove that styles change directly with economic status IN THE SAME INDIVIDUALS not related to the actual cost of clothing.
While style may change slightly simply because you can afford things you previously couldn’t, the basic style would more than likely be based on the person’s original culture and influence.
For instance. Master P is a millionaire. He still dresses like the culture he came from when going out(even though I am sure he may dress differently at a board meeting).
I may dress one way at work, but off duty, I am back in the same clothes that relate to what I am used to. If income alone changes who you are, you were pretty fake to begin with.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Also, Rockscar, aren’t you like 5’7"? Exactly how short are your shorts if they’re 2 inches above your knee?[/quote]
You should see me when I’m freeballin.
What, do you think my thighs are like 5" long? Geez.
[quote]Captain Glanton wrote:
Professor X wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
Most of my posts on this thread have been tongue-in-cheek to fan the flames. But to claim that social class has nothing to do with clothing styles is crazy-talk.
DB
Social class doesn’t dictate clothing style. If I dress more urban hip-hop, I have to be from a certain economic class? It is about culture more than economy and while they may often have something to do with the other, to claim that all of any certain people dress the same based on income is ridiculous. Once again, you can walk into ANY sporting goods store and most of their shorts are to the knee or below. Most of my shorts are below the knee (including my Under Armour shorts) and I don’t fit your stereotypical income class. Basically you are saying only poor people wear basketball jerseys and shorts and all upper middle class and upper class are prancing around in super short cargo shorts.
But your culture is going to be determined by your relationship to your economic standing [not the same as your class itself, but close]. It’s too much to explain here, but there are mounds of evidence that what you think of as “your” style is determined by how you perceive your economic status.
[/quote]
Interesting but I don’t believe it. If you took some street person dressed in rags and showd his pic to a group of people he may be judged as less ideal. Clean him up and throw a $2k suit on him and I bet he be “perceived” as having an entirely different status. He may feel more confident but I won’t change his personality. I know some very wealthy people that dress like crap and some average income people that dress like “millionaires”. The problem being that what is the perceived idea of what millionaires dress like, expensive or classy, not always the same thing. Money doesn’t buy class, it’s buys status. You’re confusing the two.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Also, Rockscar, aren’t you like 5’7"? Exactly how short are your shorts if they’re 2 inches above your knee?
You should see me when I’m freeballin.
What, do you think my thighs are like 5" long? Geez.
[/quote]
Free willy eh?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
malonetd wrote:
pbody03 wrote:
I found some pics of those metro wussy boys in CP’s latest article.
And I bet at least half of them are very metro. Military boys, especially those in the early 20’s are some of the most metro people I have ever met. This is more true of those stationed in Southern California. The SoCal club scene is a heavy influence on these midwestern kids, southern kids, and kids from other states. They have shaved legs and chests, trendy wardrobes, and pedicures. Make no mistake, the military is very metro.
At least 3 of the patients that came through the clinic today had highlights in their hair, gelled to perfection.[/quote]
My squad leader would have shaved their heads. Highlights are against regs