# What are your thoughts on sock suspenders... ?



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

Sock suspenders are one of those delightful quaint old-fashioned items that all gentlemen wore until some years ago, but which have never disappeared from the menswear list - indeed, my grandfather who was an impeccable dresser wore them until the day he died in the late sixties. I am interested to know if any forum members wear them and what their thoughts are about them in this day and age - are they considered to be: totally eccentric, or an everyday essential, or for comedy acts only _(think Eric Morecambe here!),_ or occasionally useful _(for hiking socks etc)_ or a complete no-no? I have always had a bit of a problem keeping up my socks, especially short ones, but somehow cannot bring myself to wear sock suspenders despite the fact that they are never seen, but more importantly not to be found wearing them if I ever have to be carted off to hospital!


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

Vettriano Man said:


> Sock suspenders are one of those delightful quaint old-fashioned items that all gentlemen wore until some years ago, but which have never disappeared from the menswear list - indeed, my grandfather who was an impeccable dresser wore them until the day he died in the late sixties. I am interested to know if any forum members wear them and what their thoughts are about them in this day and age - are they considered to be: totally eccentric, or an everyday essential, or for comedy acts only _(think Eric Morecambe here!),_ or occasionally useful _(for hiking socks etc)_ or a complete no-no? I have always had a bit of a problem keeping up my socks, especially short ones, but somehow cannot bring myself to wear sock suspenders despite the fact that they are never seen, but more importantly not to be found wearing them if I ever have to be carted off to hospital!


Just noticed this and thought I could comment. I wear sock suspenders nearly every day.. the only time i don't really bother is when its not practicable, such as when wearing plus fours etc.. and then i wear standard garters on my shooting hose.
I have worn sock suspenders for over 20 years and just hate the feel of socks if they aren't supported by sock suspenders.
Regards


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Girly-man wear.

M8


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Girly-man wear.
> 
> M8


Meaning what exactly??


----------



## somethingsilly (Feb 26, 2007)

Are there any particular brands or varieties of sock suspender that stand above others in quality? Where on the internet would be a good source for ordering a pair? Thanks.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Sir Royston said:


> Meaning what exactly??


*Girly* - adjective describing that what is female.

*Man* - self explanatory.

*Wear* - clothing or fashion.

Putting them all together - *Girly-man Wear* alludes to fashions for effeminate men. This is a new term that is reality-based and therefore needs to be said.

As for the socks suspenders themselves, I guess George Stephanopolous or Tucker Carlson would probably like some of these for Christmas :icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Wouldn't these be better called "Sock Braces?" Suspenders are for girlly men and ladies.


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

somethingsilly said:


> Are there any particular brands or varieties of sock suspender that stand above others in quality? Where on the internet would be a good source for ordering a pair? Thanks.


Albert Thurston are very good. Boston are very good too

But beware, you will be accused of being a Girly man ( !!) by the bigots here is you decide to wear them


----------



## dfloyd (May 7, 2006)

*Sock suspenders or braces...*

I had to wear them when in the USAF for training because the socks they issued you had no elastic and would fall down and you would be giged (issued a demerit) at inspection. This was many, many years ago. I'm not going to get into the issue of their being effeminate or not, but there really is no need for them today. The socks of today do not fall down because their construction has been bettered to prevent this. I wear OTC socks when I am suited up and to the calf for casual clothes, both wool and cotton. If your socks fall down, you don't need sock suspenders. You're just buying cheap socks! Socks of the quality sold by Ben Silver will not fall down.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

I completely disagree that they are effeminate. However, as with all suspender/garter/brace style items there is, I'm sure, a certain frisson or connotation, just like there is with all manners of dressing up. Anyway, I do think that there's a little overkill in wearing them since, as dfloyd, says, there's just no need for them with modern socks. Still, if you enjoy them, why not, I say.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Girly-man wear.
> 
> M8


While I find myself in agreement with many of [email protected]'s posts, I am compelled to disagree on this one. Teddy Roosevelt wore them and he wasn't a girly-man. So paraphrasing Teddy, "Bully for sock garters!" (winks)


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

dfloyd said:


> ...but there really is no need for them today. The socks of today do not fall down because their construction has been bettered to prevent this...


Well this is the crux of the issue. What I am doing here is calling them on the carpet, the metrosexuals that is. Time for real men to STOP taking a back seat on these matters for the sake of PC peace.



Rossini said:


> ... However, as with all suspender/garter/brace style items there is, I'm sure, a certain frisson or connotation...


Well this is my point. These are attention getting trifles. However, once the wearers of these items start imagining themselves as well-dressed and superior to others, then it's time to bring them back to reality. Call it war on the dandies and metrosexuals if you will.



eagle2250 said:


> While I find myself in agreement with many of [email protected]'s posts, I am compelled to disagree on this one. Teddy Roosevelt wore them and he wasn't a girly-man. So paraphrasing Teddy, "Bully for sock garters!" (winks)


Oh c'mon, after all he had a name like _Teddy_, and liked to wrestle :icon_smile_big: All kidding aside, there was a time and place for these types of accoutrements. That time has passed. I know you see my point.

Cheers,

M8


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Well this is my point. These are attention getting trifles. However, once the wearers of these items start imagining themselves as well-dressed and superior to others, then it's time to bring them back to reality. Call it war on the dandies and metrosexuals if you will.


Well now, M8, you can't deny people their trifles or the whole idea of fashion will be in trouble. Stitching on lapels, four-button cuffs, cufflinks, broguing on shoes, patterns on ties, it might be a little hard to draw the line! You've got to have a little allowance for people expressing themselves for style.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Rossini said:


> Well now, M8, you can't deny people their trifles or the whole idea of fashion will be in trouble. Stitching on lapels, four-button cuffs, cufflinks, broguing on shoes, patterns on ties, it might be a little hard to draw the line! You've got to have a little allowance for people expressing themselves for style.


Well sure, but when we get into statements of what constitutes the "the well-dressed", then it's time for a reality check. In fact that's what I am going to do here from now on, bring folks back to reality - at least when it concerns the sartorial. In other words, let's give the readers here a chance to appreciate that they may be taken for a fool when someone spots those sock suspenders of theirs.

M8


----------



## somethingsilly (Feb 26, 2007)

Martini,

You make very little sense, though. Do women wear anything alike sock suspenders? Or do young girls? Are you saying that they're like women's stockings somehow? I just don't get the rationale in calling them "girly".

It's conceivable that one might find a pair of socks with a very good color or pattern, very well-suited to a particular ensemble, or particularly comfortable, and that these particular socks may not be OTC and would benefit from the sock suspenders. It seems wholly in the traditions of manliness to, when faced with a practical problem, devise and utilize a mechanical solution -- which is precisely what these sock suspenders are. Aren't they?

I just don't see your logic.
Now, if they were hot pink with puppy polka-dots...


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

I can see it now. Next meeting I have, trying to secretly catch other people's trouser legs with my briggs umbrella to expose their illicit suspender-like fetish for all to see. :icon_smile_big:



Martinis at 8 said:


> Well sure, but when we get into statements of what constitutes the "the well-dressed", then it's time for a reality check. In fact that's what I am going to do here from now on, bring folks back to reality - at least when it concerns the sartorial. In other words, let's give the readers here a chance to appreciate that they may be taken for a fool when someone spots those sock suspenders of theirs.
> 
> M8


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

somethingsilly said:


> ...You make very little sense, though.


 Actually I make perfect sense. You will simply have to engage in some thought.



somethingsilly said:


> Do women wear anything alike sock suspenders? Or do young girls?


 Uh, do men?



somethingsilly said:


> Are you saying that they're like women's stockings somehow?


 Yes.



somethingsilly said:


> Now, if they were hot pink with puppy polka-dots...


 :icon_smile_big: You mean like argyle socks? :icon_smile_big:



Rossini said:


> I can see it now. Next meeting I have, trying to secretly catch other people's trouser legs with my briggs umbrella to expose their illicit suspender-like fetish for all to see. :icon_smile_big:


That's the spirit *Rossini* :icon_smile_big:

Well, the thread did ask for my thoughts :icon_smile_big:

Go ahead, pile it on! Support your local girly-men.

Cheers,

M8


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I don't want to exceed the boundaries of good taste so I won't go into detail, but just let me say that as a single man (and I pay the alimony to prove it) who at least attempts to stay active in the dating world, I can definitely think of times when I would not want to be seen in sock suspenders. In my neck of the woods I think I would probably suffer for it. And that's all I'm going to say about that. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser
​


----------



## somethingsilly (Feb 26, 2007)

Martini, I was very happy to approach your position with a sincere curiosity. But as a result of your comments insinuating that I don't think, occurring simultaneously with your flippant dismissal of my honest and sobre questions, I no longer feel justified in treating you as if you were a gentleman.

You don't make any sense at all, Martini, because you say absolutely nothing of substance. You don't rate logical analysis - it's just too downright silly for that. So I'll ask the question that should've been obviously yours to answer from the start, and I will hope against all probability that you're actually capable of responding to it without an exasperatingly insipid cliche:

What exactly is girly about them?

Do try to keep in mind that it is the antithesis of manliness - that is, it is womanly, not manly - to substitute subjective, self-centered and unsubstantiated comments reeking of provincial simplicity for simple, rational, logical and civil discourse proceeding on the basis of factual statements.

How are they like womens' stockings in any way that OTC socks aren't?

And - care to share a picture of yourself at your best-dressed, Martini?

For the record, I don't own any sock suspenders, but I - in common, I imagine, with any sensible full-grown man - don't see how there could be anything so effeminate about them that those who wear them ought to be subjected to derision. If you really want to change how people regard them, Martini, then I'd suggest mature conversation instead of childish teasing. I'm open to any honest argument you can manage to write.

Far more objectionable than sock-suspenders, spats are becoming popular with a number of prominent rappers. I wonder how Martini might fare telling any of them how effeminate they are to him.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> I don't want to exceed the boundaries of good taste so I won't go into detail, but just let me say that as a single man (and I pay the alimony to prove it) who at least attempts to stay active in the dating world, I can definitely think of times when I would not want to be seen in sock suspenders. In my neck of the woods I think I would probably suffer for it. And that's all I'm going to say about that. :icon_smile_big:
> Cruiser


Agreed. I wear longsocks drom Pantherella and New & Longwood. They stay up without the need for support.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Lighten up Mr Silly. You may not agree with M8 but you can't deny him the right to draw a comparison between sock suspenders and women's suspenders if he wants!


----------



## Mr. Golem (Mar 18, 2006)

somethingsilly said:


> Martini, I was very happy to approach your position with a sincere curiosity. But as a result of your comments insinuating that I don't think, occurring simultaneously with your flippant dismissal of my honest and sobre questions, I no longer feel justified in treating you as if you were a gentleman.
> 
> You don't make any sense at all, Martini, because you say absolutely nothing of substance. You don't rate logical analysis - it's just too downright silly for that. So I'll ask the question that should've been obviously yours to answer from the start, and I will hope against all probability that you're actually capable of responding to it without an exasperatingly insipid cliche:
> 
> ...


He's just having a little fun. While I can see where you can find his comments insulting, take them with a grain of salt and relax(cognac anyone?). As far as the answer to the OP, with socks providers like pantherella that make over the calf socks, I don't think there's any reason to wear sock suspenders, personally. My socks stay up without them(curse of the big calf).


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> I don't want to exceed the boundaries of good taste so I won't go into detail, but just let me say that as a single man (and I pay the alimony to prove it) who at least attempts to stay active in the dating world, I can definitely think of times when I would not want to be seen in sock suspenders. In my neck of the woods I think I would probably suffer for it. And that's all I'm going to say about that. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser
> ​


Real men of the world, unite!



Bishop of Briggs said:


> Agreed. I wear longsocks drom Pantherella and New & Longwood. They stay up without the need for support.


And there you have it.



Rossini said:


> Lighten up Mr Silly. You may not agree with M8 but you can't deny him the right to draw a comparison between sock suspenders and women's suspenders if he wants!


He is rather "silly". Eh?



Mr. Golem said:


> He's just having a little fun. While I can see where you can find his comments insulting, take them with a grain of salt and relax(cognac anyone?). As far as the answer to the OP, with socks providers like pantherella that make over the calf socks, I don't think there's any reason to wear sock suspenders, personally. My socks stay up without them(curse of the big calf).


That's the spirit. The over-the-calf socks I think are appropriate for suits, dinner jacket, etc.

Cheers,

M8


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

somethingsilly said:


> Martini, I was very happy to approach your position with a sincere curiosity. But as a result of your comments insinuating that I don't think, occurring simultaneously with your flippant dismissal of my honest and sobre questions, I no longer feel justified in treating you as if you were a gentleman.
> 
> You don't make any sense at all, Martini, because you say absolutely nothing of substance. You don't rate logical analysis - it's just too downright silly for that. So I'll ask the question that should've been obviously yours to answer from the start, and I will hope against all probability that you're actually capable of responding to it without an exasperatingly insipid cliche:
> 
> ...


How are spats objectionable? They're very useful when it is cold outside. Granted, I do not own a pair, but I plan to soon, as the temperature has been steadily dropping.


----------



## queueball (Jun 16, 2005)

I say no. Get a good pair of over-the-calf socks. Sock suspenders, while functional, are completely overthinking the problem. There are easier ways to deal with the issue of slcks that fall down. Of course, this is personal preference. It's more important you do what is good for you.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Perhaps the original poster wants something that he can use with all his existing socks, instead of having to replace them all with OTC socks.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

A suspender and a garter.


----------



## dandypauper (Jun 10, 2007)

C'mon guys. First, there may be a connection between sock suspenders and garters, but that no more makes them girly than, say, men's briefs, which bear a striking resemblance to womens'. (I mean in general shape, etc.) I have to assume Martinis is joking and it seems to offend someone so it seems that while the offended could lighten up a little, the offender could be a little more gentlemanly and, therefore, sensitive. Of course, he may deem sensitivity girly, too. To refer to sock suspenders as girly is one thing and I, too, as a single man can think of a number of situations in which I would not want to be caught with my pants down (take that as you will) and sporting them. However, to refer to them in the same sentence with "metrosexual" is unfair to sock suspenders and to metrosexuals, who, from what I understand tend toward a more "fashion-forward," designer type of dress, grooming, etc and not old-fashioned modes like what we're discussing. Finally, I always thought sock suspenders were something different. My friend in the Navy used to wear something that connected the hem of his shirt to his socks. It not only kept the socks up, but kept the shirt tucked in at the same time. Now that seems useful!


----------



## SpookyTurtle (Nov 4, 2007)

Personally I wouldn't wear them, but why knock someone who does? He may hit you with his purse. :icon_smile_big: 

Just joking, sorry, I couldn't resist.


----------



## Custos (Nov 5, 2007)

Not too long ago I picked up my first pair at Brooks Brothers. Have loved them since day one. Even with modern sock design, mine sometimes still drop a bit over the course of the day. With a good pair of suspenders, however, they look fresh and taught all day long.

It should also be noted that women look infinitely better in suspenders than do men.


----------



## eguanlao (Feb 15, 2005)

*I Wear Them*

I'm 33 years old, and I wear them with my mid-calf socks. Some of the patterns I like only come in mid-calf. I have very big calf muscles, and my mid-calf socks don't stay up. So, I need sock suspenders. I dislike "fallen-down" socks. I believe socks should be pulled up. No skin should be shown at all.


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

*One Day we will talk about Clothing and style*

Interesting isn't it.
Someone asks a perfectly sensible question about an item of clothing and then the whole thread is hijacked by smart arses with an inferiority complex.
Moderators, please take note and control members who have nothing better to do than make rude comments about other members
Thank you


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

eguanlao said:


> I'm 33 years old, and I wear them with my mid-calf socks. Some of the patterns I like only come in mid-calf. I have very big calf muscles, and my mid-calf socks don't stay up. So, I need sock suspenders. I dislike "fallen-down" socks. I believe socks should be pulled up. No skin should be shown at all.


Are there such things as men's over-the-knee socks, or would these be considered effeminate?


----------



## Anthony Jordan (Apr 29, 2005)

Sir Royston said:


> Interesting isn't it.
> Someone asks a perfectly sensible question about an item of clothing and then the whole thread is hijacked by smart arses with an inferiority complex.
> Moderators, please take note and control members who have nothing better to do than make rude comments about other members
> Thank you


I think it would be more to the point if members could control themselves.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Rossini said:


> Lighten up Mr Silly. You may not agree with M8 but you can't deny him the right to draw a comparison between sock suspenders and women's suspenders if he wants!


Perhaps characterizing sock suspenders as a low-rider design of a "garter belt" clarrifies the comparison...now indeed, a man wearing a garter belt could be thought of as (oh no, am I really typung this?!!) a "girly-man!" (winks)


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Bogdanoff said:


> A suspender and a garter.


OMG! LMAO! :icon_smile_big:



dandypauper said:


> ...as a single man can think of a number of situations in which I would not want to be caught with my pants down (take that as you will) and sporting them...


Indeed, however, lucky for you that by the time she sees them, she's already committed :icon_smile_big:



SpookyTurtle said:


> Personally I wouldn't wear them, but why knock someone who does? He may hit you with his purse. :icon_smile_big: ...


That was worthy of being written down in the _*M8 Book of Humor*_.



Sir Royston said:


> Interesting isn't it.
> Someone asks a perfectly sensible question about an item of clothing and then the whole thread is hijacked by smart arses with an inferiority complex.
> Moderators, please take note and control members who have nothing better to do than make rude comments about other members
> Thank you


Neeener-neener.  You're just whining because you are losing ground on this one.



Rossini said:


> Are there such things as men's over-the-knee socks, or would these be considered effeminate?


These might go well with the Dandy D'Artagnan ensemble I saw in Paris :icon_smile_big:



eagle2250 said:


> Perhaps characterizing sock suspenders as a low-rider design of a "garter belt" clarifies the comparison...now indeed, a man wearing a garter belt could be thought of as (oh no, am I really typing this?!!) a "girly-man!" (winks)


:icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## Bracemaker (May 11, 2005)

Unfortunately I had to sign The Official Sock Act on joining Albert Thurston otherwise I could list some of the members of Her Majesty's armed forces currently using our products to keep their socks up. And you wouldn't want to refer to them by name as 'girly' or they might take offence...
Someone sent me a few 'Military mirth' items today which made me chuckle:-

If the Enemy is in range, so are you.'

Infantry Journal

'It is generally inadvisable to eject over the area you just bombed'

U.S. Air Force Manual


'Aim towards the Enemy'

Instructions printed on U.S. Rocket Launcher


'When the pin is pulled, Mr.Grenade is not our friend.'

U.S. Marine Corps training manual


'Cluster bombing from B52s is very, very accurate. The bombs are guaranteed always to hit the ground.'

USAF Ammo Troop


'Whoever said the pen is mightier then the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons.'

General MacArthur


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Bracemaker said:


> ...
> 
> [1] 'Aim towards the Enemy'...
> 
> [2] General MacArthur...


[1] There's something like that on the US claymore mine also.

[2] Not my favorite general. He obviously "forgot about the Alamo" and must have slept through the lecture he was given at West Point on Thermopylae.

M8


----------



## larsrindsig (Dec 31, 2006)

*Huh!*



dandypauper said:


> C'mon guys. First, there may be a connection between sock suspenders and garters, but that no more makes them girly


Quite. Particularly since the fellow in Bogdanoff's drawing seems to be naked from his socks up and having an equally undressed lady on his lap. If _that's_ considered effeminate, so be it, but I'm not about to give up my sock suspenders anytime soon ...


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

larsrindsig said:


> Quite. Particularly since the fellow in Bogdanoff's drawing seems to be naked from his socks up and having an equally undressed lady on his lap. If _that's_ considered effeminate, so be it,...,


Nice try guys, but that camouflage just doesn't work.

M8


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Sir Royston said:


> Interesting isn't it.
> Someone asks a perfectly sensible question about an item of clothing and then the whole thread is hijacked by smart arses with an inferiority complex.
> Moderators, please take note and control members who have nothing better to do than make rude comments about other members


Actually he simply asked for thoughts on sock suspenders. Just because some person's "thoughts" were not consistent with what some others were thinking is certainly no reason for them to be called on the carpet. Heck, even the OP commented that he would not feel comfortable being taken to the hospital while wearing sock suspenders.

The fact is that I suspect that most of the men I know and interact with on a daily basis don't even know what sock suspenders are, and if they do they probably have never seen them before. I suspect that there would be more than a small amount of laughter and good natured humor directed at any friend who was found to be wearing them.

And as for getting caught with one's pants down in a certain situation, I suspect most of the women would also find them to be, for lack of a better description, unusual.

I think that it probably boils down to what part of the country, or what country, that one lives in will in large part determine how one feels about something like this. I suspect that guys like Waylon Jennings and Johnny Cash didnt wear sock suspenders, but who knows?

Cruiser


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

I gotta hand it to *Cruiser* for exercising patience in explanation to the few, being that most of us would have understood this from the beginning :icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## Brideshead (Jan 11, 2006)

I do understand all the arguments - I think, but it is for me simply a question of comfort.

OTC socks are fine and need no help. Short hose are also usually OK left to their own devices. But its those exceptionally annoying mid calf socks that need a bit of help. Most of my favourite socks seem to be of that type at the moment, so I do indulge. I have two pairs of sock suspenders that I got from Woods of Shropshire. I have also tried 'garters' but they are useless, tending either to drag the sock down or to stop the blood supply to your feet!

And, as you know by now, I don't actually give a sh*t what others think about my eccentricities......


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Brideshead said:


> I don't actually give a sh*t what others think about my eccentricities......


Which is how you should feel. You aren't intruding into anyone else's space. I say do your thing. Besides, if Johnny Cash did happen to wear sock suspenders, my guess is he didn't give a sh*t what anyone else thought about it either. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## SpookyTurtle (Nov 4, 2007)

Just reading the comments here, it looks like they are more popular in England than they are in the US. I don't know anyone who uses them myself, but there must be some people who do. Obviously in the US it is not a common item.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> Which is how you should feel. You aren't intruding into anyone else's space. I say do your thing. Besides, if Johnny Cash did happen to wear sock suspenders, my guess is he didn't give a sh*t what anyone else thought about it either. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


Ah, the "Boy Named Sue"! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Brideshead (Jan 11, 2006)

*LOL*



Bishop of Briggs said:


> Ah, the "Boy Named Sue"! :icon_smile_big:


 Yes, my middle name


----------



## Geoff Gander (Apr 4, 2007)

JibranK said:


> How are spats objectionable? They're very useful when it is cold outside. Granted, I do not own a pair, but I plan to soon, as the temperature has been steadily dropping.


Spats are very handy at keeping the Autumn much off of your shoes, too.

As far as sock suspenders are concerned, to each his own. I wouldn't wear them because:

a. My "fussiness" (for lack of a better word) extends to stiff collars.

b. Sock suspenders would just be one more thing to put on when I get kitted out in the morning.]

Geoff


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This has to be great fodder for inanity.

Garters for men have not been viewed as "normal" for quite some time. Male garters are going to be considered gender bending these days.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Bracemaker said:


> ...Someone sent me a few 'Military mirth' items today which made me chuckle:-
> 
> 'It is generally inadvisable to eject over the area you just bombed'
> 
> ...


Fact can indeed be stranger than fiction, in the military! During the time I spent in the USAF Air Base Ground Defense business, as part of our combat readiness reviews, they taught us to wear "Big-Mama" panty hose to keep the bugs off the lower regions of our body and issued us condoms, not to insure "safe sex" but, for keeping rain/debris out of our M-16 barrels, use as a water container or as a non-permeable seal for a sucking chest wound and the list of potential uses seemed endless! And we, in these fora, think sock garters are silly?


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

^ You're suggesting they are actually a pret-a-porter tourniquet?!


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

larsrindsig said:


> Quite. Particularly since the fellow in Bogdanoff's drawing seems to be naked from his socks up and having an equally undressed lady on his lap. If _that's_ considered effeminate, so be it, but I'm not about to give up my sock suspenders anytime soon ...


Correct. Those drawings are from the 1920s, a period of time to which many here aspire to in mens' dress.

Here is an Order of the Garter, garter, being worn:

Worn by a man.

Queen Victoria. Detail of a portrait by Franz Winterhalter, 1842.


----------



## 2.mark (Jul 12, 2006)

Shirt garters are quite effective at holding shirts in and socks up. They are available here:
https://www.leonuniform.com/ShirtGarter.htm

And sometimes on a famous auction site.


----------



## dandypauper (Jun 10, 2007)

dandypauper said:


> I always thought sock suspenders were something different. My friend in the Navy used to wear something that connected the hem of his shirt to his socks. It not only kept the socks up, but kept the shirt tucked in at the same time. Now that seems useful!





2.mark said:


> Shirt garters are quite effective at holding shirts in and socks up. They are available here:
> https://www.leonuniform.com/ShirtGarter.htm
> 
> And sometimes on a famous auction site.


Yeah, that's what I had in mind.


----------



## windsor (Dec 12, 2006)

Back in the old days women did wear garters high up on their thighs which had a closure thing attached to which they attached their stockings. Mens garters sort of resemble this except they are worn on the calf . The closure device is similar. Corsets also had little short straps hanging down with the closure device and those were used to hold up stockings also. Either the corset arrangement or the garters could do the job. Nowadays from what I understand, most women do not wear corsets and they wear pantyhose instead of stockings. Pantyhose stay up so you don't need the garters or garter straps on corsets for holding them up.
All of this said however, I don't think that sock garters for men are effeminate. Men and women have always covered portions of their bodies in similar but not matching ways. ie panties and jockey shorts as an example. I knew a well dressed gentleman in the sixties who was wearing sock garters. I can see not wearing them if they aren't needed but also agree that if you do need them for some socks or just like them, then have at it.


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

windsor said:


> Back in the old days women did wear garters high up on their thighs which had a closure thing attached to which they attached their stockings. Mens garters sort of resemble this except they are worn on the calf . The closure device is similar. Corsets also had little short straps hanging down with the closure device and those were used to hold up stockings also. Either the corset arrangement or the garters could do the job. Nowadays from what I understand, most women do not wear corsets and they wear pantyhose instead of stockings. Pantyhose stay up so you don't need the garters or garter straps on corsets for holding them up.
> All of this said however, I don't think that sock garters for men are effeminate. Men and women have always covered portions of their bodies in similar but not matching ways. ie panties and jockey shorts as an example. I knew a well dressed gentleman in the sixties who was wearing sock garters. I can see not wearing them if they aren't needed but also agree that if you do need them for some socks or just like them, then have at it.


And, of course Menzies Campbell its now been revealed!! (or not apparently!)


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Drawing by Pierre Lacombiére. 1920s.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

Fussy stuff.

Get some over-calf socks with good elastic.


Bogdanoff said:


> Drawing by Pierre Lacombiére. 1920s.


WAIT! I CHANGED MY MIND! That drawing is getting some. So they must be quality.

BTW, nice piece of wood... in the background.


----------



## SpookyTurtle (Nov 4, 2007)

I still say men shouldn't wear them.:icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

If the sock garter industry had used ads like this, they never would have fallen on hard times.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

windsor said:


> Back in the old days women did wear garters high up on their thighs which had a closure thing attached to which they attached their stockings.


Or they simply went right around the stocking itself, as seen in the illustration that follows.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Preu Pummel said:


> BTW, nice piece of wood... in the background.


Right. And, wearing the right socks can make you hard as a rock. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

I like the two clansmen/monks/evil minions of Voldemort watching their lurid acts from the misty background. It makes me want to buy sock garters.... almost.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

​


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

Bogdanoff said:


> ​


Surely such acts have never been instigated in CAMBRIDGE???


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Regardless of what the feelthy pictures say, never let a woman see you wearing socks without pants.


----------



## Daveboxster (Dec 30, 2006)

*Hmmm*



Bogdanoff said:


> ​


Ya know, if three girls that look that good wanted me to wear sock garters - and act like that - then SIGN ME UP! Ship me several pairs


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

Historical item really bes described as costume in the twenty first century.

Forget about them in the real world.


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

GBR said:


> Historical item really bes described as costume in the twenty first century.
> 
> Forget about them in the real world.


I just slapped myself in the face to check.. and Yes, I'm in the real world.. and yet i wear them.. Am i a figment of my own imagination perhaps?


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

GBR said:


> Historical item really bes described as costume in the twenty first century.
> 
> Forget about them in the real world.


I just slapped myself in the face to check.. and Yes, I'm in the real world.. and yet i wear them.. Am i a figment of my own imagination perhaps?


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Garters can be found at the Andover Shop, Brooks Brothers, and other fine mens' stores that are more traditional. Brooks Brothers also sells "Merino Wool Garter Sized Over-the-Calf Socks".


----------



## ChriO (Feb 23, 2006)

.....


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Sir Royston said:


> Surely such acts have never been instigated in CAMBRIDGE???


One can confirm the fact that because it is an item of underwear so different from that of the other sex, ladies have a tendency to be fascinated with a man wearing garters.

It is the finnishing touch to a fine sock, just as a good necktie is the finnishing touch to a fine shirt.


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

If your socks fall down, you either need different socks or sock suspenders.

If your socks don't fall down, you don't need sock suspenders unless you fancy wearing them.

Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems pretty simple to me.

And despite Bogdanoff's interesting illustrations, they do seem like they would be an effective method of birth control for most folks.

Cheers, Jim.


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

Bogdanoff said:


> One can confirm the fact that because it is an item of underwear so different from that of the other sex, ladies have a tendency to be fascinated with a man wearing garters.
> 
> It is the finishing touch to a fine sock, just as a good necktie is the finishing touch to a fine shirt.


I'm intrigued. When members reveal their sock suspenders/garters to their partner for the first time.. do they run a mile or show interest or just not even bat an eyelid??

With me it certainly raised an eyebrow but its just part of my general attire and style, so doesn't matter

even as a staunch traditionalist I still get the odd raised eyebrow from people when discussing attire and the various trad items i wear..

RBH


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Jim In Sunny So Calif said:


> And despite Bogdanoff's interesting illustrations, they do seem like they would be an effective method of birth control for most folks.


Are you speaking from experience here?


----------



## Bracemaker (May 11, 2005)

Open Letter to Mr Bogdanoff,

Dear Sir,

Following your recent submission of new artwork for our next sock suspenders advertising campaign I am pleased to report a generally favourable reaction from most board members. To be precise, from most member's members. However, some of those of what can best be described as 'a more delicate persuasion' have suffered relapses and are now under constant medical supervision. You will be hearing from our legal department on this matter shortly.


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

Bracemaker said:


> Open Letter to Mr Bogdanoff,
> 
> Dear Sir,
> 
> Following your recent submission of new artwork for our next sock suspenders advertising campaign I am pleased to report a generally favourable reaction from most board members. To be precise, from most member's members. However, some of those of what can best be described as 'a more delicate persuasion' have suffered relapses and are now under constant medical supervision. You will be hearing from our legal department on this matter shortly.


Hahah.. hehe

Thats funny.. Well Done Bracemaker


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Sirs—

Has any other artwork brought to light such veracity of response and done so much to highlight the manly appeal of the sock garter?


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

Sir Royston said:


> Surely such acts have never been instigated in CAMBRIDGE???


Seemed fine in a punt by Queens. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

This thread is still going? Like I have said before sock suspenders are for guys who ride scooters.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Martinis at 8 said:


> This thread is still going? Like I have said before sock suspenders are for guys who ride scooters.


I don't ride a scooter. Never have. I don't like cruising either.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

I wear them. I don't like my socks dropping down around my ankles, and not all colors/patterns come in over the calf. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Can't see the shoes...


----------



## ItalianGent (May 2, 2008)

Vettriano Man said:


> I am interested to know if any forum members wear them and what their thoughts are about them in this day and age - are they considered to be: totally eccentric, or an everyday essential, or for comedy acts only _(think Eric Morecambe here!),_ or occasionally useful _(for hiking socks etc)_ or a complete no-no?


I don't really see sock suspenders as any different than regular suspenders. So, I guess if they are helpful and don't mind wearing them, there shouldn't be any issue.


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> This thread is still going? Like I have said before sock suspenders are for guys who ride scooters.


Do you ride a scooter?
Are you a muppet?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Sir Royston said:


> Do you ride a scooter?
> Are you a muppet?


Lol! We certainly had fun with this topic earlier :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Rich said:


> Can't see the shoes...


The shoes look rather unremarkable to me, as do the garters. I don't see what he is matching the stripes to.

Any thoughts on matching garters? Brooks brothers seems to have what look like high gloss black tabs on theirs, making for a more formal look.


----------

