# most distasteful wardrobe trends you witness daily ?



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

For the men, I can't stand the habit of wearing a ball cap (or any hat) indoors. It is impolite.
For the women; sweatpants and Ugg boots while grocery shopping ? Please, no more. Sweat pants are designed to wear while working out, exercising. Ugg boots for apres ski / surf.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Backwards ball cap, and fugly squaretoe shoes, usually unshined to boot.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Shiny puffer jackets, that look and feel like they're made from polythene garbage bags. They're _all the rage_ here this year. Also anything in pleather or artificial suede, there seems to be a lot of this around at the moment.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Flipflops as street footwear (I think I once created a thread about that), and showing underwear.


----------



## Dr S (Jan 9, 2010)

Hospital staff not in the operating rooms wearing scrubs all day.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

sweaters without a shirt underneath.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

Dr S said:


> Hospital staff not in the operating rooms wearing scrubs all day.


 That is really gross, not only for the patients, but for me standing behind the goof in Starbucks. What IS that splotch on your scrub top, anyway?


----------



## dorji (Feb 18, 2010)

Wear shorts and T shirt @ 30 degrees F.

Squash the back of tennis/athletic shoes down with heel, in effect turning them into slip-ons. Then walk around looking painfully crooked.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

It's the sagging pants with underpants showing - almost baboon look. I see it almost every day. It's ridiculous.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

I can't comprehend it. Anyone wearing pants that way would fall flat on their faces if they had to run. Flipflops are laziness, but I don't understand why this became a trend.


----------



## Ed Reynolds (Apr 13, 2010)

dorji said:


> Wear shorts and T shirt @ 30 degrees F.
> 
> Squash the back of tennis/athletic shoes down with heel, in effect turning them into slip-ons. Then walk around looking painfully crooked.


I think that is the everyday wardrobe of a typical New Englander in the winter. Jacket and shorts with snow on the ground. Not cool.


----------



## StoryTroy (Nov 8, 2008)

T-shirts, especially those with graphics or concert logos, in the workplace. 

I work in the notoriously relaxed entertainment industry and don't expect the Wasserman black suit and tie in this day and age --- but I feel as though we should at least keep the minimum effort bar set to jeans and a polo shirt in the office.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Every woman on the street with a vulgar Louis Vuitton bag. :rolleyes2:


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Overweight little boys in baggy T-shirts and long shorts.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I note that most of these sartorial atrocities enumerated have been around for at least decade or more. While I agree that they are odious, I don't know if they can truly be called "trends."


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

OK then trends -- what's with all the black suits?


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Brio1 said:


> Every woman on the street with a vulgar Louis Vuitton bag. :rolleyes2:


Every man on the street with a vulgar Louis Vuitton bag.


----------



## Daveyboy (Jul 18, 2010)

Leaving the manufacturer's label on the sleeve of an overcoat.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

Darts, pleats, shirts with anything but button-down collars, and ties that aren't 4" wide. Oh yeah, also shoes that aren't bluchers.


----------



## g3dahl (Aug 26, 2011)

Taken Aback said:


> Anyone wearing pants that way would fall flat on their faces if they had to run.


A local purse-snatcher learned this the hard way.

PORT ORCHARD - A 43-year-old Everett man who allegedly stole a woman's bag at the Bremerton ferry terminal ran into trouble when his pants fell down as he tried to get away Friday afternoon, according to Bremerton police reports.
He then tried to get away by catching a cab, but police picked him up before he could leave, police said.

Read more: https://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2011...-getaway-foiled-when-his-pants/#ixzz1f0lBGEb9


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

Button down shirts with a tie. Not matched colors of shoes and belts. Any clothing with big labels worn outside the gym. These ridicolously ugly baseball caps with stiff shields worn the wrong way as it is so much en vogue among youths right now and baggy pants of course.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Thomas Martin said:


> Button down shirts with a tie.


Oh, the humanity.



I think an esteemed member here posted recently that he likes button down shirts because they can be worn with or without.

Comments?


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Thomas Martin said:


> _*Button down shirts with a tie*_. Not matched colors of shoes and belts. Any clothing with big labels worn outside the gym. These ridicolously ugly baseball caps with stiff shields worn the wrong way as it is so much en vogue among youths right now and baggy pants of course.


Don't head over to the trad forum...

I personally like the look and wear it often.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Button down collars with ties have long been established as business wear in the US. If you find the practice offensive, please don't venture into the Trad forum, where the OCBD with tie is mandatory.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Many of the things listed in this thread are simply the consequence of people not trying, punting on style. To me, that's far less objectionable than those who are trying to do style but doing it terribly. From my perspective, the too-tight, too-low pants on guys is the most offensive. I do not want to see your junk!


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

zzdocxx said:


> Oh, the humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh my. I wasn't trying to offend anyone. Please accept my apologies. :icon_saint7kg: Fact is, this side of the pond button down shirts are pretty much passé. I liked to wear them for casual occasions but they have virtually disappeared from the stores.


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

1) Baseball caps with flat brims worn with the sticker attached.

2) The skinny "urban lumberjack" look.

3) Scarves worn in relatively warm weather. Sometimes seen with just a t-shirt.


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

Hipster jeans (selvedge, skinny, etc.) on middle aged men and women. It's as though they woke up in the morning and thought, "What can I wear today that will make me look as bad as possible?"

Also Dickies and Carhartt for image rather than workwear.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

While I would like to agree, CD, the fact that these sartorial enormities are so widespread and consistent suggests that, in their way, the perpetrators are dedicated followers of fashion. I certainly agree with JLib that many of the worst atrocities (e.g., baggy pants below the hips with underwear showing) are years out of fashion only makes them worse


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

hardline_42 said:


> Button down collars with ties have long been established as business wear in the US. If you find the practice offensive, please don't venture into the Trad forum, where the OCBD with tie is mandatory.


Yeah, what he said!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

The Rambler said:


> While I would like to agree, CD, the fact that these sartorial enormities are so widespread and consistent suggests that, in their way, the perpetrators are dedicated followers of fashion.


Perhaps. I think it's more the case, however, that seeing others dressed the same way has seeped into their subconscious. And/or that what is easily available in stores is what people will buy. On a weekend day when I am just running errands and subjegating my will to my 3 year old daughter's, I find myself dressing in ways that are pretty deplorable... cargo pants, hiking boots, t-shirt, fleece pullover stuff. I'm sure I look like a lot of other people, so it might be taken as some sort of effort to be in-style, but I consider it a temporary opting-out of style. I look like sh!t and I know it.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

You in Hawaii ?



Thomas Martin said:


> Fact is, this side of the pond button down shirts are pretty much passé. .


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Let's give the baggy pants and leaving stickers on baseball caps a rest. Of course that's stupid--I cringe myself whenever I see it--but, as they say about ducks in barrels...

I say tennis-ball-sized knots on ties paired with cutaway spread collars.


----------



## mjo_1 (Oct 2, 2007)

When guys wear a tie without buttoning the top button. Not sure if this results from an effort to look 'relaxed' or just wearing a shirt that's too small in the neck. I can understand unbuttoning and loosening the tie at a happy hour on Friday after work, but it's when it was never buttoned in the first place that bugs me.

Also, middle aged men in graphic tees/polos. The "45 going on 17" look just doesn't work.


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

So many distasteful trends from which to choose...

Okay, I'll go with the trend of wearing a wristwatch the size of a pie plate, and the better part of an inch thick. This is particularly awful when worn with a suit.

Although the competing trend of foregoing a wristwatch and using a cell phone to check the time is probably even more objectionable than the giant wristwatch thing.

Now, in fairness, I recall a time back in the 1980s, when radios grew to enormous size, and were carried around on one's shoulder. Then, seemingly overnight, they shrunk down to the size of a deck of playing cards. So maybe - just maybe - the enormous wristwatch thing will hit its peak, with watches so large and heavy as to give rise to public service announcements about the medical risks posed by unrestricted wear, soon to be followed by a trend toward wristwatches so practically microscopic in size that one need carry around a jeweler's loupe in order to read the dial.

After all, the trend toward wearing jeans 8 sizes too large may be giving way to the era of skinny, ultra-fitted jeans. Perhaps one day, saggin' will go the way of the lime green polyester leisure suit, or the powder blue tuxedo with black crushed velvet lapels. A man can hope.
-- 
Michael


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

I was tempted to say the trend which most bothers me is the wearing of suits and jackets with the label still attached to the sleeve. But that trend has the slight redeeming value of reminding me of Minnie Pearl and the price tag she'd leave hanging from her hat. And Minnie Pearl reminds me of The Beverly Hillbillies. And the black & white episodes of The Beverly Hillbillies were funny and clever. Even a fair number of the color episodes were good. It was only the last season or two, where Jethro flirted with the whole beatnik thing and Ellie Mae started showing her age, that really got on my nerves.

Besides, most men seldom wear suits or jackets, so the label thing just isn't encountered anywhere near as often as the jumbo wristwatch thing.
-- 
Michael


----------



## M Go Crimson (Aug 20, 2011)

Almost everything from American Apparel... on males.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Fraser Tartan said:


> 1) Baseball caps with flat brims worn with the sticker attached.
> 
> 2) The skinny "urban lumberjack" look.
> 
> 3) Scarves worn in relatively warm weather. Sometimes seen with just a t-shirt.


I remember seeing a crowd (vast crowd) of Celtic supporters arriving at Aberdeen, in December with snow on the ground, wearing a variety of cap sleeved t shirts and scarves. No jackets or coats, or bags that they could have been carried in. A very distinctive look.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

I don't know if I would refer to it as "distasteful", but these enormous PMOK-style knots are taking over the world...


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

DG123 said:


> You in Hawaii ?


Unfortunately not. Central Europe. In the middle of the Alps. Very cold right now.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Orsini said:


> I don't know if I would refer to it as "distasteful", but these enormous PMOK-style knots are taking over the world...


Nah, you got it with "distasteful"


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Good call on the watches--I hate that almost as much as baggy pants. The oversized radios, however, served a purpose: Back then, you needed a radio that size if you wanted any kind of decent sound from a "portable" device. Now you don't, and so you don't see them anymore. But the watches mystify, given available technology. It's even dumber, I think, when the oversized watch is a cheap one. It's like screaming, "Look, I'm broke AND I have no taste!"



12345Michael54321 said:


> So many distasteful trends from which to choose...
> 
> Okay, I'll go with the trend of wearing a wristwatch the size of a pie plate, and the better part of an inch thick. This is particularly awful when worn with a suit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

A woman wearing a football jersey (commonly a Washington Redskins Clinton Portis #26) with jeans and high heels, or for that matter anybody sporting an athletic uniform away from the venue. (This looks especially bad "on a night out on the town" or in a restaurant.) Also, it is disconcerting to see that parents dress their children this way to dine in the suburbs. I'm afraid that this has become all too common in Northern Virginia.


----------



## pweller (May 21, 2008)

A grown man wearing a pair of flip-flops (or any sandal) is just plain wrong. There's no excuse - I don't care if you just had one of your toes amputated, put on a pair of real shoes.


----------



## Virginia-Style (Oct 21, 2010)

Cotton shirts that haven't seen an iron... especially when the collars (primarily on polo golf shirts) look like used kleenex...


----------



## Thewaxmania (Feb 20, 2008)

Daveyboy said:


> Leaving the manufacturer's label on the sleeve of an overcoat.


I've never seen this but I keep hearing about it. The thought just seems crazy-bananas. I should look and see if I can't spot an offender sometime on the street.


----------



## roman totale XVII (Sep 18, 2009)

People in the office who wear a series of faded, mis-shapen company logo polos that you know for a fact they got from conferences or trade shows in the 1990s and yet have formed their work clothes weekly rotation ever since.


----------



## dba (Oct 22, 2010)

phyrpowr said:


> Backwards ball cap


When my son was about 12 years old he tried that. I explained to him the brim of the cap was to shade his eyes from the sun and that if he didn't need the brim, I'd cut them off all of his caps so he could still display forwardly, whatever team, location or message the cap supported. He hasn't worn a cap backwards since. Funny that!


----------



## MacTweed (Oct 30, 2011)

Harley Davidson ____________ (_insert random city to prove one has been there_) t-shirts. I have observed some people whose wardrobe consists almost entirely of Harley t-shirts.

Although waning in popularity, the same goes for Hard Rock Café shirts.

Even when I wore t-shirts daily outside of work (some of the darker days of my life :icon_smile_big I found it objectionable to provide free advertisement for companies. In fact, one has to pay a steep price premium for such t-shirts. A _quality(?)_ HD t-shirt can run $38.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> Good call on the watches--I hate that almost as much as baggy pants. The oversized radios, however, served a purpose: Back then, you needed a radio that size if you wanted any kind of decent sound from a "portable" device. Now you don't, and so you don't see them anymore. But the watches mystify, given available technology. It's even dumber, I think, when the oversized watch is a cheap one. It's like screaming, "Look, I'm broke AND I have no taste!"


I personally feel that some watches are supposed to be a little larger, like Seiko divers for example. The hugely oversized fashion watch should be avoided however.

I don't really like the smaller cheaper classics from Timex or similar, nor their more expensive counterparts from Hamilton. These days, 'in the field', people tend to wear G-Shocks. The field watch as sold by Timex et al is neither sturdy, has good craftsmanship nor is it particularly good looking. A Zulu strap does not help.

Also, Flieger watches are supposed to be large and hefty. Since they where originally 50-60mm watches worn outside of the jacket, sizing them down below 42 would be wrong.

Point being: watches are not intrinsically more correct nor more classic because they are small. IMO a 38mm or below thin watch is good under a shirt with a suit, but there's nothing wrong with sizing up with other clothes if the watch type is supposed to be heftier. The width of the wrist and the general size of the man should be taken into account as well.

Watches should primarily be fairly true to their original design purposes, and mechanical.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Watches should primarily be fairly true to their original design purposes, and mechanical.


I agree with much of what you say, but, in my opinion, there are a few "classics" among the digital varieties that are no longer produced. It's a matter that pales in comparison to the overall difference of quality between mechanical analog watches and digital ones, but a G-Shock is not the best example of digital watches.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> Also, Flieger watches are supposed to be large and hefty. Since they where originally 50-60mm watches worn outside of the jacket, sizing them down below 42 would be wrong.
> 
> Point being: watches are not intrinsically more correct nor more classic because they are small. IMO a 38mm or below thin watch is good under a shirt with a suit, but there's nothing wrong with sizing up with other clothes if the watch type is supposed to be heftier. The width of the wrist and the general size of the man should be taken into account as well.
> 
> Watches should primarily be fairly true to their original design purposes, and mechanical.


The thing is - watches from yesteryear were large and beefy only when they needed to be, like diver's watches, pilot's watches and railway watches. Such watches were tools, not ornaments. At the end of the work day the tool watch was removed and a dress watch fitted in its stead, since wearing your oversized and ugly tool watch outside work would have been considered silly and oafish at best.

It's only today, when fashion is entirely de-coupled from "real life", aesthetics is apparently all but dead and everything goes, everywhere and any time, that a 50-60mm watch head could be considered cool and trendy on even the scrawniest wrist.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Watches should primarily be fairly true to their original design purposes, and mechanical.


Isn't that rather like saying, trains should be fairly true to their original design purposes, and steam powered?


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> I personally feel that some watches are supposed to be a little larger, like Seiko divers for example. The hugely oversized fashion watch should be avoided however.
> 
> I don't really like the smaller cheaper classics from Timex or similar, nor their more expensive counterparts from Hamilton. These days, 'in the field', people tend to wear G-Shocks. The field watch as sold by Timex et al is neither sturdy, has good craftsmanship nor is it particularly good looking. A Zulu strap does not help.
> 
> ...


Watches should be chosen commensurate with the wearers wrist size. I have tiny wrists and a 38mm watch looks great on me. A PAM looks like a clown watch.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Bjorn said:


> Watches should primarily be fairly true to their original design purposes, and mechanical.


That's verging on the contradictory - as the original design purpose is to tell time and quartz watches are generally more accurate than mechanical, they're closer to that original purpose. The decision to wear a mechanical watch rather than a quartz watch is not based on design purpose but on a love of traditional engineering or of jewellery, both of which are perfectly legitimate reasons, of course. FWIW I have two Seiko 5s I regularly wear because I like the design and feel, and a very plain Omega automatic I wear on days when I'm be-suited because it's an appropriate piece of male jewellery to wear as an accessory.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

joenobody0 said:


> Watches should be chosen commensurate with the wearers wrist size. I have tiny wrists and a 38mm watch looks great on me. A PAM looks like a clown watch.


+1 Yes, sometimes smaller is better


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

I respect an effort made, even a misplaced one.
No attempt at appropriate dress, either for the weather or an occasion, is inexcusable.
For example, last week my family and I dined at a restaurant which 20 years ago found nearly all its male patrons wearing a tie. I honor that tradition and insist my young son do the same. But we sat amongst some t-shirts, sports jerseys, and even a guy wearing a greasy baseball cap.



CuffDaddy said:


> Many of the things listed in this thread are simply the consequence of people not trying, punting on style. To me, that's far less objectionable than those who are trying to do style but doing it terribly. From my perspective, the too-tight, too-low pants on guys is the most offensive. I do not want to see your junk!


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Agreed.



Brio1 said:


> A woman wearing a football jersey (commonly a Washington Redskins Clinton Portis #26) with jeans and high heels, or for that matter anybody sporting an athletic uniform away from the venue. (This looks especially bad "on a night out on the town" or in a restaurant.) Also, it is disconcerting to see that parents dress their children this way to dine in the suburbs. I'm afraid that this has become all too common in Northern Virginia.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

DG123 said:


> I respect an effort made, even a misplaced one.
> No attempt at appropriate dress, either for the weather or an occasion, is inexcusable.


I said "punting on style," not "punting on etiquette." I'm talking about people at the grocery store, or walking their dogs. Provided their clothing (or lack thereof) is not indecent, there's really no "appropriate dress" required.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Exactly right. Watches are designed for specific purposes.
I don't get the trend of wearing dive watches without ever going underwater. This is nonsense.



Belfaborac said:


> The thing is - watches from yesteryear were large and beefy only when they needed to be, like diver's watches, pilot's watches and railway watches. Such watches were tools, not ornaments. At the end of the work day the tool watch was removed and a dress watch fitted in its stead, since wearing your oversized and ugly tool watch outside work would have been considered silly and oafish at best.
> 
> It's only today, when fashion is entirely de-coupled from "real life", aesthetics is apparently all but dead and everything goes, everywhere and any time, that a 50-60mm watch head could be considered cool and trendy on even the scrawniest wrist.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Oldsarge said:


> Overweight little boys in baggy T-shirts and long shorts.


Even worse on 30+ year old men!!


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Even worse on 30+ year old men!!


This is known as "manchild syndrome". My friend's 11 year old son dresses just like this minus the stupid hair.


----------



## dcjacobson (Jun 25, 2007)

> Watches should primarily be fairly true to their original design purposes, and mechanical.


I was with you all the way until your last two words. I happen to like quartz watches, and you can find any number of them that are quite tasteful and appropriate. An example is the Seiko on my wrist today that is 31 years old and I never had to spend a couple hundred bucks every few years to clean it.

I will admit if I had the money, I would opt for an expensive mechanical!

Good luck,
Don


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Belfaborac said:


> The thing is - watches from yesteryear were large and beefy only when they needed to be, like diver's watches, pilot's watches and railway watches. Such watches were tools, not ornaments. At the end of the work day the tool watch was removed and a dress watch fitted in its stead, since wearing your oversized and ugly tool watch outside work would have been considered silly and oafish at best.
> 
> It's only today, when fashion is entirely de-coupled from "real life", aesthetics is apparently all but dead and everything goes, everywhere and any time, that a 50-60mm watch head could be considered cool and trendy on even the scrawniest wrist.


I'm not sure that is true. The flieger is a poor example since it was worn only when flying, then returned for calibration and service. But I don't see people who got a mil Rolex sub taking them off before going to the messhall?

I agree that a 50-60 mm watch needs a huge wrist (and would almost have to be a flieger) but a 40-50 mm does not.

The claim for authenticity that for example field watches make are also based on them formerly being used in the field.

I do not get how a 35-38 mm often cheaply (badly) made field watch is the essence of traditional coolness while a slightly larger better constructed diver is not.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

MikeDT said:


> Isn't that rather like saying, trains should be fairly true to their original design purposes, and steam powered?


Not when taking into consideration that mechanical watches have had huge development in quality, durability and affordability. This can hardly be said for steam powered trains.

Also, if you can't feel the difference between a good mechanical watch and a battery powered, or not between single malt whisky and blended, or not between a BMW and a ssang-young, then you can't. But it's still there.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

dcjacobson said:


> I was with you all the way until your last two words. I happen to like quartz watches, and you can find any number of them that are quite tasteful and appropriate. An example is the Seiko on my wrist today that is 31 years old and I never had to spend a couple hundred bucks every few years to clean it.
> 
> I will admit if I had the money, I would opt for an expensive mechanical!
> 
> ...


70£ used...


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> I'm not sure that is true. The flieger is a poor example since it was worn only when flying, then returned for calibration and service. But I don't see people who got a mil Rolex sub taking them off before going to the messhall?
> 
> I agree that a 50-60 mm watch needs a huge wrist (and would almost have to be a flieger) but a 40-50 mm does not.
> 
> ...


There's a world of difference between a 40mm watch and a 50mm watch! 40mm is totally traditional for a sports watch.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> I do not get how a 35-38 mm often cheaply (badly) made field watch is the essence of traditional coolness while a slightly larger better constructed diver is not.


Bjorn, you've made this claim a few times now and I'm not sure what you're referring to. There are "field watches" and then there are and everything in between. The simple, utilitarian nature of the watch and it's appropriateness for traditional outdoor pursuits is probably responsible for it's appeal, but they're available in all levels of quality, size and price (ironically, most of the true mil spec field watches cost about the same as the fashion field watches). Interestingly, modern high-torque, Swiss-made quartz movements with 10 year batteries have pretty much replaced the mechanical movements in field watches that see actual field use.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> I'm not sure that is true. The flieger is a poor example since it was worn only when flying, then returned for calibration and service. But I don't see people who got a mil Rolex sub taking them off before going to the messhall?


I wasn't really talking about the transition from plane to mess hall, but from work to leisure. Nor would I claim that no-one wore their work watches outside work, only that no-one who cared about their appearance would have done so. Also, there are always exceptions and the Submariner was maybe the first tool watch to make the transition from work to universal wear. That, of course, happened partly because the Submariner was, and remains, a modestly sized watch.



> I agree that a 50-60 mm watch needs a huge wrist (and would almost have to be a flieger) but a 40-50 mm does not.


As was stated by joenobody0, there is a world of difference between 40mm and 50mm. I'll happily wear anything between 40 and 45, but from there it gets hairy and it will depend entirely on the thickness and design of the watch. I have a Breitling SuperOcean heritage with measures 46mm and which I can just wear seeing as it rides quite low on the wrist. On the other hand I tried on a Chronomat GMT the other day, which at 47mm looked entirely ridiculous.



> The claim for authenticity that for example field watches make are also based on them formerly being used in the field.


There's a huge difference between wearing a watch in the field, where you need it to be out of the way, not snag on anything and generally be unobtrusive, and a pilot's or station master's watch which needs to be instantly legible (hence the large dial) and large size is no drawback (within reason of course). Field watches also needed instant legibility, but this was mainly achieved by strong luminescence (if of the military kind), which was then hidden by a cover across the face of the watch when stealth was of the essence (mainly military watches again).



> I do not get how a 35-38 mm often cheaply (badly) made field watch is the essence of traditional coolness while a slightly larger better constructed diver is not.


I absolutely agree, but slightly is the key word as far as I'm concerned. There are lots of nice diver's watches out there, mainly because the vast majority will never serve their intended purpose and so don't need to be designed to suit that purpose particularly well.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Jeans with fake fading and/or intentional rips/frays. Printed t-shirts manufactured to look old.


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> Jeans with fake fading and/or intentional rips/frays. Printed t-shirts manufactured to look old.


A couple of years ago, I discovered that this sort of silliness isn't limited to jeans and t-shirts. It seems some manufacturers offer - often at a price premium - "road worn" electric guitars. That is, they come from the factory with scratches, patches of missing paint, and other sorts of signs of long and hard use. I'm not making this up.

It's like going to the BMW dealer, and being told that for $4500 extra, they'll sell you a new car that looks like an old beater, complete with dings and rust.
-- 
Michael


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Belfaborac said:


> I wasn't really talking about the transition from plane to mess hall, but from work to leisure. Nor would I claim that no-one wore their work watches outside work, only that no-one who cared about their appearance would have done so. Also, there are always exceptions and the Submariner was maybe the first tool watch to make the transition from work to universal wear. That, of course, happened partly because the Submariner was, and remains, a modestly sized watch.
> 
> As was stated by joenobody0, there is a world of difference between 40mm and 50mm. I'll happily wear anything between 40 and 45, but from there it gets hairy and it will depend entirely on the thickness and design of the watch. I have a Breitling SuperOcean heritage with measures 46mm and which I can just wear seeing as it rides quite low on the wrist. On the other hand I tried on a Chronomat GMT the other day, which at 47mm looked entirely ridiculous.
> 
> ...


Agreed. I guess people dive on diving computers these days.

I think I'm meaning to say that unless one wears formal wear there's no general rule that says that a well made watch, be it a Rolex sub, a Seiko marine master or a IWC flieger (or even something substantially cheaper) can not in fact be more interesting, and suit just as well, as a 30-35mm datejust. Wrist size is important, but I'm only seeing 'don't wear a watch that is too large'. However, wearing a watch that is too small does not look good either.

And watches where not made to 30-35mm because there's a golden rule that watches fit better or look better at that size. A puny watch looks equally bad as an oversized watch that doesn't fit the wrist.

With formalwear or a city suit, there's rules (formal wear) and convention (city suits) that state that the watch should be thin and discreet. Thin makes it fit under the cuff, discreet since that's what all good men's accessories for formal/stricter wear are.

But with any other wear, smaller is not necessarily better. Convention has also changed towards larger watches. Which generally either makes them sturdier or more legible. These days, a mechanical watch with a quality movement and case is fairly cheap.

However, most advice given seems to be to get a Timex, a LL Bean or (if more money can be sunk into it) a Hamilton. None of which are a particularly (again, purely IMO) good value for money, nor offer a design or function that is out of the ordinary. Drab comes to mind, and overpriced. Of course, if you like them, fine.

But people who wear other, larger watches are not badly (or even worse) dressed because of it.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

In my mind, a watch under 34mm is as odd as a watch above 50mm. I think the standard has been 36mm "dress" watches, and ~40mm sports watches in the past. That's what Rolex has been selling for years and years. Those sizes have been increasing for the past 5-10 years. 

Anything under 36mm doesn't look right to my eye. I have a postivitely tiny writs and wouldn't wear a watch smaller than 36mm. My daily wear watch is a 38mm IWC.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Bjorn said:


> Also, if you can't feel the difference between a good mechanical watch and a battery powered, or not between single malt whisky and blended, or not between a BMW and a ssang-young, then you can't. But it's still there.


You're making absurd and preposterous comparisons. You're essentially appealing to your own romantic sensibilities as an arbiter of taste, and, indeed, of fact. As a machine for telling time, a quartz watch is inherently a more impressive piece of technology - unless one has only a minimal knowledge of science or technology - particularly when accompanied by an digital display and a number of electronic functions. Now from a gross _mechanical_ perspective a mechanical watch may be more impressive but that's not remotely the same thing.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> Agreed. I guess people dive on diving computers these days.
> 
> I think I'm meaning to say that unless one wears formal wear there's no general rule that says that a well made watch, be it a Rolex sub, a Seiko marine master or a IWC flieger (or even something substantially cheaper) can not in fact be more interesting, and suit just as well, as a 30-35mm datejust.


I absolutely agree, but neither a Flieger, nor a Submariner are large watches. Unless we're taking about a Big Pilot.



> Wrist size is important, but I'm only seeing 'don't wear a watch that is too large'. However, wearing a watch that is too small does not look good either.





> And watches where not made to 30-35mm because there's a golden rule that watches fit better or look better at that size. A puny watch looks equally bad as an oversized watch that doesn't fit the wrist.


But that's because tastes have changed, or have disappeared. Today anything goes and aesthetics and proportionality means nothing to most people. Go back to when men's timepieces generall measured 30-36mm and small watched did look better, partly because that was the vogue and partly because a dress watch should be discreet and not steal attention away from the lady on your arm.

Otherwise I agree that 30-35mm is too small and looks a bit strange today, so I'm certainly affected by the spirit of the times as well, but still there's no way to escape proportionality. I see a lot of guys sporting watches which cover their entire wrists and that'll never look anything but silly. Even Arnie (or is it Stallone? I'm not sure) can't pull off that big Panerai Egiziano he's fond of wearing.



> But with any other wear, smaller is not necessarily better. Convention has also changed towards larger watches. Which generally either makes them sturdier or more legible. These days, a mechanical watch with a quality movement and case is fairly cheap.


Agreed. Today even a cheap Chinese watch movement is good enough to fulfill COSC requirements, so a good mechanical watch can be had for virtually peanuts. For a little more, Seiko, Orient and more make excellent watches.



> However, most advice given seems to be to get a Timex, a LL Bean or (if more money can be sunk into it) a Hamilton. None of which are a particularly (again, purely IMO) good value for money, nor offer a design or function that is out of the ordinary. Drab comes to mind, and overpriced. Of course, if you like them, fine.


Agreed again, although quite frankly there's very little good value to be had in the world of mechanical watches, unless you pick from the lowest branches of the tree.



> But people who wear other, larger watches are not badly (or even worse) dressed because of it.


Agreed, depending on how big.

And that's likely more than enough about watches, unless a separate topic is launched. Apologies for my contribution to partly derailing the thread.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

*cracks knuckles* Here's my personal Top 10 List of Distasteful Wardrobe Trends...
10. Too-snug/too-tight suits that show shirt and tie below the jacket even when buttoned.
9. Absurdly large watches.
8. A grown man wearing an athletic jersey with another man's name on it.
7. Men in "skinny jeans" or it's bipolar-twin the "10-sizes-too-big-I've-got-to-grab-them-at-my-waist-to-walk" jeans.
6. Anything by Ed Hardy or Affliction.
5. Women wearing "jeggings" or "pajama jeans". Ladies, if you don't find tight jeans that fit your figure, there's a reason!
4. White or silver-framed sunglasses on men.
3. Flat-brim, still-labeled caps of any type.... and ANY headcovering worn by a man indoors.
2. The "Forever Lazy", which is essentially a onesy garment for adults (look the horrifying commercial up on Youtube). 

And bottoming out: 
1. Men in cargo shorts and flip-flops sandals regardless of place, weather, or what their lady is wearing. 
Example - Last Friday night here in Atlanta (with temps aroung 45F) my lady and I attended a very special Tony Bennett concert at The Fabulous Fox Theatre. The swanky upscale atmosphere of the evening was regularly marred by the sight of men dressed like they just came in from mowing their lawn on a summer's day. All of them had wives/dates who were dressed appropriately... leaving me to wonder if women (speaking collectively) even care anymore.


----------



## Fratelli (Nov 10, 2011)

Do sweat pants and high heels count?


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Women wearing Timberland boots does.



Brio1 said:


> A woman wearing a football jersey (commonly a Washington Redskins Clinton Portis #26) with jeans and high heels..


Are you certain you didn't see that in the confines of your bedroom? I think it would have been your duty to do something about that.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

StephenRG said:


> You're making absurd and preposterous comparisons. You're essentially appealing to your own romantic sensibilities as an arbiter of taste, and, indeed, of fact. As a machine for telling time, a quartz watch is inherently a more impressive piece of technology - unless one has only a minimal knowledge of science or technology - particularly when accompanied by an digital display and a number of electronic functions. Now from a gross _mechanical_ perspective a mechanical watch may be more impressive but that's not remotely the same thing.


No, i was comparing items that difference in both actual and perceived quality. That's not a romantic sensibility.

Also, if you want scientific facts I would turn to a different forum.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

DG123 said:


> Exactly right. Watches are designed for specific purposes.
> I don't get the trend of wearing dive watches without ever going underwater. This is nonsense.


Please don't take offense, but I'm about to start using a dive watch regularly. I'll wear it with a suit, and the only water the watch will ever see will be when I wash my hands. I'm starting to show my age, and my gradient bifocal AA 406's, good as they are, don't let me conveniently read the elegant, discreet, low-contrast dials of most dress watches under any less-than-ideal conditions. So I have specific use for a big watch with a large black dial and fat, luminous hands that I can read instantly while at my desk, while walking down the street at dusk or while sitting in a dark passenger jet late at night.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Taken Aback said:


> Women wearing Timberland boots does.
> 
> Are you certain you didn't see that in the confines of your bedroom? I think it would have been your duty to do something about that.


Negative, sir. Not the "type" of woman that would be found in my bedchamber. No bimbos, please. :icon_smile:


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

Brio1 said:


> Negative, sir. Not the "type" of woman that would be found in my bedchamber. No bimbos, please. :icon_smile:


Agreed. However, if it was a GIANTS jersey.......:devil:


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

bd79cc said:


> Please don't take offense, but I'm about to start using a dive watch regularly. I'll wear it with a suit, and the only water the watch will ever see will be when I wash my hands. I'm starting to show my age, and my gradient bifocal AA 406's, good as they are, don't let me conveniently read the elegant, discreet, low-contrast dials of most dress watches under any less-than-ideal conditions. So I have specific use for a big watch with a large black dial and fat, luminous hands that I can read instantly while at my desk, while walking down the street at dusk or while sitting in a dark passenger jet late at night.


If you want to wear a dive watch with a suit, then own it. Very few people will notice anything wrong with it and fewer people will care. But if what you really need is a watch dial that's easy to read, well then you kind of set yourself up for this one.


----------



## upthewazzu (Nov 3, 2011)

Grayson said:


> 7. Men in "skinny jeans" or it's bipolar-twin the "10-sizes-too-big-I've-got-to-grab-them-at-my-waist-to-walk" jeans.
> 6. Anything by Ed Hardy or Affliction.


Ahh, I see you noticed that as well. I work at a university on the west coast of the US (not the one in Pullman, WA) and can say that those two trends have been more pronounced than all others. I find the skinny jean fad to be hopefully nearing an end, although it's not quite over. The "MMA" type shirts like you described are a trend I don't see dying out anytime soon. It seems that these types of shirts are mostly found at low-end outlets like Ross Dress for Less and TJ Maxx. At least around here that is where they are sold.


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

Saw something on the Metro ride this morning that belongs here: the Girlfriend Peacoat.


----------



## Rolex Luthor (Jan 5, 2009)

Grayson said:


> 1. Men in cargo shorts and flip-flops sandals regardless of place, weather, or what their lady is wearing.


This is my personal pet peeve. I don't understand how women tolerate all that they go through to make themselves look nice and then have no standards for the slovenly dope at their side.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

A peacoat cut for a woman, or a woman wearing a man's coat? I'm not sure I find either truly distasteful.


----------



## Bernie Zack (Feb 10, 2010)

I am thankful that waistcoats are, once again, gaining popularity. However, I find it distasteful that they are purposely made too short, so that the bottom of the vest is 2 inches above the belt. It looks ridiculous with the shirt (and gutt) hanging out below the waistcoat! Even worst, the waistcoat, with the shirt untucked!!


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

often, it's not that the vest is too short, but that the pants ride too low.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

hardline_42 said:


> If you want to wear a dive watch with a suit, then own it. Very few people will notice anything wrong with it and fewer people will care. But if what you really need is a watch dial that's easy to read, well then you kind of set yourself up for this one.


Thanks for the reminder about the Timex Easy Reader. At that price, I could buy one - plus a striped band from Central Watch (www.centralwatch.com) - along with the divers watch!


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

Rolex Luthor said:


> This is my personal pet peeve. I don't understand how women tolerate all that they go through to make themselves look nice and then have no standards for the slovenly dope at their side.


The flip side of that coin is the attractive and normal-looking young woman who is with a male who is completely primped and gelled and styled and fashioned. I see that fairly regularly in SoCal. Guys who look like they spend way more time in front of the mirror than their (attractive and well-groomed) female companions.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Bernie Zack said:


> I am thankful that waistcoats are, once again, gaining popularity. However, I find it distasteful that they are purposely made too short, so that the bottom of the vest is 2 inches above the belt. It looks ridiculous with the shirt (and gutt) hanging out below the waistcoat! Even worst, the waistcoat, with the shirt untucked!!


And the untucked shirt poking out under a sweater, blazer, jacket, etc. Gotta be a "fashion statement"...of what, the deponent knoweth not.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

bd79cc said:


> Thanks for the reminder about the Timex Easy Reader. At that price, I could buy one - plus a striped band from Central Watch (www.centralwatch.com) - along with the divers watch!


They do have another model at a similar price point that includes such a band. This one was $25 on BF.



Taken Aback said:


> A peacoat cut for a woman, or a woman wearing a man's coat? I'm not sure I find either truly distasteful.


One moment...yes I do. I tend to screen out out the sight due to frequency, but I see one-size-too-small peacoat-esque jackets on women virtually every day. I instinctively turn away when they sit down on the subway; there's no point in losing an eye to a speeding anchor button.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

PTB in San Diego said:


> The flip side of that coin is the attractive and normal-looking young woman who is with a male who is completely primped and gelled and styled and fashioned. I see that fairly regularly in SoCal. Guys who look like they spend way more time in front of the mirror than their (attractive and well-groomed) female companions.


Perhaps things are very different 100-odd miles south of my haunts, but that's sure not something I see often in my part of SoCal. "Ape-man and angel" combos are what I see much more often.


----------



## sheldon (Nov 16, 2011)

the super low rise jeans that young men prefer to wear


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Taken Aback said:


> They do have another model at a similar price point that includes such a band. This one was $25 on BF.
> 
> One moment...yes I do. I tend to screen out out the sight due to frequency, *but I see one-size-too-small peacoat-esque jackets on women virtually every day. I instinctively turn away when they sit down on the subway; there's no point in losing an eye to a speeding anchor button.*


Haha...yes. I'm seeing a lot of that this week. I'm currently in Beijing.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

phyrpowr said:


> And the untucked shirt poking out under a sweater, blazer, jacket, etc. Gotta be a "fashion statement"...of what, the deponent knoweth not.


Yes - even in cold weather on men complaining of being cold!


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Adjectives on clothing: upon a recent visit to a shopping mall with a lady friend I noticed a young female shopper with "pink" across the seat of her pants and "juicy" on the back of her boots. :icon_pale:


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Brio1 said:


> *Adjectives on clothing*: upon a recent visit to a shopping mall with a lady friend I noticed a young female shopper with "pink" across the seat of her pants and "juicy" on the back of her boots. :icon_pale:


I usually have no problem with adjectives, verbs or nouns on clothing, as long as they manage to spell them correctly....


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

'Distressed' jeans distress me, particularly the ones with white stripes or satins or whatever they are meant to be.


----------



## joezasada (May 29, 2011)

I find people who don't take any effort to dress approapriately for the event of location they are going to. E.g. t-shirt and jeans to a concert hall or to a fine restaurant...

Also the merging of 'informal', 'semi-formal', and 'formal' into 'some kind of ill-fitting suit' hasn't helped things


----------



## eddiel (Feb 9, 2010)

Grayson said:


> And bottoming out:
> 1. Men in cargo shorts and flip-flops sandals regardless of place, weather, or what their lady is wearing.
> Example - Last Friday night here in Atlanta (with temps aroung 45F) my lady and I attended a very special Tony Bennett concert at The Fabulous Fox Theatre. The swanky upscale atmosphere of the evening was regularly marred by the sight of men dressed like they just came in from mowing their lawn on a summer's day. All of them had wives/dates who were dressed appropriately... leaving me to wonder if women (speaking collectively) even care anymore.


Oh this is my ultimate pet peeve (after the term "pet peeve" ). I see it all the time and think to myself "Why?". Sometimes the men will make a little more effort and wear jeans that have been made to look worn in and a t-shirt with suitable logo but the result is still the same; their female companion is dressed appropriately and the men are not.

Horrible.

I think men are expected to look rubbish in this day and age whereas women still like to make the effort. But I'm just guessing as to why.


----------



## Tourist Trophy Garage (Nov 24, 2011)

On men, the skin-tight jeans worn below the hips so the seat droops-- it looks like they've filled their underwear. This is usually worn with a v-neck t shirt.

On gents in trousers, bare ankles with any other kind of shoe besides a slip-on or boat shoe-- especially in winter. Ridiculous.

The rubber "wayfarer" style sunglasses with the contrasting colored temples. IIRC, those originally came out in the 80s after the wayfarer craze had run its course. i think they gave them away at McDonald's. They were so derivative, no self-respecting person would have worn them. Now they're back and "80's style". Yay.

Glad to see the keffiyeh worn as a cowboy bandana thing going away. That made me absolutely crazy every time I saw it.


----------



## AMProfessor (Sep 9, 2011)

I'm so glad someone mentioned the labels on the sleeve of an overcoat. I was at a professional function a couple of weeks ago, and a mid-to-late 20s man walked in wearing a fairly decent looking overcoat. I was embarrassed for him when I saw that he had left the manufacturers label on the outside of his right sleeve. I figured he must have just run to the store and picked up a new coat prior to the reception. I had no idea that this was done on purpose (or perhaps just out of ignorance?). Sheeze.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

I find old retired guys with long gray hair in a pony tail a little disturbing. Especially when they are bald on top and only the sides have hair that's pulled back.

Come on, act your age, you're a grown man!!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

GTH pants. Guys who generally don't care what they wear (except that it is expensive and has a irritating logo somewhere) immediately feel like they are tapping into the mother lode of sartorial excellence because they are wearing orange pants with little ducks on them.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

dks202 said:


> I find old retired guys with long gray hair in a pony tail a little disturbing. Especially when they are bald on top and only the sides have hair that's pulled back.
> 
> Come on, act your age, you're a grown man!!


You just described at least 10% of the guys I work with.  And the location I work at has a LOT of employees (several thousand).

Andy B.


----------



## phs1828 (Dec 29, 2010)

I am really bugged by the Polo Ralph Lauren shirts with the enormous logo. E.g., https://www.buypoloralphlaurensale.com/images/Ralph%20Lauren%20Big%20Pony%20Polo%20Shirt%20Navy%20Blue.jpg

Nothing against the classic shirt, with the smaller logo, but the huge logo strikes me as someone trying too hard.


----------



## ballmouse (Jul 30, 2011)

Dark colored collared shirts (black, navy blue, blood red, etc.) with black jackets.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

phs1828 said:


> I am really bugged by the Polo Ralph Lauren shirts with the enormous logo. E.g., https://www.buypoloralphlaurensale.com/images/Ralph Lauren Big Pony Polo Shirt Navy Blue.jpg
> 
> Nothing against the classic shirt, with the smaller logo, but the huge logo strikes me as someone trying too hard.


And while we're at it, how about that stupid mullet tuck!

Tuck in your shirt, boy!


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Trimmer said:


> 'Distressed' jeans distress me, particularly the ones with white stripes or satins or whatever they are meant to be.


Yeh, the sight of distressed jeans distresses me as well. If I want distressed jeans I'll do the distressing myself with normal wear and tear.


----------



## MicTester (Oct 8, 2009)

Very little. The world would be boring if all of us followed the same rules.


----------



## ArtVandalay (Apr 29, 2010)

eddiel said:


> Oh this is my ultimate pet peeve (after the term "pet peeve" ). I see it all the time and think to myself "Why?". Sometimes the men will make a little more effort and wear jeans that have been made to look worn in and a t-shirt with suitable logo but the result is still the same; their female companion is dressed appropriately and the men are not.
> 
> Horrible.
> 
> I think men are expected to look rubbish in this day and age whereas women still like to make the effort. But I'm just guessing as to why.


The question is, why does the lady tolerate it? We all know she could do better, doesn't she?


----------



## upthewazzu (Nov 3, 2011)

ArtVandalay said:


> The question is, why does the lady tolerate it? We all know she could do better, doesn't she?


This is my pet peeve at the University I work at. Most women dress very professionally, nice pants, nice shirt, more often than not a nice jacket. However, the men....yikes. Dad-jeans and polo shirt are the norm, it's a disaster, and it's tolerated. Up until about 3 months ago I followed this trend (sans dad-jeans) but decided to make it a priority to change my wardrobe substantially. Now, I constantly get compliments from the women in the office.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

joezasada said:


> I find people who don't take any effort to dress approapriately for the event of location they are going to. E.g. t-shirt and jeans to a concert hall or to a *fine restaurant*...


At a fine restaurant the other night...


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

MikeDT said:


> At a fine restaurant the other night...
> View attachment 3522


This is some sort of local schtick, isn't it?

Maybe we should debate if that makes is as valid as SR-compliant bespoke...


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Orsini said:


> This is some sort of local schtick, isn't it?


Yup... traditional Chinese custom.. if one is too hot, roll up shirt and expose belly to the air.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

phs1828 said:


> I am really bugged by the Polo Ralph Lauren shirts with the enormous logo. E.g., https://www.buypoloralphlaurensale.com/images/Ralph Lauren Big Pony Polo Shirt Navy Blue.jpg
> 
> Nothing against the classic shirt, with the smaller logo, but the huge logo strikes me as someone trying too hard.


There's a brand new Ralph Lauren store just opened here, and everything has the large pony on it, jackets, sweaters and shirts. This is actually a real Ralph Lauren store for a change, not fake or counterfeit, first one of its kind in the city. Probably keep the local wealthy brand whores happy.

They're selling "Polo Ralph Lauren" with a blue label for the benefit of any RL experts.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

MikeDT said:


> At a fine restaurant the other night...
> View attachment 3522


LOL. Something about that illustration tells me that this ins't the first gastronomical redeo for the gentleman pictured!


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

ArtVandalay said:


> The question is, why does the lady tolerate it? We all know she could do better, doesn't she?


According to one of my female friends, the reason is very simple, and rather primeval. if the man is dressed plainly or unattractively, other women are less likely to want him. That's why it's tolerated.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

The perpetual dress-down. Shorts and t-shirts are not 24-7-365 wear.


----------



## Nerd (Nov 20, 2011)

I get highly disturbed when I encounter men that do not button their rear trouser pockets. In addition, men who wear those pointy imported non-welted dress shoes that haven't seen polish in so long, the kiwi bird can be heard crying for food from miles away.


----------



## eddiel (Feb 9, 2010)

upthewazzu said:


> This is my pet peeve at the University I work at. Most women dress very professionally, nice pants, nice shirt, more often than not a nice jacket. However, the men....yikes. *Dad-jeans* and polo shirt are the norm,


I think I am going to regret asking this but what are "dad-jeans"?



ArtVandalay said:


> The question is, why does the lady tolerate it? We all know she could do better, doesn't she?





Racer said:


> According to one of my female friends, the reason is very simple, and rather primeval. if the man is dressed plainly or unattractively, other women are less likely to want him. That's why it's tolerated.


If that's the reason it's tolerated then I fear more for women then I do for the men who dress the way they do!!

I don't think that's the real reason though. I would think that most self respecting women would rather have a nicely dressed man on their arm to show off! [joke!]

I think the reason might be that men just aren't expected to care for the most part whereas women are and usually do. Put it this way for the most part no one is going home talking about the horribly dressed man but should women do that it would be a different story. That's my take anyway.

Eddie


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Oh, come now. The standard is what you see every day. Not sure where you live, but I don't see GTH pants except, well, when I am wearing them. If you saw them every day, they would, not, by definition, be GTH.

In short, leave my embroidered retrievers and plaids alone, thank you very much.

Now, I will add to my list ANY visible logos. Some--the RL polo player, being Exhibit A--are more offensive than others--Levi's, just because I grew up with them, before RL started a trend that has become stomach turning. But, end of the day, any visible logo screams trailer court, when you stop and think about it.



Bjorn said:


> GTH pants. Guys who generally don't care what they wear (except that it is expensive and has a irritating logo somewhere) immediately feel like they are tapping into the mother lode of sartorial excellence because they are wearing orange pants with little ducks on them.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Racer said:


> According to one of my female friends, the reason is very simple, and rather primeval. if the man is dressed plainly or unattractively, other women are less likely to want him. That's why it's tolerated.





eddiel said:


> I think I am going to regret asking this but what are "dad-jeans"?
> 
> If that's the reason it's tolerated then I fear more for women then I do for the men who dress the way they do!!
> 
> ...


LOL. Boy have you guys hit the old nail on the head! What you've noted above is exactly the reason I wear my "dad-jeans." It gets so tiring to be out and about with the wife and have everyone thinking that I'm nothing more that her "arm trophy, boy toy!" I'm more than just good looks...I've got a brain too, ya know! ROFALOL. :biggrin:


----------



## dba (Oct 22, 2010)

dks202 said:


> I find old retired guys with long gray hair in a pony tail a little disturbing. Especially when they are bald on top and only the sides have hair that's pulled back.
> 
> Come on, act your age, you're a grown man!!


Usually wearing sandals of some kind instead of proper shoes also.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

This isn't a trend. it's just awful. All the money this guy makes, and they let him out looking like this?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

^^^ 
I remember this guy when he was just a twerp.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

joezasada said:


> ...the merging of 'informal', 'semi-formal', and 'formal' into 'some kind of ill-fitting suit' hasn't helped things


LOL! Exactly! I see people walking around wearing stuff like they hurriedly grabbed this-n-that off the floor and put it on and dashed out the door. Of course I never say anything about it and try not to look too closely at them for fear I'll be overwhelmed by all the sartorial chaos and have to sit down and ask for a glass of water.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Orsini said:


> ^^^
> I remember this guy when he was just a twerp.


He had better shoes and a broader audience then too.


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

A little off topic perhaps: Tattoos and Piercings


----------



## dba (Oct 22, 2010)

Thomas Martin said:


> A little off topic perhaps: Tattoos and Piercings


It may be but I'm with you. One positive benefit of tattoos and piercings is that it automatically allows me to know who I don't want to associate with.

Narrow-minded of me? You bet. Flame proof suit on? Oh yea!


----------



## upthewazzu (Nov 3, 2011)

dba said:


> It may be but I'm with you. One positive benefit of tattoos and piercings is that it automatically allows me to know who I don't want to associate with.
> 
> Narrow-minded of me? You bet. Flame proof suit on? Oh yea!


You're not alone. Tattoos that are covered are one thing, but what in the hell are people thinking when they get them on places like their neck or forearms.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
....and/or on their faces?


----------



## Mongo (May 9, 2008)

upthewazzu said:


> You're not alone. Tattoos that are covered are one thing, but what in the hell are people thinking when they get them on places like their neck or forearms.


Although he was emabarassed by it in later life, my father had a martime tatoo on his left forearm.

Given that he shipped on the Great Lakes at 16 years old, when he acquired it, I thought it was a great tatoo.

Sort of the exception that proves the rule, perhaps.


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

Tattoos on sailors are perfectly OK!


----------



## Ekphrastic (Oct 4, 2009)

^ This very conversation inspired one of the longest...uh...conversations over at An Affordable Wardrobe. Don't have the link, but, if you want varied impressions of the subject, it's an interesting read.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> Oh, come now. The standard is what you see every day. Not sure where you live, but I don't see GTH pants except, well, when I am wearing them. If you saw them every day, they would, not, by definition, be GTH.
> 
> In short, leave my embroidered retrievers and plaids alone, thank you very much.
> 
> Now, I will add to my list ANY visible logos. Some--the RL polo player, being Exhibit A--are more offensive than others--Levi's, just because I grew up with them, before RL started a trend that has become stomach turning. But, end of the day, any visible logo screams trailer court, when you stop and think about it.


Every day on the sartorially inclined web sites I peruse.


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

I don't know if this qualifies as something I actually see daily in real life, but it's certainly something I've seen for the last few years in magazines: guys in suits with skinny-legged pants two or three inches above their shoes (extra points for wing-tips without socks). 

They look like 16 year olds still trying to wear their bar mitzvah suits :crazy:.


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

Patrick06790 said:


> This isn't a trend. it's just awful. All the money this guy makes, and they let him out looking like this?


Who's this guy and why is he holding a baseball bat in his hand? Creeps the hell out of me...


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> He had better shoes and a broader audience then too.


+1 LOL


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Thomas Martin said:


> Who's this guy and why is he holding a baseball bat in his hand? Creeps the hell out of me...


Former jerk sportscaster turned jerk pundit.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Orsini said:


> Former jerk sportscaster turned jerk pundit.


That certainly explains why I also have absolutely no idea who he is.

Andy B.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

andy b. said:


> That certainly explains why I also have absolutely no idea who he is.
> 
> Andy B.


Keith Olbermann, formerly of CNN, Fox Sports, ESPN, CNBC, and now Current TV. Some love him, others hate him.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Tie with jeans...that IS the only one that irritates me. Everything else listed in this thread so far, has nothing to do with style or attire it is simply sloppy or lazy people quite happy to go about their daily affairs looking like schlubs.
The chap coupling a tie with jeans is making an effort but failing in my opinion.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Thomas Martin said:


> Who's this guy and why is he holding a baseball bat in his hand? Creeps the hell out of me...


Aaron Sorkin's muse.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Tie with jeans...that IS the only one that irritates me. Everything else listed in this thread so far, has nothing to do with style or attire it is simply sloppy or lazy people quite happy to go about their daily affairs looking like schlubs.
> The chap coupling a tie with jeans is making an effort but failing in my opinion.


Guilty...

At least I'm a chap and not a lad.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Tie with jeans...that IS the only one that irritates m....


I generally agree, though I suppose it can work ok if the tie is a cotton knit.


----------



## shorty (Oct 5, 2009)

Men wearing Burberry check pattern scarves in the company's logo colors. Every other woman at the mall or at a restaurant is wearing one. Not as bad as men wearing flip-flops anywhere other than near a pool of water but that's already been mentioned.


----------



## Poindexter (Jul 22, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Tie with jeans...that IS the only one that irritates me.











Horses for courses, man. Dogma always sux.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Well, the faded colour and frayed bottoms don't help. If they were at least fairly dark and in good repair, it might be another thing. As it is, it seems like he mixed up his business and pleasure wardrobes. (Though who's to say they can't be one and the same?)


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

dba said:


> It may be but I'm with you. One positive benefit of tattoos and piercings is that it automatically allows me to know who I don't want to associate with.
> 
> Narrow-minded of me? You bet. Flame proof suit on? Oh yea!


Have you actually talked to any of these people before? Gotten to know them? No, I guess not, given what you said. Nonetheless, the friends of mine with tattoos up and down their arms and a piercing or two on their face are certainly better company than you if you're this prejudiced.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Poindexter said:


> View attachment 3561
> 
> 
> Horses for courses, man. Dogma always sux.


He wears faded jeans with his jacket fairly well I think. Although its not a terribly sharp ensemble it blends enough to form a nice uniform whole.

He looks better than 95% of the others. IMO.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Once a sign of rebellion and individuality, tattoos these days scream "I am a sheep."


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> Once a sign of rebellion and individuality, tattoos these days scream "I am a sheep."


Do tattoos really scream anything anymore?

200 years ago, tattoos and body piercings where common in all classes in society. I think they most always have been.

I think tattoos are like clothes, it's what you wear and how. Also, they aren't supposed to show IMO unless one is almost naked:

(Tatto in Japan, traditional and modern styles, Okazaki, Edition Reuss)


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

Tats are hot on well shaped bottoms of 25 years old girls. The problem is they don't stay 25 and well shaped forever...


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Poindexter said:


> View attachment 3561
> 
> 
> Horses for courses, man. Dogma always sux.


Are those the "dad jeans" that got so much talk going?


----------



## upthewazzu (Nov 3, 2011)

joenobody0 said:


> Are those the "dad jeans" that got so much talk going?


They fit the color description, but ultimately it depends on the fit and rise.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Very little can muck up the well-shaped bottom of a 25-year-old girl, but if you are captivated by the tattoo instead of the canvas, you are definitely a tree, not a forest, person.



Thomas Martin said:


> Tats are hot on well shaped bottoms of 25 years old girls. The problem is they don't stay 25 and well shaped forever...


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> 200 years ago, tattoos and body piercings where common in all classes in society. I think they most always have been.
> 
> I think tattoos are like clothes, it's what you wear and how. Also, they aren't supposed to show IMO unless one is almost naked.


See: Yakuza

Note: Nothing above the neck or beyond the wrists and ankles. These guys wear business suits, so the dermagraphics never show.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

sbdivemaster said:


> See: Yakuza
> 
> Note: Nothing above the neck or beyond the wrists and ankles. These guys wear business suits, so the dermagraphics never show.


Exactly.


----------



## dba (Oct 22, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Have you actually talked to any of these people before? Gotten to know them? No, I guess not, given what you said. Nonetheless, the friends of mine with tattoos up and down their arms and a piercing or two on their face are certainly better company than you if you're this prejudiced.


Jovan,

Talked to them everyday of my working life. Some of them I worked with and liked, some I didn't. Doesn't mean I want to invite them all for cocktails on the verandah overlooking the polo field. I think 32rollandrock hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

dba said:


> Jovan,
> 
> Talked to them everyday of my working life. Some of them I worked with and liked, some I didn't. Doesn't mean I want to invite them all for cocktails on the verandah overlooking the polo field. I think 32rollandrock hit the nail on the head.


Why on earth not?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

If I knew how to do math and could do it all over again, I'd go to medical school and become a tattoo-removal specialist. I know lots of very nice folks with tattoos. I suspect, at some point in life, many of them will wake up one morning and realize that there is really no upside in being a human chalkboard, at which point they will spend many times what they spent getting inked getting un-inked. Which isn't to say that there aren't some eye-popping tattoos out there. There certainly are. There are also some beautiful paintings, but that doesn't mean one should get a Mona Lisa on their chest.

Like it or not, folks make judgments based on appearances. Tattoos are more likely to create an unfavorable impression than a favorable impression. Few folks, regardless of whether they like tattoos, are likely to look at someone and say, "Gee, nice guy, but what he really needs are some tattoos." Like it or not, the opposite is true.


----------



## eye40garn (Jan 15, 2012)

All the above and if not already said, bicycle toe shoes.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

At the spa next to the Westin Hotel in Tokyo, there was (and AFAIK still is) a prominent sign saying in Japanese* and English, "We reserve the right to refuse admission to people with tattoos".

*A Japanese colleague assured me that the sign said in Japanese what I read in English


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

That reminds me of the great line in the classic film, "It's a Wonderful Life," where the law school professor says that "Every time a sign goes up in the United States, indicating that management reserves the right to deny service to people with tattoos, a class action lawyer gets his Maybach 62."


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Priceless.



12345Michael54321 said:


> That reminds me of the great line in the classic film, "It's a Wonderful Life," where the law school professor says that "Every time a sign goes up in the United States, indicating that management reserves the right to provide service to people with tattoos, a class action lawyer gets his Maybach 62."


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

If a tattoo does not show in common clothing, it is no ones business if someone possesses it. If it does, then the wearer must understand that those who look upon them can and will make judgements based upon that choice. Many will excuse the younger crowd the folly of a visible tattoo, but once one hits 30, it's hard to offer justification for a bad decision of youth.

When I was in service, tattoos were common. I have one myself (right shoulder). I chose the location specifically so it could not be seen, unless I chose to share it. Others chose more obvious locations (lower arms & legs) and are regretting it now. The Corps "recently" (last 5 years) changed their policy on visible tattoos because they do not present a profession image. This is in an "industry" that typically had a high percentage of tattooed individuals.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

During the Vietnam War, extensive and visible tattoos were grounds for IVF (and so there really was something to be gained). You are exactly right: If it is not visible, it's no one's business. If it is, then you invite scutiny/judgment. It seems that you have chosen wisely.



Apatheticviews said:


> If a tattoo does not show in common clothing, it is no ones business if someone possesses it. If it does, then the wearer must understand that those who look upon them can and will make judgements based upon that choice. Many will excuse the younger crowd the folly of a visible tattoo, but once one hits 30, it's hard to offer justification for a bad decision of youth.
> 
> When I was in service, tattoos were common. I have one myself (right shoulder). I chose the location specifically so it could not be seen, unless I chose to share it. Others chose more obvious locations (lower arms & legs) and are regretting it now. The Corps "recently" (last 5 years) changed their policy on visible tattoos because they do not present a profession image. This is in an "industry" that typically had a high percentage of tattooed individuals.


----------



## the shoe guy (Dec 7, 2011)

I agree and what is up with that Dr. Oz guy on T.V. He should be wearing a suit and tie. If he wants to go on television looking fresh out of the ER then he should atleast have blood on his scrubs.


----------



## the shoe guy (Dec 7, 2011)

Fat woman walking around with fat hanging out!!!!! For gods sake wear a bigger shirt!!!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

^^
It was my impression that we were limited to men's fashion, or lack thereof. If that is not the case then, most definitely, low-rise on side-wise chicks is, by far, the most distasteful thing I see on a daily basis, far and away worse than any sagger.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

32rollandrock said:


> During the Vietnam War, extensive and visible tattoos were grounds for IVF (and so there really was something to be gained). You are exactly right: If it is not visible, it's no one's business. *If it is, then you invite scutiny/judgment.* It seems that you have chosen wisely.


Why? Because they do something with their body you wouldn't?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Poindexter said:


> View attachment 3561
> 
> 
> Horses for courses, man. Dogma always sux.


I think he looks ghastly. As if he sorted his top-half out in the mirror in the morning after taking off an old "lounging round the house" shirt, then suddenly realised he was running late and ran out of the house without changing to his slacks and brogues.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

the shoe guy said:


> I agree and what is up with that Dr. Oz guy on T.V. He should be wearing a suit and tie. If he wants to go on television looking fresh out of the ER then he should atleast have blood on his scrubs.


He wears scrubs to give the impression that he is a Medical Doctor to the lay person. Wearing a suit & tie wouldn't have the same effect. I know it would present a more professional appearance, however I'm sure him wearing scrubs was a strategic decision made by the producers of the show.

Compare him to to Dr. Phil, who does wear a suit & tie daily, and you can see why they would want to create a "distanced" look and feel for the show.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Apatheticviews said:


> He wears scrubs to give the impression that he is a Medical Doctor to the lay person. .....
> ...


Not to be argumentative, but I thought Oz was a real medical doctor...a cardiologist, I thought! :icon_scratch: Are we saying he is just another of Oprah's "Boy Toys"?


----------



## the shoe guy (Dec 7, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> Not to be argumentative, but I thought Oz was a real medical doctor...a cardiologist, I thought! :icon_scratch: Are we saying he is just another of Oprah's "Boy Toys"?


"Classic"


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

12345Michael54321 said:


> That reminds me of the great line in the classic film, "It's a Wonderful Life," where the law school professor says that "Every time a sign goes up in the United States, indicating that management reserves the right to deny service to people with tattoos, a class action lawyer gets his Maybach 62."


Yes, but how is he going to pay for it once he finds out that those with tatoos are not a suspect or protected class? If he is looking for a buyer in a distress sale give me a holler.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Why? Because they do something with their body you wouldn't?


Even those who attend the Church of Anything Goes realize that not all decisions are of equal merit.


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, but how is he going to pay for it once he finds out that those with tatoos are not a suspect or protected class?


Clearly, the world of "It's a Wonderful Life" is set in an alternate reality, where homosexuality doesn't exist, entering Diagon Alley via The Leaky Cauldron involves 4 brick taps - not just 3, and the tattooed are a protected class (presumably as a consequence of the Great Tattoo Purges of the mid-1800s, which wiped out much of Europe's tattooed population and resulted in many refugees coming to the United States, only to encounter Help Wanted signs indicating that "No Mimes, Irish, or Tattooed Need Apply!").

In this alternate reality, it's entirely lawful to refuse service to a wheelchair-bound African-American lesbian who worships Satan. But try doing the same to an obviously tattooed person, and you're gonna be facing some serious legal consequences. (And probably an NAATP-led boycott of your business.)
-- 
Michael


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

No, because that's just the way life is. We all, whether we admit it or not, make judgments based on appearances--it is human nature.

I recall seeing a guy a few years back at an uncrowded bar. He had tattoos everywhere--neck, hands, arms, you name it. Plus, piercings galore, with big metal discs inserted into his ear lobes that were stretched out several inches and an upside-down horseshoe type device through his nose. Yup, I looked.

"What are you looking at?" he snarls.

Gee, I wonder.



Jovan said:


> Why? Because they do something with their body you wouldn't?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

32rollandrock said:


> ...tattoos everywhere--neck, hands, arms, you name it. Plus, piercings galore, with big metal discs inserted into his ear lobes that were stretched out several inches and an upside-down horseshoe type device through his nose...


Ready for the first interview...


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

When people go to great lengths to make themselves unattractive, I find that I tend to respect their wishes.

A few years ago, I coined an expression that may apply: "Making the least of what God gave them."


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> Not to be argumentative, but I thought Oz was a real medical doctor...a cardiologist, I thought! :icon_scratch: Are we saying he is just another of Oprah's "Boy Toys"?


He is a "real" medical doctor. That's what is kinda scary. THink about watching the show if he were wearing a suit & tie. Would it have the same gravitas? Or would he just appear to be another flavor of Oprah's "Boy Toys" as you put it?

What really makes Dr. Oz different from Dr. Phil other than subject matter? He wears scrubs!!!!! That's how the lay person tells the difference!


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

dba said:


> It may be but I'm with you. One positive benefit of tattoos and piercings is that it automatically allows me to know who I don't want to associate with.
> 
> Narrow-minded of me? You bet. Flame proof suit on? Oh yea!





Jovan said:


> Have you actually talked to any of these people before? Gotten to know them? No, I guess not, given what you said. Nonetheless, the friends of mine with tattoos up and down their arms and a piercing or two on their face are certainly better company than you if you're this prejudiced.


Ordinarily I would agree with dba, but my wife and I were in the Caribbean a couple of months ago and met the nicest couple (they were in their late 60's) who were covered in tatoos. Life's funny that way.


----------



## DaveS (Dec 11, 2011)

If you're able to believe that life is, in fact, stranger than fiction, then one of the most appalling sites and sights - fashion or otherwise - are to be found here:
https://www.peopleofwalmart.com/


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

32rollandrock said:


> No, because that's just the way life is. We all, whether we admit it or not, make judgments based on appearances--it is human nature.
> 
> I recall seeing a guy a few years back at an uncrowded bar. He had tattoos everywhere--neck, hands, arms, you name it. Plus, piercings galore, with big metal discs inserted into his ear lobes that were stretched out several inches and an upside-down horseshoe type device through his nose. Yup, I looked.
> 
> ...


Ahem... see below.



KenR said:


> Ordinarily I would agree with dba, but my wife and I were in the Caribbean a couple of months ago and met the nicest couple (they were in their late 60's) who were covered in tatoos. Life's funny that way.


----------



## Kondi (Jan 5, 2012)

I'm sure many will disagree but I really dislike modern styled shoes with a suit. I much prefer the classic styles that have been around for decades. 

Super large watches are silly but on my 8" wrist a 42mm looks small. I wear a limited edition Benarus GMT worldiver 44mm. While many say divers watches should not be worn with a suit. Many of my customers wear Rolex submariners and sea dwellers with a suit. 

You can make fun of Guy Fieri but he is successful, respected in his field and a very nice individual in person.


----------



## DaveS (Dec 11, 2011)

I might be wrong here, but last year, when I started turning an eye to dressing, I saw, especially in Esquire and GQ, lots of photos with what looked like jackets that were too small. They pulled a cross the front when buttoned, looked far to short, and often had a little triangle of short and even tie peeking out from below the buttoned jacket.

It looked like someone went and got a jacket/suit that fit, then deliberately chose a jacket a couple of sizes small just to achieve that "look."

The first, and subsequent impressions have been,"The jacket's too small!"

As an aside, neither Esquire nor GQ seems written nor illustrated for anyone over about 35 or so anymore (and alas, I'm years past 35!). Many of the illustrations in Men in Style show gentlemen in their 50's or so.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

To those with the tattoo prejudice: I guess our very own Calvin500 is promiscuous, distrustful, and rude for having a visible one.

https://thecordialchurchman.bigcartel.com/product/to-tie-your-bow-tie-t-shirt


----------



## dba (Oct 22, 2010)

DaveS said:


> (and alas, I'm years past 35!).


As am I. I noticed the change in GQ shortly after the former editor, Art Cooper, retired (some say forced out) in February of 2003. I let my subscription expire and haven't been back since.


----------



## DaveS (Dec 11, 2011)

dba said:


> As am I. I noticed the change in GQ shortly after the former editor, Art Cooper, retired (some say forced out) in February of 2003. I let my subscription expire and haven't been back since.


dba, any magazines you like now as a replacement?

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

*ear discs*



32rollandrock said:


> No, because that's just the way life is. We all, whether we admit it or not, make judgments based on appearances--it is human nature.
> 
> I recall seeing a guy a few years back at an uncrowded bar. He had tattoos everywhere--neck, hands, arms, you name it. Plus, piercings galore, with big metal discs inserted into his ear lobes that were stretched out several inches and an upside-down horseshoe type device through his nose. Yup, I looked.
> 
> ...


I saw on one of those extreme make-over shows what it took for plastic surgeons to repair some dude's ears. He was trying to clean up his act so that he could get a real job and become an adult. It took some serious surgery, since a lot of flesh had to be cut away. The results were mixed, since there wasn't that much left. But at least it was better than discs or having loops of flesh.

Such things reflect a series of decisions that are very hard for me to grasp, and it would take me a long time to learn to see past it. There's a guy who posted recently on watchuseek who's asking about dress watches and full-sleeve tattoos. The fact is that the dress watches clash with the ink, and in any event, he looks terrible. Worse, the guy--who comes off as really nice--an ex-Marine who's studying to become a school teacher--was concerned about interviewing for teaching jobs. I know that if I were the interviewer, I'd be strongly prejudiced against him. I hope for his sake that he's got charm in spades. But if he had a tattoo on his neck or face, forget it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> To those with the tattoo prejudice: I guess our very own Calvin500 is promiscuous, distrustful, and rude for having a visible one.
> 
> https://thecordialchurchman.bigcartel.com/product/to-tie-your-bow-tie-t-shirt


A clegyman with a stained glass tattoo on his elbow, or a sailor with an anchor on his fore arm clearly differ from some AMJACK FOOL with a bone in his nose and a lyric tattooed on his neck.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Just to add to the body ink discussion going on, I have a tattoo that I got when I was in my early twenties. It's simple, meaningful to me and hidden under most circumstances. Nobody can see it unless they know to look for it, and those who have seen it don't seem to mind. That being said, it is the absolute bane of my existence, and now that I have a newborn son, I can't wait to go under the laser and get this crap off of me.

In modern, Western society, the majority of tattoos are not of any serious significance and exist solely as a means for the wearer to communicate something about themselves to others. Probably that they are hip, edgy, rebellious and throw caution to the wind (except when it's not convenient, at which point they put on a long sleeve shirt). Most people will deny it and claim that the tattoo has some sort of special significance (as I did) and that putting it on their body permanently is somehow more meaningful than expressing attachment to a person/pet/idea through more conventional ways. 

Those with visible tattoos have to accept that they are sending a message and that message might not be interpreted as intended by others. Heck, there's a reason why the Latin word for "tattoo" is "stigma." A person covered in tattoos is likely to be a very decent human being, but employers and the like are probably more interested in other qualities like good judgement, risk assessment and how a prospective employee might represent the company. Judging someone because of their tattoos is no different than judging someone based on their poor driving record or bad credit history. None of those things make a person inherently "bad," but it does say a lot about the types of choices they are likely to make.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> A clegyman with a stained glass tattoo on his elbow, or a sailor with an anchor on his fore arm clearly differ from some AMJACK FOOL with a bone in his nose and a lyric tattooed on his neck.


Who's to say those people are automatically AmJack fools?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

The things I learn reading AAAC:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Amjack


----------



## MacTweed (Oct 30, 2011)

I was wondering what _Amjack_ meant... I searched AAAC fora, with no luck then gave up.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Who's to say those people are automatically AmJack fools?


Me.

I'm willing to accept that .66% may prove to be an exception, so I also have an AMJACK FOOL detector app for my IPhone just to make sure!!


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Me...


The final court of appeal.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

I'm guessing either Jovan, or someone very close to him, has several tattoos.

Most of the folks I know with tattoos are pretty nice once you get to know them. I also know a lot of folks with tattoos that wish they didn't have them. The people with the full body tattoos and excessive piercings, they just freak me out. Sorry, but that is how it is.

Andy B.


----------



## dba (Oct 22, 2010)

DaveS said:


> dba, any magazines you like now as a replacement?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave


Afternoon Dave,

I haven't found what would be considered a "fashion" magazine replacement. Wish I could but there doesn't seem to be much out there showing traditional styles for men in their 50's as I am. That's why I read here. So for now it's F1 Racing, Rider and the BMW Owners News! :smile:


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

32rollandrock said:


> No, because that's just the way life is. We all, whether we admit it or not, make judgments based on appearances--it is human nature.
> 
> I recall seeing a guy a few years back at an uncrowded bar. He had tattoos everywhere--neck, hands, arms, you name it. Plus, piercings galore, with big metal discs inserted into his ear lobes that were stretched out several inches and an upside-down horseshoe type device through his nose. Yup, I looked.
> 
> ...


Geez, what were you doing in a bar like that, anyway?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

andy b. said:


> The people with the full body tattoos and excessive piercings, they just freak me out. Sorry, but that is how it is.
> 
> Andy B.


That's just the effect they are going for.

Some people wish to make excuses for them.

I don't.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

I still recall a neurosurgeon's generalization from 40 years ago. Any man who didn't serve in the uniformed services with more than two tatoos had either an alcohol or drug problem. Any woman with more than two had spent way too much time around truck stops...

Just as clothes and jewelry are a means of communication, how we adorn our bodies says a lot sometimes as well.


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

andy b. said:


> I'm guessing either Jovan, or someone very close to him, has several tattoos.


ruh-roh....


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

andy b. said:


> I'm guessing either Jovan, or someone very close to him, has several tattoos.
> 
> Most of the folks I know with tattoos are pretty nice once you get to know them. I also know a lot of folks with tattoos that wish they didn't have them. The people with the full body tattoos and excessive piercings, they just freak me out. Sorry, but that is how it is.
> 
> Andy B.


I don't have tattoos or piercings, but I used to have three piercings in my ears, two on one side, one on the other. I have some close friends with them. Some have their whole arms decorated and lip/nose/eyebrow stuff going on. It's not the most attractive thing to me, but who am I to dictate what they do with their bodies? They respect my decisions about how I choose to look as I respect theirs.

Similarly, a friend of mine wears baggy jeans and occasionally sweatpants/pyjama bottoms when going on "quick grocery runs". I don't like it, but I'm not one to tell him what to wear unless he asks my advice. Besides which, he's hilarious. I'll grant him a degree of... shall we say... eccentricity for that.

In any case, should I not associate with these people because of these things? If you say yes, I'll say GET REAL! :biggrin2:


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Jovan said:


> In any case, should I not associate with these people because of these things? If you say yes, I'll say GET REAL! :biggrin2:


Heck, the LAST thing I'd suggest is not to hang out with some of the folks I know with tattoos. They seem to be the most fun.  You wouldn't pick up many trad clothing tips from them though.

I'm just saying that the people with excessive tattoos or piercings are such a distraction to me, that I would have a difficult time conducting any normal activity with them other than staring at them. A few earrings or the Navy symbol on their forearm don't even garner a second look from me. There is a woman I know with a butterfly tattoo on her chest. If she wears a shirt with any bit of vee to it, part of the butterfly is visible. Every time I see her the first thing I stare at is her butterfly, which happens to be on her chest. That is probably not the best fashion accessory to help you move up in the corporate world.

Andy B.


----------



## flylot74 (Jul 26, 2007)

No problem for counter sales at a H-D dealer but she might have a hard time getting a receptionist job at a legal or accounting firm. 

I have strong opinions on many wardrobe trends. The ones that bother me the most are guys wearing a suit jacket with jeans and often a golf shirt, oh so incongruous is so many ways. Often they will also sport a baseball cap. I've never been fond of the look.

I also object to those men who wear trousers like they wear their jeans: waist too small, draped (wrong term, perhaps "cinched" would me more correct) at they hips with their (often overweight) protruding bellies hanging over their belt. The extra cloth (because of the incorrect placement) bunched up. It almost makes me scream: "Get thee to a tailor!"


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

It wasn't a "bar like that," although I do have a certain fondness for dives where Crown Royal is considered top shelf. This was, actually, a bar restaurant, if you really want to know, not far from my office and I'd stopped in solo for dinner. They had really good food, and not inexpensive, the crab cakes were particularly good. They did not, however, have a sign saying "No tattoos or piercings." The location was The Loop in St. Louis, one of those eclectic mixes of restaurants ranging from taco stand to fine dining, head shops, clothing stores, book shops, etc.



Orsini said:


> Geez, what were you doing in a bar like that, anyway?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

LOL. It is interesting to watch how, each time the subject of tatoos comes up in a thread, the conversation derails, regardless of the threads original focus, and the amended focus becomes tatoos. Personally I don't do tatoos and cannot envision ever changing my mind on the subject. I feel strongly enough about the subject that I have cautioned our adult children that they could face disinheritance if they ever came home with one. However, over the years, I have gotten to know and have worked with some very talented and very likeable people with tatoos. Tatoos are not necessarily an indicator of ones personality and they are certainly not a measure of ones character. :icon_scratch:


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Here's a new one (and to change the topic): Yesterday I attended a job talk at work. Mind you, this is one of those things that one attends because senior leaders will be present and one wants to be seen by senior leaders. In this case, the person presenting also happened to be a really important guy, whom our company is courting. So, the point is to represent to one's own senior leaders while making a good impression on someone who hopefully will become one of our senior leaders.

As usual, my colleagues were generally badly dressed, as ours is a sort of semi-academic environment, which many interpret as something akin to business casual. Then I noticed the watch on the young man sitting across the table from me. I've never seen him before, so I'm guessing he's a new hire. The watch? Big and square. Really big. But what's that sticking out of it? Oh, it's not a watch, it's an iPod Nano on a watch band. And that thing dangling from this "watch" are white ear buds. He's sitting at the table (not in a chair in the back, along the wall, but at the table) with his iPod strapped to his wrist and his ear buds dangling. A guy in his mid-20s, and probably someone with a bunch of higher degrees, since we only hire folks with fancy degrees. Meaning not a kid.

I really couldn't believe it. At least the buds weren't in his ears. Still, I can't help but feel that he had crossed a line from simply questionable fashion sense to inappropriate.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. It is interesting to watch how, each time the subject of tatoos comes up in a thread, the conversation derails, regardless of the threads original focus, and the amended focus becomes tatoos.


A Georgia mother who was arrested for allowing her 10-year-old to get a tattoo said she had no idea it was illegal for him to get one, even with her consent.
When Chuntera Napier's son Gaquan Napier asked her if he could get a memorial tattoo for his 12-year-old brother Malik who died after being hit by a car, Napier was touched by the request.
"My son came to me and said, 'Mom, I want to get a tattoo with Malik on it, rest in peace,'" she told "It made me feel good to know that he wanted his brother on him."
When Gaquan Napier was asked why he wanted the tattoo, he said, "Because it represents my brother."
"What do I say to a child who wants to remember his brother?

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headli...ested-for-allowing-10-year-old-to-get-tattoo/

Here's an idea.

Next week is your brother's birthday. Let's visit his grave.

No, the tatoo is much better!!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I think naming a child gaquan is a bigger crime.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

It's as much the tattoo artist's fault for ignoring the law.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

tocqueville said:


> Here's a new one (and to change the topic): I really couldn't believe it. At least the buds weren't in his ears. Still, I can't help but feel that he had crossed a line from simply questionable fashion sense to inappropriate.


You must not spend much time in the SF Bay Area...in many companies/organizations here, that site wouldn't be at all unusual.


----------



## Kondi (Jan 5, 2012)

flylot74 said:


> No problem for counter sales at a H-D dealer but she might have a hard time getting a receptionist job at a legal or accounting firm.


That all depends which town the law firm is in. I can think of lots high end law firms with inked receptionists and clerical staff. Not to mention lawyers and medical professionals having ink that's not visible in a dress shirt. All depends on the town. San Francisco and Seattle in my experience.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Kondi said:


> That all depends which town the law firm is in. I can think of lots high end law firms with inked receptionists and clerical staff. Not to mention lawyers and medical professionals having ink that's not visible in a dress shirt. All depends on the town. San Francisco and Seattle in my experience.


Agree...many people, including professionals, of all types have ink/piercings here in the Bay Area. Doesn't warrant a second glance. There are many more important things by which to judge character or ability.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

smmrfld said:


> There are many more important things by which to judge character or ability.


Yes, like facial proportions! https://www.slate.com/articles/doub...o_looks_matter_in_presidential_politics_.html The fact is that humans are pretty strongly programmed to attach irrational value judgments about a person to their physical appearance. This pains me greatly, as I could stand to lose some pounds, am not tall, basically have a monk's tonsure thanks to a bald crown, etc. It's not fair, and I hate it. But it's reality.

I have no strong objections to tattoos, but they are highly communicative. I think a lot of the people who get them, despite claiming that they have them solely to please themselves or some abstract aesthetic preference, are quite aware of this, and are consciously trying to communicate some level of "otherness" from society. They shouldn't be shocked when some members of society take that expression of "otherness" more seriously than they intended it. I think the biggest problems come from tats on very young people, who don't realize the strength of the "otherness" message to those of older generations when they chose to get inked.


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

Since I'm the one who brought it up I wish to make something clear. I do not have any prejudice regarding tattoos or people wearing tattoos and I do not judge people based on them being tattooed or not. In fact, several of my best friends and family members have tattoos. I just don't happen to find them a sign of good style. If you are a sailor, biker, con or a member of any other more or less respectable profession, then it's OK since it is a part of your culture. If you are a banker, lawyer, housewife or accountant it's just a sign of trying too hard to be "different" which you are not because these days everyone seems to have them. On thing is clear. Tattoos are great buisness for aesthetic surgeons since many people, when they get older, will want to make them go away which will cost them a lot of pain and money!


----------



## THORVALD (Jan 30, 2007)

A trend that I can't figure out for GUYS

1. Concentration Camp skin cut
2. Ear pierceing
3. Full arm sleeve tattoos
4. Cheap t-shirt

RESULTS 

Girls hanging all over them HUH???


----------



## weckl (Jun 28, 2003)

1. The wearing of jeans in restaurants.
2. The "dressing up" of jeans by pairing them with a tucked-in shirt and sports jacket. If you're going to do that, just go the extra mile and throw on a pair of trousers!
3. Skinny suits. How I hate them.
4. Jeans in general, unless you 're wearing them with a t-shirt and are doing yard work or getting the mail.
5. Almost anything plugged in Esquire or GQ.
6. Tattoos. They're utterly vulgar, never original or interesting, and often indicative of disease.

All are unforgivable.


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

Wow! You really do hate jeans, don't you?

Edit: Skinny suits look great on skinny people!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> It's as much the tattoo artist's fault for ignoring the law.


I suspect (by how bad it looks) that it was not done professionally.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

weckl said:


> 1. The wearing of jeans in restaurants.
> 2. The "dressing up" of jeans by pairing them with a tucked-in shirt and sports jacket. If you're going to do that, just go the extra mile and throw on a pair of trousers!
> 3. Skinny suits. How I hate them.
> 4. Jeans in general, unless you 're wearing them with a t-shirt and are doing yard work or getting the mail.
> ...


You must be loads of fun at a party. :rolleyes2:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

weckl said:


> 1. The wearing of jeans in restaurants.
> 2. The "dressing up" of jeans by pairing them with a tucked-in shirt and sports jacket. If you're going to do that, just go the extra mile and throw on a pair of trousers!
> 3. Skinny suits. How I hate them.
> 4. Jeans in general, unless you 're wearing them with a t-shirt and are doing yard work or getting the mail.
> ...


I like you, Son!!


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

weckl said:


> 1. The wearing of jeans in restaurants.
> 2. The "dressing up" of jeans by pairing them with a tucked-in shirt and sports jacket. If you're going to do that, just go the extra mile and throw on a pair of trousers!
> 3. Skinny suits. How I hate them.
> 4. Jeans in general, unless you 're wearing them with a t-shirt and are doing yard work or getting the mail.
> ...


1. Is McDonald's a restaurant?
2. Disagree, though I don't do it all that often.
3. I'm skinny, and I don't like being compared to overly-tight jackets.
4. Disagree.
5. Fun fact: I have a friend who once wore a blue silk sportcoat (he's not as good at thrift stores as I am) with matching boat shoes, a t-shirt, and cargo shorts. He credited (I would say "blamed") GQ. We have common ground on this one.
6. Not in my experience.

Don't call anything involving clothes unforgivable. It's hyperbole at best.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> 1. Is McDonald's a restaurant?
> 2. Disagree, though I don't do it all that often.
> 3. I'm skinny, and I don't like being compared to overly-tight jackets.
> 4. Disagree.
> ...


YRR, you're still young. One day, you will find yourself yelling at the neighborhood kids to get off your lawn and then it will all make sense.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> 1. Is McDonald's a restaurant?


No.

You little PUNK!!


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

hardline_42 said:


> YRR, you're still young. One day, you will find yourself yelling at the neighborhood kids to get off your lawn and then it will all make sense.


True life: I have almost yelled at kids for walking on my lawn.



WouldaShoulda said:


> No.
> 
> You little PUNK!!


I lol'd.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

weckl said:


> 1. The wearing of jeans in restaurants.
> 2. The "dressing up" of jeans by pairing them with a tucked-in shirt and sports jacket. If you're going to do that, just go the extra mile and throw on a pair of trousers!
> 3. Skinny suits. How I hate them.
> 4. Jeans in general, unless you 're wearing them with a t-shirt and are doing yard work or getting the mail.
> ...


We've already addressed this, pal. I think you're the one who is vulgar for making that kind of judgment. And you still haven't answered my question in the other thread of how going cuffless on trousers automatically makes you an emaciated skinny suit wearer.


----------



## sartoriallytactical (Dec 9, 2011)

I see all too often men in suits or sport coats with ties but the top button on the shirt undone and the tie pulled down a bit....and I mean in a courthouse, not after hours.


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

Most people don't have what it takes to look good in jeans. You have to have a slender yet athletic to fill them out. Same for skinny suits. I, for my part, look crappy in non-skinny suits. Like I was wearing a garbage sack!


----------



## weckl (Jun 28, 2003)

Jovan said:


> We've already addressed this, pal. I think you're the one who is vulgar for making that kind of judgment. And you still haven't answered my question in the other thread of how going cuffless on trousers automatically makes you an emaciated skinny suit wearer.


1. I hate to burst your bubble, but the fact that you've already addressed an issue doesn't mean the topic is closed. I was giving my two cents. If you can't handle it, go "moderate" another website. 
2. I think you're vulgar for thinking I'm vulgar, as I clearly have better taste, more class, and higher intelligence than you.
3. Your comment regarding "going cuffless on trousers" is so bizarre, so tangential and puzzling, that it should be put in a Petri dish and studied along with the diseases spread by you and your tattooed friends. 
4. Now get off my lawn, *****.


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

Being rude and impolite!


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Jovan said:


> We've already addressed this, pal. I think you're the one who is vulgar for making that kind of judgment. And you still haven't answered my question in the other thread of how going cuffless on trousers automatically makes you an emaciated skinny suit wearer.


Wow, this has to be a first here - a mod baiting a trollish post, both in this thread as well as another one.


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

Has anyone else noticed that threads that are about "things I think are really stupid", or "don't you just hate when...", or "things I notice that confirm that I am superior to other people..." always wind up going straight down the toilet? 

Simple fact of nature.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Pretty soon, if the party poopers are successful, no one will be willing to voice an opinion!!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

smmrfld said:


> Wow, this has to be a first here - a mod baiting a trollish post, both in this thread as well as another one.


Thought he was more rude than a troll, but now that I think about it...


----------



## M Go Crimson (Aug 20, 2011)

Jovan said:


> Thought he was more rude than a troll, but now that I think about it...


To be fair, the tone of your first sentence was pretty condescending without needing to be.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

M Go Crimson said:


> To be fair, the tone of your first sentence was pretty condescending without needing to be.


 To be fair I give mods a bit of leeway as it's a thankless task.


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

mrp said:


> To be fair I give mods a bit of leeway as it's a thankless task.


Funny! I hadn't realized that "mods" was a reference to "moderators". I was picturing someone on a black and white Vespa with a dozen side mirrors, which was rather more fun.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

PTB in San Diego said:


> Funny! I hadn't realized that "mods" was a reference to "moderators". I was picturing someone on a black and white Vespa with a dozen side mirrors, which was rather more fun.


But then they'd have skinny lapels...


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

PTB in San Diego said:


> Funny! I hadn't realized that "mods" was a reference to "moderators". I was picturing someone on a black and white Vespa with a dozen side mirrors, which was rather more fun.


One can learn all sorts of things on AAAC not just clothing.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

PTB in San Diego said:


> Funny! I hadn't realized that "mods" was a reference to "moderators". I was picturing someone on a black and white Vespa with a dozen side mirrors, which was rather more fun.


I didn't realize what you were talking about. I do now...

https://www.schweetie.com/200406SanDiego/29BalboaPark/photos/photo_22.html

Andy B.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

andy b. said:


> I didn't realize what you were talking about. I do now...
> 
> https://www.schweetie.com/200406SanDiego/29BalboaPark/photos/photo_22.html
> 
> Andy B.


Might not suit the "trad girlfriend", but a dolly bird would dig it.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

phyrpowr said:


> Might not suit the "trad girlfriend", but a dolly bird would dig it.


I can see the guys from Top Gear giving that a whirl.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

M Go Crimson said:


> To be fair, the tone of your first sentence was pretty condescending without needing to be.


Perhaps you're right, but his implications about tattooed people went over the line. It's one thing to say you don't like them, won't associate with people who have tattoos, etc. It's quite another to say that they probably have disease. I won't stand for that.

In short, I call bull when I see it.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> No.
> 
> You little PUNK!!


Well officially McDonald's call themselves a "restaurant".


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

32rollandrock said:


> It wasn't a "bar like that," although I do have a certain fondness for dives where Crown Royal is considered top shelf. This was, actually, a bar restaurant, if you really want to know, not far from my office and I'd stopped in solo for dinner. They had really good food, and not inexpensive, the crab cakes were particularly good. They did not, however, have a sign saying "No tattoos or piercings." The location was The Loop in St. Louis, one of those eclectic mixes of restaurants ranging from taco stand to fine dining, head shops, clothing stores, book shops, etc.


Just asking. No challenge intended.

Maybe he was slumming...


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

weckl said:


> 1. The wearing of jeans in restaurants.
> 2. The "dressing up" of jeans by pairing them with a tucked-in shirt and sports jacket. If you're going to do that, just go the extra mile and throw on a pair of trousers!
> 3. Skinny suits. How I hate them.
> 4. Jeans in general, unless you 're wearing them with a t-shirt and are doing yard work or getting the mail.
> ...


You are an astute fellow!

I like blue jeans. I like it when suckers spend good money to look bad. Makes it easier for Orsini to look...not as bad...


----------



## M Go Crimson (Aug 20, 2011)

Jovan said:


> Perhaps you're right, but his implications about tattooed people went over the line. It's one thing to say you don't like them, won't associate with people who have tattoos, etc. It's quite another to say that they probably have disease. I won't stand for that.
> 
> In short, I call bull when I see it.


I see your point. Also, back to the tattoo topic - I'd really like to know the ages of those who are completely against even the smallest, most hidden of tattoos. They are so commonplace in society now that I have a hard time believing anyone born from the 80s on have any serious problems with them.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Even most of the older, conservative people I know don't have a problem (like my grandparents)... but c'est la vie.



MikeDT said:


> Well officially McDonald's call themselves a "restaurant".


And technically they are. But I tend to refer to any place where you don't get wait service simply as "fast food". But then, there are places that toe the line like Steak 'N' Shake.


----------



## Georgetown08 (Oct 5, 2011)

Steak 'N' Shake is definitely fast food. It's just better fast food.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Georgetown08 said:


> Steak 'N' Shake is definitely fast food. It's just better fast food.


They have a sign as soon as you enter, that essentially says it is a restaurant and the waitress will seat you. Steak & Shake is a Diner, vice "fast food." It's in the same class as a Denny's, Shoney's etc, vice a Burger King, McDonalds, or Taco Bell.


----------



## Georgetown08 (Oct 5, 2011)

Apatheticviews said:


> They have a sign as soon as you enter, that essentially says it is a restaurant and the waitress will seat you. Steak & Shake is a Diner, vice "fast food." It's in the same class as a Denny's, Shoney's etc, vice a Burger King, McDonalds, or Taco Bell.


My experience there has only been takeout, and obviously is not fully representative. I would say that food-wise, it falls into the "high end fast food" category, which I suppose is a bit of an oxymoron. Still, I think this argument/discussion is better than the tattoo one that we had before.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

I find fast food to be vulgar, boring, and indicative of disease. I try to avoid people who frequent fast food joints. :biggrin:



Andy B.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Them's fightin' words!

I don't really frequent them, but every once in a while, the Steak 'N' Shake Meal really hits the spot.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Georgetown08 said:


> My experience there has only been takeout, and obviously is not fully representative. I would say that food-wise, it falls into the "high end fast food" category, which I suppose is a bit of an oxymoron. Still, I think this argument/discussion is better than the tattoo one that we had before.


The lack of servers is how I usually define fast food. Walking up to the register to order your food, vice relaying it from the comfort of your own seat. Steak & Shake, when eating in (vice the drive through or takeout) is leagues beyond what any other fast food place can offer (physical menus, and paying when you are finished vice before you begin). It would fall into the old Pizza Hut Restaurant level of service provider. A specialty dining establishment. It's not in the same class as your TGIF's, Ruby Tuesday's or other lower level restaurants, but it's definitely closer to them than McDonalds.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

M Go Crimson said:


> I'd really like to know the ages of those who are completely against even the smallest, most hidden of tattoos.


I'm one of those people! I'm 54.



Jovan said:


> Even most of the older, conservative people I know don't have a problem (like my grandparents)...


It's a funny generational thing, this liking or not liking tattoos. From what I can tell, if you served in World War II, Korea, or Vietnam, you're probably OK with them. If you hated the Vietnam War, or if you were born late enough to miss the draft (18 in 1975) - or both - you probably don't like tattoos much. I remember everyone on my school bus in high school - especially the hippies - hating tattoos and thinking that only Hell's Angels and military men lived lives gross enough to allow them. Help me with this, but I don't recall seeing tattoos on young people in any meaningful numbers until after the first Gulf War.


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

weckl said:


> 2. The "dressing up" of jeans by pairing them with a tucked-in shirt and sports jacket. If you're going to do that, just go the extra mile and throw on a pair of trousers!


Then why not go all the way and wear a suit? In fact, the most (non-jeans) options I see people wearing with an odd jacket are a disgrace. Overlarge moleskins, chinos or corduroys (yuck!!!). Jeans often are the better option provided they fit and are not too washed out.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Then why not just wear _non_-overlarge moleskins, chinos, or corduroys that fit? :biggrin2:


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

M Go Crimson said:


> I see your point. Also, back to the tattoo topic - I'd really like to know the ages of those who are completely against even the smallest, most hidden of tattoos. They are so commonplace in society now that I have a hard time believing anyone born from the 80s on have any serious problems with them.


I'm 53. Dead set against tattoos. A few small tattoos are barely ok on guys (i.e. military unit emblem or mascot). No tattoos allowed at all on girls.


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

Jovan said:


> Then why not just wear _non_-overlarge moleskins, chinos, or corduroys that fit? :biggrin2:


It's strictly a matter of personal taste. I like the jeans-jacket combo and in situations, where jeans are out of place, I most often choose to wear a suit.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

M Go Crimson said:


> I'd really like to know the ages of those who are completely against even the smallest, most hidden of tattoos. They are so commonplace in society now that I have a hard time believing anyone born from the 80s on have any serious problems with them.


I'm 31. As I've mentioned before in this thread, I have one and I despise it. I don't dismiss all people who have tattoos as unworthy of my company, but it does convey a negative image to me. With regards to the correlation being implied between age and acceptance of tattoos, I think it has more to do with maturity and coming to the realization that just because something is popular doesn't make it good.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MikeDT said:


> Well officially McDonald's call themselves a "restaurant".


Sure. And I call myself "the gangster of love!!"


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Thomas Martin said:


> It's strictly a matter of personal taste. I like the jeans-jacket combo and in situations, where jeans are out of place, I most often choose to wear a suit.


That's skipping a whole level of dress and going the next one up, no? You're missing out on the opportunities.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Regillus said:


> I'm 53. Dead set against tattoos. A few small tattoos are barely ok on guys (i.e. military unit emblem or mascot). No tattoos allowed at all on girls.


So even if you discovered she had a tattoo in the most out of the way place, you'd be against it?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

M Go Crimson said:


> ...I have a hard time believing anyone born from the 80s on have any serious problems with them.


Anyone born after I got out of High School is a know-nothing!!


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

bd79cc said:


> I'm one of those people! I'm 54.
> 
> It's a funny generational thing, ........ Help me with this, but I don't recall seeing tattoos on young people in any meaningful numbers until after the first Gulf War.


I'm about your age as well. I think you really nailed it with this one. Besides bikers and military, tattoos also told everyone you had been in prison. Never had a tattoo but my kids do, from 23 to 30 yrs old.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

M Go Crimson said:


> I see your point. Also, back to the tattoo topic - I'd really like to know the ages of those who are completely against even the smallest, most hidden of tattoos. They are so commonplace in society now that I have a hard time believing anyone born from the 80s on have any serious problems with them.


I'm 35 and would never get one. I believe they show a lack of originality since they are the "popular" thing to do. It's fine if others have them; that tells me that at one point in their lives, they felt the need to be cool or fit in, so they got ink. The more tattoos someone has, the more it shows me their need to belong or feel cool.
That is, unless the tattoo is older than 20 years, or if they are prison, gang or military tattoos. Then they probably means something else.
Another thing about tattoos is that they are easy to date. That is, you can usually tell when the person got it; tattoos never seem to have a "timeless" quality.
There are many ways to express yourself. You can express yourself through your clothing and shoes, through your hairstyle, through the way you speak and act, through your lifestyle, through the people you associate with, through your hobbies, etc. So why choose to express yourself with a drawing on your skin made by some guy with a GED? Boggles the mind.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Soon this will become less of a problem. Inks are available that can be much more easily erased leaving not a trace. Young women with tramp stamps will no longer risk being "Returned to Sender." They will have a "Forever Stamp" that lasts only as long as they want it to. Removal still involves a laser, and will not be inexpensive--but look at what's happening to postage these days.


----------



## JWM1960 (Jan 23, 2009)

Too many tattoos; piercings, uncombed/styled hair, the two-day shadow, baseball caps esp. worn indoors and at a meal, torn pants, saggy pants with underwear showing, using an undershirt as if it were a real shirt, wearing a stocking cap with a suit instead of a proper fedora, wearing a ski parka over a suit jacket instead of a proper overcoat.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Jovan said:


> So even if you discovered she had a tattoo in the most out of the way place, you'd be against it?


If she was hot, I'd be against it in a heartbeat! 

Andy B.


----------



## mr.v (Sep 26, 2011)

Settled, im getting a McDonalds tattoo.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

andy b. said:


> If she was hot, I'd be against it in a heartbeat!
> 
> Andy B.


I'm almost tempted to use that Lisbeth Salander picture from another thread.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Jovan said:


> So even if you discovered she had a tattoo in the most out of the way place, you'd be against it?


It might not be a deal breaker for me, but I'd consider it a turn off, and it would make me question her judgement. Now a big tattoo would really ruin things. Another reason why I'm glad I'm "off the market".


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Hm. I'm off the market myself, but there are a good number of women I found attractive even though they had a very visible arm or leg tattoo. To me, rude phrases or pictures are the _real_ deal breaker.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

My girlfriend has a big tatoo of an stylized St George slaying the dragon on her ribcage. I like it.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Here's one for all the fans of Tattoos (& Van Halen). (You know who are!) Come on! Sing along!


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

I have a tattoo... a very small one, a relic from my philandering days of fraternity life. It's on the inside of my right ankle and pretty well faded. Most people never notice it until I'm wearing shorts, no socks, and lay my right ankle across my left knee. I'd have it removed, but it's not worth the effort quite yet. I figure in almost any situation I wouldn't want it to be seen I'll be wearing pants and (most likely) socks anyway. The only exception is a firm softball game or weekend barbecue. I can wear pants then as well if I'm feeling bashful.


----------



## camouflage (Apr 16, 2012)

For the past few years I have noticed people wearing these "shoes" around the city with jeans, chinos, etc. I'm not a fan.


----------



## IvanD (Jan 5, 2012)

camouflage said:


> For the past few years I have noticed people wearing these "shoes" around the city with jeans, chinos, etc. I'm not a fan.


Ah, the Vibram Five Fingers :icon_smile:
Apparently, marketing hype says that they're uber comfortable, though I must agree with you Camouflage, not to my taste.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

^^

They will also end up with broken toes.

Even I will not go that far for fashion!!


----------



## alemonger (Apr 20, 2012)

Great shoes...for a run or a workout. I think of Planet of the Apes whenever I seem them otherwise.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I really would wear them if they're superior for that purpose. In town though? No. No bloody way. Also not if I were hiking or crossing streams, where sharp rocks can abound.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

alemonger said:


> Great shoes...for a run or a workout. I think of Planet of the Apes whenever I seem them otherwise.


I'm more reminded of The Creature from The Black Lagoon. I associate them with hippie parents who think that vaccines cause autism.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Two deplorable trends I have noticed of late:

Suit coats and dressy odd jackets tailored too short so that they bisect the wearer's butt.

Suit trousers and dressy odd slacks tailored so that they are worn on the hips like jeans.

Abominations, both of them!


----------



## Poindexter (Jul 22, 2010)

Especially the short jackets. I'm afraid I'm gonna take my proposed idol to the phauncy restaurant, and the maitre'd is gonna set me to bussing tables.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

camouflage said:


> For the past few years I have noticed people wearing these "shoes" around the city with jeans, chinos, etc. I'm not a fan.


LOL. Are you saying Vibram Five Fingers wouldn't be a good fit with a summer poplin or seersucker suit? How about if they were crafted of whiskey hued shell cordovan?


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2012)

hardline_42 said:


> I'm 31. As I've mentioned before in this thread, I have one and I despise it. I don't dismiss all people who have tattoos as unworthy of my company, but it does convey a negative image to me. With regards to the correlation being implied between age and acceptance of tattoos, I think it has more to do with maturity and coming to the realization that just because something is popular doesn't make it good.


I'm 48 and like tattoos. Like clothes, there are good ones and bad ones. Being popular doesn't make then bad either.

I even like skinny suits with short jackets (though wouldn't wear one). I like the fact that suits are being more fashionable again and people are experimenting with different cuts.

Matt


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

RE: Five Fingers
I recently ran a 10-miler race, and while they weren't the most ridiculous thing I saw, they were WAY up there. No way are they good for running. Five years ago, I worked in outdoor retail and the Vibram rep told us they improve your stride because "heel strikes in Five-Fingers really hurt."

For the record, I snapped this pic right after the finish line. This guy was wearing beat up Rainbow sandals with shoe laces wrapped around his ankles to hold them on. He finished about a minute ahead of me.


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2012)

IvanD said:


> Ah, the Vibram Five Fingers :icon_smile:
> Apparently, marketing hype says that they're uber comfortable, though I must agree with you Camouflage, not to my taste.


They are! Once you've worked out how to get them onto your feet anyway. They do look wierd but if I'm walking around all day, I love them.

Matt


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

Jovan said:


> I don't have tattoos or piercings, but I used to have three piercings in my ears, two on one side, one on the other. I have some close friends with them. Some have their whole arms decorated and lip/nose/eyebrow stuff going on. It's not the most attractive thing to me, but who am I to dictate what they do with their bodies? They respect my decisions about how I choose to look as I respect theirs.


Jovan- nobody is dictating anything or being discriminated against. What is oppressive, however, is the attitude that nobody should suffer even silent judgment by others for their actions.

I suspect your friends with tattoos and piercings are youngish. They are going to look terrible when they get middle aged and old. Even people who don't get fatter with age tend to get thicker. And skin gets less taut.

I think you are judging AAAC critics of tattoos more harshly than they judge those with tattoos.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

matthelliwell said:


> I'm 48 and like tattoos. Like clothes, there are good ones and bad ones. Being popular doesn't make then bad either.
> 
> I even like skinny suits with short jackets (though wouldn't wear one). I like the fact that suits are being more fashionable again and people are experimenting with different cuts.
> 
> Matt


You're certainly free to like tattoos at any age. And I didn't say that some tattoos are bad BECAUSE they're popular, but rather, in spite of it. It irks me to no end to hear people say you shouldn't judge someone based on how they look. Hair, clothing, personal hygiene are all choices that the wearer has made. They are the first thing other people notice about you and your first and most effective opportunity to say something about yourself. If you chose to announce to the world that you embody all of the societal connotations of having tattoos I chose to judge your character based on your decision.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Giant vinyl shoulder bags (made in China, of course) covered with metal ornaments that was bought from a store such as The Limited in a shopping mall. They just tend be in your way (the bag, that is) in that narrow line at your favorite pizzeria.

https://www.ebags.com/product/ashley-m/croc-embossed-cadillac-purse/228506?productid=10173091


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

hardline_42 said:


> You're certainly free to like tattoos at any age. And I didn't say that some tattoos are bad BECAUSE they're popular, but rather, in spite of it. It irks me to no end to hear people say you shouldn't judge someone based on how they look. Hair, clothing, personal hygiene are all choices that the wearer has made. They are the first thing other people notice about you and your first and most effective opportunity to say something about yourself. If you chose to announce to the world that you embody all of the societal connotations of having tattoos I chose to judge your character based on your decision.


I'll take this a step further and say that you SHOULD judge someone by his/her appearance. Nearly everything controllable about one's outward appearance is calculatingly cultivated (consciously or subconsciously) to send a very specific message. While sometimes people make errors (aggressively square toed dress shoes), their intention is rarely mistaken. If a person chooses to cover his arm in tattoos, he did it for people to see and for people to consider when looking at him. If one were to get a tattoo for a very personal, sentimental reason, there is no reason to place it in a conspicuous place unless you want the attention it will bring. Whether a person realizes or not, he wants a specific sort of attention or appearance when he gets tattoo sleeves, and I will not disappoint him.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I think if someone gets full sleeves they're probably not worried about what the type of person who judges based on tattoos thinks of them. A little tattoo on an arm or some celtic nonsense on the back, maybe. Full sleeves are a time consuming and expensive commitment. 

My wife has full sleeves, back, chest, & neck tattooed and runs a successful business in Greenwich, CT. People love it. Go figure.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Jovans point may be that the prejudices around people who have tattoos rarely translate into truths about their character. Neither does wearing a suit, really.

So I don't judge based on appearances alone. I factor them in, but still...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Bjorn has it right.



jeffdeist said:


> Jovan- nobody is dictating anything or being discriminated against. What is oppressive, however, is the attitude that nobody should suffer even silent judgment by others for their actions.
> 
> I suspect your friends with tattoos and piercings are youngish. They are going to look terrible when they get middle aged and old. Even people who don't get fatter with age tend to get thicker. And skin gets less taut.
> 
> I think you are judging AAAC critics of tattoos more harshly than they judge those with tattoos.


Nope.


----------



## IvanD (Jan 5, 2012)

Just a thought regarding tatoos.
I have tatoos on both forearms, and on the back of my neck.
Would some of the critics of tatoos here judge me differently if they met me whilst I was wearing a suit (no visible tatoos) or a polo shirt with tatoos on display?


----------



## guymac (Nov 16, 2011)

camouflage said:


> For the past few years I have noticed people wearing these "shoes" around the city with jeans, chinos, etc. I'm not a fan.


absolutely horrendous..add to that are the ultra-low jeans baggy jeans


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

Ivan D:
Of course- the obvious conclusion most would draw from your visible tattoos is that you are trying to appear tough, hip, artsy, edgy, whatever. If that conclusion is incorrect, the blame lies with you for creating the confusion. Same as if the local priest wore biker leather.

If your tattoos were not visible in a suit those conclusions would be different. 

Tattoos are not a matter of character, they are a matter of taste. Many people, including many on AAAC, find them to be in bad taste, much like wearing cargo shorts and Birkenstocks. Obviously a well-dressed serial killer in bespoke Saville Row is a worse person than a badly dressed charity worker!

I like tattoos very much on some people and have seen quite a bit of work. But everyone needs to stop whining about being judged.


----------



## egarrulo (Sep 9, 2010)

mjo_1 said:


> When guys wear a tie without buttoning the top button. Not sure if this results from an effort to look 'relaxed' or just wearing a shirt that's too small in the neck.


Guilty. Even if the shirt collar fits, it's uncomfortable with stiff collars. I'm thinking of switching to buttoned down soft collars.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

jeffdeist said:


> I like tattoos very much on some people and have seen quite a bit of work. But everyone needs to stop whining about being judged.


Tattoos, like clothing, are communicative. Those who choose to communicate with them should not be surprised that people listen. If an individual chooses to use terrible grammar and syntax, they should not be surprised when people (perhaps wrongly) "read" that communication to indicate that they are not well educated.

It is a fact of life that we really, truly know only a tiny percentage of the people we meet and deal with (some would say that we cannot know _anybody_, but let's put that aside). Despite that, our brains are wired to make conclusions about others (it happens whether we want to form those conclusions or not - there's a body of research on that subject), and we need to make assessments of others to know how to interact with them. We use clothing to draw inferences about who is an employee of an establishment, who is authorized by power of law or agency of a landlord to direct us in our actions, who is a lost tourist who needs advice, and who is a deranged homeless person who is likely beyond our powers of assistance. None of those inferences are infallible. We make mistakes everyday in those assessments - but we'd make a lot more mistakes if we didn't make those assessments at all!

It is unreasonable to expect people not to form tentative conclusions based on tattoos. They mean something.* It is, however, reasonable to expect those conclusions to be open to revision based on actual interactions.

* What, exactly, they mean is highly socially contingent. In/to different subcultures, they mean radically different things. But unless you're going to restrict your interactions to those who are members of your subculture, you have to anticipate that. I also acknowledge that the meaning of tattoos is changing rapidly, and the reasonable expectations of how others will read them will change, too... but for now, there are still a great many people who will read them in an unflattering way.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

IvanD said:


> Just a thought regarding tatoos.
> I have tatoos on both forearms, and on the back of my neck.
> Would some of the critics of tatoos here judge me differently if they met me whilst I was wearing a suit (no visible tatoos) or a polo shirt with tatoos on display?


You already know they do.

That's why you cover them sometimes.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> So I don't judge based on appearances alone. I factor them in, but still...


Exactly!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jeffdeist said:


> Jovan- nobody is dictating anything or being discriminated against. What is oppressive, however, is the attitude that nobody should suffer even silent judgment by others for their actions.
> 
> I think you are judging AAAC critics of tattoos more harshly than they judge those with tattoos.


Victim culture.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

You guys are reading far too much into my comments. I'm promoting victim culture? Judging critics more than they judge those with tattoos? (Did you even see the comments by a certain individual regarding diseases?) Get real!

As I said, Bjorn had it right.


----------



## edhillpr (Apr 19, 2007)

I'm starting to see more girls in their 20's wearing incredibly ugly pajama pants almost every time I go to the grocery stores. The most hideous version of this is when these pajamas have cartoon characters and they are paired with Ugg boots.
These girls are always alone when I see them.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Atlanta must be a very different city from Gainesville. Usually the ones attired like that here are not alone!


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Yoga pants on the other hand... great trend. I could sit in the Georgetown Safeway and the Glover Park Whole Foods and uh... "grocery shop" all day.


----------



## Nick888 (Mar 8, 2012)

I would agree on saying no to baggy pants and trucker hats


----------



## egarrulo (Sep 9, 2010)

Other pet peeves of mine: 
- clothes that do not fit your figure at all, for instance: chubby young men wearing slim fit suits.
- clothes which are in fashion, but which do not flatter your figure, for instance: low-rise trousers for men who lack long legs.


----------



## edhillpr (Apr 19, 2007)

Regarding the tattoo debate, I can't fault my friends and nieces or nephews that have tattoos. But that look is just to foreign to my nature.

Of course, if you're a girl with a lower back tattoo, the most appropriate wording would be "Welcome Aboard!".


----------



## edhillpr (Apr 19, 2007)

To give proper credit, I heard the Welcome aboard joke in reference to a man in an old film about submarines. I can't remember the film.


----------



## div25sec9 (Mar 5, 2012)

Tilton said:


> Yoga pants on the other hand... great trend. I could sit in the Georgetown Safeway and the Glover Park Whole Foods and uh... "grocery shop" all day.


I have a love-hate relationship with yoga pants. For some reason the manufacturers decide that they should make them in larger sizes, making them accessible to girls that are larger. Just when I am cursing the yoga pant manufacturers for their greed for profits rather than what is good for society, a hot girl in painted-on pants will walk by...i then go from cursing to praising their genius


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Thomas Martin said:


> Button down shirts with a tie. Not matched colors of shoes and belts.


Nothing wrong with either of those. I often wear a tie with a BD, very common in the UK. And I rarely actively match my belt & shoes, why would I? The only time I do is if I'm wearing a suit and the belt will be visible.


----------

