# Blue Jeans: the Devil's Attire



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

I should like to present Andy with a petition demanding an immediate ban of any discussion concerning blue jeans.

Please lend me your support.:devil:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm in! Those purported icons of "rebellion" are now the most conformist things a man can wear. What's more, they've badly distorted many men's ideas on how pants should fit, generally.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

Personally, I believe the devil to be much too fine a dresser ever to be caught "undead" in jeans, designer or otherwise. I also believe that, when tempting, he would not entice his subjects with visions of themselves in jeans of any description. At least, if I'm ever subjected to his wiles, I hope that will be the case with me. I want to be tempted with something impossibly elegant but understated that feels like a cloud to wear and slides into the Bugatti Veyron without a hitch:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

I also think the Devil is well-dressed, in his Savile Row suit, John Lobb shoes and Charvet shirt. The Devil like Hitler wanted everyone to look the same, while looking different himself.


----------



## rlp271 (Feb 12, 2009)

Absolutely not. I say this as I am wearing jeans at this very moment. Not all of us are older, and I am too young, being a 23-year-old American, to fool myself into thinking that I should never wear jeans. Besides, they do have their appropriate use. I have worked on a farm (uncle's), been in a lumber mill (another uncle's), and helped out as a carpenter when needed at home. I also helped rebuild homes in Iowa after a tornado, and still do several active things that require a rugged pair of pants that can stand up to a lot of abuse. Jeans fit the bill. They also work when I just need to throw something on to run to the store. Yes, I wear fitted t-shirts, non traditional jackets (oh god, no, it's something that's not a true blazer!), and jeans, but again, I'm young. As are some of the other people on this forum. Also, if you're not young, but lead a lifestyle that can put a high demand on your clothes, say working as a logger, in a mill, or any number of other physical jobs, you're going to need clothes that can stand up to it. Not everyone that works with their hands is completely devoid of a sense of fashion, but that doesn't help you much when the stupid new kid decides to plug in a belt sander that's switched to on and it careens across the table into your legs. A very nice, high quality pair of jeans, might save you some pain that a pair of chinos or dress pants certainly wouldn't.


----------



## Jazzer (Jan 21, 2009)

*I have never worn jeans.*

I'm 24 years old. I don't think I have ever worn a pair of jeans beyond trying them on and deciding I don't like them. Chinos or corduroys for everyday casual clothes and Carhardts when I used to work on a farm, gardening work, and construction.

-Will


----------



## rlp271 (Feb 12, 2009)

Jazzer said:


> I'm 24 years old. I don't think I have ever worn a pair of jeans beyond trying them on and deciding I don't like them. Chinos or corduroys for everyday casual clothes and Carhardts when I used to work on a farm, gardening work, and construction.
> 
> -Will


Wisconsin and NO are different places.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Dungarees are workclothes*

All denim. Limit it to blue jeans and we'll start getting questions about black jeans, white jeans, green jeans...


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

That makes the point precisely, rip271. No one would pretend that jeans should never be worn. I wear them to do the modicum of work that I am forced to do or to go to the car wash. They are consummate work clothing. No question.

However, I think that the OP is trying to call attention to the fact that some make the mistake of considering jeans to be high fashion, perhaps because prominent people . . . celebrities, if you will . . . wear them to everything but their own funerals. They are a lazy solution to dressing that prevents some from ever progressing to an adult level of style. They are appropriate in context but should not be the crutch that they have become. People wear the same pair of jeans to, again, the car wash and then to the theater and then to a fine restaurant, sometimes all on the same day

I would not join a ban because then how would we be able to say the above? And don't get me started on wearing frayed and torn jeans - yech!


----------



## rlp271 (Feb 12, 2009)

Blueboy1938 said:


> That makes the point precisely, rip271. No one would pretend that jeans should never be worn. I wear them to do the modicum of work that I am forced to do or to go to the car wash. They are consummate work clothing. No question.
> 
> However, I think that the OP is trying to call attention to the fact that some make the mistake of considering jeans to be high fashion, perhaps because prominent people . . . celebrities, if you will . . . wear them to everything but their own funerals. They are a lazy solution to dressing that prevents some from ever progressing to an adult level of style. They are appropriate in context but should not be the crutch that they have become. People wear the same pair of jeans to, again, the car wash and then to the theater and then to a fine restaurant, sometimes all on the same day
> 
> I would not join a ban because then how would we be able to say the above? And don't get me started on wearing frayed and torn jeans - yech!


That is absolutely true. Jeans have helped make the dress code in the US far more casual. I don't like it either, but I have yet to see a serious return to more appropriate attire. I know this is more of a website dedicated to dressing in a more appropriate and gentlemanly (depending on how you define it) manner, but even in that realm, there is room for a pair of jeans. Especially for those of us that might get a call in the middle of the day to help stack haybails even though we're supposed to be on vacation.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Cavaliere said:


> I should like to present Andy with a petition demanding an immediate ban of any discussion concerning blue jeans.
> 
> Please lend me your support.:devil:


Why the censorship?

Besides, the devil existed long before blue jeans did. What did he wear then?


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

I became a member of this club the second somebody used the expression "dressy jeans". In the words of Dylan Thomas "I will not go gently into that good night" I will rant and rave and hold the line until the denim clad wave crashes over me if it hasn't already (which it has). 

I own jeans, everyone owns jeans or nearly everyone - so what? I would rather read an undershirt thread than a jeans thread.

Jeans are NEVER dressy they are a sartorial black hole whose gravity is so insistent that even style itself is drawn into its death grip and incinerated.

Jeans are what you wear when you want to drain all the style out of any clothing ensemble, the second jeans are introduced they act as an anti-catalyst - all sartorial reactions cease, the mixture is rendered inert.

If you want to discuss jeans please go to proletarian-street-cred.com or wherever ring-spun is abbreviated RS by the denim cognoscenti but dont filth-up AAAC with inanity while you prop up the world's sweatshops.


----------



## ChicagoMediaMan-27 (Feb 23, 2008)

Cavaliere said:


> I should like to present Andy with a petition demanding an immediate ban of any discussion concerning blue jeans.
> 
> Please lend me your support.:devil:


While I would be lying if I said I never wore jeans, I have to confess that I have no desire to discuss them on here. I have nothing to learn or contribute about the subject. I have a few brands that I like and they fit me well so I buy them. Case closed.

That being said, you could just simply not open and ignore threads that don't interest you. It's pretty simple.


----------



## tnj (Feb 19, 2009)

Cavaliere said:


> I should like to present Andy with a petition demanding an immediate ban of any discussion concerning blue jeans.
> 
> Please lend me your support.:devil:


Yes, let's ban all discussion of things we don't like! This is snobbery at its highest level.

I don't like double breasted suits, so I don't open those threads. Doesn't mean that I don't understand that they have a place in men's fashion. I don't particularly like jeans, but to write off what is probably the single most important clothing trend of the last 50 years seems a bit ridiculous for a group of people purporting to discuss "fashion". Maybe it's time for you to head over to the Trad forum. Or create another forum for people who want to dress in costumes from the 1950s.

I daresay that a man under 50, in this day and age, cannot be considered fashionable if he does not wear jeans as a regular part of his wardrobe.


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

rlp271 said:


> Absolutely not. I say this as I am wearing jeans at this very moment. Not all of us are older, and I am too young, being a 23-year-old American, to fool myself into thinking that I should never wear jeans. Besides, they do have their appropriate use. I have worked on a farm (uncle's), been in a lumber mill (another uncle's), and helped out as a carpenter when needed at home. I also helped rebuild homes in Iowa after a tornado, and still do several active things that require a rugged pair of pants that can stand up to a lot of abuse. Jeans fit the bill. They also work when I just need to throw something on to run to the store. Yes, I wear fitted t-shirts, non traditional jackets (oh god, no, it's something that's not a true blazer!), and jeans, but again, I'm young. As are some of the other people on this forum. Also, if you're not young, but lead a lifestyle that can put a high demand on your clothes, say working as a logger, in a mill, or any number of other physical jobs, you're going to need clothes that can stand up to it. Not everyone that works with their hands is completely devoid of a sense of fashion, but that doesn't help you much when the stupid new kid decides to plug in a belt sander that's switched to on and it careens across the table into your legs. A very nice, high quality pair of jeans, might save you some pain that a pair of chinos or dress pants certainly wouldn't.


RIP271 - you are 100% correct - jeans are a reality, they are work clothes, they are a requirement in many jobs. I also have had many jobs where the only sensible pants were denim jeans. That doesn't mean we have to discuss them as an item of fashion much less style and we dont have to discuss them HERE.

If someone asked me what pants they should wear to work in a lumber mill I would say "jeans" immediately, and for their hands I would suggest leather work gloves. What I dont want to discuss is whether Seven For All Mankind jeans are hipper than True Religion jeans and whose Japanese indigo jeans are cooler than the next pair because at the end of the day you have tiny fashion cue difference in pocket embroidery, materials, shades of blue, cut and fit. at 100 yards all jeans look the same whether they are your lumber mill jeans or some Versace crap. There - thats 90% of everything you can say about jeans. Mens style as discussed on AAAC is to Chess as a jeans discussion is to Tic-Tac-Toe.


----------



## Mannix (Nov 24, 2008)

I quite like jeans, and the discussion of those said jeans. No sig from me.


----------



## Vecsus (Aug 27, 2005)

I'm 38 and wear jeans 75% of the time I am not at work. I think it's more than a little elitist to call for a ban on any mention of them on a forum. Surely the average member here has enough intelligence to identify a denim-related post before they open it. Just keep scrolling to skip past the offensive post.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

tnj said:


> I daresay that a man under 50, in this day and age, cannot be considered fashionable if he does not wear jeans as a regular part of his wardrobe.


Why just under 50? At age 60 I still wear jeans for at least a portion of just about every day of the year. I wear suits, I wear sport coats and slacks, and for business casual I generally wear khakis and an OCBD; however, when I'm through wearing those things for the day I change into a pair of jeans. They all have a place in my closet.

Cruiser


----------



## Jazzer (Jan 21, 2009)

rlp271 said:


> Wisconsin and NO are different places.


I grew up in New York state, which is where I used to wear carhartts for outdoorsy stuff. When I used to do odd-jobs in NO in the summer I wore khaki's and I think jeans would have been HOT.

I guess my point was just that there are other options for outdoor work clothes, though not that one is better than the other. Just my preference.


----------



## tnj (Feb 19, 2009)

deanayer said:


> because at the end of the day you have tiny fashion cue difference in pocket embroidery, materials, shades of blue, cut and fit. at 100 yards all jeans look the same whether they are your lumber mill jeans or some Versace crap.


Couldn't the same be said of business suits?

Or even moreso, dinner jackets?


----------



## tnj (Feb 19, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> Why just under 50?


I think over the age of 50 you can play the curmudgeon card and not wear jeans if you don't want to or don't think they're stylish.

I'm saying they become _optional_ once you reach 50 years old - they are flat out _required_ for a fashionable man under 50.


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

tnj said:


> Yes, let's ban all discussion of things we don't like! This is snobbery at its highest level.
> 
> I don't like double breasted suits, so I don't open those threads. Doesn't mean that I don't understand that they have a place in men's fashion. I don't particularly like jeans, but to write off what is probably the single most important clothing trend of the last 50 years seems a bit ridiculous for a group of people purporting to discuss "fashion". Maybe it's time for you to head over to the Trad forum. Or create another forum for people who want to dress in costumes from the 1950s.
> 
> I daresay that a man under 50, in this day and age, cannot be considered fashionable if he does not wear jeans as a regular part of his wardrobe.


TNJ - its not snobbery if we dont discuss what we don't like its called "Freedom of Association". We dont generally cover "fashion" here as you have used the word over and over, we are discussing STYLE here. Yes jeans as a fashion trend is a 50 year phenomenon - about which there is very little to say. We arent purporting to discuss fashion here as you said, we are purporting to discuss classic mens style - I dont think you are getting that. Rather than try to change AAAC to a free-for-all perhaps you should have a look at styleforum.net where there is probably an entire sub-forum dedicated to jeans. The original poster made a request to the owner of the forum, its likely in jest to a large degree because it would require policing and deleting every jeans thread that pops up but its requested out of frustration because frankly the vast majority of folks here dont have an interest in jeans or discussing them as a clothing option outside of functional work clothes.

Here is my problem with Jeans as a "fashion" item in a nut shell:

If I wear levi's 501's to a construction site every day am I wearing a fashion item to perform manual labor? If I wear Levis 501's out on the town am I wearing construction clothing in a social setting?

Jeans - is there anything they cant do?:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

"Dad jeans." That's what they call 'em on SF. I lke it.


----------



## tnj (Feb 19, 2009)

deanayer said:


> We arent purporting to discuss fashion here as you said, we are purporting to discuss classic mens style - I dont think you are getting that. Rather than try to change AAAC to a free-for-all perhaps you should have a look at styleforum.net


So, I go to a place called Andy's _Fashion_ Forum to discuss style, and a place called _style_forum to discuss fashion. That's the most obvious thing I've ever heard.



deanayer said:


> If I wear levi's 501's to a construction site every day am I wearing a fashion item to perform manual labor? If I wear Levis 501's out on the town am I wearing construction clothing in a social setting?


If you think Levi's 501s are at all fashionable, or stylish, perhaps you should stick to your construction site. Or maybe start a thread asking how to get yourself a decent pair of jeans...


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

deanayer said:


> its not snobbery if we dont discuss what we don't like its called "Freedom of Association".


I just looked back over the last 200 active threads and found only two of them to be about jeans in any way. Two out of 200. It isn't like the forum is being overrun with jeans threads.

But back to the Freedom of Association thing. For those who don't like jeans, why not just stay out of those two threads instead of going in and ranting about jeans? There are 198 other threads about other things. Let the folks who want to talk about jeans talk about them in those two threads and everyone else talk about other things in the other 198 threads. That's true freedom of association. Just choose to associate with those with whom you agree.

See how easy that was. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*Jeans*

C'mon gents... jeans are part of what men are wearing these days. Isn't it better that they be worn intelligently & with style? Properly fitting, they look great with a blue or grey sport coat.


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

I didnt name these forums but I did correctly identify them :icon_smile_big:. No I dont think levi's 501's are fashionable. I do have a pair of 501's I also have Armani A/X, Lucky jeans and a couple of pairs of Lands End jeans where you can order them with fairly precise dimensions. 

My point is that I view them as completely utilitarian for the most part. Everyone wears them, they wear them for bumming around, running errands etc. you wrote:

"they are flat out required for a fashionable man under 50"

If they are required then what's the point? Its a uniform, nobody is making a statement by wearing jeans and if they are then how can the statement you make be any different then the statement everyone else is making? If the point is to not be differentiated in anyway than success has been achieved a long time ago. 

I know even at age 46 that any club you go into filled with people between 21 and 30 on a friday night 99% of them are dressed the same from the ankles to the waist - thats boring. Yes everyone has a slightly different pair on but so what, everyone is wearing dark navy denim so everything else has to somehow match that or it doesn't but the wearer doesn't care. 

If you are going to tell me there is a big difference between different makers of navy blue denim pants and those differences mean something than why cant anyone break out past the limits of jeans and wear something else? How far have you really gone away from 501's in your true Religion jeans? Not even as far as a pair of blue cuffed chinos and thats not very far.

I'm not knocking jeans, its just limited, you even admit you and everyone under 50 (and that includes me) are "trapped" by jeans because they are a requirement. I am not trapped, I actually wore a pair over to a friends house the other day and she said "you look good in jeans you should wear them more often". She said that because she hadn't seen me in jeans in so long it suddenly struck her that I was wearing them. I would rather have that then the opposite where some says "hey why arent you wearing jeans, you always wear jeans?" Try not wearing jeans for 30 days and see if they really are required.

In the meantime can anyone tell me the difference between malaysian denim and Vietnamese denim?:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Cavaliere said:


> I should like to present Andy with a petition demanding an immediate ban of any discussion concerning blue jeans.
> 
> Please lend me your support.:devil:


I'm in!

Although I wear jeans frequently. it seems to be fairly fashionable to denigrate them here so I'll jump on the bandwagon (if there is enough of a groundswell - otherwise, forget it).


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

tnj said:


> Yes, let's ban all discussion of things we don't like! This is snobbery at its highest level.
> 
> I don't like double breasted suits, so I don't open those threads. Doesn't mean that I don't understand that they have a place in men's fashion. I don't particularly like jeans, but to write off what is probably the single most important clothing trend of the last 50 years seems a bit ridiculous for a group of people purporting to discuss "fashion". Maybe it's time for you to head over to the Trad forum. Or create another forum for people who want to dress in costumes from the 1950s.
> 
> I daresay that a man under 50, in this day and age, cannot be considered fashionable if he does not wear jeans as a regular part of his wardrobe.


Honestly, I think this forum is a bit awkwardly named, as the focus is on classic items that won't go out of fashion anytime soon.

I often dress in a way evocative of the '50s. Is it a costume if I simply think it looks good on me? I sure hope not.



Vecsus said:


> I'm 38 and wear jeans 75% of the time I am not at work. I think it's more than a little elitist to call for a ban on any mention of them on a forum. Surely the average member here has enough intelligence to identify a denim-related post before they open it. Just keep scrolling to skip past the offensive post.


This is the most level-headed post I've seen on the subject in a while.



tnj said:


> I think over the age of 50 you can play the curmudgeon card and not wear jeans if you don't want to or don't think they're stylish.
> 
> I'm saying they become _optional_ once you reach 50 years old - they are flat out _required_ for a fashionable man under 50.


If you want to be _fashionable_, fine. A lot of guys here aren't concerned with that at all however. Even then, suits are now considered fashionable again and young men are seen all over places like New York City wearing them. Chino, canvas, moleskin, and corduroys (the latter two in cold weather) are all good alternatives to denim.



tnj said:


> So, I go to a place called Andy's _Fashion_ Forum to discuss style, and a place called _style_forum to discuss fashion. That's the most obvious thing I've ever heard.
> 
> If you think Levi's 501s are at all fashionable, or stylish, perhaps you should stick to your construction site. Or maybe start a thread asking how to get yourself a decent pair of jeans...


It is weird, isn't it? Style Forum's denizens are pretty focused on fashionable things considering the name.

Last I checked, Levi's 501 jeans ARE considered pretty fashionable as of late, especially if they are the unwashed shrink-to-fit kind. Correct me if I'm wrong. The rise has also, unfortunately, been lowered to fashionable standards in recent years which is why I can't buy them.



Cruiser said:


> I just looked back over the last 200 active threads and found only two of them to be about jeans in any way. Two out of 200. It isn't like the forum is being overrun with jeans threads.
> 
> But back to the Freedom of Association thing. For those who don't like jeans, why not just stay out of those two threads instead of going in and ranting about jeans? There are 198 other threads about other things. Let the folks who want to talk about jeans talk about them in those two threads and everyone else talk about other things in the other 198 threads. That's true freedom of association. Just choose to associate with those with whom you agree.
> 
> ...


Watch out. Any second I feel a tidal wave of comments to the effect that jeans discussion has ruined the forum forever. 



deanayer said:


> I didnt name these forums but I did correctly identify them :icon_smile_big:. No I dont think levi's 501's are fashionable. I do have a pair of 501's I also have Armani A/X, Lucky jeans and a couple of pairs of Lands End jeans where you can order them with fairly precise dimensions.
> 
> My point is that I view them as completely utilitarian for the most part. Everyone wears them, they wear them for bumming around, running errands etc. you wrote:
> 
> ...


Very good points raised there.



Relayer said:


> I'm in!
> 
> Although I wear jeans frequently. it seems to be fairly fashionable to denigrate them here so I'll jump on the bandwagon (if there is enough of a groundswell - otherwise, forget it).


Don't forget to jump on the Cruiser-bashing, "this forum has turned revolting in recent years even though I keep coming back," one along the way.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Why the censorship?
> 
> Besides, the devil existed long before blue jeans did. What did he wear then?


LOL...perhaps Satan wore a nice pair of Levi 501's, crafted of Nomex fabric? The fire retardant qualities of the material could be beneficial, given his "incendiary nature"! 

While not universally appealing, discussion of jeans wear fit into the sufficiently broad context of these fora. Besides, my wife still likes the way my butt looks in Levi 501's...so, I will continue to occasionally wear them!


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*denim discussion has a refuge here*

AAAC has a for people who really must discuss those sorts of things.


----------



## chotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

Wow, a ban on jeans discussions?....

I thought this was Andy's Fashion Forum....not Andy's Fogey Forum.

Put down the pipe, button the tweed and look out the window....the times they are a changin'


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

If the Devil is, as the Stones described him, "a Man of Wealth and Taste," surely he eschews jeans.

Damn things are a blight on the sartorial landscape. About the only thing as bad or worse are shorts worn inappropriately, especially those ghastly "clam diggers."

I, for one, do not now own any jeans, nor will I ever in the future.


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

Certainly not.

They are a very useful item of clothing and meet both the 'fashion' and 'trad' definitions even if a few people do not like them.

You have the choice of ignoring threads concerned with jeans. exercise that choice, and do not foist your views on others in such an unnecessary way.


----------



## thesartorialist (Feb 17, 2009)

tnj said:


> Yes, let's ban all discussion of things we don't like! This is snobbery at its highest level.


Try fascism. I think I may have to migrate to styleforum, as one poster suggested, even though my personal taste is more on the traditional side. I am a newcomer here, but I've read a number of threads and compared to SF, it seems like there are a great number of them committed to starting arguments over the internet over the most trivial things the OP can possibly come up with. (Sometimes it's not the OP either-- threads often change course and end up being completely useless to the OP and any other readers because someone sees something in a reply that they decide is worthy of an Internet Argument.)

I like reading and discussing clothes and style, don't get me wrong. Increasingly, I feel unable to do that at AAAC. Yeah, I know I haven't been here long; maybe it's that fact that allows me to see how ridiculous this debate is. I won't even offer an opinion on either side of this incredibly important issue of whether jeans should be mentioned on a clothes forum, only this: reading this thread was a waste of my time and yours, and I make this post in the hope that it will be lent some credence. That way, people might go back to discussing what we all came here to discuss, in a civilized manner that isn't fraught with unecessary antagonism.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Jeans are fine.

Besides, discussion of jeans serves to balance out discussion of some of the sillier elements of fine dress. Sock garters, say.

Equilibrium is important.

DH


----------



## Texan (Dec 31, 2008)

Blue Jeans are proper man's attire. Women love a man who can pull of a pair of well fitting crisp dungarees.

Quit acting like a bunch of Brits.


----------



## Texan (Dec 31, 2008)

What do you ladies wear on horseback??? Riding britches with a padded seat?

It looked good on Natalie Wood...I'm sure it would look good on you ladies as well.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

Texan said:


> Blue Jeans are proper man's attire. Women love a man who can pull of a pair of well fitting crisp dungarees.
> 
> Quit acting like a bunch of Brits.


"Pull off" in what context, exactly?:devil:


----------



## chotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

Amazingly enough,...I'm wearing jeans right now, with my brand new Crockett and Jones shoes. As postulated in the jeans=evil theory of this thread, I assumed some sort of drastic reaction between my devil like pants and my generally well accepted (on the tony banks of the river AAAC) footwear.

I was hoping for some small explosion, or maybe a space time rip concentrated about my ankles. Sadly, none is forthcoming. Fortunately during my anxious anticipation of sure calamity, I was complimented on both my pants and shoes.

*Special note: as a car designer, I can guarantee you the afore mentioned Bugatti Veyron...$1.2 million$ & lusted after by trouser elitists everywhere, was designed by a man wearing jeans and square toed rubber soled shoes everyday*

Your right, the Devil is wearing jeans and a t shirt and he just stole your woman.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> If the Devil is, as the Stones described him, "a Man of Wealth and Taste," surely he eschews jeans.


Let's look at the rest of that verse:

_Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith _
_And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate_

A pretty nasty fellow if you ask me. Certainly not someone I want to emulate. I prefer Keith Urban's take on this in his song _Jeans On._

_When I wake up in the mornin' light
I pull on my jeans and I feel all right
_
_:icon_smile:_
_ 
_Cruiser


----------



## fullgrain (Jan 5, 2007)

> Try fascism. I think I may have to migrate to styleforum, as one poster suggested, even though my personal taste is more on the traditional side. I am a newcomer here, but I've read a number of threads and compared to SF, it seems like there are a great number of them committed to starting arguments over the internet over the most trivial things the OP can possibly come up with.


+1. I'm used to frequent AA, but rarely read or post these days, largely because of threads like these. Having pretty much made the migration to SF, I can say it's a much more fun and tolerant place (both politically and satorially), and just as well informed.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Texan said:


> What do you ladies wear on horseback??? Riding britches with a padded seat?
> 
> It looked good on Natalie Wood...I'm sure it would look good on you ladies as well.


Calling men "ladies" is just about the oldest, worn out thing ever -- especially in this day of sexual equality and gender identity. Try again.


----------



## Texan (Dec 31, 2008)

Some just need to realize this is a dandy forum. Nothing wrong with it. I like to dandy it up now and then as well.

But, the vocal majority would fall on the dandy side of the spectrum. Nothing wrong with working in a little Steve McQueen now and again.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*Where Are These Characters Coming From?*

Honestly, we certainly seem to be attracting some ill-mannered bores, lately. I don't understand why these types are even interested in looking at this forum at all. Unless they are just trolls, of course, in which case they have long since missed the boat...


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

First of all, let me tank those gentlemen - a word I use advisedly, particularly in this context - who have offered their support.

It isn't that there are too many threads concerning jeans; there aren't. The problem is that too many posts are turning the discussion around to jeans.

I too own jeans, among them three pairs by Jacob Cohen - now, that's hip! And I'm in my late forties. But I wear them appropriately and keep them in my 'manual labour' wardrobe. And I don't talk about them. Save to ask that they not be talked about.

So, what's the point of my call for a ban? The point, gentlemen, is that I didn't join Ask Andy to be thrust back into a world of dreary conformity, mediocrity or other atrocities perpetrated on a daily basis by that creature known as Man! I won't take it any longer! Some day the rain will come and wash away all the jeans from the sidewalks!

Aaaarrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh!


----------



## rafa (Mar 31, 2009)

*I wear jeans to work*

Shoot me now. This is sacrilegious.

Anyway, the industry I work in is extremely casual, particularly my company. People even wear shorts, t-shirts, and flip flops to work. This includes executive management. At my company jeans are standard issue and the equivalent of the business suits worn in most other industries.

When going out for drinks I throw on a sports coat with the same jeans I wore to work and have a great time working the bar scene.

That said, I know the jeans I like and have several identical pairs because they fit great. I choose not to seek info regarding jeans on this site because I like the style of jeans I wear and am not interested in jean fashion trends. But, banning anything for everyone just because a few individuals do not like it should never be considered.


----------



## ChicagoMediaMan-27 (Feb 23, 2008)

Cavaliere said:


> It isn't that there are too many threads concerning jeans; there aren't. The problem is that too many posts are turning the discussion around to jeans.


From my point of view, I really don't see this happening. I rarely check the forum on weekends so maybe I am missing a bunch of threads. Can you provide examples? 


Cavaliere said:


> I too own jeans, among them three pairs by Jacob Cohen - now, that's hip! And I'm in my late forties. But I wear them appropriately and keep them in my 'manual labour' wardrobe. And I don't talk about them. Save to ask that they not be talked about.


Same here. Like you, I also own jeans, but don't really have much desire to discuss them on here. However, I could care less if there is the occasional jeans thread. I don't expect this forum to be tailored to my tastes. 


Cavaliere said:


> So, what's the point of my call for a ban? The point, gentlemen, is that I didn't join Ask Andy to be thrust back into a world of dreary conformity, mediocrity or other atrocities perpetrated on a daily basis by that creature known as Man! I won't take it any longer! Some day the rain will come and wash away all the jeans from the sidewalks!


This forum is not tailored around anyone's specific likes and dislikes. And if you won't take it any longer, does this mean that won't start anymore threads like this?


Cavaliere said:


> Aaaarrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh!


Relax. As much as I like reading and posting here, I do realize that it's only a clothing forum. There are more important things to get that worked up about.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Cavaliere said:


> ...The problem is that too many posts are turning the discussion around to jeans...


That is the current state of affairs, I'm afraid, and, at risk of alluding to the rhinoceros in the living room which none dares mention, you have been around long enough to witness the decent to a less sophisticated level where one uber-troll runs the show. There is nothing no dissatisfied member can do to affect this: only management, nature, or chance, could make a difference now...


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Orsini said:


> That is the current state of affairs, I'm afraid, and, at risk of alluding to the rhinoceros in the living room which none dares mention, you have been around long enough to witness the decent to a less sophisticated level where one uber-troll runs the show. There is nothing no dissatisfied member can do to affect this: only management, nature, or chance, could make a difference now...


True and over-true. This forum is but a sad shadow of what it was in its glory days four or five years ago.


----------



## Lowndes (Feb 25, 2008)

ChicagoMediaMan-27 said:


> From my point of view, I really don't see this happening. I rarely check the forum on weekends so maybe I am missing a bunch of threads. Can you provide examples?
> 
> Same here. Like you, I also own jeans, but don't really have much desire to discuss them on here. However, I could care less if there is the occasional jeans thread. I don't expect this forum to be tailored to my tastes.
> 
> ...


+1, if you don't have a desire to read about jeans then skip over posts that are about jeans. This is what I have done on topics I don't have an interest in and it works quite well.


----------



## LoneWolf (Apr 20, 2006)

I tend to have a gut opposition to censorship of any kind, and others have made the point that you don't need to burn a lot of calories to ignore or bail out of a thread.

My experience is that there is often an opportunity for change, if not improvement, when one exposes oneself to something new, i.e., checking out something in which one has neutral-to-no interest. There was a time when I would have never considered in my wildest dreams wearing opera pumps with a tuxedo. However, after reading the discussions on these boards I got myself a pair, and I like them quite a bit. Same for detachable shirt collars.


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

You see? I am not alone: Orsini and JLibourel understand!

ChicagoMediaMan-27: I thought I had explained myself; there are not - I repeat, not - many threads concerning jeans; there are, however, several threads (not concerning jeans) whose tone is lowered by someone introducing jeans to the discussion. (You may also have noticed, parenthetically, threads concerning tracksuits and other (hitherto) unmentionable raiment choices such as Birkenstocks and Guardiani shoes.) You seem also to have undergone a sense of humour bypass operation: of course there are "more important things to get worked up about", but since this is a style or fashion forum, I don't think that a thread concerning the urgent need for a neo-Marxist revolution should be terribly well received - do you?

I am all in favour of censorship: as I've said before, if you can pollute the physical environment, you can also pollute the cultural and aesthetic environments. The problem with First Amendment values is that there will always be someone out there only too eager to receive the most toxic views.


----------



## Wrenkin (May 4, 2008)

Cavaliere said:


> ChicagoMediaMan-27: I thought I had explained myself; there are not - I repeat, not - many threads concerning jeans; there are, however, several threads (not concerning jeans) whose tone is lowered by someone introducing jeans to the discussion. (You may also have noticed, parenthetically, threads concerning tracksuits and other (hitherto) unmentionable raiment choices such as Birkenstocks and Guardiani shoes.) You seem also to have undergone a sense of humour bypass operation: of course there are "more important things to get worked up about", but since this is a style or fashion forum, I don't think that a thread concerning the urgent need for a neo-Marxist revolution should be terribly well received - do you?
> 
> I am all in favour of censorship: as I've said before, if you can pollute the physical environment, you can also pollute the cultural and aesthetic environments. The problem with First Amendment values is that there will always be someone out there only too eager to receive the most toxic views.


Lowering the tone is one thing-certainly all those threads where "JC Penny" is the answer to any question asked. Banning discussion of an entire genre of clothing because of "aesthetic pollution" is another. At least the Trad forumites acknowledge the socio-historical contingency of their particular dress-which I happen to like-instead of repeatedly attempting to separate "fashion" (jeans) from "style" (wearing a stroller to work).

My only substantive comment is that, prior to a discussion of malaysian or vietnamese pedigree, not all denim is even blue. Maybe a trip to JC Penny is in order?


----------



## ChicagoMediaMan-27 (Feb 23, 2008)

Cavaliere said:


> ChicagoMediaMan-27: I thought I had explained myself; there are not - I repeat, not - many threads concerning jeans; there are, however, several threads (not concerning jeans) whose tone is lowered by someone introducing jeans to the discussion. (You may also have noticed, parenthetically, threads concerning tracksuits and other (hitherto) unmentionable raiment choices such as Birkenstocks and Guardiani shoes.) You seem also to have undergone a sense of humour bypass operation: of course there are "more important things to get worked up about", but since this is a style or fashion forum, I don't think that a thread concerning the urgent need for a neo-Marxist revolution should be terribly well received - do you?
> 
> I am all in favour of censorship: as I've said before, if you can pollute the physical environment, you can also pollute the cultural and aesthetic environments. The problem with First Amendment values is that there will always be someone out there only too eager to receive the most toxic views.


I know what you said. I guess I just don't see a ton of threads that are started talking about bespoke suits that get turned into a thread talking about jeans. Look, AAAC is obviously a different place than it was a few years ago, but I think it's a bit dramatic to say that several threads get steared in the direction of jeans. 
What do you want to be done? Once someone mentions jeans or track suits in a thread that the member automatically gets banned? The thread gets erased? What about chinos or corduroys? Where do we draw the line? 
As I've said before, I have no desire to dicuss jeans, tracksuits, running shoes, Birckenstocks, pointy shoes, or whatever else you mentioned above on here. However, I'm not about to propose we ban someone who wants to.


----------



## chotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

"witness the decent to a less sophisticated level where one uber-troll runs the show."

Orsini, surely Cavaliere is the uber-troll of which you speak. His inflammatory thread having now expanded into 3 pages of exciting debate.

This thread misses the reality of what jeans and trousers truly are. Pieces of woven fabric stitched together to cover your naked backside.

To state, beyond the folly of personal preference, that one or the other is
absolutely superior demonstrates a profound lack of imagination. True knowledge and love of the world of fashion and style would preclude such discriminatory attitudes. Fear with your trousers anyone?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

chotzo;913545Orsini said:


> Actually I suspect that he is referring to me. He's been following me around calling me a troll, among other things, for quite a while now.
> 
> Cruiser


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*As we say in California, have a nice day.*



Cruiser said:


> Actually I suspect that he is referring to me. He's been following me around calling me a troll, among other things, for quite a while now.
> 
> Cruiser


Ah, life is rough all over, then, isn't it, sock puppet? Y'all's committee can dish it out, but they cannot take it. 

Y'all have conquered the world. Y'all have driven off all the significant contributors. Y'all have the moderators completely buffaloed. The management has rolled over and played dead (for whatever reason, I cannot imagine). I would have left y'all (plus several others) for the ants long ago. 

Nevertheless, I am still around to spit in y'all's "eye" from time to time and it gripes y'all's "liver," does it not (because a sock puppet cannot have a liver or an eye because it is not a person)? 

I do not dig y'all's act. I did not dig it yesterday. I do not dig it today. I expect, barring alien abduction, I will not dig it tomorrow. Ya'll are the enemy. I will fight ya'll until I am dead. Then I will haunt ya'll. 

Y'all have run this forum into the ground. I do not care what may be y'all's motivation. This is well established by contributors much more clever that I. If some members cannot appreciate this, then that is a result of their willful ignorance (unless they are part of y'all's wolf pack). 

Y'all's committee's karma will catch up with y'all. Y'all will be reborn as flat worms. When I see y'all, I will step on y'all, one by one and squish y'all's guts out on the pavement. 

I will enjoy it. 

In the meantime, y'all can kiss my grits.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Cavaliere said:


> ...So, what's the point of my call for a ban? The point, gentlemen, is that I didn't join Ask Andy to be thrust back into a world of dreary conformity, mediocrity or other atrocities perpetrated on a daily basis by that creature known as Man! I won't take it any longer! Some day the rain will come and wash away all the jeans from the sidewalks!
> 
> Aaaarrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh!


Y'all need to pick up your Bible and read the book of Revelations. The next time the world is destroyed, it is to be by fire, not water...point is, should we serve witness to the incidence of the "end times", those jeans will be burned, not washed away. As a final thought (in this vein), given the present day state of our world's affairs and the similarity with the scenarios attributed to the aforementioned end times, there is so much more for us to trouble our minds and (should we be so inclined) our souls about, than some silly little discussions of clothing, even of the dreaded jeans...BTW, don't anyone touch my beloved Levi 501's! 



Orsini said:


> ....
> 
> In the meantime, y'all can kiss my grits.




Flo, it's so good to hear from y'all, after so many years (apologies to Linda Lavin). How are Mel and the other girls at the diner? Now y'all take care and be happy, hear!


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

Cavaliere said:


> I should like to present Andy with a petition demanding an immediate ban of any discussion concerning blue jeans.
> 
> Please lend me your support.:devil:


Here is my support. Use it like an Irish postcard.


----------



## KenCPollock (Dec 20, 2003)

Cruiser said:


> Why just under 50? At age 60 I still wear jeans for at least a portion of just about every day of the year. I wear suits, I wear sport coats and slacks, and for business casual I generally wear khakis and an OCBD; however, when I'm through wearing those things for the day I change into a pair of jeans. They all have a place in my closet.
> 
> Cruiser


Why just 50 or 60? I do not wear them myself, but I know a 79 year old gentleman who wears jeans all the time. He also regularly plays bingo and shuffleboard. He also drives a large older Buick. This gentleman was only in his mid 20s when "Rebel Without A Cause" came out in 1955. He thought James Dean looked very hip in his rebellious attire, so he adopted jeans too. He has remained a rebel and non-conformist ever since.
I am currently trying to talk him into getting a tatoo and some earrings. He is completely bald, so a ponytail is not possible.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

KenCPollock said:


> Why just 50 or 60?


I agree. I say whatever floats one's boat. :icon_smile:



> This gentleman was only in his mid 20s when "Rebel Without A Cause" came out in 1955. He thought James Dean looked very hip in his rebellious attire, so he adopted jeans too. He has remained a rebel and non-conformist ever since.


Are you aware that khakis (or chinos) were actually the pants of choice for many of the early biker rebels, many of whom were returning World War II veterans who found pumping gas to be much less exciting than manning a waist gun on a B-17. I offer up one of the most famous of all photographs of the rebel biker wearing his rebellious khakis:

https://img17.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ju337pg12d.jpg



> I am currently trying to talk him into getting a tatoo and some earrings. He is completely bald, so a ponytail is not possible.


Personally I've never wanted a tatoo or worn an earring. I had long hair in my younger days but never tied it into a ponytail. To be honest with you I've never associated these things with jeans per se. To me jeans are just something to wear when I'm not wearing a suit, or sport coat and tie, or my business casual staple of khakis and blazer/sport coat. This pretty much sums up how most of the guys I know wear jeans. None are rebelling against anything as far as I know.

Heck, I'm a conservative holding a visible appointed position for a Republican elected official. As such I'm somewhat limited in how rebellious I can be. I don't think that anyone I know views jeans as being rebellious. Just about everybody wears them in my community regardless of age or socio-economic status. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## jauburn (Jun 15, 2008)

Cavaliere said:


> I should like to present Andy with a petition demanding an immediate ban of any discussion concerning blue jeans.
> 
> Please lend me your support.:devil:


This is bullshit.


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

chotzo said:


> "witness the decent to a less sophisticated level where one uber-troll runs the show."
> 
> Orsini, surely Cavaliere is the uber-troll of which you speak. His inflammatory thread having now expanded into 3 pages of exciting debate.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

jauburn said:


> This is bullshit.


Yes it is, jauburn. Never mind, you'll get the hang of it soon.


----------



## Drogue (Mar 24, 2009)

Cavaliere said:


> I should like to present Andy with a petition demanding an immediate ban of any discussion concerning blue jeans.
> 
> Please lend me your support.:devil:


I never understand people's issues with jeans. True, they're not smart (though the designation "smarter" is useful to differentiate between jeans you'd be happy to wear in a pub or an informal restaurant and those you woudn't) and no longer have the rebellion quality they once did, but what else would young people wear when formality is not needed? Sports jackets, chinos, slacks, etc. look a bit silly on most people in their teens or 20s, IMHO.

So a question to (primarily) the younger people on the forum: what do you wear when going out with your friends, or shopping, or to dinner, the cinema, a bar, a party...? While I wear suits or shirts/smart trousers to work and the appropriate formal wear to more-formal things, I wear jeans at almost any other time.

If this thread is just about not discussing jeans rather than not wearing them, then I can understand the sentiment (I don't need a forum for jeans avice), though if this is an argument for not wearing jeans, I'd ask what else young people should wear for non-formal occasions?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Drogue said:


> I never understand people's issues with jeans. True, they're not smart (though the designation "smarter" is useful to differentiate between jeans you'd be happy to wear in a pub or an informal restaurant and those you woudn't) and no longer have the rebellion quality they once did, but what else would young people wear when formality is not needed? * Sports jackets, chinos, slacks, etc. look a bit silly on most people in their teens or 20s, IMHO.*
> 
> So a question to (primarily) the younger people on the forum: what do you wear when going out with your friends, or shopping, or to dinner, the cinema, a bar, a party...? While I wear suits or shirts/smart trousers to work and the appropriate formal wear to more-formal things, I wear jeans at almost any other time.
> 
> If this thread is just about not discussing jeans rather than not wearing them, then I can understand the sentiment (I don't need a forum for jeans avice), though if this is an argument for not wearing jeans, I'd ask what else young people should wear for non-formal occasions?


There are many 20 somethings, some right here in the forum, who don't look silly at all wearing such attire. These days, most guys around my age have no idea how fit and proportion work to create a balanced image, much less what looks good on them. Maybe those are the guys you think look silly wearing such clothes.


----------



## Drogue (Mar 24, 2009)

Jovan said:


> There are many 20 somethings, some right here in the forum, who don't look silly at all wearing such attire. These days, most guys around my age have no idea how fit and proportion work to create a balanced image, much less what looks good on them. Maybe those are the guys you think look silly wearing such clothes.


It's not really about fit or balance, just not in keeping with a youthful appearance, IMHO. Everyone I've seen in their 20s in a blazer, tie and slacks/chinos/khakis combination looks like they've just stepped out of public school (nb: English public school = very posh private school). Wearing that to the pub or a house party would just seem overdressed and out of touch with what everyone else would be wearing. Admittedly I've only ever seen a young guy where that a couple of times, but in both cases friends I was with remarked that it looked a bit odd.

Personally, I think dressing your age applies to the young as much as the old. I have a general rule that, for casual clothes, I wouldn't wear an outfit that would look good on my dad. The young and old look good in suits or formal wear, and of course there are individual pieces that work for both, but I can't think of a full outfit that would look good on someone over 60 and in their early 20s.

This is probably a personal thing, and I don't want to take the thread too off-topic. However I was curious as to whether the acrimony against jeans was just against their discussion, or their wear, as in almost any bar or any club in London, 90% of the guys would be wearing jeans.


----------



## Buster Brown (Sep 28, 2008)

I have 2 issues with jeans:

1) Conformity. While they may have once been part of a rebel image, the opposite is true now. Everyone wears jeans. Everywhere. Jeans at home, jeans at work, jeans at the bar, jeans at church. I even saw a couple knuckle-heads wearing jeans at the opera . For many, they seem to have become some sort of default uniform that, to my eye, coarsens and levels the variety and richness of our culture.

2) Denim is, for a lack of a better term, a crappy material. It fades, frays at corners and edges, and does not drape well. Yes, it has redeeming qualities as well, but taken on the merits I think it's a silly choice of material to be worn as often as it is today. 

I don't deny jeans a place in a gentleman's wardrobe and own a few pairs myself. Their ubiquity remains a mystery to me and I look forward to its demise - as long as they're not replaced with tracksuits :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Vecsus (Aug 27, 2005)

Buster Brown said:


> 2) Denim is, for a lack of a better term, a crappy material. It fades, frays at corners and edges, and does not drape well. Yes, it has redeeming qualities as well, but taken on the merits I think it's a silly choice of material to be worn as often as it is today.


If I were to wear a pair of chino's or gabardine pants as replacements for my denim then they would be destroyed rather quickly. A bit of fade and fray on a pair of $40 jeans is much more acceptable than on a pair of expensive trousers. Maybe if all you do it sit in a comfy chair and surf the net you can get away with wearing "acceptable" and "non-offensive" clothing. For those of us with a more active lifestyle denim is a much more durable and cost effective.


----------



## Buster Brown (Sep 28, 2008)

Vecsus said:


> If I were to wear a pair of chino's or gabardine pants as replacements for my denim then they would be destroyed rather quickly. A bit of fade and fray on a pair of $40 jeans is much more acceptable than on a pair of expensive trousers. Maybe if all you do it sit in a comfy chair and surf the net you can get away with wearing "acceptable" and "non-offensive" clothing. For those of us with a more active lifestyle denim is a much more durable and cost effective.


As I said, jeans have their place. Chewing through $40 pairs in pursuit of an active lifestyle makes sense. Laying out $200 or more for something you're going to wear to bars and restaurants ... not so much, especially when you consider durability. Normal wear and washing will relegate those high end jeans to yard work wear within a year or two. By comparison, a nice pair of wool slacks can be had for half the price, are easier to care for and will last much, much longer (for club/restaurant wear).


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*Orsini Checks In, Throws A Lightening Bolt, and Checks Out&#8230;*

Wear your blue jeans and be damned!


----------



## RyanZ (Mar 22, 2009)

Jovan said:


> There are many 20 somethings, some right here in the forum, who don't look silly at all wearing such attire. These days, most guys around my age have no idea how fit and proportion work to create a balanced image, much less what looks good on them. Maybe those are the guys you think look silly wearing such clothes.


Interesting thread. Here's some input from a twenty-something. I wear business attire every day to work. I also live in Southern California where dressing up to some people often means wearing your cleanest pair of flip flops - and I hate it. I went to Ruth's Chris on Friday as was shocked to see people in t-shirts and jeans (and I blame the restaurant for failing to enforce any dress code). I would never dream of going to a fine restaurant or the theater in jeans or casual clothes.

I'm writing all this wearing jeans. I actually love jeans. I own one pair of Rock and Republic dark wash jeans. I wear them when it is appropriate - going to the post office, buying groceries, (shocker) eating at a casual restaurant. Jeans can be perfectly appropriate in the right environment, and wearing a nice pair of well-designed darker jeans with a button down shirt, nice shoes, and maybe a blazer can be the right thing to wear - when the time is right, like at an informal get together or casual cocktail party. It can be a put-together look that is neither intimidating or pretentious. I never wore jeans before the "designer" jeans came out because regular Levis are not flattering on me - a personal choice. If you don't like jeans, then don't wear them. I'm the first to say that jeans are being worn too much and in inappropriate environments. I worked once at a casual office and would never wear jeans even though I like them and they are allowed - there's just no way I think jeans are appropriate for the office. But the fact of the matter is that jeans are in style, and in the right environment they can be perfectly appropriate to wear.

Times change. Trends change. We can't be stuck in the past. But I totally agree that the casualization of America (and most of the world) is really sad. Why people enjoy looking their worst is beyond me.


----------



## tnj (Feb 19, 2009)

Buster Brown said:


> 1) Conformity. While they may have once been part of a rebel image, the opposite is true now. Everyone wears jeans. Everywhere. Jeans at home, jeans at work, jeans at the bar, jeans at church. I even saw a couple knuckle-heads wearing jeans at the opera . For many, they seem to have become some sort of default uniform that, to my eye, coarsens and levels the variety and richness of our culture.


This is one of the sentiments that I find most interesting about this thread, and it illustrates the diversity of opinions and lifestyles that are represented here. In the world that I spend most of my time in, wearing jeans is really going out on a fashion limb. A conservative suit, or blazer and trousers, represents conformity. I spend about a third of my time in places where jeans are not permitted. As a result, I didn't own jeans until relatively recently, and I wear them when I'm trying to stand out, not fit in.


----------



## chotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

Cavaliere....spelling nitpicks?:icon_hailthee:

It seems my lack of imagination argument holds true.

Care to respond with substance?

While my grammar may be questionable, my spelling is fine. I checked.

What word did I spell wrong? :thumbs-up:

Jeans can be beautiful garments, or ugly depending how and when they are worn. The same can be said of trousers.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

chotzo said:


> What word did I spell wrong?


I don't think it was you. I think what he is making reference to was your quoting someone else who spelled the word _descent _wrong. That person spelled it "decent". Spell checker wouldn't pick this up because they are both legitimate words, it's just that the wrong one was used. The way you quoted it in your post made it look like you were the one who did it originally. If there was another error I missed it.

For what it's worth, the gentleman who called you out on this also spelled a word wrong in one of his posts. In post #46 he spelled _thank_ as "tank".

I just want to be fair and also say that we probably shouldn't be calling out such errors because we all make them. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## chotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

It seems I need to learn how to use the quote function. Thanks for pointing that out!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Drogue said:


> It's not really about fit or balance, just not in keeping with a youthful appearance, IMHO. Everyone I've seen in their 20s in a blazer, tie and slacks/chinos/khakis combination looks like they've just stepped out of public school (nb: English public school = very posh private school). Wearing that to the pub or a house party would just seem overdressed and out of touch with what everyone else would be wearing. Admittedly I've only ever seen a young guy where that a couple of times, but in both cases friends I was with remarked that it looked a bit odd.
> 
> Personally, I think dressing your age applies to the young as much as the old. I have a general rule that, for casual clothes, I wouldn't wear an outfit that would look good on my dad. The young and old look good in suits or formal wear, and of course there are individual pieces that work for both, but I can't think of a full outfit that would look good on someone over 60 and in their early 20s.
> 
> This is probably a personal thing, and I don't want to take the thread too off-topic. However I was curious as to whether the acrimony against jeans was just against their discussion, or their wear, as in almost any bar or any club in London, 90% of the guys would be wearing jeans.


So dressing in tapered trousers and slimmer jackets with narrow lapels won't look young? It's all about how you do it. You need to look at _Take Ivy_. Lots of great young styles there, and most of them DON'T include jeans at all.

https://thetrad.blogspot.com/2008/12/take-ivy-chapter-i.html
https://thetrad.blogspot.com/2008/12/take-ivy-chapter-ii.html



RyanZ said:


> Interesting thread. Here's some input from a twenty-something. I wear business attire every day to work. I also live in Southern California where dressing up to some people often means wearing your cleanest pair of flip flops - and I hate it. I went to Ruth's Chris on Friday as was shocked to see people in t-shirts and jeans (and I blame the restaurant for failing to enforce any dress code). I would never dream of going to a fine restaurant or the theater in jeans or casual clothes. *And scoff if you may, but I don't think twice about giving inappropriately dress people a dirty look.*
> 
> ...
> 
> Times change. Trends change. We can't be stuck in the past. But I totally agree that the casualization of America (and most of the world) is really sad. Why people enjoy looking their worst is beyond me.


Well, giving them a dirty look IS unnecessary and rude. Let them wear what they want to -- if they wear jeans to an opera, they only shoot themselves in the foot.

I agree with your last point, which is why I'm trying to be a little smarter at college. I hope it catches on.


----------



## gordgekko (Nov 12, 2004)

Goodness, it appears reading through this thread that a number of members' monocles must have fell into their martinis.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Cavaliere said:


> ...Orsini...is clearly...a man of exquisite taste and refinement, but something of a literary talent...


That is very nice. Thank you. I know how to use the ellipsis to my advantage, too... 

Seriously, I think we are about to _go down_ another level: we seem to have picked up several low-post-count, ill-mannered bores lately that are not even clever. Soon, we may look back on these times as "the good old days..." 

I also regret if I have inadvertently insulted anyone in South Africa recently. My advancing arthritis makes it difficult to use the keyboard.


----------



## Fang66 (Mar 25, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> A pretty nasty fellow if you ask me. Certainly not someone I want to emulate. I prefer Keith Urban's take on this in his song _Jeans On._
> 
> _When I wake up in the mornin' light
> I pull on my jeans and I feel all right
> ...


You must be younger than I would have guessed if you think that's a Keith Urban original.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

RyanZ said:


> Interesting thread. Here's some input from a twenty-something. I wear business attire every day to work. I also live in Southern California where dressing up to some people often means wearing your cleanest pair of flip flops - and I hate it. I went to Ruth's Chris on Friday as was shocked to see people in t-shirts and jeans (and I blame the restaurant for failing to enforce any dress code). I would never dream of going to a fine restaurant or the theater in jeans or casual clothes.


People who go into quality restaurants dressed like that deserve to be slapped across the face--hard! High-dollar restaurants that admit such churlish vulgarians do not deserve to be rewarded with our patronage. If people want to wear T-shirts and jeans to a restaurant, let them go to Denny's.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Fang66 said:


> You must be younger than I would have guessed if you think that's a Keith Urban original.


I didn't say that I thought it was a "Keith Urban original". I just happen to have heard him sing it recently. I think it was originally a commercial was it not? I have no idea to be honest with you.

If I say that I really like The Rolling Stones song _Not Fade Away_ (which I do like a lot), I don't also feel compelled to qualify that statement by also saying that I know that it was both written and recorded by Buddy Holly prior to The Stones recording it. Or do I? :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## JayGatsby (Mar 30, 2009)

*Jorts!*

I didn't read the entire thread, but let's not forget about shorts made out of denim, also called jean shorts, or if you really want to go there... JORTS. They seem to be the de rigueur of people who live in mid-Florida and North Florida (if not also folks from Alabama and Southern Georgia).

https://www.jorts.com/index.cfm


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*Unfortunately . . .*



JLibourel said:


> People who go into quality restaurants dressed like that deserve to be slapped across the face--hard! High-dollar restaurants that admit such churlish vulgarians do not deserve to be rewarded with our patronage. If people want to wear T-shirts and jeans to a restaurant, let them go to Denny's.


. . . there are more of them than there are of us, and there are fewer restaurant patrons as well. That's why there are no more dress codes. Restaurants either let in "the churlish vulgarians," and not all of them are dressed in jeans and Ts, by the way, or they aren't in business


----------



## mt_spiffy (Apr 12, 2008)

Wow I so dont feel like reading all four pages.

I wear jeans when doing "dirty work". However I am also a big fan of the jacket/shirt/jeans/dress shoes look, tie optional. There have been times I had to dress up for one event and then go to another, and wearing a suit I would be overdressed for the latter. Wearing a jacket and jeans I fit in at both.

However to "dress up" a pair of jeans they have to be relatively fashion forward.

I can post pictures, however they were not well received on Style Forum.


----------



## jpanik (Jan 20, 2009)

Don't count on my support for this (not that you were), I'm avidly against a ban.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

gordgekko said:


> Goodness, it appears reading through this thread that a number of members' monocles must have fell into their martinis.


You just earned a post of the week nomination. :icon_smile_big:



JLibourel said:


> People who go into quality restaurants dressed like that deserve to be slapped across the face--hard! High-dollar restaurants that admit such churlish vulgarians do not deserve to be rewarded with our patronage. If people want to wear T-shirts and jeans to a restaurant, let them go to Denny's.


... okay?


----------



## Fang66 (Mar 25, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> I didn't say that I thought it was a "Keith Urban original". I just happen to have heard him sing it recently. I think it was originally a commercial was it not? I have no idea to be honest with you.
> 
> If I say that I really like The Rolling Stones song _Not Fade Away_ (which I do like a lot), I don't also feel compelled to qualify that statement by also saying that I know that it was both written and recorded by Buddy Holly prior to The Stones recording it. Or do I? :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


My apologies I didn't mean for the post to be taken so seriously, it was just a quip. I guess one of the perils of this type of communication is that tone of voice or inflection can't be conveyed. (smiley perhaps) Anyway the original was by a fellow called David Dundas released in 76. Not a great song but I remember it clearly as 76 was a big year for me. Just looked him up and it seems that he is Lord David Dundas. Wonder if he is sartorially inclined?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Fang66 said:


> My apologies I didn't mean for the post to be taken so seriously, it was just a quip.


No apology necessary. I didn't take your comment to be serious nor was my reply meant to be. I agree with you that sometimes it's hard to tell even with the smiley. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

JLibourel said:


> People who go into quality restaurants dressed like that deserve to be slapped across the face--hard! High-dollar restaurants that admit such churlish vulgarians do not deserve to be rewarded with our patronage. If people want to wear T-shirts and jeans to a restaurant, let them go to Denny's.


Goat tongue.

That's what these guys need.

It would be good entertainment with cocktails...


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

I think Cavalier's petition sounds very attractive!

May I ask, does this also include even that really,really dark shade of blue, in a denim?


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

chotzo said:


> Cavaliere....spelling nitpicks?:icon_hailthee:
> 
> I
> 
> ...


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Cavaliere said:


> Since you ask, my dear Chotzo, you wrote "decent" when you clearly meant "descent". Spell-check won't help you here.


This has already been discussed. It was another poster who misspelled "descent", see post #49. Chotzo was attempting to quote from that post. We should be fair, but I also agree that we shouldn't be nit picking common spelling errors. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## PinkPlaidSocks (May 1, 2008)

RyanZ said:


> Jeans can be perfectly appropriate in the right environment, and wearing a nice pair of well-designed darker jeans with a button down shirt, nice shoes, and maybe a blazer can be the right thing to wear - when the time is right, like at an informal get together or casual cocktail party. It can be a put-together look that is neither intimidating or pretentious. I never wore jeans before the "designer" jeans came out because regular Levis are not flattering on me - a personal choice. If you don't like jeans, then don't wear them. I'm the first to say that jeans are being worn too much and in inappropriate environments. I worked once at a casual office and would never wear jeans even though I like them and they are allowed - there's just no way I think jeans are appropriate for the office. But the fact of the matter is that jeans are in style, and in the right environment they can be perfectly appropriate to wear.
> 
> Times change. Trends change. We can't be stuck in the past. But I totally agree that the casualization of America (and most of the world) is really sad. Why people enjoy looking their worst is beyond me.


Trust the rookie with three posts to write one of the saner contributions to this thread.

And I completely agree. Jeans can and should be just one more item in your sartorial bag of tricks. Yes, they're overused and worn at inappropriate moments way too often, but it's just flat out wrong to say they can't be worn with any class at all, ever. Check the WAYWT thread, it can be done.


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> This has already been discussed. It was another poster who misspelled "descent", see post #49. Chotzo was attempting to quote from that post. We should be fair, but I also agree that we shouldn't be nit picking common spelling errors. :icon_smile:
> 
> Cruiser


I agree, Cruiser; I was merely retaliating against his disparaging remark about me; made without provocation, I might add.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## PinkPlaidSocks (May 1, 2008)

https://www.repubblica.it/gallerie/online/economia/agnelli/5_g.jpg

Apparently, Satan is already among us. And he has an earthly name - Agnelli.


----------



## PinkPlaidSocks (May 1, 2008)

.........Or is it Flusser?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

PinkPlaidSocks said:


> .........Or is it Flusser?


I guess this is a case of do as I say, not as I do...


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

PinkPlaidSocks said:


> https://www.repubblica.it/gallerie/online/economia/agnelli/5_g.jpg
> 
> Apparently, Satan is already among us. And he has an earthly name - Agnelli.


Tut, tut! Very bad karma to speak ill of the dead...


----------



## PinkPlaidSocks (May 1, 2008)

I'm still looking for a picture of the Duke of Windsor wearing jeans. I'll get back to you.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

PinkPlaidSocks said:


> I'm still looking for a picture of the Duke of Windsor wearing jeans.


How bout this picture of the "Duke" wearing jeans. Oh, wrong Duke. :icon_smile_big:

https://img211.imageshack.us/my.php?image=johnwaynesearchersphoto.jpg

Cruiser


----------



## Zingari (Jul 9, 2007)

*A True Story..............*

I remember the story of a Guards officer who was invited by a group of subalterns to watch a game of rugby in the stands at Twickenham.
Given that they tended to sport jeans and a jacket on casual trips into London he decided to follow their trend.
Having toured the Kings Road he purchased a pair of the 'Devils Cloth' and promptly took them back to the mess. Once in his room he decided that they looked 'too new' and needed roughing up a little. So he beat them against the wardrobe a few times threw them on the floor and stamped all over them, repeating this process over the next few days.
One day he left the jeans in a pile on the floor in his room and went off to his duties. On his return he was aghast that his orderly had done nothing more than collected them up, washed them and ironed razor sharp creases down the front and back of both legs!
(Names and Regiment have been removed to protect the innocent :icon_smile_wink


----------



## chotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

Dear Cavaliere,
You're right. I should stop being rude. Surely you will join me and end your attack on the inherent free speech rights of the Ask Andyians?

My apparent misspelling was a quote of your staunch supporter and, as you described, literary talent Orsini.

My poor understanding of the basic quote function has invited this scrutiny and rightly so.

Jeans are good. I am wearing a pair right now, and I have to say, I look great.

Now, politely, what German word have I mangled? My name "chotzo"? I just made that up, it's a make believe word.

How has this thread gone to 5 pages?:deadhorse-a:


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

chotzo said:


> ...literary talent Orsini...


Thank you.


----------



## chotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

Orsini, your welcome, although, I admit, I was being cheeky.:icon_smile_big:

Is that you in the 2002?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

chotzo said:


> Orsini, your welcome, although, I admit, I was being cheeky.:icon_smile_big:
> 
> Is that you in the 2002?


I knew that. I was just being facetious.

No, it is not me in that car. I found that image somewhere...


----------



## chotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

Orsini said:


> I knew that. I was just being facetious.
> 
> No, it is not me in that car. I found that image somewhere...


Are you a car enthusiast?

That's too bad. I was whipping up some smart ass comment, along the lines of asking if it was hard to wear a monocle inside a driving helmet. Referencing gordgekko's post of the year on page 4.

Good random choice of car though....


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Is that what Agnelli looks like in heaven?


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

chotzo said:


> Dear Cavaliere,
> You're right. I should stop being rude. Surely you will join me and end your attack on the inherent free speech rights of the Ask Andyians?
> 
> My apparent misspelling was a quote of your staunch supporter and, as you described, literary talent Orsini.
> ...


Dear chotzo:

In regard to your (alleged) misspelling: you omitted the diacritic mark known as the 'umlaut' (comprised of a pair of dots) above the letter 'u' in the word 'uber'. However, since I am not sufficiently well-versed in the black art of word-processing to supply said umlaut where it belongs, you should not feel too discombobulated.

As to 'free speech rights', here or elsewhere, when are you people going to get it into your heads that there is no such thing as free speech? Nobody in the entire history of the universe has ever believed in unfettered free speech. There are those who profess to do so, but everyone has their braking point. Not even John Milton believed in it; he said he did and then - in the same text - exhorted his readers to exterminate Catholics!

More important, why (oh, why) would someone who enjoys wearing (say) jeans or 'Crocs' or tracksuits or t-shirts or shorts inappropriately be drawn to this site? Answer me that! I thought - perhaps mistakenly - that this site was for like-minded men who CARE!

As for Gianni Agnelli, nobody any longer follows his sartorial eccentricities.ic12337:


----------



## chotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

Cavaliere,
I can't say that I know where that key is either.....

Why must your well dressed world be so narrow? I enjoy my italian full canvassed suits, spread collars, deeply dimpled ties, well polished leather soled(non pointy) shoes as much as anyone here..(maybe....)

But I also enjoy my jeans just as much. Why are they mutually exclusive?

My ten years younger girlfriend enjoys my jeans even more than me I think somedays. Surely you can see the appeal. :idea:


----------



## Mr. Golem (Mar 18, 2006)

Cavaliere said:


> Dear chotzo:
> 
> More important, why (oh, why) would someone who enjoys wearing (say) jeans or 'Crocs' or tracksuits or t-shirts or shorts inappropriately be drawn to this site? Answer me that! I thought - perhaps mistakenly - that this site was for like-minded men who CARE!
> 
> As for Gianni Agnelli, nobody any longer follows his sartorial eccentricities.ic12337:


"Great minds think alike... but fools seldom differ."

Because some people want to learn about sartorial rules and world. It doesn't mean you have to follow all the rules like a mindless robot. I enjoy wearing tight dark denim and I wear crocs at work(because it's the best shoe for the job and quite cheap). I also happen to enjoy wearing wool slacks, button up shirts, vests, jackets and nice shoes. There are correct situations for both of these choices.

Have you also seriously considered that a lot of members are young college students who don't have money to spend?

If everyone followed the "sartorial code" exactly to the tee, then this forum would just be a bunch of high brow, arrogant idiots who blow sunshine up each other's assholes all day long.


----------



## Lowndes (Feb 25, 2008)

Cavaliere,

Well I for one wear jeans almost every day (actually pretty much every day) and I love this site. I'm 24 years old and in school. I'm not going to bust out a suit or wool pants every day to go to class or sit out in the grass and study.

However, I do like wearing suits on the appropriate occasion and find fine mens clothing a really interesting topic. Also, as a grad student I am starting to assemble my wardrobe and want to be as informed as possible. That is why some people who enjoy jeans and also nice clothes come to this site.

Also, why did people insist on correcting people's grammatical errors on message boards like this. I don't proofread my posts or even go back and look at them unless there is something I need to edit. Sorry in advance if my posts don't meet the Chicago Manual of Style guidelines.


----------



## JosephM (Dec 17, 2008)

Lowndes said:


> I don't proofread my posts or even go back and look at them unless there is something I need to edit. Sorry in advance if my posts don't meet the Chicago Manual of Style guidelines.


That, of course, is your option, but I have found that in communication (even on the internet), people are taken more seriously if they use proper spelling and grammar. We all make mistakes, of course, but people who are sloppy in their communications on a regular basis are the ones who suffer because they fail to get their message across.

Your comment re: Chicago Manual of Style did not come off as particularly respectful to me.

JM


----------



## Lowndes (Feb 25, 2008)

JosephM said:


> That, of course, is your option, but I have found that in communication (even on the internet), people are taken more seriously if they use proper spelling and grammar. We all make mistakes, of course, but people who are sloppy in their communications on a regular basis are the ones who suffer because they fail to get their message across.
> 
> Your comment re: Chicago Manual of Style did not come off as particularly respectful to me.
> 
> JM


I'm sorry but how in the world is my reference to the Chicago Manual of Style disrespectful?

Also, that is fine if you feel like writing with 100% correct punctuation but why people feel the need to address and correct other people's grammar on a message board is beyond me.


----------



## JosephM (Dec 17, 2008)

Lowndes said:


> I'm sorry but how in the world is my reference to the Chicago Manual of Style disrespectful?


IMO, the the reference to the Chicago Manual of Style came across as being sarcastic and impertinent.



> Also, that is fine if you feel like writing with 100% correct punctuation but why people feel the need to address and correct other people's grammar on a message board is beyond me.


You've already stated this--I'm confused by the repetition.

JM


----------



## Lowndes (Feb 25, 2008)

JosephM said:


> IMO, the the reference to the Chicago Manual of Style came across as being sarcastic and impertinent.
> 
> You've already stated this--I'm confused by the repetition.
> 
> JM


Wow, sorry for the confusion.


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*flip flops in restaurants*



JLibourel said:


> People who go into quality restaurants dressed like that deserve to be slapped across the face--hard! High-dollar restaurants that admit such churlish vulgarians do not deserve to be rewarded with our patronage. If people want to wear T-shirts and jeans to a restaurant, let them go to Denny's.


They must be hurting for money. I get the same angst when I see ladies walking their dogs among the clothing in high end stores. "That's the one I want... the one that dirty dog rubbed up against."


----------



## JosephM (Dec 17, 2008)

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=920844&postcount=118

Here's a little tip--when you don't quote the _entire_ post in your response--it can be a little hard for the reader to determine the conversation. You have already indicated that you don't care about your posts, but _I _care about your posts when what I originally said gets mangled in the process.

JM


----------



## Lowndes (Feb 25, 2008)

JosephM said:


> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=920844&postcount=118
> 
> Here's a little tip--when you don't quote the _entire_ post in your response--it can be a little hard for the reader to determine the conversation. You have already indicated that you don't care about your posts, but _I _care about your posts when what I originally said gets mangled in the process.
> 
> JM


Well, thanks for the tip. I apologize for simply pushing "quote" and then typing a response.


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

chotzo said:


> Cavaliere,
> I can't say that I know where that key is either.....
> 
> Why must your well dressed world be so narrow? I enjoy my italian full canvassed suits, spread collars, deeply dimpled ties, well polished leather soled(non pointy) shoes as much as anyone here..(maybe....)
> ...


I understand, chotzo; if, however, you'll permit me to offer a word or two of advice (gleaned from painful experience), NEVER, EVER follow a woman's sartorial advice. I once permitted a girlfriend - she was, after all, highly intelligent and a professor of fashion - to influence my style of dress: she tried to persuade me to wear my shirts OUTSIDE my trousers; she also tried to persuade me to wear three-quarter length trousers in summer! Can you imagine? I still wake in the night screaming... .

Resist, my dear chotzo!


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

If everyone followed the "sartorial code" exactly to the tee, then this forum would just be a bunch of high brow, arrogant idiots who blow sunshine up each other's assholes all day long.[/QUOTE]

What saves this forum is its aspirational quality. If you wish to characterize it as "high brow", then so be it. If you wish to be rude, vulgar and offensive, may I commend Facebook to you?


----------



## chotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

Cavaliere said:


> I understand, chotzo; if, however, you'll permit me to offer a word or two of advice (gleaned from painful experience), NEVER, EVER follow a woman's sartorial advice. I once permitted a girlfriend - she was, after all, highly intelligent and a professor of fashion - to influence my style of dress: she tried to persuade me to wear my shirts OUTSIDE my trousers; she also tried to persuade me to wear three-quarter length trousers in summer! Can you imagine? I still wake in the night screaming... .
> 
> Resist, my dear chotzo!


Cavaliere. While I am still pro-jean, 3/4 length pants, on men, are incorrect.

Your advice is touching. Am I no longer your Arch Nemesis? This makes me sad somehow. :devil:

I will allow my former self to speak for the current me in this instance,...a quote from my voluminous post history...

"Men give up trying to dress themselves and try to just wear whatever the woman wants (a disaster) or even worse lets the woman buy clothes for and dress him. This the worst of all. IMHO you have just become a child, giving control over one of your most important personal rights and means of communication to another. Why do prisoners in jail wear uniforms?
I strongly advise my girlfriend to never buy me clothes because I won't wear them if she does. 
She says "why not, I want to buy you clothes..." (speaking all sing songy as all women do when they are trying work you and get their way)
I say " Do you want me to buy you clothes to wear?"
She says "No..."
I say "Exactly".."

I dress how I want irregardless of the seductive exhortations of the cunning sex. As a matter of fact, all three of my girls appreciate my dress. It's good to be a scoundrel.:teacha:


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

Your advice is touching. Am I no longer your Arch Nemesis? This makes me sad somehow. :devil:

I too am sorry to say that you are no longer my sworn enemy; I've kinda come to like you.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Felix Krull (Dec 20, 2008)

Cavaliere said:


> I should like to present Andy with a petition demanding an immediate ban of any discussion concerning blue jeans.
> 
> Please lend me your support.:devil:


Cavalier, my friend, you and I are surely long lost brothers! Your discernment in matters of taste and style as exhibited in your posts is unerringly astute!


----------



## Felix Krull (Dec 20, 2008)

tnj said:


> Yes, let's ban all discussion of things we don't like! This is snobbery at its highest level.
> 
> I don't like double breasted suits, so I don't open those threads. Doesn't mean that I don't understand that they have a place in men's fashion. I don't particularly like jeans, but to write off what is probably the single most important clothing trend of the last 50 years seems a bit ridiculous for a group of people purporting to discuss "fashion". Maybe it's time for you to head over to the Trad forum. Or create another forum for people who want to dress in costumes from the 1950s.
> 
> I daresay that a man under 50, in this day and age, cannot be considered fashionable if he does not wear jeans as a regular part of his wardrobe.


Dead wrong! I am under 50 and do not wear jeans unless I have to go slop the hogs and bale the hay! No one living in any sort of urban setting has any need to wear jeans. They are ridiculous. As for being fashionable, barely a day goes by that I don't receive a compliment from a lovely lady on my attire. I'll take such positive affirmation over whatever is considered fashionable any day of the week.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^ I am well over 50 and, given all that we have to be concerned with in today's world, I think we sometimes concern ourselves too much over a particular item of clothing. I spent this past Tuesday at Riley's Children's Hospital in Indianapolis and saw folks wrestling mightily with very real challenges...all of which were far more substantive than arguing over whether blue jeans are appropriate/inappropriate attire. Sorry for briefly getting off topic but, given all there is to be worried about in our lives, is this the best we can do..are we really still debating this?


----------



## JayJay (Oct 8, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^ I am well over 50 and, given all that we have to be concerned with in today's world, I think we sometimes concern ourselves too much over a particular item of clothing. I spent this past Tuesday at Riley's Children's Hospital in Indianapolis and saw folks wrestling mightily with very real challenges...all of which were far more substantive than arguing over whether blue jeans are appropriate/inappropriate attire. Sorry for briefly getting off topic but, given all there is to be worried about in our lives, is this the best we can do..are we really still debating this?


A walk through Riley is sobering, very sobering.

With that said, I've always preferred khakis over blue jeans.


----------



## pichao (Apr 13, 2008)

*Mr Tweed*

This is the point of view of Mr Tweed, from a swedish website:


----------



## MR MILLER (Feb 23, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> I'm in! Those purported icons of "rebellion" are now the most conformist things a man can wear. What's more, they've badly distorted many men's ideas on how pants should fit, generally.


Are you serious the most conformist thing a man can wear?!? but not ae shoes or john lobbs or brooks brothers shirts? really? every other post on this forum is about something every single member is conforming to, especially on the trad forum
jeans will never go out of style we all know this to be true and really what is the problem with jeans? they look good and in most cases they will last about as long as most pairs of shoes we aquire, wich all fall into the same catagories on this forum because, lets face it, if you dont own the same brand of shoes on this forum as most members chances are your going to get thrown under the bus for it, because you didnt CONFORM to everyone elses idea of style


----------



## MRR (Nov 19, 2009)

MR MILLER said:


> Are you serious the most conformist thing a man can wear?!? but not ae shoes or john lobbs or brooks brothers shirts? really? every other post on this forum is about something every single member is conforming to, especially on the trad forum


There is a difference between the irony of wearing jeans, which used to be rebellious but now is very mainstream, and asking which BRAND of an item is a good value. Especially when that item is something people are already wearing (ie; dress shoes). One is conforming to society as a whole, and one is conforming to a subset. Most people come to this site to learn about this particular subset, which seems to involve not wearing black suits and choosing between AE and Alden.

tnj is correct that banning a particular discussion from this site, especially if it involves clothing, is pure snobbery. Likewise, we cannot ask that people who dislike jeans to not chime in and state such an opinion. Jeans probably do not have place in a "fashionable" wardrobe.

I still own several pairs of jeans, since I am not a city dandy and still need to mow the lawn and work on my car. But I did not buy them for fashion because I do not care about jeans fashion. If I did care about jeans fashion, I would certainly go to a different site for advice.

AAAC exists for people who want to learn about a specific type of fashion; the kind of fashion that the masses seems to have abandoned, quality "dressy" clothing and shoes.

_"I want to be different, like everybody else I want to be like"_ John S. Hall


----------



## MR MILLER (Feb 23, 2010)

MRR said:


> There is a difference between the irony of wearing jeans, which used to be rebellious but now is very mainstream, and asking which BRAND of an item is a good value. Especially when that item is something people are already wearing (ie; dress shoes). One is conforming to society as a whole, and one is conforming to a subset. Most people come to this site to learn about this particular subset, which seems to involve not wearing black suits and choosing between AE and Alden.
> 
> tnj is correct that banning a particular discussion from this site, especially if it involves clothing, is pure snobbery. Likewise, we cannot ask that people who dislike jeans to not chime in and state such an opinion. Jeans probably do not have place in a "fashionable" wardrobe.
> 
> ...


Be that as it may, great post by the way MRR!!, to say they are the most conformist thing a man can have is sheer crap, because in the end we all conform to a look or style to a degree, if i were to post a thread about how i like florshiem shoes (just and example) there are going to be at least 15 follow up posts telling me how i should have bought a brand that everyone else on this forum feels i should have invested in insted of what i decided looks good on me, another handfull of those posts would be bashing me for not saving up the extra money i dont have to buy said conformist brand of shoes and then finally a moderator would step in and agree with those against my decision because for some reason they are the final word on what looks good.You see were i'm going here? As i and many others have said jeans are here to stay and for someone to whant to ban them simply because they dont like them or wear them is a little snobbish imho thats not to say you are a snob but just to say ....get over it lmao! this forum is honestly getting to the point were i whant to ask are there any MEN i can speak to insted?! lol not you MRR just in general


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Cavaliere said:


> I should like to present Andy with a petition demanding an immediate ban of any discussion concerning blue jeans.
> 
> Please lend me your support.:devil:


In the USA, on any given day, a large percentage of males will wear jeans for at least part of the day. They have become part of our sartorial tradition.
In 2 days the Belmont Stakes will take place. In horse racing, this is a much more important race than anything that happens at Ascot, but your going to see a lot more people in jeans than morning suits. In fact the only person your likely to see in anything like a Monopoly suit with a top hat is the bugler. 
Today I'm wearing Levi's 501, straight legs.:icon_smile:


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Yes, Andy ... we really should turn off the "Show Similar (Sometimes Old As Sh**) Threads" feature at the bottom of the page. Not bad enough we suffered through it once!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

MRR said:


> Jeans probably do not have place in a "fashionable" wardrobe.


At the same time you can also probably find well dressed men who think that opera pumps and sock garters have no place in a man's wardrobe, well dressed or otherwise, due to their strong feminine connotations.

There are certainly many situations where jeans are not appropriate. I don't think anyone here is denying that. At the same time there are plenty of places not involving manual labor where they can be appropriate if neat, clean, and well fitting. Jeans, just like any other item of clothing, can look sharp or they can look sloppy. It's less about the fact that they are jeans than about how they are worn.

To be honest with you, I suspect that many guys wear jeans because women seem to prefer well fitting jeans on a guy in a casual setting far more than they do other types of pants. At least that's been my experiences down through the years. I know that I've always been far more interested in what women think about how I dress than what other men think; unless of course the man was my boss and controlled my performance evaluations. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Cruiser said:


> I know that I've always been far more interested in what women think about how I dress than what other men think; unless of course the man was my boss and controlled my performance evaluations. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


We agree ... and disagree. I, too, am far more interested in women than men ... but I couldn't give a da** about what either thinks about how I dress. Dress for yourself.


----------



## MRR (Nov 19, 2009)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> We agree ... and disagree. I, too, am far more interested in women than men ... but I couldn't give a da** about what either thinks about how I dress. Dress for yourself.


But, sir, the site is not called "Ask Andy and friends if I should dress myself however I want". I, for one, want everyone here to tell me how to dress. After assimilating all that information, I will make an informed (hopefully informed, at least) decision.

Dressing myself resulted in some very ugly gray/blue plastic glasses in middle school, which certainly did not help alleviate my dateless years.


----------



## David_E (Apr 18, 2010)

This thread was an embarrassment to the the forum when it was first raised a year ago. Necromancy is unholy for a reason. Let this detestable thread die and stay dead. If you want advice about jeans ask, be prepared for the crap storm, glean what you can (don't expect much as it is an area of ignorance here), take a shower and move on.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

By eschewing the Devil's attire I place myself on the right side of God Almighty.

Who can argue such infallible logic??

Be gone denim, I cast thee off!!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> We agree ... and disagree. I, too, am far more interested in women than men ... but I couldn't give a da** about what either thinks about how I dress. Dress for yourself.


I'm not disagreeing with that because when push comes to shove I'm not going to wear clothing that I personally dislike just to please a woman. (OK, who am I kidding? I'd wear a tutu if Cindy Crawford or Halle Berry asked me too, but I digress.) It's like the example I gave in another thread a week or so ago when I was wearing khakis and was told by the lady that she preferred me in jeans. Considering the casual nature of the event this was fine with me as I really had no personal preference.

Since the subject of this thread is jeans, I've had several women over the years comment to me that they really like the way a blazer or tweed jacket looks with jeans. I first encountered this many years ago when I took a date to see the movie _Three Days of the Condor_. Afterward my date commented about how much she liked Robert Redford's tweed jacket and jeans look so I did what any young guy with raging hormones would do; I went out and bought a tweed jacket to wear with my jeans.










Unfortunately I couldn't make myself look like Redford, but I could dress the way my lady friend liked. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## MR MILLER (Feb 23, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> I'm not disagreeing with that because when push comes to shove I'm not going to wear clothing that I personally dislike just to please a woman. (OK, who am I kidding? I'd wear a tutu if Cindy Crawford or Halle Berry asked me too, but I digress.) It's like the example I gave in another thread a week or so ago when I was wearing khakis and was told by the lady that she preferred me in jeans. Considering the casual nature of the event this was fine with me as I really had no personal preference.
> 
> Since the subject of this thread is jeans, I've had several women over the years comment to me that they really like the way a blazer or tweed jacket looks with jeans. I first encountered this many years ago when I took a date to see the movie _Three Days of the Condor_. Afterward my date commented about how much she liked Robert Redford's tweed jacket and jeans look so I did what any young guy with raging hormones would do; I went out and bought a tweed jacket to wear with my jeans.
> 
> ...


 Hell if Halle Berry asked me to wear a tutu, id be at the same store your at trying one on lol!!!!:biggrin:


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

MRR said:


> _*After assimilating all that information, I will make an informed (hopefully informed, at least) decision.*_


Exactly! I wasn't trying to say that your style should be an uninformed one. But once you feel confident your decisions should be made based upon your knowledge and not the likes or dislikes of others.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

MRR said:


> But, sir, the site is not called "Ask Andy and friends if I should dress myself however I want". I, for one, want everyone here to tell me how to dress. After assimilating all that information, I will make an informed (hopefully informed, at least) decision.


Although MRR and Mr Kabbaz have already reached a meeting of the minds, I would still like to applaud this eloquent bit of humble common sense.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Why the censorship?
> 
> Besides, the devil existed long before blue jeans did. What did he wear then?


he wore a dinner suit with red keds.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

tnj said:


> Yes, let's ban all discussion of things we don't like! This is snobbery at its highest level.
> 
> I don't like double breasted suits, so I don't open those threads. Doesn't mean that I don't understand that they have a place in men's fashion. I don't particularly like jeans, but to write off what is probably the single most important clothing trend of the last 50 years seems a bit ridiculous for a group of people purporting to discuss "fashion". Maybe it's time for you to head over to the Trad forum. Or create another forum for people who want to dress in costumes from the 1950s.
> 
> I daresay that a man under 50, in this day and age, cannot be considered fashionable if he does not wear jeans as a regular part of his wardrobe.


I am over 50 and own 4 pair. they are high waisted and well fitted. am i fashionable?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

a tailor said:


> I am over 50 and own 4 pair. they are high waisted and well fitted. am i fashionable?


Impeccably, sir!


----------

