Agreed. Wear what is comfortable* If someone is happy and they put something on and they're outside, they already successed, there's no need to judge if they pulled it off, which implies people of...
Agreed. Wear what is comfortable*
If someone is happy and they put something on and they're outside, they already successed, there's no need to judge if they pulled it off, which implies people of a certain beauty standard have more rights to wear certain articles that other less beautiful people should be ashamed to wear.
Asterisk: there will be discussions about what is appropriate, I guess. Should restaurants be allowed to refuse guests without shoes? Should schools not allow their teachers to wear Borat style mankini's? But my comment is about articles we agree are socially acceptable, but somehow not acceptable based only on beauty standards.
As far as I can tell, everyone is subscribed to every topic automatically. If you're seeing content you're not interested in, you can add it to your filtered tags list.
As far as I can tell, everyone is subscribed to every topic automatically. If you're seeing content you're not interested in, you can add it to your filtered tags list.
This might be one of the most pointless articles of all time. It reads like a something a high schooler would write on their "online discussion board" assignment at 5am. If someone told me this...
This might be one of the most pointless articles of all time. It reads like a something a high schooler would write on their "online discussion board" assignment at 5am. If someone told me this was written by AI, I'd tell them that I don't believe them because AI would do a better job.
It starts from a pointless topic, that one dude wore slightly shorter shorts. Without any evidence, asserts that this a broader trend, which even if it was, isn't a mystery, fashion is cyclical, men wore shorter shorts before.
Then, after some pot shots about how British men are too fat and white to pull off short shorts, fruitlessly meanders into trying to make a broader point about sexism and "reverse-sexism" and the patriarchy but due to the utter lack of material just peters out without actually saying anything.
I think the bar for "most pointless" is pretty high, and the author is a reasonably good writer? This is the point of the article? It's literally in the headline. The point is that most societies...
I think the bar for "most pointless" is pretty high, and the author is a reasonably good writer?
Then fruitlessly meanders into trying to make a broader point about sexism and "reverse-sexism" and the patriarchy but due to the utter lack of material just peters out without actually saying them.
This is the point of the article? It's literally in the headline. The point is that most societies apply different standards to men and women, in the article the specific case is that men can wear short shorts without being judged (or at least not nearly as much as a woman in the same position would be).
There's no evidence, nor extended reasoning, for any of the points. The only case study presented in the article is a conventionally attractive and famous actor. The shorts aren't even that short...
There's no evidence, nor extended reasoning, for any of the points. The only case study presented in the article is a conventionally attractive and famous actor. The shorts aren't even that short - it's maybe like 1-2 inches shorter than the conventional (e.g not dad shorts) men's short length?
Nothing she says on the topic of the interplay of sexism has any backing, it's just disconnected and uncommitted musings that lead nowhere.
Then let's call a spade a spade and ask the purpose behind posting opinion pieces from a content farm that purposefully lack nuance if that's "the entire point". Saying "it's a newpaper column"...
Then let's call a spade a spade and ask the purpose behind posting opinion pieces from a content farm that purposefully lack nuance if that's "the entire point". Saying "it's a newpaper column" unfortunately and likely unintentionally seems very reminiscent to the "it's just a meme" excuse we should all be familiar with from other communities that spread divisive content online.
I'd go back to reddit if I wanted takes on gender issues that can't be bothered to self-reflect or flesh out into any form of coherent argument. I don't mind opinion pieces or even vent posts within our community, but this seems outside of what I personally would like to see on this site, and the sort of values I was under the impression this site existed to try to uphold.
You're being deliberately disingenuous and poisoning the waters by comparing submissions from the Guardian to content farms. No. Newspaper columns are a long-established form of writing. They are...
Then let's call a spade a spade and ask the purpose behind posting opinion pieces from a content farm that purposefully lack nuance if that's "the entire point".
You're being deliberately disingenuous and poisoning the waters by comparing submissions from the Guardian to content farms.
Saying "it's a newpaper column" unfortunately and likely unintentionally seems very reminiscent to the "it's just a meme" excuse we should all be familiar with from other communities that spread divisive content online.
No. Newspaper columns are a long-established form of writing. They are no less valuable just because they are informal or anecdotal. They often come directly from the writer's lived experience and can generate conversation.
I'd go back to reddit if I wanted takes on gender issues that can't be bothered to self-reflect
Have you read the article? She absolutely reflects, throughout the whole second part of the piece.
I don't mind opinion pieces
What's the issue with this particular submission? Are you so jaded by online discussion that any writing about gender sets you off? I realise that sounds like I'm poking at you, but I ask it in good faith.
fyi I'm not the same person you replied to, but I think this one is just devoid of content. There aren't any anecdotes, personal experiences, hypotheticals, or extended reasoning. It's like a...
fyi I'm not the same person you replied to, but I think this one is just devoid of content. There aren't any anecdotes, personal experiences, hypotheticals, or extended reasoning. It's like a tweet that just has 4x the number of words, but the same amount of content. I'm not even necessarily against the argument she (maybe?) made, the content itself is just so empty.
There's a lot of basic questions that I think you would expect to be interrogated or at least elaborated on. Is this a trend? A famous movie star doing something isn't a trend. Have you seen what movie stars wear?
Do men get less noticed for wearing short shorts? Maybe an anecdote, or at least like a hypothetical? What about the types of notice? Maybe they won't be "slut shamed" in a heterosexual manner, but could they be assumed to be gay and discriminated in that way?
Are the clothing the same magnitude of short? Just eyeballing that image, those aren't all that short. They're not booty shorts or something. A non-dad short is already supposed to be an inch or two above the knee; this one is just an inch or two above that. Would a women face sexist remarks for that length of shorts?
Like I feel like two people talking to each other about the topic, not even for an article, would go more into depth about the subject than this "column".
Hell, I think if you just condense the REPLIES here it's already a world's better article, with more thought and points.
Can they really? If the author turns the first celebrity example of it she's seen into an opinion piece that body shames other men for "not being able to pull it off"? The piece is contradictory...
Can they really? If the author turns the first celebrity example of it she's seen into an opinion piece that body shames other men for "not being able to pull it off"?
The piece is contradictory in it's nature, you cannot bemoan and reinforce gender norms and beauty standards at the same time.
I can understand the desire to make men feel the pressure that women feel to dress certain ways, and expose some of the hypocrisy in our society there. But we should be striving to eliminate those expectations for women, not escalating online gender discourse and trying to pass those same negative judgements back onto men in an unfocused opinion piece.
I don't think she's shaming men, I think she's pointing out that the lack of any kind of judgement of men in shorts - at least compared with the judgement of women - is striking. Perhaps I'm being...
I don't think she's shaming men, I think she's pointing out that the lack of any kind of judgement of men in shorts - at least compared with the judgement of women - is striking. Perhaps I'm being generous here, but I would say this piece is most useful for starting a conversation here:
"Then there are the double standards. Micro-shorts are also trending for women, but too often it seems that anything showing any part of the female body (cleavage, midriff, thighs) is enough to provoke the slut-shaming hordes. Is this as true for men? Or is it the case that, whatever they wear, however skimpy and provocative, they’re not accused of “slutty” desperation, “pathetically” thirsting for attention, or letting down their entire sex, as women habitually are whenever they show some flesh.
It says everything that, at worst, Mescal’s short-shorts prompted a few bemused giggles. If they are the latest sexual-political minefield, it’s still very different for boys."
Editing to add: In a perfect world, reading something like this would prompt people to think "Would I judge a man/woman for doing the same thing?". I don't think the devolution of online discourse should lead writers to avoid nuance. I'm not sure if my edit makes sense :-)
As soon as the sun shines, the vast majority pop them on with porridge-pale legs and any old shoes, resembling shifty 1970s-era scout leaders most of the time.
Seems like a great opportunity to do what you mentioned above and flip the genders. Would a similar comment from a man, about women, feel like "just humor?" I say this only because I thought it...
Seems like a great opportunity to do what you mentioned above and flip the genders. Would a similar comment from a man, about women, feel like "just humor?"
I say this only because I thought it was interesting. I'm guilty of not reading the article so I have no opinion on the larger conversation about it.
I agree this is an issue in the article, in that is seems to (at least implictly) be proposing more shaming of men, rather than eliminating toxic beauty standard enforced onto women.
I agree this is an issue in the article, in that is seems to (at least implictly) be proposing more shaming of men, rather than eliminating toxic beauty standard enforced onto women.
Seems a little weird to say men can wear short shorts without being judged in an article specifically written to judge men for wearing short shorts. Also, at least where I'm from, it's far more...
the point is that most societies apply different standards to men and women, in the article the specific case is that men can wear short shorts without being judged (or at least not nearly as much as a woman in the same position would be).
Seems a little weird to say men can wear short shorts without being judged in an article specifically written to judge men for wearing short shorts.
Also, at least where I'm from, it's far more normal for women to wear short shorts in the summer than men.
A woman wearing shorts with a 2" inseam is pretty routine and no one would bat an eye most of the time. A man wearing the same shorts would be pretty out there. The shorts pictured in the article aren't even that short compared to what I'd say the majority of young women wear outside in the summer in the US.
You guys who are taking issue seen to maybe not be into fashion, and have taken some kind of issue at a women sharing her opinion because you don't agree?! I'm not sure. But there's a lot of hand...
You guys who are taking issue seen to maybe not be into fashion, and have taken some kind of issue at a women sharing her opinion because you don't agree?! I'm not sure. But there's a lot of hand waving away anything in the article as useless because you don't agree with it, which is fine, but calling it all worthless because of that is very disingenuous.
It starts with a pointless topic
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Then, after some pot shots about how British men are too fat
You forgot the line where she also pokes fun at herself in the same paragraph that even she can't pull them off well for some of the same reasons. This is a crucial point about fashion and fashion writing that you pointed out but seem to ignore: it's subjective and always has been. Writing about fashion trends will always be opinionated, and someone will disagree. To write off an entire article as useless for the reasons you've stated (while conveniently stripping the context from the article) is egregious. Share your opinion, sure, but you should reevaluate why such a simple article on a fashion trend gets you so riled up. It's ok to poke fun at people! It's part of our culture. It's definitely part of her culture as both a fashion journo and a British person.
Article was enjoyable enough. I would've skipped it if it wasn't for yours and others saying how awful it was. After going back and reading, it's a woman's perspective on many fair points on a fashion trend. I will say that in a fashion forward city that short shorts as shown in the picture have been in fashion for years now. But I don't live in the UK so I don't have any reference point for that region. Finally the bit about wearing shorts to the office was interesting. I would never wear shorts to the office, while ladies wear all kinds of shorter (not necessarily short short) things during the hot months: skirts, dresses, shorts. So yes, there was something useful there for me to contemplate, someone who wears shorts as short or maybe shorter than the ones in the article. It's fashion. If you disagree or if it's not for you, shrug your shoulders and move on.
This is an incredibly short article sharing random observations that fail to arrive anywhere. It could have been an insightful tweet. The gender of the author might be an indication of a biased...
This is an incredibly short article sharing random observations that fail to arrive anywhere. It could have been an insightful tweet. The gender of the author might be an indication of a biased reaction if the article was just a tad more substantial. Which is a shame, since it mentions many relevant topics of discussion without following any of those threads. It is hard to ignore that merely mentioning some topics can be inflammatory in itself, and I do not agree with the approach of throwing matches on gasoline and leaving just as the fire starts. The aggressive, unproductive discussion on this post seems to be the desired effect. edit: Just to be clear, in actuality, I don't think there's any intention here other than "I have to fill 500 words". There are no evil agendas in my view. It's all kinda random. But the article does have effects I can object to.
It’s the Guardian. It’s Fox News for the other political end but just as pandering to a specific view. Imagine seeing a dude in shorter shorts than is currently the fashion, but in line with the...
It’s the Guardian.
It’s Fox News for the other political end but just as pandering to a specific view.
Imagine seeing a dude in shorter shorts than is currently the fashion, but in line with the style a while ago, and deciding to write an article and both rail against gender norms while also massively reinforcing them?
As someone coming from an extremely hot environment who has been to colder places on vacation, the shorts in the article's picture are pretty normal except for the fact that the model seems to be...
As someone coming from an extremely hot environment who has been to colder places on vacation, the shorts in the article's picture are pretty normal except for the fact that the model seems to be purposefully holding them higher with his hands (the waist is on his belly button). Cultures developed in colder environments seem to view short shorts as an oddity even in the summer. I suppose the writer wanted to make a broader point about society that greatly exceeds the scope of a 500-word opinion column. My culture is most certainly more sexist and patriarchal than the UK, and men walk around in whatever. Cause it's hot as fuck.
Yeah, these seem pretty normal for hot climates. Also most types of fitness you would wear ones similar to the second photo, especially for lifting or running.
Yeah, these seem pretty normal for hot climates. Also most types of fitness you would wear ones similar to the second photo, especially for lifting or running.
Haha true. I switched to short shorts permanently after splitting a pair of cargo shorts when squatting (they were too long and got caught on my knees).
Haha true. I switched to short shorts permanently after splitting a pair of cargo shorts when squatting (they were too long and got caught on my knees).
Paul Mescal could wear a grocery bag with legholes and look great. i’m 6’4” and slim and totally wear short shorts. they look better and are far more comfortable than anything else. it’s hard to...
Paul Mescal could wear a grocery bag with legholes and look great.
i’m 6’4” and slim and totally wear short shorts. they look better and are far more comfortable than anything else.
I'm 6'2" and apparently wear short shorts without realizing it. I would have just called the shorts in that picture regular shorts... I'm very disconnected from fashion though.
I'm 6'2" and apparently wear short shorts without realizing it. I would have just called the shorts in that picture regular shorts... I'm very disconnected from fashion though.
Erm. I don't read The Guardian, is this type of articles are usual?
Erm. I don't read The Guardian, is this type of articles are usual?
In some cases, it’s not just about the shortness, it’s also the snugness (all I can say is, please Google responsibly). Is it progress that it’s now women’s turn to not know where to look? Indeed, as liberating as short-shorts could be for men, they could also represent reverse sexism in action.
I've replied to multiple people in this thread - it's a column not an article. It's just opinion fluff and a small part of many, many newspapers. Here are some other pieces for you :-)
I've replied to multiple people in this thread - it's a column not an article. It's just opinion fluff and a small part of many, many newspapers.
I enjoy some fluff on Tildes. Thanks for the links! They're not fluff but maybe that's exactly why I need fluff, to balance out the sadness and seriousness of the world.
I enjoy some fluff on Tildes.
Thanks for the links! They're not fluff but maybe that's exactly why I need fluff, to balance out the sadness and seriousness of the world.
Unless the cultural norms are very different in Britain than in Ireland, many of those normal men the article mentioned do or have worn short shorts while playing football or other sports. They're...
Unless the cultural norms are very different in Britain than in Ireland, many of those normal men the article mentioned do or have worn short shorts while playing football or other sports. They're often part of team uniforms. It's a relatively normal thing for a sporty young man to wear, which unless I'm mistaken is how Paul Mescal became associated with them to begin with. He portrayed a GAA player in Normal People and then was caught by paparazzi running to the shops in some thrown-on shorts.
Yes. Wear what is comfortable. Body-shaming can go to hell.
Agreed. Wear what is comfortable*
If someone is happy and they put something on and they're outside, they already successed, there's no need to judge if they pulled it off, which implies people of a certain beauty standard have more rights to wear certain articles that other less beautiful people should be ashamed to wear.
Asterisk: there will be discussions about what is appropriate, I guess. Should restaurants be allowed to refuse guests without shoes? Should schools not allow their teachers to wear Borat style mankini's? But my comment is about articles we agree are socially acceptable, but somehow not acceptable based only on beauty standards.
Fashion obsessed people seem like the most miserable people on the planet.
can we not do that here?
I feel like if you don't like fashion, then maybe unsubscribing from the ~style group might be a good idea?
Didn't even realize I was subscribed to it, it showed up on my feed automatically
As far as I can tell, everyone is subscribed to every topic automatically. If you're seeing content you're not interested in, you can add it to your filtered tags list.
This might be one of the most pointless articles of all time. It reads like a something a high schooler would write on their "online discussion board" assignment at 5am. If someone told me this was written by AI, I'd tell them that I don't believe them because AI would do a better job.
It starts from a pointless topic, that one dude wore slightly shorter shorts. Without any evidence, asserts that this a broader trend, which even if it was, isn't a mystery, fashion is cyclical, men wore shorter shorts before.
Then, after some pot shots about how British men are too fat and white to pull off short shorts, fruitlessly meanders into trying to make a broader point about sexism and "reverse-sexism" and the patriarchy but due to the utter lack of material just peters out without actually saying anything.
I think the bar for "most pointless" is pretty high, and the author is a reasonably good writer?
This is the point of the article? It's literally in the headline. The point is that most societies apply different standards to men and women, in the article the specific case is that men can wear short shorts without being judged (or at least not nearly as much as a woman in the same position would be).
There's no evidence, nor extended reasoning, for any of the points. The only case study presented in the article is a conventionally attractive and famous actor. The shorts aren't even that short - it's maybe like 1-2 inches shorter than the conventional (e.g not dad shorts) men's short length?
Nothing she says on the topic of the interplay of sexism has any backing, it's just disconnected and uncommitted musings that lead nowhere.
Mate it's a newspaper column, not a hard-hitting article. Musings, opinions, and anecdotes are the entire point.
Then let's call a spade a spade and ask the purpose behind posting opinion pieces from a content farm that purposefully lack nuance if that's "the entire point". Saying "it's a newpaper column" unfortunately and likely unintentionally seems very reminiscent to the "it's just a meme" excuse we should all be familiar with from other communities that spread divisive content online.
I'd go back to reddit if I wanted takes on gender issues that can't be bothered to self-reflect or flesh out into any form of coherent argument. I don't mind opinion pieces or even vent posts within our community, but this seems outside of what I personally would like to see on this site, and the sort of values I was under the impression this site existed to try to uphold.
You're being deliberately disingenuous and poisoning the waters by comparing submissions from the Guardian to content farms.
No. Newspaper columns are a long-established form of writing. They are no less valuable just because they are informal or anecdotal. They often come directly from the writer's lived experience and can generate conversation.
Have you read the article? She absolutely reflects, throughout the whole second part of the piece.
What's the issue with this particular submission? Are you so jaded by online discussion that any writing about gender sets you off? I realise that sounds like I'm poking at you, but I ask it in good faith.
fyi I'm not the same person you replied to, but I think this one is just devoid of content. There aren't any anecdotes, personal experiences, hypotheticals, or extended reasoning. It's like a tweet that just has 4x the number of words, but the same amount of content. I'm not even necessarily against the argument she (maybe?) made, the content itself is just so empty.
There's a lot of basic questions that I think you would expect to be interrogated or at least elaborated on. Is this a trend? A famous movie star doing something isn't a trend. Have you seen what movie stars wear?
Do men get less noticed for wearing short shorts? Maybe an anecdote, or at least like a hypothetical? What about the types of notice? Maybe they won't be "slut shamed" in a heterosexual manner, but could they be assumed to be gay and discriminated in that way?
Are the clothing the same magnitude of short? Just eyeballing that image, those aren't all that short. They're not booty shorts or something. A non-dad short is already supposed to be an inch or two above the knee; this one is just an inch or two above that. Would a women face sexist remarks for that length of shorts?
Like I feel like two people talking to each other about the topic, not even for an article, would go more into depth about the subject than this "column".
Hell, I think if you just condense the REPLIES here it's already a world's better article, with more thought and points.
Can they really? If the author turns the first celebrity example of it she's seen into an opinion piece that body shames other men for "not being able to pull it off"?
The piece is contradictory in it's nature, you cannot bemoan and reinforce gender norms and beauty standards at the same time.
I can understand the desire to make men feel the pressure that women feel to dress certain ways, and expose some of the hypocrisy in our society there. But we should be striving to eliminate those expectations for women, not escalating online gender discourse and trying to pass those same negative judgements back onto men in an unfocused opinion piece.
I don't think she's shaming men, I think she's pointing out that the lack of any kind of judgement of men in shorts - at least compared with the judgement of women - is striking. Perhaps I'm being generous here, but I would say this piece is most useful for starting a conversation here:
"Then there are the double standards. Micro-shorts are also trending for women, but too often it seems that anything showing any part of the female body (cleavage, midriff, thighs) is enough to provoke the slut-shaming hordes. Is this as true for men? Or is it the case that, whatever they wear, however skimpy and provocative, they’re not accused of “slutty” desperation, “pathetically” thirsting for attention, or letting down their entire sex, as women habitually are whenever they show some flesh.
It says everything that, at worst, Mescal’s short-shorts prompted a few bemused giggles. If they are the latest sexual-political minefield, it’s still very different for boys."
Editing to add: In a perfect world, reading something like this would prompt people to think "Would I judge a man/woman for doing the same thing?". I don't think the devolution of online discourse should lead writers to avoid nuance. I'm not sure if my edit makes sense :-)
You said
She said
Fair point - perhaps I'm more inclined to respond "It's humour!" to this kind of comment. And perhaps I'm wrong there.
Seems like a great opportunity to do what you mentioned above and flip the genders. Would a similar comment from a man, about women, feel like "just humor?"
I say this only because I thought it was interesting. I'm guilty of not reading the article so I have no opinion on the larger conversation about it.
I agree this is an issue in the article, in that is seems to (at least implictly) be proposing more shaming of men, rather than eliminating toxic beauty standard enforced onto women.
Seems a little weird to say men can wear short shorts without being judged in an article specifically written to judge men for wearing short shorts.
Also, at least where I'm from, it's far more normal for women to wear short shorts in the summer than men.
A woman wearing shorts with a 2" inseam is pretty routine and no one would bat an eye most of the time. A man wearing the same shorts would be pretty out there. The shorts pictured in the article aren't even that short compared to what I'd say the majority of young women wear outside in the summer in the US.
You guys who are taking issue seen to maybe not be into fashion, and have taken some kind of issue at a women sharing her opinion because you don't agree?! I'm not sure. But there's a lot of hand waving away anything in the article as useless because you don't agree with it, which is fine, but calling it all worthless because of that is very disingenuous.
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
You forgot the line where she also pokes fun at herself in the same paragraph that even she can't pull them off well for some of the same reasons. This is a crucial point about fashion and fashion writing that you pointed out but seem to ignore: it's subjective and always has been. Writing about fashion trends will always be opinionated, and someone will disagree. To write off an entire article as useless for the reasons you've stated (while conveniently stripping the context from the article) is egregious. Share your opinion, sure, but you should reevaluate why such a simple article on a fashion trend gets you so riled up. It's ok to poke fun at people! It's part of our culture. It's definitely part of her culture as both a fashion journo and a British person.
Article was enjoyable enough. I would've skipped it if it wasn't for yours and others saying how awful it was. After going back and reading, it's a woman's perspective on many fair points on a fashion trend. I will say that in a fashion forward city that short shorts as shown in the picture have been in fashion for years now. But I don't live in the UK so I don't have any reference point for that region. Finally the bit about wearing shorts to the office was interesting. I would never wear shorts to the office, while ladies wear all kinds of shorter (not necessarily short short) things during the hot months: skirts, dresses, shorts. So yes, there was something useful there for me to contemplate, someone who wears shorts as short or maybe shorter than the ones in the article. It's fashion. If you disagree or if it's not for you, shrug your shoulders and move on.
This is an incredibly short article sharing random observations that fail to arrive anywhere. It could have been an insightful tweet. The gender of the author might be an indication of a biased reaction if the article was just a tad more substantial. Which is a shame, since it mentions many relevant topics of discussion without following any of those threads. It is hard to ignore that merely mentioning some topics can be inflammatory in itself, and I do not agree with the approach of throwing matches on gasoline and leaving just as the fire starts. The aggressive, unproductive discussion on this post seems to be the desired effect. edit: Just to be clear, in actuality, I don't think there's any intention here other than "I have to fill 500 words". There are no evil agendas in my view. It's all kinda random. But the article does have effects I can object to.
It’s the Guardian.
It’s Fox News for the other political end but just as pandering to a specific view.
Imagine seeing a dude in shorter shorts than is currently the fashion, but in line with the style a while ago, and deciding to write an article and both rail against gender norms while also massively reinforcing them?
The article is just gross.
It's a column, not an article. Comparing the Guardian to Fox is laughable.
As someone coming from an extremely hot environment who has been to colder places on vacation, the shorts in the article's picture are pretty normal except for the fact that the model seems to be purposefully holding them higher with his hands (the waist is on his belly button). Cultures developed in colder environments seem to view short shorts as an oddity even in the summer. I suppose the writer wanted to make a broader point about society that greatly exceeds the scope of a 500-word opinion column. My culture is most certainly more sexist and patriarchal than the UK, and men walk around in whatever. Cause it's hot as fuck.
Yeah, these seem pretty normal for hot climates. Also most types of fitness you would wear ones similar to the second photo, especially for lifting or running.
Schwarzenegger used to wear smaller shorts when he was lifting in the 1970s, but he did have a lot to show :P
Haha true. I switched to short shorts permanently after splitting a pair of cargo shorts when squatting (they were too long and got caught on my knees).
Paul Mescal could wear a grocery bag with legholes and look great.
i’m 6’4” and slim and totally wear short shorts. they look better and are far more comfortable than anything else.
it’s hard to find nice ones, though.
I'm 6'2" and apparently wear short shorts without realizing it. I would have just called the shorts in that picture regular shorts... I'm very disconnected from fashion though.
Erm. I don't read The Guardian, is this type of articles are usual?
I've replied to multiple people in this thread - it's a column not an article. It's just opinion fluff and a small part of many, many newspapers.
Here are some other pieces for you :-)
I enjoy some fluff on Tildes.
Thanks for the links! They're not fluff but maybe that's exactly why I need fluff, to balance out the sadness and seriousness of the world.
Unless the cultural norms are very different in Britain than in Ireland, many of those normal men the article mentioned do or have worn short shorts while playing football or other sports. They're often part of team uniforms. It's a relatively normal thing for a sporty young man to wear, which unless I'm mistaken is how Paul Mescal became associated with them to begin with. He portrayed a GAA player in Normal People and then was caught by paparazzi running to the shops in some thrown-on shorts.