Personally, I’m ok with shorter shorts for myself. My stomach may have grown larger than in the photo above, but I walk and bike enough that my legs are still in good enough shape that I wouldn’t be ashamed if my shorts came up higher than my knee…
It wasn’t that long ago that the American male was totally cool with his legs. From Larry Bird to “Magnum P.I.”, men of the ’70s and ’80s showed more thigh than a bucket of KFC, wearing shorts whose inseams were about the length of a pinkie.
Seems weird these days, right? Maybe even a little horrifying? Well then, I suggest you move to the fainting couch before continuing to the next paragraph:
Short shorts for men are coming back.
So says the Wall Street Journal, which surveyed men’s apparel companies and found that shorts, at least among the fashionable, are headed north, having gone from a saggy 15-inch inseam to a high and tight 5 inches in just a few years.
(click here to continue reading Return of men’s short shorts reveals body hang-ups – chicagotribune.com.)
…since the Tribune, in its wisdom, didn’t link to the WSJ article:
For most of the past two decades, men’s shorts have barely merited the name, dropping so far down the calf that Linnaeus would have stuck them in the pants family. Call them what you want—knickerbockers, breeches, clam diggers—the one thing they haven’t been is particularly short.
Finally that’s changed. And given how change in the menswear world is measured—think millimeters per decade rather than centimeters per season for women’s wear—shorts are shortening quickly. In the past few years, the low-water-mark length of a 15-inch-or-so inseam receded to knee-length (11 inches), then a knee-baring 9 inches, then to a quadriceps-exposing 7 inches and on to the newly fashionable thigh-flaunting 5 inches. If men’s shorts were a glacier in Greenland, scientists would be freaking out.
(click here to continue reading A New Length for Men’s Shorts – WSJ.com.)
We’re not talking about Speedo-style here, just mid thigh.