I don’t want to shill for a brand, but I buy chubbies shorts, which markets itself as rebelling against the increased length of shorts and instead sells a more “classic” length - their shorts range from about a 5 - 7” inseam, whereas longer shorts are often 9 - 11”.
Plus, they say “boomshakalaka” on the inside of the zipper.
Those look good.
Well that does it! Must have! 
I like short shorts, but then again I have nice legs. The long baggy and floppy shorts are a bit unflattering, in my opinion.
Which is no doubt one of the reasons why French municipalities usually insist on shorter and closer-fitting (with due containment of the embarrassing bits) swimwear for men using their swimming baths - definitely not board shorts or bermudas.
I think you are all pretty out of touch. Shorts well above the knee have been the style for several years now. Just look at a modern clothing store or basketball game.
Sorry but any longer than that are not shorts. Maybe male pedal pushers, capris? Shorts are above the knees by some amount.
Evidently, the ban actually goes back a long ways, well before the advent of the modern long-and-baggy style, and it has more to do with cleanliness than flapping fabric.
As I understand it (based on things said to me by more than one French person), the rise of city industry, especially the automobile, led to concerns that people walking off the street into la piscine were dusted with soot and grime, and a full change of clothes and a pre-swim shower would be required before diving in. And to ensure that someone wasn’t just keeping on their “street shorts,” the rule about small and snug swimwear was conceived, because there was no way anyone would be wearing that little thing while out and about in town. In other words, there had to be an obviously pool-specific garment that would only ever be worn in the pool, with the underlying intention of helping to keep the water clean.
This is why, if you ask today, the catchall justification about this practice is that it’s “hygienic.” If you don’t know the context, that seems like strange reasoning, but with the historical background and the aim to prevent outside filth from swirling around in the pool, it does make some sense. And certainly, the same reasoning would continue to hold, if the intent is to create a procedural barrier to street dust impacting water cleanliness; you don’t want your tourists strolling down the car-clogged boulevard in Nice and then jumping straight into the hotel pool wearing the same trunks.
I’ve done some googling off and on over the years trying to confirm the legitimate historical veracity of this tale. The explanation above certainly seems to prevail in the modern dialogue, but I haven’t found anything reliable that carries the same justification all the way back into the 1910s and 20s when the laws were originally created, as my French associates claim. I welcome any more concrete findings either way.
Which is sort of funny.
When I travel I carry a set of nylon board shorts of bland patternless coloration that I wear as ordinary shorts out on the street and as swim gear at the hotel pool or beach. I carry one pair of dual-use slip-on shoes for those same two purposes. Not willing to devote the suitcase space to two garments for what is, to me at least, one mission.
The French would, predictably, be appalled at my Philistine ways. 
I often wear shorter shorts, big enough to hide brief boxers, not much bigger - 5” to 7” preferred. Shorts below the knee have their place, but I don’t find them as comfortable. Rarely wear shorts at work, unless very hot.
There are a few countries where wearing shorts is not done or is relegated to tourists, though this has likely changed. Outside of those countries where there were occasional glares, no one has ever given me any lip, comments or hassle for wearing shorter shorts. Is that really a thing outside of work?
I suppose there’s “shorter shorts” and then there’s Richard Simmons prancing gay guy shorts. Or Lt. Dangle shorts. Which, in some more homophobic countries or regions, might produce some unpleasant pushback.
For those who’ve never met Lt. Dangle of the fictional Reno Sheriff’s department:
To be clear, I’d love for 2" inseams to become acceptable mainstream cishet male attire as they were when I was a teen. But they’re not … yet.
I have skinny, long legs (6’3", 180 lbs, 36" inseam) so I prefer longer shorts.
I knew a guy years ago who coached kids’ sports in tight short-shorts. Just plain ick.
I go with “almost knee length” for everyday and “a couple inches higher” for active stuff.
I have short thick legs, 5’5”, 160 lbs, 28” inseam. No idea how long my shorts are. I’ve probably had them for decades and wear a few times a year.
They probably look silly but who cares? If they pass the my wife doesn’t yell at me to change into something else if she’s going to seen with me test they must be fine.
Not in my memory. I was working in a bookstore from 1992-95 and noticed the longer shorts (I was a big college basketball fan then). Google backs me up. Blame Michigan’s Fab Five. But it’s good to see more reasonable shorts on the court.
I like and wear shorts right above the knee, as in Cervaise’s image of the Euro guy. Longer than that and they look idiotic, shorter and they look dated.
I pointed this out in another forum (with that link, in fact) and was corrected. Jordan started it in the late 80s and the Fab Five took it to the extreme in the early 90s. Personally, I wouldn’t mind a little bit longer than the old style, but I really hate the long baggy look. So I don’t blame Jordan, I blame those other guys.
If you want to see the correction, it was in the April 16 Sunday Mailbag of Electoral-Vote.com. Search for “Jordan” to find the post.
I think a lifetime of growing up being called “chicken legs” or “bird legs” left me wanting to show them off as little as possible.
‘Last time I saw legs like that, there was a note tied to them!’
Thanks for the laugh! I I could fly, I know what my occupation would be.
Dive bomber?