Oh, I agree, and had I ever been capable of fitting into anything they sold, would probably have bought things from them. However, as it is, they certainly provided me with many a happy afternoon…
This is the answer.
On the basketball court, it took about five years, roughly from 1987 to 1992, for shorts to morph from Larry Bird hip-huggers to Fab Five below-the-knees baggies. Michael Jordan is usually credited with beginning the trend, starting with a slightly fuller cut and eventually working down to just-above-the-knees. At that point the NBA put in a dress code and wouldn’t allow below-the-knees, so college players, the Fab Five among them, had to take the final step.
Hip-hop also played a part; baggy clothes are considered jailin’ because, I suppose, prison clothes don’t usually fit very well and you’re not allowed to wear a belt. I’m sure there was some mutual reinforcement between hip-hop and basketball, since both are popular among young black males. Not being a viewer of rap videos, however, I couldn’t speak as to which came first.
These threads always remind me of Chariots Of Fire, which came out during the male short-short era; in that famous shot of them running along the beach their knee-length shorts looked ridiculous to us.
Strangely, the difference between men’s and women’s shorts was still very obvious to us, because even then the men’s were longer. It’s just that it was a matter of an inch or two, and not ten more inches of inseam.
I’ve looked at their stuff. Meh.
Looks cheaply made and really cheesy to boot.
Do you pine for the good old John Stockton days?
How can you pass up Buns®?!
Wasn’t newspaper staff; Journalism 1. Not a class full of future Hearsts; it was a REALLY easy A. The dorks* went on to Journalism 2, which was newspaper.
*like me
I believe the 90s are to blame for their mass popularity.
My opinion is they’re technically not shorts (cos they’re not short, duh) but they aren’t pants either. They’re somewhere in the middle. My husband and I refer to them as ‘shants’ which sounds a little better than ‘ports’.
ninevah , you shan’t call them ports!
Hmm, I like my shorts ending at the knees. Not sure why, I don’t have chicken legs, my lower half is by far my best feature. As to the issue of wetness, buy surf shorts, they are meant to be worn in water and dry very quickly.
What bugs me is that now women are wearing the long shorts. Call me sexist or whatever but I like men to have long shorts and women to have short shorts.
ninevah shants are something different. Shorts acceptable length is, at shortest, mid-thigh (and thats pushing it) to knees, not much below that. Below knees to mid calfs are ‘shants’. Pants go all the way down.
ninevah shants are something different. Shorts acceptable length is, at shortest, mid-thigh (and thats pushing it) to knees, not much below that. Below knees to mid calfs are ‘shants’. Pants go all the way down.
[/QUOTE]
This amuses me, cos I never actually thought “Shants” actually existed (other than a silly name my husband and I use). I’ve googled it and wikipedia’d it but haven’t found any reference to the clothing apparel known as shants. Is it an American/Canadian concept?
I think Richard Simmons amazing fashion sense (gag) sent short shorts into a tailspin of which I hope they don’t recover. They look totally geeky, as if you grew out of them but couldn’t afford to buy your size.
I like the longer shorts, they can hide many flaws.
Not to defend the Richard Simmons or his style of shorts particularly, but this is a symptom of the problem that surrounds this issue. It’s so much about hiding flaws that those of us who, if we say so ourselves, have decent looking legs are also strongly discouraged from displaying them. Are you really going to tell me that an in-shape guy’s legs were hideous to you, assuming that you like guys? And as for women, I think even they are repressed by similar attitudes, although they do have a little more leeway in today’s culture. But regardless of the general acceptability of women in short-shorts, I get the impression that a great many women believe that such apparel is only for women under 22 y.a. who way 97 pounds or less.
Add my voice to the chorus of people who say thank God that they’re long now. No plum smugglers for me, thank you very much.
I am definitely appreciate a good, fit pair of legs - aside from faces, it’s probably the only part of the male body I find truly attractive. And I’ll take a pair of long, strong legs in mid-thigh shorts with no hesitation at all.
However, the short shorts… the Richard Simmons style strike me entirely differently, no matter what the legs in them look like. I am about as far from prudish as you can get, but there’s something about that region of the thigh that should remain unseen… I feel the same way about lowriding pants (on men or women). They’ve gotten so low that there are parts of the pelvis visible that shouldn’t be seen on a first date, much less in general public.
I vote for Jack Tripper’s shorts on fit men who look like Jack Tripper. And there should be more of them.
I remember one of Richard Simmons appearances on late Night with David Letterman. Dave was more than a little red over Richards short shorts. Richard sat down with his legs curled under him on the chair and dave made him use a cushion from the couch to cover his highly exposed thigh.
I agree about short shorts being too bold, whatever my feelings about how they look on sexy women. But pants that go all the way to the knee are just too long. Halfway between is perfect. Comfortable and still shows off the legs but nothing else.
I don’t know exactly when it happened, but I place the blame firmly in the lap of professional boxing. They also carry the weight of shame for bling. Those stupid championship belts are just sooooo over the top.
Yeah, those gave me a chuckle. 