>zoomzoomfucks have not yet realized how dogshit this whole white-socks-and-loafers meme looksIn less than a couple years this will be another one of those trends we will look back on with immeasurable disgust, just like we did with red hipster shirts and skinny tapered cuffed pants.
zoomers are like monkeys to me
Do you feel proud of yourself when you tear others down?
>>18704731Probably won't be looked back on with too much disgust. It's something that's popped up now-and-again cyclically. It's die and comeback. It was one of Wacko Jacko's trademark looks. And I think I've seen it in photos as a '50s/'60s preppy trend too. It is ugly though. Especially paired with baggy shorts.
>>18704745>'50s/'60s preppy
>>18704746With long pants it’s a whole different thing
>>18704731White socks and loafers have been a thing since the 1950s so calling it a trend is not really correct.
>>18704749Fallacious argument, look up baggy shorts on the internet. It’s not just white socks with loafers. With loafers you can wear whatever the fuck you want. This is a very specific zoomcuck fetish.
>>18704749>slim tapered pants have been a thing since the 19th century so calling it a trend is not really correct>red check shirts have been a thing since the 1910s so calling it a trend is not really correctbehold the zoomer iq
>>18704747
how do you dress , OP?
>>18704731>>18704732Okay, real talk, unsure if this is an unpopular opinion or not but even as a 24 year old who grew up with shorts that were knee length or longer I never understood the point of shorts so long they're practically pants. I've always preferred above the knee stuff even when the other boys (but usually not girls) would call me gay for it. >>18704733This length on the other hand is okayish but should be slightly shorter. Like about 2 inches shorter.
>>18704752OP was specifically whining about loafers and white socks.>>18704755Alright well maybe among zoomers it is a trend but that’s like them starting to wear 501s, no one is going to notice it because they have been around for so long and are so ingrained into fashion, just like loafers and white socks. The trend might go away among them but not out of fashion so to speak.
>>18704777that's not really unpopular in the slightest. lots of men both young and old as well as even kids(/teens) prefer the shorter shorts just simply because they're more practical in the heat and make your legs look longer and therefore you look taller. a 5'4 mf in shorts that go down to his calves is only gonna look even shorter. and this is unlikely to change as homophobia and calling someone gay for the length of their shorts is (rightfully so) looked down upon so even if short shorts aren't fashionable for a while no one will make fun of you for wearing them and there will still be lots of people wearing them even if not the majority
>>18704788The thread is specifically about how terribly bad this whole preppy-childish loafers-with-white-socks style looks when paired with shorts. If you wear jeans or trousers with penny loafers and white socks it’s a whole different thing and no one’s gonna notice.>>18704777Personally I don’t think shorts above the knee look gay or feminine. On the contrary, they look much better than below the knee shorts.
>>18704731>wears "trad" shorts>still flashes his underwear over themYou can take a nig out the hood but you can't take the nig out of a nig.
>>18704810also>polo ralph laurenkek
>>18704801>The thread is specifically about how terribly bad this whole preppy-childish loafers-with-white-socks style looks when paired with shorts.No. It was about "this whole white-socks-and-loafers meme".
>>18704814>three pictures all showing shorts>every anon got the point>white socks are invisible or at least not certainly prominent under long pants>bUt ThE oP sAyS tH1SGo waste your time somewhere else
>>18704801>Personally I don’t think shorts above the knee look gay or feminine. On the contrary, they look much better than below the knee shorts.Glad we can 100% agree on that haha. I personally think the 80s short shorts that had like a literal 1 inch inseam and ended at the very top of the thigh/just below the ass (aka the length of modern women's shorts) looked pretty bad but I never understood the super strong aversion some men have to showing their knees and especially to showing their thighs. It's just so fucking weird. Almost as bad as when there was an aversion to women's ankles. The length in your pic looks great though! Probably my personal ideal length. Mid-thigh! That's a 5 inch inseam I assume?
>>18704737Yes, very much so
>>18704820I don’t know the exact measures but yeah, that’s what classic shorts look like. They make you look taller and slender. My biggest doubt lately has been how to style and how to pull off the baggy/wide classic shorts, especially with pleats. They look great but it’s not that easy to pull them off.
>>18704821>this person asked a rhetorical question, i MUST reply in the affirmative so that i win!
>>18704827you probably thought you were so funny with that post. in your head you said "gottem!" or however you say it in hindi
>>18704815Why the fuck did OP then write that it’s specifically about socks and loafers if he meant it’s about this certain look of the former combined with shorts and even made this stupid thread in the first place? It’s just useless bickering on dumb shit anyway.
>>18704732the blue shirts are just awful
>>18704732He looks like he's wearing his bull sugar daddy's shirt.
>>18704833>white socks can’t be seen if the pants are longAre you genuinely retarded?
>>18704849It's been long enough. Surely we can all just admit that MFA was right. This is the basic way to look GOOD.
>>18704882MFA stands for motherfucking autist?
>>18704882dressing like a boomer from the suburbs is not looking GOOD
>>18704895That’s corporate office fashion, not boomer-buzzword-buzzword-boomer
>>18704895That's basic menswear you nigger.
>>18704895Dress for the job you want. And being a suburban boomer is the LIFE.
>>18704882that guy is objectively hot but that outfit makes him look worse.
>>18704882Nathan Fielder looking-ass
>>18704904The outfit looks gay because he looks like a low level office worker in those slim fit pants and shirt. He'd look much better in classic fit and higher rise pants.
>>18704927Fit like this looks way better because higher rise pants that sit at the actual waist make you look much more proportionate, and the looser fit gives the clothes more drape and character of their own. Clothes that cling too much to the body look cheap and undersized. Like you couldn't afford to buy clothes that actually fit and are comfortable to wear.
>>18704903based
>>18704872What? I never even wrote or insinuated that? Are you fucking retarded and schizophrenic?
Should I take the plunge? I've always avoided black loafers because they frankly either look overly formal or just plain feminine. Brown or tan suede loafers seem to just mog them so hard in most outfits.However, I am looking for some black shoes that fit a mid-range of formality. See, the black chelseas there are a bit too formal for a lot of the fits I want (and just long and pointy and shiny). They're fine with wool trousers and especially with a formal sport coat or a suit. Maybe a slightly more casual one would work but I don't want to buy two black chelseas. The minimal sneakers there look kinda dumb honestly.So do I take the zoomer pill and buy black loafers or what other alternatives would you use to pair with e.g. gray chinos and a charcoal button-up/knit polo/etc without a sport coat? Or navy or whatever up top that combines well with gray chinos.
>>18704948Topkek. Thanks for answering “yes”.
