Wednesday, July 11, 2007

At Pitti Uomo……A Shorts Review

Right at the knee but reasonably slim

Comments

Close comment

Detach comments

200 comments

  1. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 9:12 am

    Now this man is so classic and so sexy.

    What is there NOT to love about this?

    This man has the three things I’m a complete sucker for when it comes to men’s dress:
    1)White top, Navy blue bottom.
    2)A man who wears Damier Louis Vuitton.
    3)A tighter fit below the waist. (Completely agree with your comment about the baggy shorts and pants, hate them hate them hate them)

    The fact that he paired the LV belt with his navy blue makes me just love this photo ten times more. A fantastic choice he made and a fantastic post you’ve made, as always!

  2. Maggie

    July 11, 2007 at 9:13 am

    Just above the knee.

  3. editor

    July 11, 2007 at 9:15 am

    as a woman, i prefer a longer short (:p) on a guy. apc had a really beautiful pair of men’s shorts this summer – straight, not tapering, down to the knee (i don’t like the mid-calf style on guys either). i liked the apc pair so much, i bought a pair for myself.

  4. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 9:18 am

    I just don’t like shorts, period. Very few women can pull them off, and men tend to look a little dorky in them, and I hate those baggy things that men wear, too. Though I have to say I’m a sucker for a dorky guy.

  5. D

    July 11, 2007 at 9:18 am

    I guess that I am just different from most people, but guys legs are UGLY! I like the shorts to be right below the knee. Anything higher just makes me gag

  6. Maggie

    July 11, 2007 at 9:19 am

    Just above the knee (sorry!),it just looks better.Hate baggy shorts on small men makes them look shorter.

  7. dutchvales

    July 11, 2007 at 9:20 am

    Ok, and looking properly at the man in blue and white, I have to disagree with the 9:12 comment. These shorts are far too tight, the poor man looks all wedged up and unconfortable.

  8. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 9:23 am

    Above the knee or mid-thigh? Doesn’t it really depend on the nature of the occassion you are dressing for, your height and weight in relation to the proportion and last but certainly not least, if you have attractive legs?

  9. Sleeper

    July 11, 2007 at 9:24 am

    I much prefer just above the knee.

    Also: on some male body types, just as on women, trim and narrow doesn’t work. Not to say that I’m in favor of cargo shorts, but a less fitted short is nice too.

  10. nam

    July 11, 2007 at 9:27 am

    Personally,
    I have only recently moved away from cargo (pants or shorts)
    and moved towards shorter shorts as well.
    This has to do with both
    insipration from your blog, and my own “maturing”
    I think…

  11. bellycapelli

    July 11, 2007 at 9:29 am

    SCHRECKLICH … I hate to say but I think he is too old and to much of a “ice-hockey-guy” (his body) for this kind of shorts. I think you can only wear these short shorts if you are really young and have a boyish look and body. Or you are older but still got that “je ne sais quoi” …. boyish look. And I don`t like the shoes either. I am sorry. It is too much italien waiter or something … for me

  12. Butch

    July 11, 2007 at 9:33 am

    Guy on top (hmmmmm) has the better short proportion, I’d say.

    And, Scott, for some men the governing issue isn’t what ladies want to see us wearing, but what we want to see ourselves wearing, or what we think will be most sexually enticing to WHICHEVER sex we wish to attract.

  13. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 9:34 am

    As for the length of shorts on men, I think both lengths can look attractive! However, the mid thigh length to me is better if the man’s legs are tan. A tan makes it or breaks it for me!

  14. sara

    July 11, 2007 at 9:37 am

    Just above the knee. I don’t like to see too much man-leg. However, I do agree that the slim cut makes them seem more sophisticated and not so frat-boy.

  15. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 9:39 am

    I have to be honest and say I would steer away from someone wearing mid-thigh shorts. So my vote is for above the knee.

  16. Berkelycole

    July 11, 2007 at 9:43 am

    Agreed…the giant short must die…cargo pocketed clones no more…

  17. Stacy

    July 11, 2007 at 9:44 am

    Well this lady likes to see some leg! Go mid thigh my brother, show your stems!

    It took me a couple of years to get my husband wearing small sizes that flatter his beautiful figure and this is the thing, we’re AMAZED how hard it is to find men’s size small!

    Maybe with you leading the trends we’ll start to find more of it out there.

    Cheers!

  18. Zachary

    July 11, 2007 at 9:47 am

    I say it’s high time that confident men with nice legs show them off. H&M recently had a nice short suit made of blue and white corded cotton; the shorts fit me perfectly, hitting maybe 2in above the knee, very slim fitting with a tailored waistline and tab closure. Turned me on to shorts again after years of swearing them off.

  19. eshu

    July 11, 2007 at 9:57 am

    although i agree that the gentleman in photo 1 is looking sexy, i prefer the longer short (a la photo 2) on men. it’s a nice change from the extra-baggy, extra-pocketed, cargo shorts that run amuck in the summer time.

  20. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 9:58 am

    I guess the preference of “above the knee” or “mid-thigh” really depends on the guy. If you have really muscular/thick thighs then i’d prefer a man to wear it just above the knee. Mid-thigh would probably work on guys with slim thighs a la Danny Beauchamp…just a personal preference though.

  21. a lady

    July 11, 2007 at 10:01 am

    I think it probably depends on your height, non? the longer the leg, the longer you can go on the inseam without cutting off the overall line. or, conversely, the longer (and better) the leg, the better it can pull off a shorter short. OR, the shorter the leg, the more proportionate a shorter short will look.

    all my sympathy: I understand your dilemma completely.

  22. Blue Orchid Designs

    July 11, 2007 at 10:02 am

    I vote for above the knee, though if anyone could pull off mid-thigh shorts, it would be you.

  23. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 10:03 am

    In answer to your question, my opinion is very much in favour. I see this though as very Euro…you don’t often see American men wearing a slim cut short. The baggy shorts look far to casual and sloppy to me. But I think young men in the states fear slim-fit clothes.

  24. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 10:08 am

    Personally I like shorts that come just to the knee level.Baggy shorts don´t bother me. Somehow the two presented reminded me of the ones the cyclists wear and I think they look disgusting.

  25. Jill

    July 11, 2007 at 10:19 am

    As a “lady” I will tell you that I prefer a 9″ inseam on men’s shorts.
    2 crucial inches make all the diff.

  26. André

    July 11, 2007 at 10:20 am

    I think it doesn’t look good. Shorts are for younger guys in my opinion..i generally don’t think age is something someone should worry about when it comes to clothes, but shorts for men and women and mini-skirts for women..well…i just think there’s a age limit.
    There are other ways to dress yourself and look great and stylish anyway..theres’ no need to follow the trend.

  27. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 10:27 am

    I agree…I can’t stand those big baggy shorts. They make the person wearing them invisible to me. I love this guy’s look. Perfect.

  28. cigalechanta

    July 11, 2007 at 10:28 am

    I hate guys who have better legs than I!!…lol

    Perfect lenght

  29. SB

    July 11, 2007 at 10:39 am

    hey Sart,
    I completely agree, the baggy cargo short needs to be removed as a summer staple. Can somebody please send a memo to the college boy because they can’t seem to get enough of them.
    I think the length for the fitted short should hit right above the knee because when you sit down it will rise to mid thigh anyways. A shorter cut should be reserved for the beach or lounging in a park.
    ps. your posts of late have been phenomenal! Thanks :) I really loved the Dries post, beautiful shot.

  30. mfm

    July 11, 2007 at 10:41 am

    Well, this lady says it depends on the man’s legs, and the activity. I love to see a short length on a man’s swimsuit, especially if he has nice muscular legs. Mid-thigh is also fine for a cook-out. In the city, I suppose just-above-the-knee is preferred. Men who have scrawny legs and/or bony knees would keep them covered, if I ruled the world.

    Good luck getting the right shorts!

  31. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 10:42 am

    it is very hard to find a great pair of shorts these days! you are right on the money that everything (in the us at least) is huge and baggy.

    the regular fit from jcrew works fairly well — i think the length depends on your height. i am pretty tall so i wear 11 inch inseam that hits about an inch above my knee. the key is that they are not baggy but have a ‘regular’ leg opening.

    i have had some baggy long length shorts taken in to make the leg slimmer and they came out great.

    i dont think women like shorts that are too short. the gent here is borderline…

  32. Fallon

    July 11, 2007 at 10:48 am

    Although I am a woman who fully appreciates a well formed male leg, I prefer shorts a few inches above the knee as opposed to mid-thigh.

    Mid-thigh shorts are rarely flattering when men sit down. Further, they sometimes risk exposing more of the nether regions than I care to see.

    A narrow cut a few inches above the knee is my favorite option.

  33. Michelle

    July 11, 2007 at 10:48 am

    I am not sure it matters if it is to the knee or shorter, the key is what you wear with it, if the length is longer, then you can wear a fitted top untucked. With the shorter length, same shape – as in fitted shirt should be tucked in, otherwise the top could overwhelm the bottom

    I agree, the overly baggy shorts are overdone.

  34. daniqueconijn

    July 11, 2007 at 10:49 am

    the second photo,
    yes yes yes!

  35. glamour girly

    July 11, 2007 at 10:51 am

    To answer your question, I like the mid-thigh look, just like your picture, which is magnificent, as always!

    hugs,
    gg

  36. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 10:52 am

    Hi Sart!

    I’m a lady and I have to say I vote the shorts to be closer to the knee than mid thigh, but nice and slim and boxy like you show in the photo.

    Thanks for all the great photos, I go to this site every morning before getting dressed to draw some inspiration and to remind myself why I love to care about what I wear: to express myself and be creative.

  37. sixfive

    July 11, 2007 at 10:52 am

    damn. you nailed me.. I just bought some khaki shorts at Gap and you’re right, they’re about 2 inches too long.

  38. Marisa

    July 11, 2007 at 10:55 am

    He looks so crisp. And I think the just above the knee looks great.

  39. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 10:56 am

    I think if those shorts were an inch or two longer and he was wearing a classic tennis shoe the outfit would be perfect.

  40. the devil wears h&m

    July 11, 2007 at 10:59 am

    I think if you’re going for short you gotta hav’em “short” and slim. I like yours Sart, they are very americana style.
    Concerning to the guy in the pic is great although I disagree with anonymous about the damier louis vuitton pattern. for me wearing vuitton is not a matter of luxury or bon goût but showing off. However the white, navy and brown combination is magnificent and his tanned skin makes it better.

  41. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 11:01 am

    Personally, I hate any short on a man that goes above the knee. I don’t care how good his legs are.

  42. Candid Cool

    July 11, 2007 at 11:13 am

    I agree about the baggy short look, fine if one’s still in high school or college, but there comes a time when I guy must grow up.

    This man looks fantastic, perfect casual look.

  43. jessica

    July 11, 2007 at 11:13 am

    i (as a “lady”) really prefer just above the knee. anything shorter makes you look like a little kid in short pants!

  44. Jingoist

    July 11, 2007 at 11:13 am

    Scott:

    I think the shorter shorts argument is really subjective- and also dependent to a degree on body type. Personally, I go with the longer short (just above the knee) because I have thicker legs (hockey player) and shorter shorts tend to make me look even more bulky rather than proportioned as they should (but hey that’s me).

  45. Michelle

    July 11, 2007 at 11:16 am

    I like shorts just above the knee as well. I think it is important for them to be entirely above the knee joint, but no higher.

    I think shorts that fall mid knee or mid calf make guys look stumpy.

  46. laura

    July 11, 2007 at 11:30 am

    i think it’s funny that you dress for the women. i”ve had this conversation with my guy friends before when they assume thatthe care i take in getting dressed is for them, when really it’s not about the guys at all. i dress forother women, and most importantly myself, to create whatever mood i’m feeling that morning

    that being said, shorts that are a little bit more fitted/tighter can be nice if a guys got a nice backside ;)

  47. kamo

    July 11, 2007 at 11:36 am

    maybe it has to do with the color? i (almost) like the navy shorts in the top picture, and i think he is able to pull it off because they are more conservative and the dark color makes his legs look slimmer. as opposed to the second picture, which looks semi-nude and dorky in a boyscoutish way. the last pic i think is hot though (he has nice legs) and the length works well for the lighter color.

  48. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 11:37 am

    as a woman I go for just above the knee. the shorter length (as in your picture) look too much like a tennis player or teacher who hasn’t had a chance to change. The (guy in the) bottom photo is so much sexier than the top. Cheers

  49. positively the same dame

    July 11, 2007 at 11:39 am

    slim, mid-thigh or right at the knee love both the first and last photos and would definitely take a second look at either one of those men. shorter than that, not so much, and i still can’t get that image of the fellow with the footies out of my mind, which was a combination of short shorts and, well, peds, that continues to lurk in the dark shadows of my mind. that is not the kind of lasting impression you either want to make on a woman.

  50. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 11:44 am

    Just above the knee. Less leg is more. Please leave the short-shorts for tennis, and holiday-ing at the beach or in the country.

  51. positively the same dame

    July 11, 2007 at 11:49 am

    butch–

    i agree with your sentiment, but it seems to me that sart was asking the women specifically because he wants to know their views — he just happens to care that women are attracted to him. i’ve often seen him ask men here what they think about a particular look. clearly, it was a personal question, not a generalization about sexuality or self-esteem.

  52. Nicole

    July 11, 2007 at 11:51 am

    My opinion: Straight guys’ shorts should be right at the knee. If a guy wants to wear shorter shorts, then just above the knee works, but I honestly think that the only guys who can pull off the “short short” look are Europeans and fabulous gay men. No one needs to see hairy man thigh in daylight. Guys can also run into problem with shorts that are too long also, venturing into either man-capri territory or a decidedly “gangsta” look.

  53. Alyssa Coberly

    July 11, 2007 at 11:52 am

    blek! please keep the shorts to the knee men … much more flattering. that being said i do like a tailored fit, nicely ironed short – keeps that classy looks while being casual

  54. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 11:57 am

    Ok………..a couple of things!
    Cargo shorts are soooooo bloody out! Bermuda have always been cool! Geek Chic rules! I’ve done it for years. Regarding length, longer for a more elegant look and shorter for a sporty look. Try Theory. They make a great longer short that i bought in a medium blue and a khaki. Theymight have other colors as well. I have been looking for other bermudas, etc for a few seasons. Love them in winter with a cashmere turtleneck and oxfords.Hey it’s LA!We have our own sense style (as you may know)

    Men in shorts are can be very sexy but just like everything (from nude beaches to speedos to muscle shirts and tank tops), when the wrong body type wears them, it’s a fright!

  55. amed studio

    July 11, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    Mens’ shorts, as The Sartorialist wryly and rightly points out, are the nearest analogue men have to womens’ skirts and can be looked at in the same way with regard to fit. If a fellow has the male equivalent of Giovanna’s spectacular legs, he can be a showoff, but then just about any length will look good.

    I have found that the ‘right’ length for shorts depends on
    (1)it’s other fit factors – rise, seat, leg width, etc.,
    (2)the wearer’s height and the shapliness of his legs,
    (3)the function or activity to be carried out while wearing the shorts, and
    (4)personal taste.

    Mass produced clothes come in so-called standard sizes that often don’t take individual bodies or personal style into account. The best way to get shorts perfect is to buy longer ones that fit well in the waist and seat, then take them to a tailor and eyeball whilst adjusting the length until it looks right. If you are lucky to find shorts that look great off-the-peg, buy them in every colour or have them copied.

    The natty gentleman pictured here wears shorts that fit quite close on the legs. I can say from experience that unless a gentleman possesses massive jodhpur thighs like those of a speedskater, the J.Crew shorts will not fit the same way. J.Crew casual trousers in general have an over-large shapeless fit through the seat and leg that I suppose they think is ‘traditional.’ The unfortunate result for most men will be the ‘chicken leg’ effect seen in the photo of the J.Crew model (who has average, if rather pale, legs).

    Theory and Kenneth Cole make slimmer, dressier shorts, in stretch twill and lightweight wool. Or do what I do: look for inexpensive, slim-fitting long trousers at summer sales and have them docked at the tailor.

  56. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 12:03 pm

    Another vote for just above the knee. The gentleman with the khaki got it perfect.

  57. The Sartorialist

    July 11, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    Butch
    I guess I wrote it quickly and from a personal level but ,of course, the discussion is completely open to men and mens views on other men.

  58. Henna

    July 11, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    Love the ones in the very first picture. The colour, the belt, the shirt… Love it all.

  59. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    Just above the knee and slim. The guy in the last picture has it DOWN!

  60. sissy_winger

    July 11, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    I like the JCrew but it seems important to be able to try them on. Any other recommendations on brand? Above the knee or midthigh. Everyone I know has been talking about the dearth of fashionable men’s shorts. I say no to cargo, and at this point in time, I also feel like khaki presents a problem, unless the legs are very dark. There needs to be a contrast between the short and the skin.

  61. Kara

    July 11, 2007 at 12:33 pm

    I would definitely go with longer shorts. I agree that a trimmer silhoutte is better than the super baggy mall cargo short, but anything shorter than an inch or two above the knee is just NOT attractive on a man. Unless you are a male model and wax your entire body. And that is just a different post altogether.

  62. jkrnyc

    July 11, 2007 at 12:34 pm

    I think I posted about the gorgeous Asian guy in all white (short shorts)when you first put that pic up. He looks great in short shorts. He has beautiful legs.

    My ex-bf was a serious cyclist and also had beautiful legs, but I have to admit I kind of squirmed when he wore shorts to mid-thigh. This was probably in part because of the color of the shorts (khaki – yawn) and of his legs (pale).

    I really like the length and narrowness of the shorts in the second picture. Are these the JCrew ones? Shame about limited palette, because the shape is great.

    So, I guess what this lady is saying is: it depends on shapeliness of leg, color of leg, width of shorts, color of shorts (so many variables!).

    2-3 inches above knee is good. Higher if you have legs like the guy all in white in pic 3.

    btw, I think the guy in pic 4 looks dreadful – shorts are neither/nor in length and width, and are too low on his waist. Don’t get me started on the hair and excessive gee-gaws…

  63. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    It’s a lot like skirt length, if you ask me. It depends on the person wearing it, it depends on what occasion it’s for, and it depends on the width proportions relative to the person. Mostly, though, a guy’s proportions are better suited to the longer length and a slimmer cut.

    And unless you’ve got gear to carry into battle, or you’re under the age of twelve and still carry rubber bands, a favorite rock, and pieces of dead animals, don’t wear cargo shorts.

  64. TLC

    July 11, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    I am a sucker for a straight man in capri-length pants, but it’s usually up to the rest of his outfit to declare whether he is straight or gay. If a man has to venture into shorts-territory, then I prefer just above the knee, as many of the other ladies here have stated. The short-shorts look too athletic for everyday wear but would work fine in the appropriate setting: yachting, jogging, sailing, etc.

  65. serahgeorge

    July 11, 2007 at 12:43 pm

    In the first picture, the man looks very well put together, but I don’t like how the shorts seem to get smaller toward the hem. It looks uncomfortable.

    At first glance, I did not like the J. Crew shorts, but as I continued to consider them, I believe I do like them. They seem to have a “clean” look to them and are indeed a refreshing change from the too long, too sloppy cargo shorts.

    With reguard to the last two pictures, I must be the odd girl out. The man in all white looks cool, comfortable, and confident. I really love his shirt and the length of his shorts seems to work perfectly with the relaxed look. He looks relaxed, yet not sloppy. Man #2 with the khaki, longer shorts looks more like he rolled out of bed and pulled his clothes off the floor. He looks rather sloppy to me. (He also looks… greasy/gross to me.)

    Perhaps, for me, it’s more a perception of attitude and personality that is affecting my preference. I do think that there isn’t necessarily a “rule” of mid-thigh vs. just above the knee that must be followed, but rather what look you’re going for and if you can pull it off.

  66. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    The same rule for shorts applies to guys as it does for girls. If the legs, specifically quads, are toned, DEFINITELY go for the shorty short! I love to see guys’ legs if they look good. I think it’s super sexy and daring. On the other hand, just above the knee works well for almost everybody, and I love the clean lines. I agree with you Sart, please stay away from the baggy cargo. The only advantage I see to the baggy cargo short is when the wearer lets me put my stuff (cell, money, keys, and lipstick) in the pockets.

  67. Ryan

    July 11, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    I suppose I’m vote #2 for the shorter short. I’ve just bought my first pair of shorts in FIVE YEARS. I’m 5’4″ and they hit perhaps 2.5″-3″ above the knee, very slim fit, and I love them. The heat is oppressive here in Washington DC and I’m not ashamed to say I’ve been wearing them nearly every day.

  68. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 12:57 pm

    Just above the knee! No matter how nice a guy’s legs are, I don’t want to see man thighs. Furthermore, if the shorts are at mid-thigh, imagine where that puts it when he sits down…preserve your dignity and go for Just Above the Knee

  69. Kat

    July 11, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    I think shorter is more stylish; longer tends to just be a bit lazy and “safe”. But then again, I’m used to dating European men who wear tinier underwear than I do.

  70. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    Mid thigh is too 1970′s NBA. Not that it matters, but most country clubs will not allow men to play golf in mid thigh shorts. My vote is just above the knee.

  71. lora

    July 11, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    I agree completely with nicole- please leave the short shorts for sport,or FGM. Please do not show me that much hairy thigh. Loose, not baggy. Definetly NOT tight unless you are in a bike race! A nice fit, not tight, through the butt. Less is more guys!

  72. Elizabeth

    July 11, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    I personally never really want to see a man’s knees.

  73. Richie Designs

    July 11, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    Just above the knee…too short and it looks 1989 to me.

    at the knee is modern and casual.

  74. Kristina

    July 11, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    I am surprised to find that I am in the minority on this subject, but I like guys in shorter shorts. What is wrong with all these men and women who think men have ugly legs? I suppose it does depend on the legs, though (just like with women). I like mid-thigh shorts on guys with muscular legs, not necessarily tan, but at least monochromatic (no furry black-haired-on-white-skin legs).
    The above knee are nice too, especially in the slim leg, and they’re probably more practical. But in my opinion, they’re a little bland. Mid-thigh shorts are unusual enough to be an attention-getting, drool-worthy look on the right pair of legs.

  75. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 1:32 pm

    Check out the label SCP, I picked a pair up at SCOOP.
    The are right above the knee with a more narroe leg.
    The are casual yet smart..and I like you look better in a short the is not so big and baggy.

  76. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    i love just a couple of inches above the knee – like in the second photo of the khaki pair. i agree about the cargo shorts – so sloppy.

  77. matzoball

    July 11, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    just above the knee for sure!

  78. Deja Pseu

    July 11, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    For any venue other than the beach, just above the knee is appropriate.

  79. Sam (aka McTickle)

    July 11, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    Mr. S,
    I tried on a pair of shorts yesterday at J. Crew (they now carry a few pairs that hit above the knee in the stores) that hit about an inch above my knee. I was in the fitting room with my girlfriend, and she just laughed at me. Then I turned around to the mirror and laughed out loud at myself. I looked ridiculous. I’m fairly athletic, so the fact that my legs and shoulders are a little huskier than those of the subjects in your photos may have been a contributor to the hilarity that ensued. My thought is if you can pull it off, do it. But don’t just buy shorter shorts because that’s what they’re showing in Milan. Like you always say, it’s about personal style. I happen to look best in baggier shorts. If you feel good in 5″ shorts, then do it. There should not be any rules.

  80. Butch

    July 11, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    Scott and Positively, take both your points.

    Don’t mean to be defensive (which neither of you suggested, but…), it’s just that there’s a lot of typifying out there in regard to sexual interest/preference.

    In the end, proper short length depends on:

    one’s body, and thus on proper proportion

    One’s particular ability to carry clothes off

    and lastly on fashion, which often trumps other considerations, when dress choice can go one way or another.

    There. Butch has spoken.

  81. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 2:04 pm

    APC makes a great summer short for men…I believe they are seersucker. Perfect length.

  82. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 2:20 pm

    Sorry, but in 95% of cases, I just don’t like shorts on men. At all.

  83. s

    July 11, 2007 at 2:24 pm

    hey! great question :)!

    i prefer knee-length or just above the knee. my choice of fabric would be anything other than denim, has to have the right fall, the cut should be beautiful, and the color has to be faded navy, shades of gray, tan (no khakhis), or houndstooth patterned. baggy cargos are for fratboys, and for khakhis, there’s always the fear of falling into the preppy category, right out the Kohl’s catalogue. there needs to be a certain sophistication about the man that wears shorts, else, they fail. nowadays i see black slim bermudas worn by “hipsters” in my hippish chicago neighborhood. something seems amiss with the wearers, though, perhaps the look of look-at-me-trendsetting.

    and to “d” above, hey, no no, men’s legs can be hot, shapely (in a masculine way) :), and as anonymous at 9:34 says – a tan is the perfect accessory.

    - long time lurking admireress.

  84. alice

    July 11, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    dont hate me, but i do love a moderately baggy short on an american man! that of course, not being the question, i would have to say that the ‘right at the knee but somewhat slim’ is my favorite among the short selections. i find shorter than that a bit feminine (unless of course that is the idea).

  85. H

    July 11, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    I agree wholeheartedly with everything Nicole said. Right at the knee. I love the example you showed — not too slim, not too baggy, not too short. Perfect.

  86. hannah

    July 11, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    for me, the gentleman in the last photo has the perfect length, as a women, i love it. but i would say in general shorts are tricky, and i think a man in a nice pair of seersucker slacks and tshirt would certainly catch my eye first.

  87. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    Without doubt the second – knee length.

  88. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 2:44 pm

    it depends on age and physical fitness… that young hot guy looks great in mid-thigh shorts, but those same shorts on someone 10 yrs older, 10 lbs heavier or pale would not work.

    just above the knee is what i think looks best on most guys. those shorter shorts really need amazing thighs, butt and a good tan. i like the simplicity of those shorts you picked out.

  89. R.Dress

    July 11, 2007 at 2:58 pm

    I think the thing to remember when considering a pair of knickers, is to know your body, and to never ever under any circumstance ever buy a pair of pleated cuffed shorts. I don’t care what your golfing buddies are wearing.

  90. Courtney

    July 11, 2007 at 3:08 pm

    definitely longer, unless you’re playing tennis.

  91. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 3:12 pm

    Please stick with above the knee and slim. There is something so vulgar and gross about a man with short shorts. Ew…

  92. Rina

    July 11, 2007 at 3:12 pm

    So many comments now, but Sart, are you any the wiser?

  93. Emily

    July 11, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    Unless you’re Roger Federer in the middle of a match, I think men should stick to just above the knee. Shorter shorts seem to highlight or embellish imperfections on even good legs (slight bow, hairyness, pegs, knobby knees). Slim fit nice, body permitting.

    I hate cargos too: fug-ly.

  94. Mark, London.

    July 11, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    Your country once had such a wonderful tradition of men’s shorts – seersucker, madras and definitely just ABOVE the knee. Get back to what you lot do best and leave all this tittle-tattle about length, labels and cut to the continentals . And by that I mean, Italians.

  95. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    I much prefer just-above-the-knee on a guy but I have to admit your all-in-white here is pulling of the mid-thigh fabulously. I’ve never seen another man manage to look un-gross in short shorts.

  96. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    yes, what length of short to wear depends on many things, but i think the mid-thigh short is a sexy and confident look.

  97. Laaw-yuhr

    July 11, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    Good god let the cargo short die!

    And for you Sarty, just above the knee is nice.

  98. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 3:35 pm

    I bought a pair of brown linen pinstripe dress pants; loose and straight all the way down. I had them hemmed right above the knee with 1 1/2 inch cuffs. They look great. They’re great for the Texas heat.

  99. Abigail

    July 11, 2007 at 3:42 pm

    Thigh high while you still can. Have fun with it because fashion, above all, should be fun!

  100. MacGuffin

    July 11, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    I like and would wear the last one.

  101. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 3:51 pm

    i like the longer shorts. particularly if the gentleman in question is going to be sitting down opposite me at any time. there are just some things i don’t need to see while in public.

  102. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    No Mid Thigh please – unless you play tennis seriously. There is something yuck about mid thigh shorts.

  103. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    This lady is very anti-short shorts on men. Mid-thigh is still too short. Just above knee is the only attractive length.

  104. manufacturer

    July 11, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    sart, you look great in those shorts. of course, short length has everything to do with the message you’re interested in conveying, but in my opinion more men ought to go for the short short, as it can be highly sexy. mid-thigh shorts plus a deep v-neck t-shirt- that’s what i want to see more of this summer. too bad men’s legs are so often underrated or outright hated upon (even by several people on this obviously emotionally charged forum).

    sart, thanks for providing such a nice blog, i absolutely admire your taste and appreciate so much the way that this has become a forum for discussion.

  105. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 4:44 pm

    remember what Chanel said about showing the knees? Well, this should apply to males quite the same.

  106. Renea

    July 11, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    Couldn’t agree with you more about baggy… there’s a time and place for it I suppose, but seriously, who are you under there? You know?

    I think most women prefer knee-length shorts on a man, but I am not ashamed of my appreciation for Magnum PI man-thigh. But I will say it’s a privilege not a right. The handsome man in the white top and blue shorts has great, muscular legs and has earned his way into those mid-thigh shorts… Bravo!

  107. Desiree

    July 11, 2007 at 5:03 pm

    well, I prefer the “just-above-the-knee” short. Why? Beacause if you go any shorter, your a woman. sorry to say it.

  108. jessica

    July 11, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    yup, those short ones are too short!!

  109. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 5:30 pm

    just above the knee thanks.

  110. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 5:34 pm

    as long as we’re not seeing a bunch of hair or fat all over the place…as long as it’s kept gentleman-like, that’s fine.

  111. Yes, gentlemen, more shorts, please! I love the various cuts and patterns, not to mention the accessories in the way of belts and bags, and shoes.

    As a woman, I prefer wearing my brother’s baggy cargo shorts because the fit and length are perfect for my boyish/petite frame.

    On men, I prefer to see mid length, although the first gentleman with the short shorts is simply fantastic and I wish I knew more guys who could wear that look.

    Honestly, I love it when men wear shorts because shorts signify confidence and sexiness.

    In Maui, my male friends mostly wore three-quarter length shorts which accented their hips. One of my friends cut off a pair of vintage checkmark wool trousers and made them into highwaters for a geek chic look.

  112. cordelia

    July 11, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    Yeah, just above the knee.

  113. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 6:11 pm

    i think most women will agree that just above the knee is WAY better than mid-thigh. short shorts are for women. anything shorter than above the knee and i feel you look like you’re about to play tennis. longer shorts just look so much more relaxed. they’re so much more versatile, too.

  114. Olivia

    July 11, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    If you’re in Europe, wear it mid-thigh. In America, anything above the knee and the ladies assume you’re gay.

  115. MCHL MCHL

    July 11, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    I vote: At the knee or just above the kneed.

    —Michael

  116. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    Sartorialist-I say just above the knee and slim (not tight) especially for city wear. Out of the city-shorter is fine, and maybe the shorter you go, the baggier you should go. Short AND tight is scary to a girl!
    May I also recommend classic fisherman sandals with your shorts?

  117. Eric

    July 11, 2007 at 6:27 pm

    A lot of the comments are talking about how they don’t want to see that 2-3 inches of “hairy man leg” but I’m of the opinion that those inches (I’m thinking of shorts that hit between midthigh and the knee) are a small price to pay if you can lengthen the legs and make me look 4-5 inches taller.

  118. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    argh!
    I hate those big shorts too and they’re EVERYWHERE…
    if you find a place(s) that sells good shorts, please let everyone know… I would appreciate it a lot
    thank you for this post!

  119. chris roeleveld

    July 11, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    i’ve had good success just trimming some slacks (thrift slacks are a winner…no worries about inseam length).

  120. Alex

    July 11, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    The on the knee but slim fit. Or maybe its just the way he wears them.

  121. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    Mid thigh. Cargo shorts are an abomination. Longish shorts are done. We’re past the 1990s people. Who gives a crap what women want? Some of us dress for ourselves.

  122. simply olive

    July 11, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    who is this gorgeous tanned and long-haired man?? (he’s obviously popular w/ 122 comments so far!)

    …back to your question, just above the knee is the best for a man, in my opinion. any shorter, and there is that slight fear…well, i won’t go there…

  123. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 7:15 pm

    122 comments on whether or not you should wear “batty riders?”

    You need to install a Blogger poll facility, Sart.

    And then you – and all of mankind – need to stay away from shorts with inseam lengths that can be counted on one hand.

    mltt

  124. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    At the knee, or just above the knee…women just aren’t very attracted by a man’s thighs or knees outside of the swimming pool/bedroom, sadly.

  125. suziep

    July 11, 2007 at 8:00 pm

    i like a baggy arse look on shorts, so to me its not about knee length, but about waist positioning. buttocks pronounced in shorts is not on!

  126. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 8:02 pm

    i’m moving towards shorter, and starting with swim trunks. shorts i’m going with a 7 inch inseam, 5 is daunting.
    it’s funny though. if you’re like m a mid thirties (or a wee bit more than that) youremember the days of shorter shorts ang everone finding fine to sexy. ican actually remember being a bit nervous about wearing longer shorts.
    the shorter fitted look is a correction to the extreme the pendulum has swung to. it’s also a way to throw some new to your summer look. just keep it long enough to prevent everyone from seeing “brain” in the words of Joey Tribiani.

  127. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 8:14 pm

    Without a doubt, shorts at the knee or slightly above are preferable to short shorts. It denotes maturity and good taste.

  128. tanya

    July 11, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    I find that mid-thigh shorts on men look almost obscene.

  129. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    I love the question that you pose regarding length of shorts on a man – even if it is a bit “girly”. As a female that checks out these details, I feel strongly that a man should wear shorts exactly at knee length. But, similar to females, only a small percentage of men can really pull off a pair of shorts in an appropriate manner.

  130. Misterparticular

    July 11, 2007 at 9:33 pm

    OMG! 130 comments on shorts!

    I for one am looking for shorter shorts. At 5’6″ I can’t chop my legs off at the knee. The best solution? Cut offs! Buy a pair or trousers on sale and cut them down to fit. Last summer I bought a pair of Nantucket reds at Club Monaco on sale for $5.99. cut them off a few inches above the knee and voila the perfect short. this is also a good solution for all those old summer pants that have funny legs. (With better pants take then to the tailor for mid thigh hemming).

  131. officer and a gentleman

    July 11, 2007 at 9:36 pm

    As destructive as it may sound, I have found that the only way to get a proper fitting pair of shorts is to have my pants transformed into shorts. Their fit around the posterior gives just enough depth and definition without being to snug. The inseam is also perfect length if you prefer your shorts to sit just above your hips and the bottom to reach 2 inches above the knee. Granted you loose a pair of solid pants, you attain the perfect fitting short for springs to come.

  132. Blaise

    July 11, 2007 at 9:45 pm

    I am not very fond of men wearing shorts but the picture of the guy and dark blue shorts and white shirt is something that I appreciate.. I like his style..

  133. Shopaholic D

    July 11, 2007 at 9:48 pm

    bald and short shorts – i never thought i’d say it, but there’s something strangely sexy about that first man.

    i think the short shorts are on the effeminate side, so i’d go with just above the knee shorts.

    as for the cargos, i think men should lose the cargos after college (if not before)

    :) D

  134. Paulandre

    July 11, 2007 at 10:26 pm

    All of them are so nice. Nice legs n charm together…
    For this summer: short shorts ;)

  135. Lilian

    July 11, 2007 at 10:38 pm

    I think just above the knee. Not as short as the guy in the top photo, but a bit shorter than the second guy. I think it looks hot on men. Not fussed about a tan if everything else about the outfit is working (colour, cut, balance, attitude), and at the good length it can be a slim fit or slightly looser.

  136. Emily

    July 11, 2007 at 11:27 pm

    just above the knee

  137. Anonymous

    July 11, 2007 at 11:43 pm

    The thigh shorts (provided you have enough meat on ya) come off much more adult.

    Why wear longer shorts to hide your legs? If they need hiding, pants are in order. Anything past your knee makes you look like a kid waiting to grow into his shorts.

    Take the shortest old-school khaki shorts + rainbow sandals or boat shoes + polo shirt + aviators + croakies = every fraternity boy south of the mason-dixon line. I think college men in the south understand how to wear shorts.

  138. Dora Renee' Wilkerson

    July 11, 2007 at 11:49 pm

    Yes, I agree but that first guy is still cute (not near as cute as my hubby but cute!)

    :)
    Dora Renee’ Wilkerson
    http://www.bricoreandfamily.blogspot.com/

  139. ginjin3

    July 11, 2007 at 11:58 pm

    i would go with just above the knee.

    as a small dude, i always complain about not being able to find nice fitting clothes here in the USofA.

    I think if clothe sizes were reduced, there could be a chance that more people would watch what they eat. or make their own clothes. either way it’s a win win situation. self cultivation. hehe.

    i love this blog.

  140. patagoniacommunity

    July 12, 2007 at 1:00 am

    Ralph Lauren’s Polo line has a short style called “Andrew” that has a 5-inch inseam or so but you’ll probably not find much of a color selection beyond what J.Crew offers. Plus, the Polo shorts are pleated which you may or may not find as a positive.

  141. Anonymous

    July 12, 2007 at 1:05 am

    Body types and social settings aside, I much prefer the idea of shorter shorts on men as it is more fearless and therefore interesting.

    Also, lets not forget about jean cut-offs for men! I think a slimmer fitting black jean hacked off 2 inches above the knee joint would be great.

    But no cargo shorts and no baggy below the knee shorts! So uninspiring on ANY one, male or female. I’d rather see someone wearing sweatpants!

  142. Christina

    July 12, 2007 at 2:01 am

    Just above the knee. Unless you’re going into the great outdoors.

  143. jo

    July 12, 2007 at 2:16 am

    def just above the knee. tailored yet still retaining that boyish surfer charm of summer

  144. Anonymous

    July 12, 2007 at 3:20 am

    in city at knee: brooks bros & j crew walking shorts [and 80s banana republic].

    on beach in east hampton, vintage 80s tennis shorts- fila, lacoste, fred perry, all mid thigh . jantzen too

    and also rare jimmy connors by robert bruce

    80s tenni’s are the hottest

    { + with tretorn trainers}

  145. Tasha

    July 12, 2007 at 3:23 am

    To the knee. Anything shorter on a man always just seems obscene.

    I wish all men would embrace the slimmer style, though. So much more flattering.

  146. Sehnsud

    July 12, 2007 at 3:26 am

    Just above the knee, I’d say. It just looks like the most comfortable look ever.

  147. Asian Models Blogger

    July 12, 2007 at 3:27 am

    The first two photos are fabulous!! I love the slim fit, knee length shorts. It makes the legs looks slimmer and longer.

  148. To The Max

    July 12, 2007 at 4:04 am

    Just above the knee is the most flattering. Although mid thigh is always great to show off well formed quads and a good tan – in my humble opinion.

  149. Anna

    July 12, 2007 at 4:09 am

    right at the knee. Definitely

  150. jkh

    July 12, 2007 at 4:10 am

    mid-thigh

  151. Lucy

    July 12, 2007 at 4:12 am

    I am most interested by visceral dislike many women leaving comments seem to have for mens legs – they’re “gross”, they’re “obscene”, they’re “disgusting”. Whilst you might not like short shorts aethestically, but don’t you think this repulsion suggests a certain lack of sensuality?

    Now, I have to say I do like shorter shorts (mmmm rugby players) but can see that they might be a bit much in an urban environment. Context, as ever, is all….

  152. jkh

    July 12, 2007 at 4:18 am

    shorts: difficult to buy — easy to make.

  153. sandman_gr

    July 12, 2007 at 4:19 am

    Both lengths and styles look great. It all depends on how your legs look with them. I usually wear knee length in the city and keep shorter lengths for the beach, but if I find a nice mid-thigh tailored short, I will wear it in the city too. Enough with capris and cargo shorts for men, they look so ugle. And Americans have to get over their conservatism regarding shorts (and also swimsuits and sandals too).

  154. Anonymous

    July 12, 2007 at 4:40 am

    Just above the knees..or a little bit shorter :3

  155. Anonymous

    July 12, 2007 at 4:43 am

    Another “just above the knee” vote here. If you want to attract women anyway.

  156. adda

    July 12, 2007 at 4:47 am

    mid thigh = too high!

  157. Anonymous

    July 12, 2007 at 5:26 am

    Have to agree that the cargos have to go….. and while I prefer the look on the gentleman in the second picture, the first one looks just as nice. But my vote is for just above the knee.

  158. Anonymous

    July 12, 2007 at 6:15 am

    Oh dear, mid-thigh only on your way to or from the beach…that is if you are on the Amalfi coast otherwise it’s not an option. Miss Nordin

  159. Katherine

    July 12, 2007 at 7:05 am

    I like the length in the first photo the most. I don’t mind anything as short as mid-thigh on guys, but they have to look snappy enough to counteract the feel that they just got off the tennis court and didn’t have time to change.

  160. Anonymous

    July 12, 2007 at 7:51 am

    Love,love,love shorts.
    Short or long ?
    Depends on the occasion and the legs of the wearer.
    Totally agree:HATE,HATE,HATE,HATE
    baggy cargo shorts. Except,maybe, when hiking in the wilderness.

  161. Susanne

    July 12, 2007 at 8:44 am

    So probably about a hundred people have written that before me, but I’d say like with skirts it highly depends on how tall you are and on the shape of your legs.

    And men’s legs are no more ugly than women’s legs. What a concept.

  162. D.

    July 12, 2007 at 9:04 am

    The “slimmer” fit is really a good option, that’s for sure. As for the lenght… I guess I’d go for just above the knee, but if you want to dare something shorter, I’d say:

    1) don’t make it too short (in case of ugly legs, it is unflattering, and in case of pretty legs, it is too feminine… kind of a catch 22, isn’t it?)

    2) but since men should be allowed some liberty in their clothing too, and show some leg if that’s what they want (I myself discovered short shorts a while ago, so can’t really blame you!), I think short is possible, if you keep it slim, in a rather dressy fabric (as in matte, and rather rigid – hope this makes sense), so that it as rather straight past the hips… the white short shorts seemed far to beach-y and relax to me to really work…

    good luck now!

  163. Daryl

    July 12, 2007 at 9:19 am

    Look at the picture under the SartoriaList section – Tayt Harlin – looks great in 5″ shorts. So do most of the Southern boys you see running around in polos and 5″ Patagonia shorts.

    Shorts, at a minimum should be above the knee. And Scott, I agree with you, 5&7s don’t come in enough colors – but if they are cut right – you can get them hemmed.

  164. Anonymous

    July 12, 2007 at 9:59 am

    I’m a woman who feels strongly that no one should wear long, baggy, shapeless shorts. Not even NBA players. A man looks more elegant in a slimmer short that is a couple of inches above the knee. He can top the shorts with a sweater, a polo, a tee, or a button-down (not too blousy, please). But he can kill the look with flip-flops.

  165. Anonymous

    July 12, 2007 at 10:47 am

    Big baggy cargo shorts just look better on most guys. The only guys who can look good in these shorts are models and fashionistos.

    As a guy, I prefer to be relaxed in the summer, not too ‘studied’ or overly fashiony. I think the reason is that many men are by nature utilitarian, and so to try betray otherwise through affected fashions tends to make them feel uncomfortable.

    Many men also don’t respond well to drastic changes in fashion. They are more cautious, and designers should work slowly to introduce their ideal. That is why I can see something like shorter, reverse-stitched cargo shorts becoming wanted and more popular with guys before something like flat-front thigh-length shorts.

    But for those of you who dig this look, and can pull it off, well then kudos to you.

  166. Anonymous

    July 12, 2007 at 1:52 pm

    well, I might as well be no. 169.

    I like the photos of men wearing shorts on this site, but I’d never want to pull it off myself. My legs are extremely hairy, and I’m not going to shave them either.

    Also I think shoes can be very problematic with shorts. Anyway, I haven’t figured out what to wear. No flip-flops for me.

    But it’s a very interesting question.

  167. Anonymous

    July 12, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    Ladies have been denied for too long!! I want to see some leg. I love short swimsuits and shorter shorts on men, given that they are slim enough. I find it very sexy.

  168. triage

    July 12, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    some of the comments here are really brilliant but i can’t quite ignore the toad-like nature of some comments that some people have offered up, such as suggesting that there be different acceptable length of shorts depending upon a man’s sexual orientation, or at the worse, suggesting that men should not wear at all even as the temperature climbs into the 90′s.

    despite the cultural atmosphere and my contrarian position, a woman’s body is no more worthy of exposure or worship than a man’s. it’s really just a different line and aesthetic. there are ugly men, beautiful men, ugly women and beautiful ones. fat men look horrible in a speedo but someone like david beckham could obviously get away with it. but to issue such a blanket statement that is so stupid (such as suggesting that straight men ought not go above the knee when gay men have license to) and so fanatically moronic is completely deleterious to any serious discussion on the matter.

    my take: it depends on the type of body and a man’s own personality and attitude.

  169. jacobush

    July 12, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    The only downside about the J.Crew shorts is that they are not slim. Club Monaco, for that same price range is much more slim.

    I have three pairs of J.Crew 5″ & 7″ shorts in British Khaki… I wish I could taper them in somehow.

  170. Nadine

    July 12, 2007 at 4:18 pm

    All 3 guys look great! If you have a nice trim figure and take a bit of care (I like all those lovely white shirts . . ) you can wear any shorts you damn well please! Also, the idea of men NOT being ‘allowed’ to wear shorts in summer seems grossly unfair.

  171. jules

    July 12, 2007 at 6:24 pm

    For length I would have to agree with almost everyone else – above the knee, and not showing upper thigh. But I think that how tight or baggy depends on your build. It is possible to have a more relaxed fit than the chap in the beige above knee shorts without ending up in cargo shorts!

  172. Anonymous

    July 12, 2007 at 8:21 pm

    Sorry I got in on the conversation kind of late but I would go with a legnth that flatters ones legs the best. If one has rather muscular calves and nice thighs and quads, why the hell not show them off? If one has chubby legs, they shouldn’t be wearing shorts.
    I hate being a senior in high school and having not so friendly remarks made about my shorts choices come summer time. I for one don’t shop at the mall brands (J Crew is the exception) and my shorts choice is somewhere between midthigh and just above the knee. Roughly where a credit card heald vertically at the knee would be. That is the ideal fit for me, rugby players tend to be gifted with very nice legs. The guys may laugh at my shorts but the ladies swoon, and thats what matters…

  173. Anonymous

    July 12, 2007 at 10:47 pm

    i’m going to say above-the-knee. mid thigh is just too “aussie rules footy” for me if you aussie readers here know what i mean ;)

  174. Anonymous

    July 12, 2007 at 11:11 pm

    KNEE!

  175. Anonymous

    July 13, 2007 at 10:07 am

    definitely right above the knee! If you were a schoolboy in a tropical country [or someone who has had to be exposed to the sight of them!], you would know that slim-cut mid-thigh shorts are the devil’s invention!

  176. Anonymous

    July 13, 2007 at 11:13 am

    Another woman’s opinion: Do not go with the J Crew shorts. If they look awkward on the J Crew model, there is little hope for mere mortal men. (Kind of like some of the incredible painful stuff the Victoria’s Secret models were wearing last summer.)

    The white shorts were excellent, I think the tennis type shorts on any man with good legs look excellent. Just not with tennis shoes.

  177. Anonymous

    July 13, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    Every time I see a man in tight, above the knee shorts I see this picture of Robin William’s pool boy in The Birdcage and then I snort with laughter.

    I like my man in loose, at the knee shorts…and he would never go for anything different. I think most men have an adversion to tight pants or shorts.

  178. nycinside

    July 13, 2007 at 3:25 pm

    Right at the Knee is the way to go. It’s classy and won’t make anyone uncomfotable. Guys legs are not like womens and most women DO NOT want to see the upper thigh.vp

  179. pmass2

    July 13, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    I have been looking for a real pair of shorts since I moved here 4 years ago. Penguin sells an awesome pair several colors and most importantly no pleats. I am so tired of womens wear being adapted for men.
    As far as mid-thigh or above the knee, it depends on the persons leg type. Myself, I have tapered muscular legs that look great in mid thigh shorts. For someone that has thinner legs its best to go with above the knee.

  180. Zaydoun

    July 13, 2007 at 6:43 pm

    It’s all about the legs, isn’t it? If you have good legs, any length will work… and yes the cargo shorts are played out

    I bought a perfect pair of fitted navy shorts at David Meyer in Rome that has been getting compliments wherever I go, especially with a simple white shirt – tucked or untucked – with rolled up sleeves

    And yes, a tan also helps

  181. Anonymous

    July 13, 2007 at 6:54 pm

    A clean line but un-tailored cut right at the knees is sophisticated without being feminine. Any shorter and you better be doing some sort of sporting activity.

  182. The Fashion Informer

    July 13, 2007 at 8:56 pm

    For me, there is something unseemly about a guy in shorts that are too short, especially in the city. Just personal preference. (Like Speedo/banana hammocks on the beach – no no no.) So while the guy in the white shorts pictured can carry off that look (as you said, half the time it’s about the clothes, half the time it’s the person wearing them), this is not a look I woud want to see on my husband, even though he’s got a similarly slim build.

    The last guy shown in this post, however, is a bit of all right (stylistically speaking), as far as I’m concerned – the shorts are exactly the right length and not too baggy, they’re low-slung so he looks cool, casual and unforced (always a plus for any guy) and he’s paired them with a classic white buttondown. Perfection!

    http://www.thefashioninformer.com

  183. The Fashion Informer

    July 13, 2007 at 9:02 pm

    Oh, and for all you DIY-inclined gents who can’t find the right length for your height/physique: my enterprising hubby just buys two extra pair of his favorite casual straight leg chinos at the beginning of the summer, washes and dries them once and then chops off the legs right at his knee, though you could cut them shorter or longer to suit yourself. To hem or leave frayed is up to you. They always look great because they’re a style he already knows he likes and is comfortable in, just shorter.

  184. Anonymous

    July 13, 2007 at 9:18 pm

    If a man truly is dressing for women, then I would suggest the shorts above the knee. If he would just like to show off his shapely legs, then he can wear whatever he wants and make the “fairer” sex feel inadequate.

    I quite enjoy the shorts in the J Crew magazine, though an acquaintance who worked at J Crew said basically the same thing as amed studio about J Crew sizes and added that sizes really fluctuate depending on where the store is getting their shipments from. However, I disagree on one point that amed studio brought up — I, as a “lady” find those apparent “chicken legs” v. attractive.

  185. Peter

    July 14, 2007 at 1:31 am

    Shorts have always been tricky for me (I’m 6’7″) but if you can pull it off I think mid thigh is a great look. I’m afraid to try it though.

  186. Favorite Apron

    July 14, 2007 at 9:51 am

    Knee length please. Number three guy looks great – let’s go have a drink on his yacht.

    Numbers one and two are just metro-ick.

  187. donal

    July 14, 2007 at 11:05 pm

    I was so glad to see this topic so thoroughly discussed and debated. I am in my mid-40s and not so tall (5’9″), so the reality is I have been shopping (unsuccessfully) for attractive, not-too-long shorts for over 2 years. I have pretty much given up. Currently the shorts sold in the US make me look like a dwarf clown. And the J Crew shorts inspire deep boredom. Men who are medium height need shorts that cut mid-thigh or a bit longer, as long as they stop well above the knee. Otherwise we look oddly stunted.

  188. Chicky Wang

    July 15, 2007 at 10:30 am

    Both could work and both do here.

    Shorter, esp a rolled up baggier short: At home, with friends, near large body of water, taking care of newborn, very relaxes and easygoing. Barefoot or a very unfussy slip on sneaker.

    Longer: Events, gathering, the public.

  189. ben

    July 16, 2007 at 6:16 am

    I tried on two pairs for men at marni that essentially represented both ends of the spectrum. as the salesman himself pointed out, the (in this instance) tailored mid-thigh pair looks smarter, as if they might be acceptably worn to lunch at a fancy seafood restaurant in the south of france. however they were not at all comfortable and i’m slim. the longer, less constricting, but not baggy alternative (you can see both versions on the marni website) were much more to my preference and stylish in their own way i think.

  190. WinstonC

    July 16, 2007 at 7:08 am

    I bought some short shorts recently in GAP. White. You can see them on my blog – I think you will agree they are a good size. Although I don’t know whether they retail in the US or not. They seem to have been popular in London at least – sold out.

  191. cranberry

    July 16, 2007 at 11:01 am

    I like the shorts to hit at the knee with a slimmer fit if you’re in the city and just walking about.

    If at the beach, mid thigh.

  192. Alex

    July 18, 2007 at 3:34 pm

    I’m a man with rather large, unsightly legs, but I guess I feel a little different than most of the folks on here because I loooove to wear Parke and Ronen mid-thigh shorts.

    I’ve heard gasps as I walk through Chelsea.

    Recently I’ve been reading Aline Crumb’s wonderful graphic memoir “Need More LOVE,” and she says that even though she’s in her fifties and has an ungainly figure, she can’t help wearing tight-fitting clothes.

    I think she’s my spiritual godmother. She’s got that Jewishness going on, too!

  193. vanessa

    July 19, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    I must say mid thigh is almost always more flattering than above the knee.
    The shorts must also be a slim cut.
    Take it from a lady gentlemen, stop hiding those legs

  194. vanessa

    July 19, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    I must say mid thigh is almost always more flattering than above the knee.
    The shorts must also be a slim cut.
    Take it from a lady, gentlemen stop hiding those legs

  195. Anonymous

    July 19, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    I love the khaki shorts and white shirt. I think that all men should wear tapered shorts at knee-length. I DO also like the baggy cargo “mall” shorts!

  196. Anonymous

    February 18, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    I think just above the knee is a lot cooler. It looks less ostentatitious, like your not trying, you just are cool.

  197. SAM

    April 2, 2008 at 11:10 am

    Perfect length of short on a man, and the way he wears it a tad baggy, but not too baggy-sexy. Also, the white shirt, also a nice touch. Casually sexy…..

    If you go to far up the knee with your short, you look like you are ready to play tennis or rugby.

  198. em

    July 8, 2009 at 10:12 am

    it's funny that I am reading this entry so late b/c I was living in Florence at the time it was published and the "shorts dilemma" was hot….hadn't discovered you yet! I actually encouraged my hubs to wear shorts a couple of summers ago, and was pleased to see them worn even so formally while in Italy. I tend to prefer a shorter shorts, especially when the legs are nicely proportioned, but as with a woman, there is a fine line between the right length and vulgarity and it can be hard to find without some tailoring, and maybe even trial and error. My hubs is a pretty thin so he tends to go a couple inches longer than midthigh and the pants are slim. that's my 99cents on an old post!

    Live Green for Green!

  199. Katrina221

    October 28, 2009 at 5:18 pm

    I hate shorts below the knee, especially the very baggy ones. They look immature and teenager like. Mid thigh or tight shorts look a little too feminine, and not sexy to me. I like mid length or just above the knee in a relaxed fit, but not baggy – sexy and masculine, but put together.

  200. RWF

    July 1, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Thank god that since 2007, shorter shorts are cropping up everywhere….I have no idea who in his right mind would ever propose longer baggier shorts as a trend as it defies the whole purpose of summer wear. And what's ironic is that usually the guys with the best bodies and legs end up wearing the ugliest baggy cargo shorts. I personally prefer something snug around a 7in or shorter inseam

    http://www.pleasurablerevelation.com/2010/06/fashion-forward-5-lucky-number-7.html

Leave a comment




Related posts