Anon 6:49 and Soleil Noir said what I was thinking in the back of my mind, but was scared to say. Maybe it’s the trousers tucked into the boots. Maybe it’s the belted cardigan. I don’t know.
Don’t get me wrong, he did a good job of layering. His color choices are impeccable. I mean, the stripes in the shirt reach over and play well with his bag. The buttons on his card almost seem to be married to the boots.
This guy knows what he’s doing. I love the colors and layering. I don’t know how I’d feel about the belted cardigan though, maybe if I see it without the coat, I could get a better idea of how it drapes, esp. on a man’s silhoutte. As for the tucked in boots, I didn’t think it looked odd until someone mentioned it. It is definitely uncharacteristic for men but the colors and fit match well.
His look appears effortlessly slick and fashionable. I think the boot tuck-in is a great touch that most men couldn’t or wouldn’t even try to pull off. This guy makes it look great, and personally I don’t think he looks feminine. Just stylish, slick, and cool.
To tuck or not to tuck, that is the question, apparently. If nothing else, I guess that stops us discussing whether his pants are too long, short, or vice versa.
Tucking pants into boots has a definite “mucking about, doing STUFF in the country” feel to it (I’ve done it, my Dad’s done it, we’re manly men) so I never saw this as risking being effeminite, more risking the “come to town for the month’s supplies” feel. But the boots look like leather casual boots rather than rubber wellies, so he’s on fairly safe ground … may be mistaken for a lost quail hunter though.
But a belted cardigan seems odd … a bit of a belt-and-braces overkill problem. Sorry, but there it is.
Effeminate? Those comments on gender as an assumption of weakness are just not fair to anybody, anywhere. Dress and language relate to each other due to cultural meaning that goes beyond form. The dude looks smart, sensible and totally forward.
Knee-high leather boots on a man carry very strong connotations of involvement in two well-defined activities: a) English saddle riding; b) lifestyle power exchange. Men not actually engaged in a) or b), or not willing to be mistaken for same, should not wear them.
the last thing i would think looking at this is effeminate. it evokes rather images of country living, most especially horse-riding to me and last i checked both men and women partake in those. if the sartorial cultural markers of one group of people are fair game for appropriation in the name of fashion, why not the “english gentleman” look for someone who isn’t necessarily a part of that subset?