There’s Concern That Men’s Shorts Are Getting Too Short

tom-selleck

This aggression will not stand. The Wall Street Journal suggests that the amount of hairy tree trunk that men are now showing is getting out of control. Yet we are free men, able to do as we damn well please. There’s nothing quite like the sensation of strolling out of the house in a pair of nut huggers and feeling the warm breeze dance through your lush forest of velvet-like thigh hair. It’s breathtaking.

In fact, I’d say that short fashion has never been in a better place. Long gone are the days of cargo shorts and JNCOs being fashionable. Showing more than a little thigh is the modern man’s way of saying, “Look who brought the nuts to the party. I’m here to steal all of your babes. I mean, look at this moose knuckle.”

The Wall Street Journal says:

“…Given how change in the menswear world is measured—think millimeters per decade rather than centimeters per season for women’s wear—shorts are shortening quickly. In the past few years, the low-water-mark length of a 15-inch-or-so inseam receded to knee-length (11 inches), then a knee-baring 9 inches, then to a quadriceps-exposing 7 inches and on to the newly fashionable thigh-flaunting 5 inches. If men’s shorts were a glacier in Greenland, scientists would be freaking out.”

Quite the science pun there. The joke here is that men’s shorts are shrinking at an alarming rate. I say let them shrink. If I want to look like Chevy Chase in “Vacation,” then let me. Let me showcase my astonishing bulge and racehorse-quality quads to the world. I’ve worked my entire life to find the perfect fat-to-muscle ratio in my man trunks. Don’t judge those who wish to push the envelope.

[via WSJ]

  1. Half-surprised y’all didn’t find someway to turn this into a business partnership/promotion of a new pair of Rowdy Gentleman Chubbies.

    10 years ago at 4:27 pm
  2. maburrn

    This wouldn’t have ever been written if Jordan Belfort was still on Wall Street

    10 years ago at 4:27 pm
  3. Cockmeatsandwich

    Where’s the Wall Street Journal article about skinny jeans, glasses with no lenses, dude’s with scarves, and basically any of the stupid shit NBA players and hipsters are wearing nowadays?

    10 years ago at 4:31 pm
    1. LEGENwaitforitDARY

      You do know that the WSJ is a fiscally conservative newspaper, right? Only because they don’t endorse short shorts doesn’t mean that they are hipsters. On the contrary, the average WSJ reader dresses in suits more expensive than you’ll probably ever own.

      10 years ago at 6:04 pm
      1. Cockmeatsandwich

        I think anyone who’s taken any sort of business class in their life knows who the target market of the Wall Street Journal is, that’s exactly my point.

        10 years ago at 6:40 pm
  4. Lyaziz

    But my ‘Merica chubbies liberate my thighs… Sky’s out thighs out, am I right?

    10 years ago at 4:31 pm
  5. L_M_N_O_buttP

    5 inch inseams are for the gays. 7-9 inches is the money range, depending on how tall you are.

    10 years ago at 4:33 pm
  6. Tony Sopranbro

    Did you read the full WSJ article? It’s saying the shorter shorts are a good thing…not that they’re “getting out of control”.

    10 years ago at 4:35 pm
  7. Fuckedupfriday

    Can we just agree that the end result of this is not wearing pants, and skip to that part?

    10 years ago at 4:37 pm