The shortest I own are levi 501 cut-offs with 0" leg length - just the double-stitched crotch intact at the legs (several pairs). While I wear these in public, that's just around the farm. My dick head inevitably hangs out, and everything's out when I sit or squat.
It's now autumn. Morning temps are in the single digits - fires in the wood stove these days, and daytime highs in the mid-teens on a good day. That's too cold for shorts most of the time. I've been wearing my Levi 501s around the house and on the land. We might just have toawait next spring. I'll see.
Re: whats the shortest short you wear when freeballing?
October 14 2008, 2:14 PM
my old old navy jean and carpenter shorts r around 10 n 11 - not too short n not too long .. athletic shorts about 12 - if shorts became too short i wouldn't go back to u/w but just buy something with length
Something to understand about the shorts of the early 1980s and before is that while the legs were shorter- they also fit snugger around the thighs and didn't gap open the way the floppy-leg shorts of today would. So even when sitting nothing showed that wasn't suppose to.
Ah, yes. I remember so well. I don't remember the last time I saw a guy wearing cut-offs and girls wearing them are almost as rare. But I tried wearing them as short and as tight as I could get away with, which was pretty short and pretty tight, enough to get double takes and at least one or two comments.
Now I seem to settle for plain knit gym shorts with about a two inch inseam. They are nothing like anything made of woven material or nylon but are perfect for certain purposes. These are so good I haven't bothered to replace the running shorts I used to have. But they are very thin and baggy and due care is necessary at times.
One problem with cut-offs was the pockets showing in front, not that it troubled me so much, as did showing too much of anything.
There was some brand of shorts that were widely available in the 1980's, and perhaps later (and perhaps earlier, too), that are probably what you were thinking of. I had several pairs. They seemed to have been of lightweight corduroy and had no belt loops. I don't remember for sure if the pockets front and back were patch pockets or not but I think the back ones were. They were cut quite short and fairly snug, and you might say they were tailored for a slim build.
You could also find more ordinary shorts that were much shorter than those commonly being worn today. They were made rather like tennis shorts, which I think are still being worn on the short side. Look at movies made in the late 1950's and through the '60's to see how trim fitting clothes were for men, yet the coat of a suit could still be buttoned without it gaping open. Or were we slimmer then?
Actually I was referring to the thin slim shorts made by companies like Campus and Network that were very popular on college campuses in the 1970s. They were made of a very thin soft rayon like fabric and typically had some sort of plaid design. In fact, except for having a zipper and pockets they were almost like today's boxer underwear. I think I still have a couple pairs in my mom's attic though not likely they would fit now (you know how old clothes "shrink" ) and they would look ridiculously out of style with their snug mid-thigh legs. In fact people would say- "why is that old guy walking around in his underwear?"
Nothing like a little internet research to flesh out your memory.
The kinds I was thinking of is still around, though apparently going out of production. "OP" has a couple of models which are pretty much like I remember. They give the inseam of about 4 1/2 inches, which looks shorter than it sounds. I believe they both have no belt loops but instead an elastic back. One has inset pockets, the other patch pockets, both of light corduroy material. They were available in various colors. Compared with what you see today, they seem almost shockingly short and tight, not that it would keep me from wearing them anywhere I would wear shorts.
That's Ed Westwick who Plays "Chuck" on Gossip Girl
He's British but on an American TV show, he has a verrrrrry good American accent....
I obviously wouldn't know if he's a freeballer or not, but I just wanted to point that out, because I can....
From Planet Nate Who loves the breeze on his Penis and Balls through his underwear free shorts!!!!!!!!!!( and enjoying the last days of hotness hopefully without accidents)
The original "OP" clothing line seemed to be typically for the leaner build guys, even if the waist sizes were "not lean". Larger thighs just did not work if you bent your knees, by observation. While the OP cord shorts looked great on the taller and leaner and what you might consider "surfer dude" guys, the leaner legs didn't work for me. They had some really neat t-shirts, though!
In those earlier '60s and '70s times, "walking shorts" were the norm for the well dressed guy that didn't wear denim cut-offs (putting a hem in those denim shorts would have been a sin!). They usually were mid-thigh in length, or an inch or two above the knee when standing. For some reason, men's knees seemed to be "knobbier" back then. The more athletic guys wore white socks and "gym" shoes, whereas others might wear dark dress socks and similar shoes. Madras??? Yep! Seems like I recall some pictures of guys in madras walk shorts, dress shoes and socks, dress shirt and a TIE.
Back then, there was no "loose" cut, just "normal" of sorts. Same with blue jeans. You bought what fit and that was it. If you were lean or normal, you didn't seek out the "husky" fit for more room unless you needed it. The looser cuts were initially for "more mature" (40-ish) guys that had moderate "middle age spread" and needed more "seat room" (circa 1975), or "hip and thigh" (as they put it in the ads).
In general, the "cut-offs" (whether store-bought from Sears--various fabrics other than denim--or home-made) were mid-thigh when standing or a little shorter. Keeping the "strings" trimmed made them look a little nicer (rather than the longer strings which made them look "uncared-for"), but were part of the situation. With that just-above-mid-thigh (when standing) length, that meant that a slightly muscular thigh looked really sexy (especially with a tan and some body hair) and it would ride up to the top 1/4 of the thigh when seated. HOT, especially for a guy on a motorcycle! To me, that was the best inseam length, although it might take some trial-error to get it right.
For me, 2.75"-3" inseam works best for outside wear. Just enough to keep things snuggled inside when I sit. This is for normal Levis, depending upon whether it's 505s or 550s.
In more recent times, I've just bought the 9" inseams and wear them as normal. To me, it looked flaky for a guy to wear shorts and have a horizontal "wear stripe" across the back of his calves where the shorts touch them as he walks. When I put on the older pair of 2.75" inseam denim shorts, they just feel fantastic compared to the longer inseam shorts. Next spring, I'll probably get some more denim shorts and get them shortened to about 4.5" inseam and see how that works.
As mentioned, the issue of pockets being visible can be an issue. Once they start doing that, you can't stop it. But if they "retract" when standing, that works ok for me.
Several years ago, a group of Swedish men came through work on a tour. They were wearing their native shorts, which basically were about 1" inseam hiking shorts . . . similar to what gymnasts might wear, but different fabric and having pockets. Most of these guys were "retired-age", but not overly flabby. Still, although their shorts were "native" to them, they tended to look a little out of place over here. I highly suspect there were not freeballing (for various reasons).
A few years ago, I saw a mid-30ish guy and his wife. He had a pair of denim cut-offs that were about 1" above mid-thigh on him (he was about 5'9" or so) as they walked into Office Depot. While not muscle-bound, he wasn't flabby either. Slight tan and some body hair on his legs. White t-shirt and running shoes, too. It was like a blast from the past and made me wonder why more guys don't take up that look and woo the ladies (or otherwise) that way. Show some leg!
You know they actually wear Bermuda shorts in Bermuda and they are considered a dress item. They are worn with a jacket and tie and knee socks for appropriate occasions.
One writer who wrote about long distance hiking, specifically the Applachian Trail, relates that he wore shorts hiking in Europe (where shorter shorts are worn) but past a certain date, he was expected to appear in knickers (plus-fours or plus-twos). Here, however, it is permitted to wear shorts as long as you don't mind the cold. He further relates that a high percentage of long distance hikers on the Applachian Trail skip the underwear (don't remember the percentage). Underwear is optional.
I agree totally about showing leg. I bought some new shorts this past year. They were cargo shorts w/ 5" inseam by a USA company Cabelos - quite heavy cotton. They were the shortest normal shorts I could find. They were great, and I'll be getting many years wear from them.
My trademark for the last quarter-century is to buy Op's - I probably have about 60 pairs, in all sorts of pastel, citrus, and light colors, and I have a seamstress (two over the years) who super-shortens them, the inseam is maybe 1/4", and my cheeks show somewhat (some shorts more than others) - the trick, since they have an elastic waist, is to wear them 4 waist-sizes too small, since I wear them so short, they aren't too tight, but fit tightly enough so nothing illegal falls out (wearing Victoria Secret panties help a lot - I know that's cheating, but it lets me wear the shorts MUCH shorter). - These short shorts are great for really showing off my legs big-time - all sorts of nice compliments over the years.
Good news for Op lovers: American Apparel are now selling Op type shorts - 4.5" inseam for men, maybe 1" (at the most) inseam for women - the men's go up to size 36, the women to size 30 (both are officially unisex). - Just started seeing them recently, AA is also showing much shorter athletic shorts for men - but hopefully, this is the start of something good, fashion-wise.
I've observed at least a few times on this site that I've noted from watching men's fashion exhibits on TV that the styles in the leading fashion centres, such as Milan and Paris, are tending towards shorter. Of course, the shorts in Europe never did get as long as in North America.
i usually don't wear shorts when i go out but around the house i wear these sweatpants that are cut real short just because they are comfortable. i did go out with them a couple times but it was when i was driving thru a drive thru late at night.
I can't survive without my pockets. I need somewhere to put my key and cellphone. I'd either have to cutoff the pockets and sew them shorter or cutoff girl jeans, which have shorter pockets to start with. I'd more likely do the latter because I prefer the lower rise on girl jeans anyway.
I think this is getting carried to extremes. When I said I'd like to see a return to shorter-shorts I didn't mean something cut up to your ya-ya. The typical shorts of the '60s-'70s ended about mid-thigh or a few inches above the knees and they had regular pockets like any other pants and were plenty adequate for concealing the "family jewels". They were comfortable and practical and made more sense than anything longer or shorter.
We should accept that styles of both shorts and dresses and skirts keep changing. One year they're short, while the next they're long. Although there probably is a relationship, changing styles may or may not have anything to do with modesty - showing skin.
Well, I wore them short and tight back then, irregardless of what most people wore. Practicality barely entered into the picture. I'm not sure you could even say most people were wearing shorts in the '60s and '70s anyway. More younger people than older people. Where I grew up I never saw an adult male wearing shorts except for the coaches at school, or bathing suits at the pool. Women wore shorts, to be sure, and even halter tops. I don't seem to remember much difference when I was in college. Only later did older men start wearing shorts and even then, only in certain places. Back in the country where I lived for a while, men never did wear shorts. Curiously enough, many men never wore jeans or dungarees either. No doubt men who wore jeans as teenagers wear jeans now but when I was still living there, relatively few men wore jeans and often or not, they were bib overalls.
One way I wore shorts then was with the legs rolled up--as short as they would go. Either it made no difference to other people or it was something that was generally accepted that I did, whether or not it was decent, but no one ever mentioned it.
Well I think a lot has to do with your environment. I was in a college environment from 1966 to 1973- first as a student, then as engineer for the college TV station so I was constantly among young people in their late teens to mid-20s. In addition this was in the south where the weather was warm much of the year so I may have seen more shorts-clad guys than you might in other places. However these shorts were not usually jean cuts-offs but fairly conservative mid-thigh dress-shorts made of thin polyester-like fabric- very soft and comfortable and perfect for freeballing.
I agree completely. Although I would no longer wear tight cut-offs pretty much anywhere, mainly because I am older, I still wear what I call gym shorts when out in the woods hiking or camping. I don't imagine I would offend anyone out there.
Several people here at work wear shorts but they're the guys who work in our cabinetmaking shop and some other departments. But those of us in sales and admin can't really wear things like that, no matter what the dress code says. I wear a dress shirt and tie everyday but Friday when I wear a more casual shirt. I don't meet the public but there are certain expectations I really have to meet if I am to be taken seriously, as do other people here. As far as the females go, the same thing applies, though the collage part-timer has much more leeway, though none of this is expressed in writing anywhere. In other words, she dresses like a college girl but I couldn't dress like like a 22 year old college boy, no matter what. I would look ridiculous. But I would also feel ridiculous dressing like the UPS guy, too--who is probably 30 years younger than me.
I also won't wear Bermuda shorts either. They don't fit my image! It's a funny thing. Everyone here, mostly, is aware of most of my interests, including things like hiking nude, yet I am compelled to dress in a certain way, decidedly conservative, in spite of that. That, too, is part of my image. Nor can I overdress; that is, dress above my station, if you follow me. Clearly, it isn't a simple thing at all. In any event, once having established an image, to put it one way, you have to keep that image. And you can't fake it. At the same time, you don't want to be doing anything you have to hide or keep secret, hence my occasional mention of my nudist interests. The idea is I am a complicated person and this all has to be believable and tie together.
That got a little off track, didn't it? Let's have a drink!
I thought I ought to elaborate in a simple way some of the things I said in the previous post.
What I was trying to say was that a person really has to dress his age (among other things). A 60 year old man can't really dress like a 16-year old boy no more than a 60 year old woman can dress like a 16-year old girl. That is the reality and it's tough. Now can a 25 year old dress like a 16 year old?
Well, actually it seems that cut-off blue jeans are rare on anyone. The fashion has come and gone, you might say. Just like 18" boots and riding breeches for hiking and camping (those would be "foot breeches"). But short shorts are another story.
It would probably be the older men wearing the shorter swimsuits, too. But the older person can't quite get away with wearing whatever the 16-year old wears, male or female. But that's now. To an extent, that is a more recent thing. At one time, younger people and kids did not have fashions that were exclusively worn by just those of their own ages. I think that only started when teenagers became recognized as a separate age group, whenever that was, probably with the bobbysoxers (yes, as long ago as the 1940's). Then in the 50's DJ's starting playing music that was described as "your music", meaning, I presume, that it was inappropriate for someone over the hill (over 40) to listen to. After all, you know what rock and roll does to you.
There are still times and places where an older person can wear shorter shorts and it is perfectly appropriate. Tennis, for instance--and they better be white. Of course, at one time, you wore white flannels for tennis. Me, I don't play tennis. I don't have that excuse.
In the woods, a hiker can get away with wearing something quite brief, though you still won't see anyone wearing cut-offs. All that's left are the Daisy Duke crowd.
Well I hope I don't bore everyone but I find the topic of dress standards and how they have changed over the years fascinating.
I can only give you my perspective growing up in a medium-size southern town in the 1950s. This was a very conservative conformist time. Yes we kids had our style but it was a prescribed style. For example, in the lower grades we wore sneakers and jeans or shorts but when we got to sixth grade everything changed. Boys were expected to wear nice button shirts, dress slacks and leather shoes (usually loafers). Girls had it even worse- they had to wear skirts or dresses and hose and leather shoes (penny loafers)- never pants even in on the coldest days! I don't know if these were even written rules- it was just what everyone did! It was the mindset of those days.
(And to relate this to freeballing- I think I took up the habit because this was my quiet rebellion- before it became ok to rebel openingly- I got great satisfaction doing something contrary to the norm)
I graduated HS in '64 just before the real open rebellion began. I think it began with the Beetles- the long haired British rock group who became a overnight sensation in the US. All the girls were crazy about them and the boys began wearing their hair longer and longer like the Beetles did. Soon this became a bone of contention with schools- where boys were expected to have short hair- because- well- just because- and at this point I think the baby-boomers war against the "establishment" began.
The 1960s was an incredible decade. In a few short years there was more change then there had been in decades before. It seem like everybody- blacks, feminists, Vietnam war protesters, environmentalists, gays- everyone under 25 was protesting about something!
The hippies culture was born and kids began wearing clothes that would have been unthinkable just a couple years before. Things escalated so fast that it went from boys wearing their hair too long to if schools could make girls wear bras! Boy- did I graduate too early! But I hadn't totally missed the rebellion for it was happening on college campuses as well. Baby boomers everywhere were rebelling.
While this radicalism calmed down during the 1970s, it has never gone back to the way it was before, kids still wear clothes that would have gotten them kicked out of school in my day. And those rebellious baby boomers are now in their 50s and 60s and still dressing far more casually then their parents ever would.
I also graduated from high school in 1964, only in a border state, but pretty much everything was the way stated. I only remember a dress code only vaguely but yes, you didn't wear jeans to school (this is high school), and girls always wore skirts or dresses. A few very fashionable and progressive girls wore culottes (split skirts). It was big hair for girls, various styles for boys but never long. I notice that very short hair is once again "in" for boys. I didn't come from a particularly well off family and I was acutely aware that some kids were really well dresses while others, like me, wore shirts with holes in the sleeves. I am probably trying to compensate for that somehow these days.
There were fads, too, like certain colors (bottle green was big for a couple of years and so was bleeding Madras). Penny loafers were fashionable. Neckties and lapels were narrow. Suits were dark. A wide tie would have been old fashioned. Yes, they came back.
The Beetles were dressed rather conservatively, if fashionably, when they showed up. At the time, "long hair music" meant something entirely different. The protest music really dates from the 1950s but only later did protesting actually happen, and that was in the late 60s.
There had previously been clothing styles that were considered radical or extreme well before I was born. Flapper dresses and zoot suits are a couple of examples. Going back further there are tissue thin Empire dresses. And hoop skirts and so on. Much of the comments about fashion changes only applied to those who were fashionable, either those who followed fashion and to those who were anti-fashion themselves, which is a form of street fashion, you might say. The rest of us muddled along in our old clothes.
Yes, the other great revolution decade was the 1920s. Before that women couldn't even show their legs in public. The 1920s, 1960s, on this time scale we are due for another revolution now but I see no sign of it. Instead today's kids have gone the other way- hiding skin instead of showing it.
I also grew up in the 60's, and graduated from HS in '62. We men were required to wear dress slacks and button up shirts. No t-shirts or jeans were allowed. Also a belt was required attire. My folks had purchased me a good pair of dress pants, with the elastic at the waist, so didn't need a belt, and in fact had no belt loops in the pants. When I went to school that day, had to go home and get a belt, because that was the requirement, no exceptions, even if it was not designed for a belt, and no tennis shoes in school other than in the gym.
I believe the girls had a bigger problem because they also had to wear dresses or skirts. In the coldest weather, they could wear slacks TO school, but not during school, and had to remove them and wear the skirts and dresses in school.
I was in the hs class of '61 and remember pretty much the same things except that I also recall wearing jeans throughout school. I first FBed in Levi 501s at age 11 and wore hardly anything else except in summers 'til I left graduate school in 1969 (28 y.o.). I was glad when the Beetles came along in 1964, as I'd let my hair grow a few years earlier. I never adopted the short hair style. I went 18 years from '61 'til '69 w/o haircuts.
My biggest rebellion! I joined about 50 other underclassmen to protest the Harvard rule that men had to wear ties and jackets to dinner (in the various Houses). We showed up in only ties and jackets. Being properly dressed, we got to take dinner, and the rule was rescinded the following day. Of course, Columbia was closed by a student strike in May 1969 and Harvard the following autumn - for permitting the US military to have programs at the College. I got too personally involved and ended up dropping out for 1 year.
Yes, apparently this varied from area to area- as I noted jeans were taboo in my schools after 5th or 6th grade- same for shorts and sneakers (except for gym) but apparently in some areas these were ok right through high school. I feel cheated I didn't have this privilege. The fact that it varies from school to school and place to place shows that dress codes don't make sense- they just reflect the bias of whoever makes the rules.
As for your second point- I have a cartoon on my wall of a half-naked man confronting a waitress in a dinner- he's saying- "Your sign says 'shoes and shirt required'- doesn't say a thing about pants!"
I note a lot o' emphasis on 'image' and what men o' a certain age might wear. Without denying a certain factualness to the assertions, is the reason for not wearing what a 16 y.o. might wear age or size? A lot o' us put on weight as we age. Others don't. While I sometimes feel 'old,' I'm lucky to only weigh about 2-4 kg above what I weighed at age 16. My bf is currently ~12% - my waist 30". I have a close friend that's weighed exactly the same (thin with ~8% bf) since age 16. Both of us - long-distance runners - wear the short running shorts. It's fairly common to see older, fit men in such. Running's more comfortable. While I'm in my 60s, I also think I look better in jeans than many - bigger - guys in their 30s and 40s. I usually only discard clothes because they wear out, and I tend to wear them 'til that occurs.
I have no quarrel with the assertions except that I hope we're not confusing age and size.
This will get complicated. Size enters into it when you are 16, I'm afraid, and it always matters, more or less. But for 60 year olds (I'm 62) wearing jeans, that's fine. But there's jeans and there's jeans. A 60-year old can wear relatively tight jeans, even, and that's how cowboys (real cowboys, I mean) wear them and they don't change much as they get older. Of course they have to be Wranglers. No other brand will do. Cowboys, not ranchers.
But the whole issue is still about image and style, I suppose. It gets strange, too. Not only can a person not wear some of the things his son or grandson is wearing, he probably can't wear some of the things his grandfather wore either. We make fun of what they used to wear but we religiously follow the latest fashions. Mind you, there are different fashions for different generations (I mean at the same time), too. In other words, kids now are not wearing what kids wore 40 years ago any more than grown-ups are wearing what grown-ups were wearing then either.
Anybody over there still wearing detachable collars? This is in spite of people saying "they'll come back in style."
I suppose all of this applies equally to male and female.
I think age and aesthetics both play a part. As a general rule I think it's always been true that people dress more conservatively as they get older. But I think this is modified to some extent by how good they look. I think most people want to show themselves in the best light- so even a younger person with bad looking legs is less apt to wear shorts than a older person with nice legs.
I think a person may dress more modestly as he gets older but not necessarily more conservatively. That depends on what that person does. To a degree, a person conforms to expections. You would expect a banker to dress conservatively and an artist to dress more fashionably, for want of a better word. This would be true for both men and women and no matter how old they were (or how attractive they were). There is also the matter of their "station in life," which is an unfortunate sounding expression but you might expect the bank president to dress a little better than the bank teller. You might also expect the art teacher to dress a little better than the art student, too. You know how at a college campus you can almost tell which school the student is enrolled in by how he is dressed.
Where I went to school the law school was a Greek temple styled building with a portico a few steps up from the sidewalk where the common herd walked by. They would come out and stand there all dressed up in suits and ties and look down on the unwashed masses. By and by they built a new law school building and everyone said they would have some sort of porch where the law students could come out and look down on everyone else. The new building was at least up on the highest hill around.
Nudist don't wear clothes, do they? Therefore all of these issues should disappear. But there are such issues among the nudists, sort of. Naturally it varies among clubs and my experience is limited. However, one such controversy is about fitness and appearance. Should a fat (really fat, that is) person be allowed among the legions of the great undressed? Then there are the issues of tattoos, piercings, hair (again) and so on. I guess we can't escape social problems of appropriateness, appearance and so on, even when we're all naked.
As for dressing above or below your station some, most notably the author of Dress for Success, would say to dress above your station. How you dress influences both how you see yourself as well as how others see you. Even if you don't want to move up, it can affect how people view your performance when it comes to salary review or layoff time. Of course, your actual performance is the most important factor, but how you dress can be the extra something that places you above someone with the similar performance.
I don't think underwear plays into it, at least as far as how others view you, because typically nobody knows what kind of underwear someone is wearing or not wearing. I imagine one wouldn't benefit by dressing in such a way as to make it obvious he is not wearing underwear, but I think one can benefit by feeling more comfortable with how he is dressed all day. Having the confidence to skip the undies is a good thing because confidence (not arrogance) is a good thing. If one would like to freeball, but is afraid to, that kinda speaks to his unwillingness to standout even to himself. What does that say about his level of confidence?
Well, we just don't want to run afoul of the sumptuary laws.
As far as I can tell, there have never been laws which establish what kind of underwear you have to wear. This isn't to say there aren't rules about the subject with the effect of laws. I'm referring here to standing orders for military uniforms, and business and school dress codes.
It is a curious thing how governments (and the dominant elements in society) have attempted to regulate dress or clothing, usually unsuccessfully, at least in the long run. And it started a long time ago. I suspect that even if we wore no clothing at all, there would still be rules about our appearance. In fact, some nudist clubs presumably have rules about piercings, public hair, and perhaps even tatoos, though the rules many not be written down.
One basic problem is that often we live by rules that are not written down. A good example is how we drive. Mostly, people understand how everyone drives most of the time, even if it is illegal in some ways and hardly the way it is described in the driver's manual. Yet as long as we all follow the rules, everything is fine. The problem is that they aren't written down. And some people drive like there are no rules.
It is a little like that with clothing. We all follow rules, sometimes very closely, with regard to clothing, as best we can, finances permitting. We certainly aren't all on the same page, however, but fatal results are rare. Now and then some aspect of clothing makes the news, either about some group's attempt to rebel (or be fashionable--hard to tell), like sagging pants, or some entertainer's attempt to capitalize on the public's fascination with certain usually covered body part and assisted greatly by roving photographer's attempt to record said body parts for general entertainment.
It is not so easy to dress above your station, unless you want to expend vast amounts of wampum, and the results may be difficult to see anyway. However, it is often said that you don't want to dress to draw attention to your clothes but instead to yourself. But everybody here knows me anyway. Back to square one.
One of the ways we run into the rules is when we push the boundaries of what is acceptable. The rules are usually vague anyway and even when written down, they are sometimes even more vague. I think maybe a woman may be more likely to have a problem. There are always problems with garments that are tight, too short or too low. I don't have a problem, understand, but some people are easily bothered. Basically, provided cleanliness is not a problem, the issue usually is about modesty. Modesty under the circumstances, that is. You might wear very little at the beach but the office has different rules--and sometimes so does the boardwalk. Blouses or even skirts and dresses that are transparent or nearly so (or appear to be nearly so, whether they are or not) will be a challenge to the rulemakers.
If you wore no underpants and if the rulemaker took note, I suspect the rulemaker would be worried about it all day. I doubt if they would bring up the subject, much less prove it one way or the other. I still doubt if wearing an undershirt or t-shirt would ever be a requirement because the most conservative dresser here, my boss, who wears a dark suit every day, does not wear undershirts.
On the other hand, I suspect that a woman not wearing a bra (which counts as underwear, doesn't it?) might be in for more scrutiny, it likely being easier to detect. She would probably get more attention from me, anyway. So life isn't fair. And you'll never know if she isn't wearing underpants, though it is often obvious here the kind of underwear some of the woment are wearing.
I often do observations of this matter for the sake of this forum.
Well it's not like underwear was ordained by God and has forever been worn. Man got along without it for centuries and even after it was invented it was regarded as an optional garment. So why only now should it be mandatory? What harm does it do society if you and I forgo undies?
Well, some people think underwear is required by God (it's in the Bible) but in any event, whatever is worn next to your skin is your underwear. It becomes confusing if that's all you're wearing, of course. Can you call a sock "underwear?" Do you wear leather shoes without socks, which is sort of fashionable in the preppy circles. Loafers, anyway (the shoes, not preppies).
At one time a shirt was considered an undergarment but I think that had already been mentioned. A shirt was not considered a garment for wearing by itself in some places. Mind you, the weather in a lot of places makes it a moot point about wearing a shirt as an outer garment. In any case, hard information about what people wore, if anything, five hundred, a thousand, two, three or four thousand years ago is actually hard to come by and even where there is a lot of documentary and photographic evidence that such and such was so, even that is open to wide interpretation.
I think underwear may be required more by Mother Nature than by God (any god, for our purposes). Only when the temperatures become temperate or sub-tropical, like where I live, can we start dispensing with our clothing. Then we can start worrying about the tattoos, the hair, the piercing, the missing parts, the spots, the weight and so on.
It occurs to me that often we think of clothing as protection as much as for modesty or vanity. Protection from the elements and protection on the job. Yet ironically, when working, if we are actually laboring, we often start removing garments, particularly upper garments. There is some sort of large scale cable laying project going on in the little industrial park where I spend most of my life and it seems to require a lot of men digging those narrow ditches. I noticed only yesterday a number of men wearing only t-shirts (and pants) digging with picks when the temperature was in the 40's. When working at home, where I have an on-going drywall project in the kitchen (I only work on it weekends), I try to follow through to the logical ultimate conclusion of removing unnecessary clothing and end up wearing none at all, except for my boots. Quite comfortable and entirely practical, even though the skin may sometimes feel cool to the touch. So for most purposes and in most places very little clothing is really necessary for protection and even modesty. This is provided you still have blood flowing through your veins. When that slows down you are in trouble.
Well I'd like to see where it says "Thou shall wear underwear" in the Bible. I doubt underwear as we know it even existed when the Bible was written. In any case, I agree that underwear- as all clothing- came about as need for protection against the elements- and I suspect if I lived in Alaska I would being wearing long-johns now, however I live in Florida and find long-johns, or any type underwear quite superfluous.
I noted that what some people call 'pubic' has become 'public' hair in your reference to rules at nudist or clothing-optional venues. While our pubic hair may be public in such places, it's not usually considered such and not usually visible and hence seldom regulated by anyone. Some people shave it, while others trim it, and still others let it grow naturally.
I'm personally glad most rules are vague. My own view is that clothing - what we wear and where we wear it - should not be regulated. That's not to say it shouldn't be appropriate. A tux may be appropriate at a gala function. And no clothing should be OK when swimming or showering.
I had not intended my reference to hair to mean only the pubic hair but all hair; facial, body, and of course the hair on your head. Because it is so "there" hair and because it is easily modified, hair has long been the subject of much attention. It either has to be cut, shaved, worn short, worn long, covered, uncovered and so on. Apparently one can't just have hair and be done with it. It is a curious thing.
Rules are always problematic. We can be legalistic and follow the law to the letter, forgetting both the spirit and intent of the rule and sometimes justice. Or we can ignore any law which displeases us, which is called being a scofflaw, frequently indulged in by the rich or powerful who think laws or rules don't apply to them. But a problem with vague laws is that they give a great deal of discretionary power to the keepers of the law. That's why when the policeman stops you, it is because you were exceeding the speed limit, not because you were just going too fast. Vague laws are things like being a public nuisance, being reckless, having no visible means of support, and so on.
I don't get invited to gala affairs where I need a tux. No problem.
I'm sure you are aware of attempts to make laws about underwear showing above your pants. I wonder if there have been laws (not just somebody's rules) about having to wear underwear (provided it was not visible). Ah, the irony. Bob Jones U. has probably made every imaginable attempt to write a rule about underwear, I suppose. It has them about everything else.
With my cutoffs - they were always so short that the pockets started showing, I found that I loved showing just a glimpse (maybe a 1/2 inch) of front pockets, and rather than wear longer cutoffs (no fun), I'd just shorten the pockets, and the cutoffs would become so short that my ass was showing - I'm cheating, I didn't dare freeball, but I had a girlfriend that kept suggesting it. It was still much fun showing my undies whenever I sat down (couldn't help it), safe and legal, and so much leg exposure with such short shorts!
When they're that short, I cut the pockets out. I'd never think about not FBing, but we don't have fashion police in Canada, nor a legal dress code. It's considered OK to be clothed, and no one assures that some parts are always hidden from public view. There would be standards of modesty and decorum in some venues, but they're ones where one likely wouldn't be wearing cut-offs in any event.
If I am not naked at home, I am shirtless and wearing just boxer shorts. Have probably 20 different pairs in all kinds of wild prints. This week am wearing a Hallowe'en print, but my favorite is bright yellow Joe Boxer with a red and black fire alarm design and the words: "Pull down in case of emergency."
I wear my boxers as outerwear everywhere: bank, Homo Depot, grocery store, etc.
If I don't want to look like I am running around in my underwear (which, technically, I am) I have a pair of 2" inseam bright blue shorts I got on a cruise last year. With an embroidered cruise line logo, they look normal though short.
If I have to look trendy, I have some 4" Bugle Boys but they are old and pretty worn out, so a roommate left behind a pair of cargos that come down almost to the knee. I hate wearing them because they are so culture-conforming. Would MUCH rather wear shorts that are indeed shorts... but naked and nothing would be better!
When jogging, it is always barechested and in side-split to the waist, with the liner removed.
And No, there is no danger of Mr. Happy peeking out to get some sunshind. Sadly.
Re: whats the shortest short you wear when freeballing?
October 30 2008, 6:15 PM
In gay clubs I've worn cutoffs with a 0" inseam (legs right up to the crotch) or less (legs above crotch level with crotch cut out as well). In public, the shorts and cutoffs have been with a 1 or 2 inch inseam. Usually, though I wear a more respectable 8 inch inseam or more. When teaching, its usually long pants, and for some strange reason, usually long pants when barefooting which is quite often.
Me and my nephew both wear very very short cut off jeans. When I sit or squat my balls and dick both fall out. When I just stand the head of my dick shows. MY brother sometimes wear them. I have worn them to a gas station several times, and the clerk there loves to look. Last summer me, my nephew and his best friend all went to a friends farm and on the way there we stopped and got gas and drinks, all three of us were wearing the short short cut off jeans freeballing, and we got some looks. Tanner my nephews friend loves showing off. And freeballing is still new to him hes been freeballing since last May.I also wear very very short nylon running shorts that was popular in the 70s, with the liner cut out.
It has been a while since I wore them like that but when I did, that's the way I liked to wear them. Everything was covered though, if only barely, at least when I was standing. Still, I got my share of double takes and even a couple of comments. The comments were more in the nature of surprises rather than downright negative but at least they noticed, which may have been the idea.
I also loved the nylon split-side running shorts, naturally with the lining removed, but I only wore them for hiking. They are certainly still popular with real runners and joggers, by the way.
I've never had a lot of shorts of any kind at one time and these days I am managing with a pair of thin knit gym shorts with a short inseam. They had no lining to begin with so I use them without modification. They are stretchy and I can put them on over any kind of footwear I might be wearing, including boots, because I like to use them as a handy cover-up when hiking and wearing, well, nothing but boots.
I also have another pair of very stretchy knit shorts that has more spandex or some other wonder material that works nearly as well, though it fits much more snugly when I put them on but they stretch out eventually and fit rather looser (but nothing like the other) between washings. I don't think it is necessary to wear anything under either of these shorts even if some things can be rather obvious, although I wouldn't wear them just anywhere. In any case, they're for warmer weather than we're having at the moment anyway.
Cut-off denim blue jeans in any length are rather more practical if you are doing something rough that might result in tears or if you are doing a lot around rocks, including just sitting on them. But if the shorts are just for wearing only when you have to wear something, then the others are better, especially thin nylon.
The coolest shorts I ever ha came from International Male. They came in diferent solid coors, were already short shorts, but had snaps on the outside seam, so you could snap or unsnap riht up to the waist.
They were something else, but I usually wore a thong with them; otherwise I'd be totally exposed
They were great for clubs etc, but this was some year ago and I haven't seen them since.
Re: whats the shortest short you wear when freeballing?
November 5 2008, 10:42 AM
I wear these shorts a lot in warm weather. They certainly aren't new, but they seem to be holding up OK. I feel confident enough walking around town in them, even if all the young guys in their megashorts are laughing. Inseam is 4.75".
Access is easy enough when it's wanted! I'm not into dangerous free shows, and once in a while I have to remember to be careful. But most often the only one who sees is my partner
I worked in radio and played in a charity softball game with my station. I had a very loose pair of short boxer shorts on that day under a pair of semi loose but mid thigh short gym shorts on over them (this was the 80s). My boxers were actually an inch longer than the short and stuck out. I was comfortable and fine while standing still, but when I hit and ran up the first base line only then did I realize that my unit was flopping around so much that the head nearly poked out from underneath my shorts. In fact I'm sure it did, as I felt wind on skin. I had to run and keep pulling the shorts down. As much as this sounds exhibitionism, it really wasnt. I had boxers on at work, and my baseball / gym shorts/shirt in a bag. I forgot to pack a pair of tighty whiteys for support.
Since I like my loose knit gym shorts so well, perhaps cut-off sweat pants might be nice. However, all of the sweatpants and sweat shorts, if that's correct, seem to be rather long in the waist, much too long in fact. I expect that you could find some that have a shorter rise but I haven't looked. I'm sure you could find some on-line, probably from someplace like International Male but even in these later days, I still like to shop in a store. Maybe a pair of women's jogging shorts might be a good place to start. I'm sure they would all have a shorter rise.
I have to give credit to someone else here for mentioning cut-off sweat pants first, however.