<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

whats the shortest short you wear when freeballing?

October 14 2008 at 1:25 AM
astra888  (no login)
from IP address 121.96.157.13

 
and what kind of short shorts is it?

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Jeffrey
(no login)
208.114.129.152

cut-offs

October 14 2008, 10:22 AM 

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.

 
 Respond to this message   
astra888
(no login)
125.212.11.172

jefffrey

October 14 2008, 11:24 AM 

can you post the picture of your 501 zero leg short? so we can see it.

 
 Respond to this message   
Jeffrey
(no login)
208.114.129.152

Autumn!

October 15 2008, 11:30 AM 

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.

 
 Respond to this message   
ucRodger
(no login)
71.168.59.110

cut-offs

October 14 2008, 1:54 PM 



Jeffrey,

do you need an extra FARM hand - perhaps someone to help out 'milking the stock' LOL

ucR

 
 Respond to this message   
Buddy
(no login)
205.188.116.210

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

 
 Respond to this message   
Toby
(Login to2001by)
217.44.41.239

Re: whats the shortest short you wear when freeballing?

October 14 2008, 8:52 PM 

My shortest freeballing shorts - but i go commando in EVERYTHING anyway!

2007 photo:



I don't have these any more!

I LOVED wearing them, but they shrunk at the waist and i can't wear them now.

Well, that's my story and i'm sticking to it - so i gave them away.

 
 Respond to this message   
Nat
(Login Nafana)
Forum Owner
69.242.252.59

Shorter but snugger

October 14 2008, 9:34 PM 

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.

 
 Respond to this message   
NRT
(Login BlueTrain)
66.153.20.166

Re: Shorter but snugger

October 15 2008, 1:37 PM 

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.

 
 Respond to this message   
Nat
(Login Nafana)
Forum Owner
69.242.252.59

Re: Shorter but snugger

October 15 2008, 3:57 PM 

I wasn't talking about cut-offs- just regular shorts made in the '60s, '70s, & early '80s.



 
 Respond to this message   
Anonymous
(no login)
66.153.20.166

Re: Shorter but snugger

October 16 2008, 6:42 AM 

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?

 
 Respond to this message   
Nat
(Login Nafana)
Forum Owner
69.242.252.59

Re: Shorter but snugger

October 16 2008, 10:17 AM 

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?"

 
 Respond to this message   
NRT
(no login)
66.153.20.166

Re: Shorter but snugger

October 16 2008, 11:43 AM 

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.

 
 Respond to this message   
Nat
(Login Nafana)
Forum Owner
69.242.252.59

Re: Shorter but snugger

October 16 2008, 12:59 PM 

;

 
 Respond to this message   
Triangle
(no login)
86.162.103.83

Back in fashion

October 16 2008, 1:49 PM 

I've seen quite a few young men wearing the sort of shorts on the left this summer.

 
 Respond to this message   
Nate The Great
(Login relover89)
98.215.47.5

I Know Who That Is....

October 30 2008, 6:29 PM 

this has nothing to do with freeballing, but

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....

That's all

Underwear???Where????
Bye Now

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)

 
 Respond to this message   
Bobby
(no login)
24.115.83.229

Re: Shorter but snugger

October 30 2008, 6:20 PM 

Yeah, I like the OPs also -- particularly when they are made of the thinner cotton material in a plain color (no pattern). I have a pair each in lavender, light blue, and even pink.

Hugz
Bobby

 
 Respond to this message   
cdadbr
(Login cdadbr)
4.162.144.40

Orig OPs

December 2 2008, 10:38 PM 

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!

Enjoy!
cdadbr

 
 Respond to this message   
NRT
(Login BlueTrain)
66.153.20.166

Bermudas

December 3 2008, 11:58 AM 

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.

 
 Respond to this message   
Jeffrey
(no login)
208.114.129.152

Cabelos

December 5 2008, 10:58 AM 

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.

 
 Respond to this message   
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 4 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Find more forums on SocietyCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement