BS: Shorts Armageddon?

Subject: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Acorn4
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 06:08 AM

It's been an interesting summer here in the UK; among the (mainly younger) female population we have seen a return of the "Daisy Duke" shorts (no complaints here). Most of the ladies have opted for this option if wearing shorts, but when we come to us blokes we have witnessed what can only be described as a "shorts apocalypse". Variations go from the "sixties footballer" which is probably the male equivalent of the "Daisies", fine in the younger male but no so in the more mature gent, to the knee length ones, and below the knee. It is here that the fashion designers appear to have been "taking the ****". These half way down the leg jobs look ridiculous particularly when "enhanced" with multiple pockets.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 06:18 AM

I'm falling off the sofa laughing at the mental image of me wearing Daisy Dukes. But if the younger ladies have reasonably nice figures, I reckon their shorts are very attractive, and keep them cool.

As for the men, again it depends on the chap's shape and figure.
My husband has an enormous number of what he calls 'culottes', which are shorts down to the knee. But he's slim, has muscular legs and to me looks very good in them.
Muslim men are instructed to cover the body from the neck to the knees.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 07:24 AM

Knee-length shorts look fine on men - young or old, makes no difference. I've lived in them since the end of May, no intention of going back to my winter gear (jeans) for a long time yet.

Those 3/4 length things - half way up the calf - look good on slim, fit young men with tanned, muscular legs. On anyone over fifty, especially men with beer-bellies, they look like shite.

'Daisy Dukes' are just confusing - my eyes can never decide where to look, and usually end up gazing inappropriately!

IMHO, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 08:04 AM

We noticed a young lass 'up the city' in Norwich the other day wearing Daisy Dukes. But they were very short and the cheeks of her bottom were actually hanging out. She might as well have worn nothing at all.
I wonder if she knew? Maybe she hadn't seen herself in a mirror from behind?
I don't really mind what people wear. In those fierce temperatures (34 degrees) anything comfortable is fine by me.

My husband's legs are certainly 'tanned' (jet black actually) and very muscular. And he's over fifty. But we have seen many paunchy overweight blokes in rather unstylish long droopy shorts straining over their beer bellies.
But if someone is that shape, anything they wear isn't exactly going to look fabulous on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 08:23 AM

Yeah, I didn't actually have men like your husband in mind when I made the comment, Sen, I'm sure he's a damn fine specimen! I was thinking of over-50s of more portly build!

I think also that height is important in order to look good in those Cut-Offs. Short-arses like me just look 'wrong' in them. But I love knee-length shorts, they are de rigeur for me from late spring to late autumn.

But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and one man's meat etc!

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 08:27 AM

There are bum cheeks and bum cheeks. Ten-out-of-ten scoring half-out bum cheeks will do me just fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 09:44 AM

I bet you look perfectly fine in your shorts Backwoodsman. And comfort is everything as far as I'm concerned. I probably look what Norfolk folk would call 'a roit owl' dolly' when I go out. Nothing fashionable, nothing too revealing or flashy, just loose, comfy clothing that I can bung on and forget about.

Steve, I think you'd have liked seeing the lass in the Daisy Dukes. She was definitely a 10 out of 10.

Husband remarked that if she appeared like that in Adjame, women would hurry out of their homes with a spare 'pagne' and drape it around her, scolding and slapping her. Nobody shows an inch of leg out there, never mind their bum cheeks!

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 10:10 AM

Saw a few in Bude this morning, though the weather's not exactly clement today. Still, bum cheeks with goose pimples add a new dimension to my purely aesthetic (you understand) investigations of this very welcome fashion phenomenon.

As for me, I wear shorts all year round, though I'll don long pants to do the shopping from about early December onward for a few weeks if it's a bit beast-from-the-east nippy. As Mrs Steve suffers from a strange malady, completely unknown to me, known as "feeling cold," I have to wear shorts indoors at all times. In addition, I never wear any garment under or over a shirt, except for a cotton gilet outdoors in winter, and all my shirts are short-sleeve. I have one pair of shoes that I've had for 25 years that are for weddings and funerals only and I never wear socks except with those shoes. My posh shorts are Craghopper Kiwis, no longer made, and my scruffing-around shorts, a bit longer in the leg, are the surprisingly comfortable and very cheap Mountain Warehouse Trek jobs. They do pill after a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 10:32 AM

I used to be like you, Steve - never cold, never anything over my shirt (invariably T-shirt, having been an office-dude for 49.5 years I detest button-up shirts of any kind), shorts most of the time, until I lost 5-1/2 stone in weight. Now, I'm prone to feeling nesh even when my wife declares it's 'a bit on the 'ot side'. In my nesh moments, I can tolerate a fleece over my T-shirt, but only outdoors.

I have the luxury of two pairs of 'proper' shoes - one black (weddings and funerals only) and one brown (when I'm letting my non-existent hair down, but in a semi-formal way). Otherwise it's walking-trainers with trainer-socks (can't bear the feeling of no socks in shoes) or walking-sandals (absolutely NO SOCKS - ever - otherwise Mrs. Backwoodsperson would commit homicide!).

Longs are walking trousers or jeans, mostly jeans in town. Shorts are Jack Wolfskin, Columbia, or Craghoppers, all knee-length.

Elegant I may not be. Comfortable and happy with myself I most definitely am.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 10:55 AM

I'd never make an Imelda Marcos. I own one pair of flat, comfy black leather sandals and one pair of flat comfy black leather shoes (never wear the latter, it's the sandals even in snow!) Can't be bothered with any more than that.
I have about ten pastel-coloured cotton t-shirts and four Mrs Brown style cardigans. And four pairs of cotton trousers (velvet for winter and patterned for summer)
That's it. (Apart from very old-lady white cotton underwear)
I find clothes very boring to shop for.

Husband is the exact opposite. He has over thirty pairs of fancy trainers, every football top known to man, jackets galore, about twenty baseball caps, endless hangers filled with lovely clothes. He has two double wardrobes crammed with stuff and four chests of drawers ditto. I don't mind at all. Each to his own.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: leeneia
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 12:37 PM

When a female wears shorts, two things matter. How much of herself she is exposing and the texture of her skin. It is not courteous or even safe to walk around in indecent shorts. And when the skin goes from childlike smoothness to a texture like large-curd cottage cheese, it's time to give up shorts.

Tennis dresses: I used to work in a fabric store. I had a rule that a woman who showed up in a tennis dress got the minimum of service. I would help her get what she asked for, but that was all.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Jos
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 01:05 PM

"When a female wears shorts, two things matter. How much of herself she is exposing and the texture of her skin."

Surely those rules apply just as much to men. I have seen an elderly man presumably oblivious to the parts of his body that were dangling unclothed below his shorts.

And then there are the male cyclists in lycra who leave nothing to the imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 01:24 PM

Not safe? So if she gets attacked she's guilty of contributory negligence then?

Sheesh...

And who decides what is and what isn't indecent, by the way?

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Acorn4
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 01:37 PM

Let's try to keep on track - the thread isn't really about the "Daisys".

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 02:22 PM

Apologies. Armageddon a bit beyond myself... geddit? :-)


I'll get me coat...or should that be me dirty old man's mac...

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Aug 18 - 02:36 PM

Groooooan Steve! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Aug 18 - 07:54 AM

It's ultra humid here in Slovaka and no AC in our hotel room. I shall wear lightweight trousers for this wedding.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 18 - 08:21 AM

Are they getting married in your hotel rooom? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: keberoxu
Date: 25 Aug 18 - 12:17 PM

One thing gets me about the Daisy Dukes.
They've changed.

Back in the day, Daisy Dukes shorts were high-waisted --
look at the photographs from The Dukes of Hazzard.

Now they are low-cut (Jessica Simpson). It's overkill.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Aug 18 - 05:01 PM

Steve Shaw - They got married traditional Slovak style in a winery. Thankfully temperature has dropped 10c today. 32 kids there, both English & Slovak, had an "activities room" laid on so had a great time.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Aug 18 - 05:42 PM

I was only joking!

When I look at beautiful young women in Daisy Dukes, the last thing I'm looking at is how high the waist is...

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 26 Aug 18 - 06:05 AM

people I have noticed - older bloke still wearing his very short shorts from the 70s (did men wear hot pants?) with knee high black rubber boots!

Check out "short shorts 1970s" in Google images & see if you remember men & women in hot pants! Tho none were worn with Wellies!

As we all (probably) know each side of the body is slightly different - cut a photo in half & put 2 left sides or 2 right sides together & you get an unsettling image. My left shoulder is about an inch wider than my right which means my sleeves hang at different lengths. I've been saying for decades I really must fix my sleeves ...

Facial Asymmetry and "Character"

2nd person - a few months ago I was walking behind a lovely young lady with the shortest cut-off (torn off?) shorts I've ever seen, giggling to myself as a slither of the lower part of one buttock showed with every step. I didn't stay behind her for very long as I was in danger of giggling out loud.

sandra (who hopes people behind her do not comment on her survivor-of-the-seventies flowing long skirts!)

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 18 - 10:22 AM

But do they wear white socks and sandals with them

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Senoufou
Date: 26 Aug 18 - 01:46 PM

Oooh I remember hot pants Sandra. Very shocking at first in their day.

And I love long, flowing cotton skirts from the seventies for travelling in Africa. Cool, leg-covering, pretty and easy to wash/dry.
I was a Hippy and wore those skirts ('ethnic') constantly in the seventies, with a full-length crocheted waistcoat over them and a paper flower stuck in my hairband (very long thick plaits)

The young lady you saw with 'a slither of the lower part of one buttock' on view with every step would have made me giggle too. But the one we saw in the supermarket had the whole of her bum cheeks on view. She might as well have been wearing a just a thong! (at twilight)

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: olddude
Date: 26 Aug 18 - 07:10 PM

Sun dresses on the ladies was wonderful

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 26 Aug 18 - 07:25 PM

In the early 90s I used to meet friends for breakfast at Bondi Beach & saw some amazing sights! On the street, heading for the beach, a bum wearing a thong. Her bikini was 3 rather small triangles, that were cut from a handkerchief sized bit of fabric!

Another sight also years ago in the CBD at 5.30pm - young woman in a long black skirt, the bit below the knee was opaque, the bit above was opaque & she was also wearing a thong ...

We are in the last bit of cooler weather but some backpackers are already in shorts! Short shorts, naturally. Today's forecast is a few degrees lower than past days, with wind & rain also forecast, & I assume I'll see blue-legged wearers of shorts who didn't notice the forecast.

olddude - some shorts wearers do wear socks with their sandals, but locals don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 18 - 07:33 PM

Jesus wore sandals without socks so that's good enough for me. And I have it on good authority that he admired ladybuttocks barely covered by Daisy Dukes. Why wouldn't he? After all, he CREATED those buttocks!

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: JennieG
Date: 26 Aug 18 - 09:39 PM

Eliza - the Sweet Young Thing you saw in her shorty shorts does have a mirror, I'm sure. However......what she sees in her mirror, and what you see when you look at her, are two different people.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Aug 18 - 09:56 PM

Not only that, it's next to impossible to properly view your own arse undistorted in a mirror. There's far too much contortion involved, even if you try it with two mirrors. You could always get someone to take a photo of your arse, I suppose. Or, in the case of the girls who are tending to hang out one-sidedly, a brief video even. It may help them. There's a B&B in Bath that has the bathroom with mirrors on every wall. With careful positioning you can actually view your own arse relatively undistorted. We could always talk about something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 05:45 AM

Nah it's easy Steve. You hold a small shaving mirror in your hand, turn your back on the big mirror and look at your bum/rear view quite clearly.

I expect the lassie was chuffed to have so much of her bottom out for viewing. That's the 'If you've got it flaunt it' brigade's philosophy.
It was a very nice bum. Mine would cause riots in the street, armed response Police rushing to the scene and people fleeing to safety.

I wonder what Jesus really did wear? Sandals are mentioned in the Bible. People were forever washing eachother's feet, and no socks seem to have been in evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 06:23 AM

You can get very fast-drying sandals these days, ideal for walking on water. Socks in that instance would constitute a severe impediment to comfort. And, holding a mirror in the hand is in itself a contributor to unnatural distortion of the body when self-viewing the arse. You need a consenting adult to take a pic, ideally.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 09:00 AM

Not many folks wearing sandals on our Vienna/Heathrow flight!

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 10:33 AM

Wasn't there a folksong about Jesus in an aeroplane?

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 11:15 AM

Heavenly Aeroplane, that was it.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 12:48 PM

The Romans appear to have worn those sandals that have long thongs criss-crossing up the leg, leaving awful marks when you take them off.
I reckon Jesus wore Wellingtons. Or maybe Crocs.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 02:33 PM

'Daisy Dukes' are just confusing - my eyes can never decide where to look, and usually end up gazing inappropriately!

If she's wearing Daisy's, she wants to be looked at. If she doesn't want to be looked at, she shouldn't be wearing Daisy's. And spare me the "I can wear whatever I want & just because..." crap. Your actions have consequences. If you don't like the potential consequences, don't invite them. Women aren't raped because of what they wear, despite the ignorant comments of stupid bigots (the evidence has proved this again & again), but you are likely to receive "compliments" if you dress revealingly. Don't whinge if you choose to do so. You can choose otherly.

Apart from that, I wear shorts all year round. I'm notorious for it. I think the last time I wore a pair of full-length trousers was Feb '15! I really don't feel the cold...

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 03:16 PM

"If she's wearing Daisy's, she wants to be looked at.....And spare me the "I can wear whatever I want & just because..." crap. Your actions have consequences. If you don't like the potential consequences, don't invite them."

I didn't say anything to the contrary.

"Women aren't raped because of what they wear, despite the ignorance of stupid bigots..."

I never mentioned women being raped. You've introduced that issue, not me.

This has, so far, been a friendly and light-hearted thread - please don't turn it into yet another Shit-Slinging Contest.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 03:36 PM

We visited the Nike shop at Riverside, Norwich today. My husband would live in there if he could. There were hundreds of long shorts on offer, track suits, baseball caps, football shirts, millions of trainers, sporty clothes of all types. We're in that shop every blooming week.

He floats around in there with a beatific smile from ear to ear.
He got a pair of knee-length shorts (grey with a big Nike 'tick' logo on one leg) to go with the dozens of others he has in his wardrobes.
But before we emerged he'd quartered the entire shop, touching and drooling over everything.

I usually sit on a long bench they have for trying on trainers and chat to the children who are getting new ones from mum or dad.

I expect nearer Crimbo, I'll get him some stuff from the Nike shop to put under the tree. I swear he actually believes in Father Christmas!

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 03:56 PM

I'd love to meet Mr. Senoufou - he sounds a great guy!

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 04:13 PM

I wasn't replying to you specifically or even peripherally, Bw. It was simply that, in view of the way Mc threads often go, I thought it was a point worth making & that needed to be made. Nowt to do with you at all, sir! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 04:49 PM

He is, Backwoodsman. And very funny too.

He's always throwing his arms round our next-door neighbour Robert and saying, "Hello my brother! I am your Nigger Neighbour and I love you!"

Robert is always convulsed with laughter and often says, "If oim yer bloomin' brother mate, moi owld ma must've been at it wi' a black milkman!"

Norwich City FC seem to have introduced several new colours for their training kits - khaki, silver and grey, a zizzy electric green and so on. Sadly for me, their shop is a short walk from the Nike one. (Riverside is the area right next to the Canaries football ground) So having done the tour of Nike, we then have to explore the entire Canaries shop as well.

I don't really mind. He always looks dishy in his shorts and sporty gear...

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 04:55 PM

"I wasn't replying to you specifically or even peripherally, Bw. It was simply that, in view of the way Mc threads often go, I thought it was a point worth making & that needed to be made. Nowt to do with you at all, sir!"

In view of the fact that you began the post with a quote from my own post of 24 Aug 18 - 07:24 AM, I believe it was reasonable for me to assume you were replying to me. Thanks for the clarification.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 04:58 PM

Sen, you obviously adore him - that's so good to hear, and he's a very lucky man!

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Acorn4
Date: 27 Aug 18 - 05:54 PM

Well here's Daisy:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpVfGys2APE

Happy Days!!

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Senoufou
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 08:54 AM

I honestly never knew that there was/is a real person called Daisy Duke! I see she was a character from The Dukes of Hazzard TV show.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 10:36 AM

I light a candle to her:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: frogprince
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 11:57 AM

Y'know, I never really watched the show, and I was actually under the impression that Daisy ran around with more cheek showing, and that true "Daisy Dukes" followed suit.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 12:33 PM

Bw - It was absolutely reasonable. Hence the clarification!! ;-) I'd have put it in to start with, if only I'd fort av it. Mea culpa, mea culpa...

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Acorn4
Date: 28 Aug 18 - 06:23 PM

Catherine Bach, who played Daisy is now 62. Still bearing up well for her advanced years.

Subject: RE: BS: Shorts Armageddon?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Aug 18 - 11:23 AM

64, Acorn - born Catherine Bachman, March 1, 1954.