Ideal male figure for Clothes

[haloitsme]

For me,
195cm/ 90-95kg/ broad shoulder, trained , wears a suit in 42/52 with a drop 8-10. total length of legs measured outside 105-110cm. Not to big legs!
You can scale up or down in this proportion & I find that a very appealing size.

 

[Alfargo]

This is the ideal male body. You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like

yo hahahaha this is funny

 

[michaelvl]

In my opinion being lean, between 5.10 and 6.2, broad and square shouldered, having a V-tapered masculine torso and muscular and legs that are in proportion to the torso, no visible tattoos or piercings and being well groomed are prerequisites to having clothes look good on a man.

If one is mildly out of shape then good fitting and desirable clothes can rectify a lot. If one however passes a certain threshold of being out of shape, to me no amount of beautiful and well fitting clothes will be able to compensate for it.

It is better to get and keep yourself in decent shape first, before spending much clout on a wardrobe. Average but well fitted (OTR) clothes on a good physique will look an order of magnitude better than expensive well tailored clothes on an out of shape individual.

 

[dieworkwear]

no visible tattoos

This -- and I cannot stress this enough -- is incorrect.

 

[comrade]

Does a saber scar from the Crimean War disqualify as well?

 

[FlyingHorker]

Here, I found a pic of myself. ****** is technically bigger than my shoulder and chest. By definition, that is a pear shape.

Put some lipstick on this pig!

 

[tcbinnc]

In my opinion being lean, between 5.10 and 6.2, broad and square shouldered, having a V-tapered masculine torso and muscular and legs that are in proportion to the torso, no visible tattoos or piercings and being well groomed are prerequisites to having clothes look good on a man.

If one is mildly out of shape then good fitting and desirable clothes can rectify a lot. If one however passes a certain threshold of being out of shape, to me no amount of beautiful and well fitting clothes will be able to compensate for it.

It is better to get and keep yourself in decent shape first, before spending much clout on a wardrobe. Average but well fitted (OTR) clothes on a good physique will look an order of magnitude better than expensive well tailored clothes on an out of shape individual.

I saw what you describe happen here just recently and in a video online. In both cases, two different individuals wore nearly the same outfit with the better proportioned fellow receiving tremendous accolades while the other received critiques about fixing this or that. And the commentary wasn't on "fit" so much as it was on the clothing choices themselves. Very interesting.

 

[tcbinnc]

Here, I found a pic of myself. ****** is technically bigger than my shoulder and chest. By definition, that is a pear shape.

Put some lipstick on this pig!

I don't see the pear shape. But it does look like you have one foot on a step (with no railing!) but which is actually a rug. Very Escher-esque.

 

[tcbinnc]

This -- and I cannot stress this enough -- is incorrect.

How so? I would agree that in a suit, they may look good on David Beckham but otherwise are an incongruous distraction.

 

[dieworkwear]

How so? I would agree that in a suit, they may look good on David Beckham but otherwise are an incongruous distraction.

You either like them or you don't, but IMO issues about tattoos are less about their visual effect and more about how people socially perceive them. Meaning, they're no more distracting than a pocket square or tie. Or the felted flowers that people used to put in their lapels. People dislike them for all the reasons they like or dislike other items: because they associate them with certain people. They dislike tattoos because they think they're associated with the lower and criminal classes.

I think there are good and bad tattoos, but the class thing doesn't bother me. I also think the fact that some people are still bothered by tattoos is partly the reason why they're still cool.

If I wasn't so deathly afraid of needles, I would definitely get tattoos.

 

[BXpress]

They dislike tattoos because they think they're associated with the lower and criminal classes.

I don't think they are anything special or daring nowadays. I mainly dislike them because with many people, i see it as a weak attempt to make oneself look "badass". I understand that for some people it's a true passion though and some can be very original and artful.

A woman once asked me if would ever get inked. I said "ha, no way woman". She said "Oh you're boring". To which I replied "tell me if i would get tattoos, would it automatically transform me into a bad ass even if i was the worst lame ass in the world?"

 

[gs77]

They dislike tattoos because they are associated with the lower and criminal classes.

FTFY

 

[DrapeCut]

Smother me with that flabby and bulbous tummy before you smother me with your flabby and bulbous character

I'm not interested in discussing my character. It's immaterial. Please stay on point.

 

[DrapeCut]

IMO, is this the kind of logic-driven approach to style that makes guys look like dorks, even when they're "dressed correctly." Again, look at all those photos of stylish, old men. They're all hunched over and slightly flabby. Or look at super, duper skinny guys wearing SLP. It's true that if you have a slim, athletic figure with shoulders that are broader then your hips, it's easier to look good. It's also easier to look good when you have a ton of money because you can afford nice things. But tons of people in different body types and with different budgets look stylish.

Just take a look outside in any city. Many of the best-dressed people are not classically attractive or even wealthy. Some of the most stylish people I see in day-to-day life are creative young people who are connected to culture and have a sense of taste. They're sometimes people who thrift or shop on the low end of the market. They're people who know how to pull things off well.

I think guys who are into classic style are often driven by really rational, logic approaches to dress. So they love reading things like construction break downs, articles about quality and "best value for your money," and rules about how things should be put together. But real style, in the end, is so much more about feeling and developing your eye. Most of the best-dressed men in history don't have half the knowledge of people on this board; they simply knew what looked good. Sometimes guys get so caught in the idea of rules and regulations, it gets in the way of them being able to capture that feeling.

Anyway, regarding that pear-shaped body, the whole point of tailoring is to give you a certain silhouette. Who cares if you have a pear-shaped body? A bit of drape tailoring and extended shoulders and viola, you have a v-shaped figure. It seems backward to me to think that you have to change your body type to fit clothes, rather than find clothes to fit your body type.

I agree with much of what you wrote. I won't debate the points of contention because they deviate from the question at hand. I'm not interested in style or one's ability to "pull things off well." Do you not accept my beginning premise that there exists an ideal male form?

 

[DrapeCut]

In my opinion being lean, between 5.10 and 6.2, broad and square shouldered, having a V-tapered masculine torso and muscular and legs that are in proportion to the torso, no visible tattoos or piercings and being well groomed are prerequisites to having clothes look good on a man.

If one is mildly out of shape then good fitting and desirable clothes can rectify a lot. If one however passes a certain threshold of being out of shape, to me no amount of beautiful and well fitting clothes will be able to compensate for it.

It is better to get and keep yourself in decent shape first, before spending much clout on a wardrobe. Average but well fitted (OTR) clothes on a good physique will look an order of magnitude better than expensive well tailored clothes on an out of shape individual.

Yes!