calogero
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 1
Hi all, first-time poster here, and I come bearing thoughts.
I would describe the concept of skinny jeans as one of the most contentious issues in casual male fashion. One extreme consists of fervent supporters, who fervently insist the tighter the better; and in the red corner, there are the opposition who hold that anything slimmer than straight-leg, you may as well be gay.
I'm here to argue that skinny (or at least slim) jeans are not only sartorially sound, but logical.
The best fashion analogy I can offer is the well-cut and well-fitting suit jacket, for the silhouette of the proper suit jacket very closely mirror the male physique.
Its high armholes simulate the large vertical size of the torso before it connects to the arms. The modern jacket tapers in at the midriff, following the contours of the waist as it tapers out once more over the hips. Closely modelling the size of the arm, the sleeves are relatively wide at the armholes then gradually shrink in diameter until their end.
A beautiful garment, logically and faithfully mimicking body shape in order to flatter.
In this way, the notion of skinny or slim jeans is also grounded in logic. Frankenstein abnormalities notwithstanding, the human leg is not anywhere near the same size at the ankle as it is at the thigh - so why have straight or even minimally tapered jeans?
Now: lest this view be challenged into extremes, there is such thing as too much of a good thing. I do not advocate maniacally skinny jeans such as the following:
I believe the above fails because it follows too closely the contours of the leg. The taper must never appear to tighten harshly in on itself, rather being a progressive diminishing in size towards the ankle.
I actually can't find a photo on the web that I think perfectly illustrates this ideal (none of these damn models look as good as me in skinny jeans!). This mediocre pic, which I would actually describe as 'slim' but illustrates the continuous taper, will have to do:
Voilà my thoughts on the matter. Et vous?
I would describe the concept of skinny jeans as one of the most contentious issues in casual male fashion. One extreme consists of fervent supporters, who fervently insist the tighter the better; and in the red corner, there are the opposition who hold that anything slimmer than straight-leg, you may as well be gay.
I'm here to argue that skinny (or at least slim) jeans are not only sartorially sound, but logical.
The best fashion analogy I can offer is the well-cut and well-fitting suit jacket, for the silhouette of the proper suit jacket very closely mirror the male physique.
Its high armholes simulate the large vertical size of the torso before it connects to the arms. The modern jacket tapers in at the midriff, following the contours of the waist as it tapers out once more over the hips. Closely modelling the size of the arm, the sleeves are relatively wide at the armholes then gradually shrink in diameter until their end.
A beautiful garment, logically and faithfully mimicking body shape in order to flatter.
In this way, the notion of skinny or slim jeans is also grounded in logic. Frankenstein abnormalities notwithstanding, the human leg is not anywhere near the same size at the ankle as it is at the thigh - so why have straight or even minimally tapered jeans?
Now: lest this view be challenged into extremes, there is such thing as too much of a good thing. I do not advocate maniacally skinny jeans such as the following:
I believe the above fails because it follows too closely the contours of the leg. The taper must never appear to tighten harshly in on itself, rather being a progressive diminishing in size towards the ankle.
I actually can't find a photo on the web that I think perfectly illustrates this ideal (none of these damn models look as good as me in skinny jeans!). This mediocre pic, which I would actually describe as 'slim' but illustrates the continuous taper, will have to do:
Voilà my thoughts on the matter. Et vous?
