I was pretty young, but recalling Miami Vice and the slightly unshaved, t-shirt and sportcoat look, I don't recall thinking it looked like "garish machismo" mentioned in an NYT article today. In fact, wearing colorful t-shirts and spending too much time working on the right amount of unshavedness, really starts looking effette. But not nearly as effette as what the gushing author of the NYT article was comparing the Miami Vice look to -- men wearing dress pants and shoes without socks.
I have no problem with men wearing shorts and masculine sandals, so I'm not opposed to seeing naked manly ankles, but there is a time and a place for such things and any time a man is wearing a suit is not the time to see naked hairy ankles. I just say, ew! Mostly, I think it's way too wussy looking and I don't like seeing hairy legs under a suit period. Extra length executive socks all the way, please!!! Big Arm Woman, from whom I found the article, also mentioned in the stench factor, which of course would be quite nasty.
But, says the article, "For a year or two men have been picking up white cotton no-show athletic socks, once the sole province of women's tennis, as a comfortable and stylish complement to athletic footwear." Women's socks. Women can pull off the sockless look. Men -- not so much. Men, put your socks back on when you got out in suits, anything else is just icky and girlish.
1 year ago