American culture: males and pants

[Ihateregistering1]

You mustn't have seen a soccer game like ever. They are sliding much more than in baseball,

Really? Because, I watched some of the world cup. All there was people prancing up and down the field, occasionally falling down and pretending to be hurt. It reminds me of the coaching style of Gordon Bombay.

...right dude. Don't forget your glove for baseball practice you might hurt your hands! Oh and your 22 pads for throw-ball.

Tell you what, anytime you want to try and catch baseball coming at you at 80+ MPH with your bare hand, feel free.

And anytime you want to have a 305 lb guy who benches 450+ lbs and squats over 600 lbs crash into you about 60 times in a row, be my guest and do it without any sort of padding.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Tell you what, anytime you want to try and catch baseball coming at you at 80+ MPH with your bare hand, feel free.

I'll pass thanks, but cricket players all around the world do it every day with no complaints so you could ask them.

And anytime you want to have a 305 lb guy who benches 450+ lbs and squats over 600 lbs crash into you about 60 times in a row, be my guest and do it without any sort of padding.

Again, not really my cup of tea but I tell you what, my housemate is gay so he might be interested.

 

[Olas]

For most of my teenage years it was considered taboo for a guy to wear shorts that didn't extend at least to the knee, I think the trend is starting to wear off but I stopped caring a while ago. Right now I'm wearing shorts that end a little above the knee and I would have no problem wearing them to most places.

If I wasn't required to wear long pants for work I'd probably be in shorts all summer.

#2: In US movies and TV you always see people jogging in sweat pants (Rocky movies, Dirty Harry), which seems like it would be really uncomfortable in the heat. On the other hand you always see children wearing shorts, along with surfers and aging tourists or retirees. It's almost like a sign of lower status or something. Even in summer flicks where all the girls are wearing cut-off jeans and bikinis, the men are standing around in jeans.

Rocky is set in Philly, which is not very warm, especially in fall and winter when a lot of those training montages take place. I can't speak for Dirty Harry except to say that he's not the kind of person I'd imagine would be into casual wear.

#3: Games. When I play Tomb Raider I'm forced to stare for 20 hours at tiny shorts on a young woman.

I'm sure it's just unbearable.

Drake in Uncharted or Indiana Jones? Pants. These are just a few examples.

Anyone who's had to trek through the woods on a hike or campout should know the importance of covering your legs to avoid ticks, insect bites, and possibly even snake bites. It would look incredibly stupid and reckless for Indy to go on his adventures in shorts. You'll notice his female co-stars wear long pants too. As for Lara Croft? Let's not pretend like we don't know why she's dressed how she is. Also, isn't she British?

#4: Women's fashion is somewhat characterized by the exposure of flesh. Skirts, dresses and low-cut tops are female-specific clothing. I'm not qualified to suggest why this is the case, but it only serves to highlight the lack of such flesh-exposing clothes for the males. The scots have kilts and they have a cold climate. Most Aussies wear shorts all year round. If I were an alien I would say there seems to be something going on in the gender dynamics I'm unaware of.

In the summer guys will predominately wear shorts, and if they're doing anything physically active outside they might be completely shirtless, at least in St. Louis where I live. Men's clothing does generally cover more, but it's just a style thing, it has nothing to do with a taboo of exposing skin.

 

[Stu35]

The scots have kilts and they have a cold climate

Im scottish and the only people (apart from weddings etc) that wear kilts are the overly scottish arseholes or tourists trying to "blend in". Do you have this illusion that we wear kilts on a daily basis?

Also a kilt is a very heavy material thats worn with long thick socks. Despite not wearing any underwear its actually pretty warm

It's also a decent way to get some drinking money out of Japanese and American tourists in Edinburgh - wear a kilt, charge a couple of quid a photo, hit rose street (or, if looking for student wenches around freshers - the 3 sisters).

 

[Olas]

Tell you what, anytime you want to try and catch baseball coming at you at 80+ MPH with your bare hand, feel free.

I'll pass thanks, but cricket players all around the world do it every day with no complaints so you could ask them.

Or you can ask me, since I played baseball for 4 years. Those things are hard as bricks, they can hurt your hand even with a glove on. Trying to catch one with your bare hands is just stupid and would be painful even if it was done well. Trying to catch a line drive hit off a bat would likely break your hand.

If cricket players choose not to play with gloves they're either playing differently or they're masochists who don't care about getting injured. Personally I'd have rather played with a softball, but in the States softball is seen as Baseball for girls.

 

[Stu35]

Tell you what, anytime you want to try and catch baseball coming at you at 80+ MPH with your bare hand, feel free.

I'll pass thanks, but cricket players all around the world do it every day with no complaints so you could ask them.

Or you can ask me, since I played baseball for 4 years. Those things are hard as bricks, they can hurt your hand even with a glove on. Trying to catch one with your bare hands is just stupid and would be painful even if it was done well. Trying to catch a line drive hit off a bat would likely break your hand.

If cricket players choose not to play with gloves they're either playing differently or they're masochists who don't care about getting injured. Personally I'd have rather played with a softball, but in the States softball is seen as Baseball for girls.

I've handled a baseball, and a cricket ball.

They're about as hard as one another.

Baseball players catch one handed, cricketers catch two handed(where possible, you do often see one handed diving catches), that seems to be a difference.

One could also argue that the only people really catching 80+ mph balls are the Wicketkeeper and [bloke who stands behind the batter in baseball] - Once a ball comes off a bat it begins to slow exponentially, by the time somebody is trying to actually catch it then it's usually going quite a bit slower.

Exceptions, of course, may include the infielders in baseball, and your silly catchers in cricket (They're called "silly" for a reason), but I'd argue you don't often see them taking a ball square on at full speed - they tend to be diving to make a catch, the momentum of the ball carries them back a bit which bleeds out a lot of the energy.


Final point:

Baseballers should learn to fucking catch and stop being pussies, but both sports are boring as fuck - except 20/20, 20/20 is just about stomachable. Just about. With enough beer.



Final Final point:

And anytime you want to have a 305 lb guy who benches 450+ lbs and squats over 600 lbs crash into you about 60 times in a row, be my guest and do it without any sort of padding.

It's not 60 times in a row. Don't fucking exagerate.

Most NFL players make a maximum of 12 tackles a game (with the absolute RECORD being 24 tackles a game). I'll agree that the impact of collision in the NFL is fucking huge - but I think part of that is down to the pads. Take those pads off those men and you'd get considerably fewer injuries, collisions would still be pretty good, just not as dangerous as they are now.

Higher injury rates are not a good thing in my opinion.

Final Final Final point: Rugby League should bring back the fucking shoulder charge.

Spoiler: music's shit, but Rugby League is the best sport in the world ever and anybody who says otherwise is a communist and Al Qaeda sympathiser

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Final Final point:

And anytime you want to have a 305 lb guy who benches 450+ lbs and squats over 600 lbs crash into you about 60 times in a row, be my guest and do it without any sort of padding.

It's not 60 times in a row. Don't fucking exagerate.

Most NFL players make a maximum of 12 tackles a game (with the absolute RECORD being 24 tackles a game). I'll agree that the impact of collision in the NFL is fucking huge - but I think part of that is down to the pads. Take those pads off those men and you'd get considerably fewer injuries, collisions would still be pretty good, just not as dangerous as they are now.

Higher injury rates are not a good thing in my opinion.

Depends on what position you're playing, and I didn't say "tackled", I said "crashed into". If you're an offensive lineman (especially on the interior) then you are going to get crashed into on basically every play, and most DTs in the NFL are 300+ lbs.

Do agree with you about how fewer pads would probably mean less injuries. It's one of those oddball things where protective equipment has actually made things worse (much like gloves in boxing).

 

[Jandau]

While I'm not American, I tend to avoid shorts of any kind unless it's inferno-level hot outside, simply because I'm a very pale person with jet-black hair. And very hairy legs. Ironically, my chest and arms are almost completely hairless (and I can't grow a decent beard to save my life), but my legs are bordering on Sasquatch-level fur. Hence, I'm not too big on showing off my calf-fur...

 

[happyninja42]

#1: They aren't worn much in American sports. In American Football and Baseball the players wear long pants. This seems very odd, considering how much they would sweat and considering that almost every other sport in the world the players wear short shorts.

Part of the reason I think is to protect the lower legs. I don't know if you've ever tried to slide into a base playing baseball in shorts but....yeah...ouch. So sliding leg first, you want fabric between your leg and the ground when you slide in. Football...this one I'm not so sure about, as I've never played it, or care much about it.

#2: In US movies and TV you always see people jogging in sweat pants (Rocky movies, Dirty Harry), which seems like it would be really uncomfortable in the heat. On the other hand you always see children wearing shorts, along with surfers and aging tourists or retirees. It's almost like a sign of lower status or something. Even in summer flicks where all the girls are wearing cut-off jeans and bikinis, the men are standing around in jeans.

This ones pretty easy. Actors in your movie, might not have the sexiest, or tannest legs. So having them on screen might look weird, or unappealing. So you keep them in pants. The thing about women wearing short shorts and bikinis...well..do I really have to explain why this is? xD Them in jeans I think is just simply a bit of US prudishness about male nudity. If you show off too much male skin, some people get fussy and whine. Summer movies tend to get around this, and I'm not sure which ones you are watching that show all the guys in jeans. Most summer beach movies I've seen, they're in shorts for the most part. usually while wearing shades, and holding up a beer going "WHOOOOOOOOOOO!!"

#3: Games. When I play Tomb Raider I'm forced to stare for 20 hours at tiny shorts on a young woman. Drake in Uncharted or Indiana Jones? Pants. These are just a few examples.

Because those games were targeted at male customers. So put the hot chick in boy shorts so they can admire her ass, and put the guys in jeans so you're not staring at their male butt for hours in an obvious outfit. It's sexist yeah, but it's the reality of why that happens in games. And considering how many of my friends who constantly play female characters in games, use the reason of "if I'm going to stare at a jiggling ass for 30+ hours of gameplay, I want it to be an ass I like looking at" ...I can see the reason for it from a marketing viewpoint.

#4: Women's fashion is somewhat characterized by the exposure of flesh. Skirts, dresses and low-cut tops are female-specific clothing. I'm not qualified to suggest why this is the case, but it only serves to highlight the lack of such flesh-exposing clothes for the males. The scots have kilts and they have a cold climate. Most Aussies wear shorts all year round. If I were an alien I would say there seems to be something going on in the gender dynamics I'm unaware of.

There isn't a lot of mystery to it, female clothing is marketed to highlight and show off their physical attributes. To attract attention and the eye by emphasizing their breasts, legs, and ass. This isn't a new thing, or a distinctly US thing, that's just a Human Thing. More emphasis is put on women's physical appearance than men, so their clothing is designed to reflect this social emphasis. Guys, not so much.

So, what's up with shorts in the US? Is it somehow considered a social faux pas for a male to show flesh in public? Is it a fashion thing? I have no idea why this subject interests me, it just does. Thank you all.

It's not really a faux pas really? I mean, it varies on where you are. I live in the US southeast, where it's fucking hot and humid as hell for about 9 months out of the year. Around here guys wearing shorts all the time. In fact, just about everyone wears minimal clothing, and people don't really say much about it at all. Why? Because it's fucking hot! xD We're all standing here in 90% humidity weather with a temp of 95+ or something, and it's like being in a sauna...a sauna that takes up the whole world!! So yeah, we strip down pretty heavily. I mean, given how many clothing stores sell shorts for men, I don't think it's that much of an issue, and is probably just a reflection in the media? The men look more manly in jeans perhaps? The Rugged Outdoorsman trope, or some such bullshit. In reality though, we tend to wear shorts just fine.