bkkguy
January 2nd, 2006, 17:36
While I have often wondered exactly how low slung jeans can be and how many acres of underwear can be displyed above a beltline, I did not reaslise what what a fight was going on here (well actually elsewhere thank god) between the metrosexuals and the wiggas to see who could show the most buttock and why!
The cheek of it
Saturday December 17, 2005
The Guardian
Young men have always dressed to shock. Yet there is something uniquely strange about today's acres of underclad bottoms, says William Sutcliffe
...
When it comes to the low belt-line, there are two rival theories as to its inception. The trickle-down theory credits Alexander McQueen's "bumster" trousers, which in the mid-90s set the trend for a descending belt. Others trace the look to US prisons, where one of the first things that happens is your belt is taken away. Prisoners, as a result, wear their trousers low. From here, via gangster chic, the look spread all the way to suburban "wiggas" - white men who mimic black urban culture.
....
The subtext of the look is, I suspect, a defiantly macho, "Look, I'm so heterosexual that I can display my arse in public without feeling gay."
....
The arse is being displayed to provoke suggestions of homosexuality that can then be reacted to with aggressive homophobia. You show your arse, then anyone who looks can legitimately be punched. It is, then, a homophobic pseudo-gay come-on.
...
Just as high heels and long nails were an incapacitating fashion statement beloved of rich men who wanted to proclaim the unemployability of their trophy wives, the low belt serves a similar function: if everyone can see your underwear and a significant portion of your backside, you are telling the world that there is no employer breathing down your neck, dictating what you wear. You are also saying that you don't even want a job.
...
full story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1667851,00.html
I secretly think this might be Hedda writing under an alias!
bkkguy
The cheek of it
Saturday December 17, 2005
The Guardian
Young men have always dressed to shock. Yet there is something uniquely strange about today's acres of underclad bottoms, says William Sutcliffe
...
When it comes to the low belt-line, there are two rival theories as to its inception. The trickle-down theory credits Alexander McQueen's "bumster" trousers, which in the mid-90s set the trend for a descending belt. Others trace the look to US prisons, where one of the first things that happens is your belt is taken away. Prisoners, as a result, wear their trousers low. From here, via gangster chic, the look spread all the way to suburban "wiggas" - white men who mimic black urban culture.
....
The subtext of the look is, I suspect, a defiantly macho, "Look, I'm so heterosexual that I can display my arse in public without feeling gay."
....
The arse is being displayed to provoke suggestions of homosexuality that can then be reacted to with aggressive homophobia. You show your arse, then anyone who looks can legitimately be punched. It is, then, a homophobic pseudo-gay come-on.
...
Just as high heels and long nails were an incapacitating fashion statement beloved of rich men who wanted to proclaim the unemployability of their trophy wives, the low belt serves a similar function: if everyone can see your underwear and a significant portion of your backside, you are telling the world that there is no employer breathing down your neck, dictating what you wear. You are also saying that you don't even want a job.
...
full story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1667851,00.html
I secretly think this might be Hedda writing under an alias!
bkkguy