General Question

Emilyy's avatar

Where does the boundary between man capris and shorts lie?

Asked by Emilyy (2133points) October 29th, 2007

My (metrosexual) co-worker recently wore a pair of leg coverings that extended beyond his knee and exposed only his ankle. He contends that they are shorts (and that all pants shorter than full-length are also shorts, for that matter). I say they’re man-capris or at best, shants. Help!

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

11 Answers

sjg102379's avatar

I would definitely call the knee the cut-off point.

christybird's avatar

I believe the proper term is “manpri,” ha ha. (He’s fooling himself if he calls them anything else.)

Perchik's avatar

I swear I had answered this question already. I’d say they were either pants that were too short, or some form of capri. However, I believe that if you have to question it’s length, it’s either too long or too short.

gailcalled's avatar

Shorts are called that for a reason…those that stoppped traditionally at the knees was known as Bermuda shorts (or schwartz as my kids used to call them). There are also cut-offs, which can start as anything longer than schwartz. Pants shorter than full-length are high-water and capris are still mid- to lower calf.

What’s a metrosexual and was he wearing shoes and socks? If so, what length and color. Please tell me they weren’t white. And even better, tell me he was wearing sandals.

kevbo's avatar

A metrosexual is a straight man with beauty salon & high fashion sensibilities, prone to having manicured nails, relying on hair & skin products, & dressing androgenously to some degree in the name of fashion.

Poser's avatar

When I was in first grade, there was a type of “manpri” (boypri?) called “Jams,” or maybe “Jamz.” They were typically along the lines of what I always thought Bermuda shorts were (flowery/tropical patterns) except they extended well past a boy’s knee to his ankle. Does anyone else remember these? They were all the rage back in 1987.

kevbo's avatar

I had a few pair. Nothing like a pair of jams and a Forenza t-shirt from the Limited to confuse boy’s sense of gender identity, not to mention taste.

I’d add to this discussion that baggy, hip-hop style shorts that practically touch the top of your high tops are shorts and that otherwise normal length shorts worn in the sagging style are shorts. Judging from your description, though, Emily, I highly doubt this is what we are talking about.

Poser's avatar

Yeah, but those only touch the top of one’s high tops when they’re worn below the crease where one’s backside meets one’s thighs. With one’s underwear pulled up plenty high, of course.

sjg102379's avatar

I’ve been thinking about this issue quite a bit and this is what I’ve come up with: it’s not just length, but also cut. A very large baggy thing going below the knee may still be a pair of shorts because manpris tend to have a somewhat slimmer cut and a more fitted look.

gailcalled's avatar

Traditionally, when I was young (remember, as susanc said so memorably, that I am older than God, or at least his feet), Bermuda shorts were khaki, grey flannel or other conservative fabrics, except perhaps on the golf course.

My mother just gave me a pair of chino knee-length shorts (from the back of her closet and from before the flood. I love them

trainerboy's avatar

We used to call them “high water” pants or “floods”. Whatever euphemism is used, to me they are dorky.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther