Is it grandpa-tier to tuck your shirt/sweater and have your pants

>>10848826
Are you
A.) At the yatch club? With Sperrys for shoes?
B.) Amongst the presence of the wealthy and high class?
If neither don't do it man

>>10848834
I am B) and I go to the finest boarding school in the country. That being said, this is still old school.

File: elvis.jpg (75KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 683x1024px

do it man

>>10848834
yeah because only rich people wear their shirt tucked in?
do you even realize how retarded that sounds?

Only old people do that

>>10848834
>>10849289
kill you're self

I like having my shirts tucked into my pants, for some reason. Not only is it convenient because you don't have something in the way between your hands and pockets at all time, but I like how it looks too.

I don't think it works all the time, however - as a general rule, I'd say don't do it if you aren't wearing a belt and if the shirt/polo is more complex than a single plain color or eventually horizontal stripes. Anything more than that - a graphic t-shirt, for example - just doesn't work, tucked in.

Also, you probably should have the body for it. It generally works best if you are kinda /fit/ - not even a lot of muscles, just having the general V shape and arms not too skinny. Oh, and you have to be really confident about how your ass looks, because it *really* accentuates that.

As for the pants, I don't really wear them particularly high. Like in OP's pic, I guess.

how dadcore will I look like if I buy oversized shirts and tuck them in like in the OP?

>>10849500
bump