What are the origins of tucking in a dress shirt? Why is

Because it was pretty hard to wear your shirt untucked with your suspenders (braces). Belted pants are a relatively recent trend.

also it evens out your proportions and makes your legs look longer (given you're wearing the appropriate styles for tucking)

it makes your body look proportionate.

because they are literally made to be tucked in securely, thats why they are longer in the front and back

i cant even believe how wrong those other dudes are

>>12012523
because men used to grow up instead of trying to look like a toddler when they're 38 years old

>>12012523
funny in ops pic they dont even use a proper dress shirt for tucking in

just a different time desu

>>12012523
>rolled up sleeves with slacks

>>12013052
>funny in ops pic they dont even use a proper dress shirt for tucking in
What's the proper and what's the improper?

>>12013287
anything that's long enough to be tucked in can be, that dude's just stupid

>>12013287

That shirts more neutral. It doesn't have the deep grooves in the front that usually signals a dress only. It's not as angular, which is usually a sign of a dress shirt.

>>12013111

Makes sense, there are places in the world where it never gets below 60 degrees. Though you are right if you are talking about his trousers looking like wool.

Tucking in is formal
Untucked is informal

Men used to dress formally all the fucking time (see those pictures in the 1900's of blue collar workers busting their asses in fucking dress slacks or niggas at the beach wearing fucking suits). So its actually the untucked shirt that is unusual and relatively new development. It speaks casuality.

They started making shirts that are actually meant to be untucked - that is, the length is a bit shorter and more rounded. These are the OCBD's, regular button ups etc.

Formal dress shirts are quite long and will look retarded untucked. You need to tuck those shits in

>>12013294
youre fucking retarded
>>12013303

>>12013356
>you're only allowed to tuck in proper dress shirts

actually you are the retarded one here

The shirt tails used to serve as underwear when we didn't use underwear, and the trend continued with the advent of the industrial revolution.

It's culture-based, but it also has aesthetics for some reason.

File: regencybritishmenswear.jpg (100KB, 680x634px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 680x634px

clothing back then was designed to be tucked in, literally incompatible with an untucked shirt.

File: renaissance_mercenary_outfit_jp_01.jpg (79KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 300x400px

>>12013823
Renaissance fashion was so much better, and much more comfortable than this decadent nonsense.
Reminder that the modern formal style is based on the era of decadence.

File: 15023f2d33f24be2aaf1ac70b328cd0b.jpg (239KB, 687x800px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 687x800px

>>12013830
son, what are you talking about?
renaissance fashion, if anything, was more garish.
What you posted was some proletarian filth. They couldn't afford designer wigs and codpieces. Brokefags of the 1400s

File: Giovanni_Battista_Moroni_-_Portrait_of_Don_Gabriel_de_la_Cueva,_later_Duke_of_Alburquerque_-_WGA16256.jpg (162KB, 800x1012px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 800x1012px

>>12013836
This is baroque fashion, not renaissance, you silly fucboy.
>What you posted was some proletarian filth
there was no industrial capitalism and radical division of labour back then, and most talented scientists, artists and craftsmen also usually were warriors. Renaissance clothes were more subtle and practical, not as frilly as baroque ones.

>>12013852
>there was no division of labour back then

there has been a division of labour ever since we discovered agriculture

>>12014119
are you quoting yourself?
>there was no industrial capitalism and radical division of labour back then

>>12014119
>radical division of labor
>radical
>being so retarded you dont understand the socioeconomic developments of the last several centuries
WEW

>>12014259
Problems, smartboy?
It began in one place, namely England, with the industrial revolution. Division of labour in old traditional soceties was not radical in a sense it wasn't caused by growing industrial capitalism, which forced people into factories. The Renaissance didn't know any of this.