What would you think of someone using this?

that's genius, i need one of them, my blouses are always bunching up

File: krekhPH.jpg (998KB, 2178x3267px) Image search: [Google]

998KB, 2178x3267px

I would think the way his shirt fits looks really bad and uncomfortable.

thats a lot of bother for a small reward

I have a fupa so nty

>>12457856
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15_Y3_eRfOU

>>12457856
No, a well fitting, tailored shirt will get you 90% there without use of these stupid gadgets.

>>12457891
My shirt rides up, so that the collar sags in the back

what do

>>12457891
A well fitting shirt will still ride and bunch up if you frequently sit up and down.

>wearing jeans as low as that with dress shirts
no fucking wonder

>>12457856
Former military. A guy I work with is former Navy and he said they had to wear them in their formal dress.

I think they're nifty and would buy some if I wore dress shirts often.

File: IMG_7238.jpg (45KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1000x1000px

I wear stirrup style shirt stays. These ones look pretty cool, may snag some.

>>12457856
I'm wearing a pair of Y shaped ones right now. They keep the shirt down and the socks up. Awesome.

BUT - they tend to slide towards the back part of my legs, and I've to be somewhat careful not to sit onto the plastic thingies for adjusting the strap length.

why don't they just make shirts with built in shirt stay straps... you could reinforce the parts where the straps are sown onto the shirt etc...

>>12457856
HI IM ANTONIO CENTENO, FOUNDER OF RMRS

>>12457877
that's not the issue in the that photo tho
the pants and the shoes are pretty bad together

>>12459521
pants and shoes are the best part.

>>12459521
The pants and shoes work fine together. The problem is that he's followed this weird trend of cuffing his dressier pants himself, instead of getting them cuffed by his tailor, and the result looks terrible.

This invention is a solution looking for a problem, unless the problem is the idiocy of the populace or of high street retailers. Trouser rises have gotten shorter as have shirts, but people still cling to the idea that we should tuck in shrunken shirts to low-rise pants, and the whole venture doesn't come off because it wasn't intended to. Buy longer shirts, if the goal is to tuck them in. Buy pants with higher rises if you intend to tuck shirts into them. You don't need whatever this monstrosity is to keep your shirts tucked in.

>>12457856
gay, but gotta say its useful af.

>>12457877

>Those shoes
>No socks

Are you gay or something?

>>12457856
Just stop wearing low-rise trousers.

File: 51yDVE0VV5L._SX342_[1].jpg (27KB, 342x342px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 342x342px

Just get pic related and enjoy never having to tuck in your shirt or having soggy socks ever again.

Been using them quite a bit and i dont even notice them (just like wearing contacts).

File: SeanConneryInGlenCheck.png (1MB, 1213x903px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1213x903px

REEEEE WE WOULDNT NEED ANY OF THIS TRASH IF MENS PANTS WERE JUST MADE WITH HIGH WAISTS.

Look at Connery's pants here, they sit at the waist. Coupled with the fact that his old school shirt probably goes to his crotch, thats a shirt thats staying tucked. But more than that, look how flattering and effay his silhouette is. Womens trousers are high waisted, why aren't mens?

>>12460248

Problem is the vast majority of brands are low waisted, only grandpa tier fits are high rise. Nothing for the younger man.

>>12460361
>Womens trousers are high waisted, why aren't mens?
They are, you just don't know how to shop.

>>12457856
whyboner

>>12460365
they aren't. they don't have a rise even close to what connery has in that photo. they usually sit way lower, just over the hip; not on your natural waist

>>12457856
I think that's a nice ass

I wear these when I wear my dress uniform (Military). It makes a huge difference in how good the uniform looks. I've never worn them outside of that but when you need to look sleek and wrinkle free I'd say they're worth it.

>>12460361
Yeah but it's still bunched up as fuck. It's a good casual look for the time, but you want that shit crisp for a formal setting.

>>12457877
fat manlet spic faggot

>>12460684
? why are you so angry, anon

>>12457877

nobody wants to see your hairy ankles faggot, buy some socks

>>12460649
It has to bunch up, unless your shirt is skin tight and you're using those devices of satan shirt stays. Wear a jacket and the bunched up part will remain unseen.

More and more people complain about low rises on their pants, so I guess the future is high-waisted and tucked in.

File: 1460994960-jerry-seinfeld-style.jpg (48KB, 684x1024px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 684x1024px

>>12461538
> It has to bunch up
THIS.
THIS is how a shirt is supposed to fit a man. Besides, if the shirt bunches up "correctly", it won't bunch up any further. This excess fabric is sticking out of pants exactly to allow some movement.
How hard is it to understand?

>>12461542
>future is high-waisted and tucked in

and it will be glorious!

>>12461542
>future
it's literally the hottest meme right now, will probably pass under a year

>>12461612
low waist is shit.

>never again

>>12457856
Im sure you trim your bikiney, hotboy

>>12461542
>>12461609
>>12461612
>>12462150
What if I'm a lanklet who already has long legs? I feel like high rise will make me look like I'm all legs.

>>12460365
post some info on where to go to get pants similar to this

>>12460361
Exactly.

>>12460248
Shirt stays have existed for a while

anyone else think this looks like some weird BDSM device?

>>12462673
i have the same problem

>>12460649
One must wear a jacket in a formal setting.

>>12461538
>>12461576
You can wear a slightly trimmer shirt than Connery is. That'll remove some of the bunching, but it'll never look like the shirts in a GQ spread (thank god).

>>12462673
You should still look balanced, unless you have no torso.

>>12462746
They've always been a solution looking for a problem. Notice how I didn't specify stays as being a new invention.

>>12457856
That they're a pussy. Nut snappers or bust.

File: 1317049576351.jpg (28KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 413x395px

>>12459504

actually wouldn't be bad for some events but to wear all the time (to work, job interview, etc) is a little gay

>>12465360
I'm not sure if I wanna be wearing these 8h a day 5 days a week.

>>12459407

I've often wondered this. Like a little elastic tab with a button hole, and corresponding buttons on the pants.

>>12465365
thats what i just said... i mean to a formal event though it would be useful

>>12457881
seriously