Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Well it would be common sense if they were universally considered to be underwear. Just because they both share the prefix "under" doesn't mean my ginch and my crisp, nicely collared undershirt are equally inappropriate (to everyone; I get that you view it that way).
Undershirts are also practical depending on your vocation and/or how much you sweat. I mean, isn't that common sense, too? If you have very sweaty underarms, as an example, then not wearing an undershirt strikes me as more inappropriate than wearing one. Who wants to look at giant underarm sweat stains on the dance floor? And at my work, like I want sweat stains coming through to the front of my shirt when I go from the shop to my storefront to help a customer.
If you can see a sliver of my undershirt I'm not too concerned about affecting your sensibilities. I need them.
|
I consider seeing an undershirt through a dress shirt the equivalent of seeing someone's boxers 1-2 inches over the pant line. It's not seemingly as egregious if wearing jeans, but with chinos+ on (which exudes a minimum basic level of, "I'm trying to look well put together"), it looks hilariously stupid.
For the average person, who cares if you can see it. For others, it is an absolute faux pas if you are trying to achieve a certain minimum level of business appropriate and fashionable. This is what is being discussed here.
There's no specific set of rules, but overall per your car metaphor, there is seemingly a specific unwritten sensibility/rule in terms of seeing a well kept Accord, rusty/garbage filled Porche and a rusty/garbage filled Accord. Well kept > rusty any day, but the rusty/dirty Porche might be criticized more and viewed worse than the rusty/dirty Accord.