Sockless Grooms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wedding vendor here. Love them or hate them, I typically only see them at expensive and formal weddings in mansion/luxury hotel settings. $150,000 or more kind of days.

Rich people trying to look poor. Yeah that's always been a thing.

"Look at me! I can't afford socks and times are tough for me also!" Ick.

[Anonymous]

This is the weirdest fashion thread ever. Half of you don’t seem to actually be interested in it.

The “smoking loafer” has always been a thing. Like for hundreds of years.

[Anonymous]

It's been popular in the Utah Mormon community for almost 10 years. Look it up.

A high percentage of those guys are closeted gays.

[Anonymous]

Those pictures sre so funny.

Those guys need red satin Hugh Heffner style smoking jackets with giant black lapels. And they need to ditch the neckties and open the shirts to their navels.

Then their pictures would look cohesive, but only if the bride is wearing a sheer corset style miniskirt wedding dress with a voluminous tulle train.

For the person who keeps claiming this is a rich "old world" look, 1960s Playboy Mansion style is not "old world European" or wealthy generational elegance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the weirdest fashion thread ever. Half of you don’t seem to actually be interested in it.

The “smoking loafer” has always been a thing. Like for hundreds of years.

Yes.

At home.

For after dinner cognacs in front of the fire.

Not in public at a formal event, unless that event happens to involve Hugh Heffner or the Doc from the Love Boat.

Definitely not for a wedding where you will have those pictures for eternity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sockless men in general isn't an issue. It's the whole look/vibe of these grooms in their tuxes wearing pants that are too short or too narrow, no socks with black velvet "tuxedo" slippers. Can someone explain what look they are going for?

Vintage Euro. It’s very elegant.

No.

It's not

No really. Do an internet search. This is old money aristocracy/ Ivy League style. If it looks freakish to you, you probably grew up poor or middle class.

It’s back because “quiet luxury” and “old money” style is trendy.

Stop following TicTok for what is old money and quiet luxury, because you clearly haven't a clue. Please don't come back with your BS about how you are old money or your BF is or whatever. Sockless is for boat shoes and shorts on the deck of your sailboat. Not a wedding. Good God.

Never heard of Stubbs and Wootton, huh?

They're slippers from the early 90s. Funny that you think that's "old money". It's not even old. Unless you're 12. Back to TikTok for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sockless men in general isn't an issue. It's the whole look/vibe of these grooms in their tuxes wearing pants that are too short or too narrow, no socks with black velvet "tuxedo" slippers. Can someone explain what look they are going for?

Vintage Euro. It’s very elegant.

No.

It's not

No really. Do an internet search. This is old money aristocracy/ Ivy League style. If it looks freakish to you, you probably grew up poor or middle class.

It’s back because “quiet luxury” and “old money” style is trendy.

Stop following TicTok for what is old money and quiet luxury, because you clearly haven't a clue. Please don't come back with your BS about how you are old money or your BF is or whatever. Sockless is for boat shoes and shorts on the deck of your sailboat. Not a wedding. Good God.

Never heard of Stubbs and Wootton, huh?

They're slippers from the early 90s. Funny that you think that's "old money". It's not even old. Unless you're 12. Back to TikTok for you.

Yes.

And in the early 90s, they were slippers for wearing inside with your PJs. Not outside at a wedding

[Anonymous]

They’re from the 18th century.

You kids are just proudly displaying your lack of knowledge about history and fashion, and your lack of sophistication.

Nothing like arrogant Dunning-Krugers with strong opinions who are mean to their friends. What a group you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’re from the 18th century.

You kids are just proudly displaying your lack of knowledge about history and fashion, and your lack of sophistication.

Nothing like arrogant Dunning-Krugers with strong opinions who are mean to their friends. What a group you are.

In the 18th century, no one, anywhere, and certainly not wealthy people, would have worn velvet bed slippers anywhere outside of their private residences. The only people going without stockings (ie sockless) in the 18th century were the extremely poor people who didn't have money to buy shoes.

[Anonymous]

I’m not the target market, but yeah, they’ve been around a long time and British Aristocracy made them famous. Long before Hugh Hefner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’re from the 18th century.

You kids are just proudly displaying your lack of knowledge about history and fashion, and your lack of sophistication.

Nothing like arrogant Dunning-Krugers with strong opinions who are mean to their friends. What a group you are.

Ahoy ahoy! Jolly Good! And do not even get me started on powdered whigs, govnuh!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the weirdest fashion thread ever. Half of you don’t seem to actually be interested in it.

The “smoking loafer” has always been a thing. Like for hundreds of years.

Yes.

At home.

For after dinner cognacs in front of the fire.

Not in public at a formal event, unless that event happens to involve Hugh Heffner or the Doc from the Love Boat.

Definitely not for a wedding where you will have those pictures for eternity.

+1
The twits wearing these "smoking loafers" as formal wear are very clearly trying to cosplay some sort of aristocratic elegance - and failing miserably. It's just so cringeworthy and embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’re from the 18th century.

You kids are just proudly displaying your lack of knowledge about history and fashion, and your lack of sophistication.

Nothing like arrogant Dunning-Krugers with strong opinions who are mean to their friends. What a group you are.

Oh, yay! It's the Dunning-Kruger poster, here to lecture us all on how "unsophisticated" we are because we have pointed out how ridiculous men in sockless velvet slippers look. Must have touched a nerve.

[Anonymous]

OMG, look at this guy. Steampunk with his sockless, bowed loafers. Run, ladies!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re from the 18th century.

You kids are just proudly displaying your lack of knowledge about history and fashion, and your lack of sophistication.

Nothing like arrogant Dunning-Krugers with strong opinions who are mean to their friends. What a group you are.

In the 18th century, no one, anywhere, and certainly not wealthy people, would have worn velvet bed slippers anywhere outside of their private residences. The only people going without stockings (ie sockless) in the 18th century were the extremely poor people who didn't have money to buy shoes.

+100
Love the PP and her "lack of knowledge" lecture!