Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You really have the most bizarre set of rules.

TM

One of the best pieces of a advice I've ever heard from a woman:

"Never be seen in nothing but socks."

Pre-coital warning. And I swear she was almost ready to call the whole thing off -- just from that faux pas.

And so, applying the logic of Remo in the anteroom scene in Casino, "Why take a chance?"* Indeed. Why ever expose socks?

_________________
* The BOSSES are gathered around a conference table as the
lawyers and nurses silently walk out the door as if on cue.

NICKY (V.O.)
See, when something like this happens,
you know how things are gonna work
out. It's always better with no
witnesses. So, what about Andy?

THE CAMERA PANS FROM ONE BOSS TO THE OTHER.

FORLANO
(Putting down his
oxygen mask once the
door behind him is
shut)
He won't talk. Stone is a good kid.
Stand-up guy, just like his old man.
That's the way I see it.

BORELLI
I agree. He's solid. A fuckin' Marine.

CAPELLI
(Holding his oxygen
mask)
He's okay. He always was. Remo, what
do you think?

GAGGI
(Pause)
Look... why take a chance? At least,
that's the way I feel about it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Hell no. If I ever want to "slow down" I just think of her teeth.

I think of Clint Howard making out with the subway ghoul in Ghost.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Ugly nasty or kinky nasty?

I totally regret accepting a blow job from that insanely kinky chick.

This exact arrangement of words has never previously existed. (And it's not because of the arguably superfluous adverb.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Since this recent discussion has brought forth the remnants of the Fashion Board, I propose a question for Paul Manafort, a former neighbor.

Please enlighten us, Mr. Manafort, as to how a man who has, one presumes, a complete gentlemen's wardrobe for all occasions, thereafter spends $850,000 of laundered money on men's clothing?

Think about your current closet(s). Now supplement those garments with whatever you wish. Buy nothing but the best. Fill the closet in your summer home and your urban hideaway as well. I'm still going to have about $500,000 left out of that $850,000 to supplement my liquor cabinet and my wine cellar. With something left over for my chronometer collection.

I've been assuming this is part of the laundering scheme, and that somewhere along the way paying $33,000 for a $3,000 suit resulted in some Russian or Trumpian "businessman" covering his "overhead" for $30,000 (repeat and rinse).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Buzz Bissinger, on spending $600k on clothing in two years (much of it, apparently, awful): https://www.gq.com/story/buzz-bissin...ucci-addiction

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"Never be seen in nothing but socks."

Congrats, you've re-created one of the gags from Coupling.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Since this recent discussion has brought forth the remnants of the Fashion Board, I propose a question for Paul Manafort, a former neighbor.

Please enlighten us, Mr. Manafort, as to how a man who has, one presumes, a complete gentlemen's wardrobe for all occasions, thereafter spends $850,000 of laundered money on men's clothing?

Think about your current closet(s). Now supplement those garments with whatever you wish. Buy nothing but the best. Fill the closet in your summer home and your urban hideaway as well. I'm still going to have about $500,000 left out of that $850,000 to supplement my liquor cabinet and my wine cellar. With something left over for my chronometer collection.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Custom made Tom Ford suits can reach $15-20k. Notice how many of Manafort's suits have wide peak lapels? That's a classic Tom Ford feature. It's come back into style recently and is made by lesser brands (I've picked up a few jackets in the style). But I'm willing to bet Manafort's are all Ford. I also read somewhere that he shopped at Bijan, where a suit could run $30k.

And his knock around wardrobe was probably custom Brioni and Kiton, which run crazy expensive.

Throw in dozens of custom shoes (John Lobb or better), boots, a bunch of Savile Row suits (anyone doing business with the Russians as much as he did is in London a lot), a couple dozen $10-20k topcoats (it's cold in Moscow), some furs for the Russian hook-- er, girlfriends, and I think you can get to the high six figures.

I'm guessing he cut the store in for a cut and they gave him cash and a bunch of bullshit receipts.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

One of the best pieces of a advice I've ever heard from a woman:

"Never be seen in nothing but socks."

Pre-coital warning. And I swear she was almost ready to call the whole thing off -- just from that faux pas.

And so, applying the logic of Remo in the anteroom scene in Casino, "Why take a chance?"* Indeed. Why ever expose socks?

You have the most bizarre sense of "logic."

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Congrats, you've re-created one of the gags from Coupling.

You live outside linear time?

I want in.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You have the most bizarre sense of "logic."

TM

They're underwear worn as outerwear. And they're uncomfortable. Too hot in summer, bunching around your feet. They add nothing to the wardrobe. And that recent style of wearing strange colored socks did nothing for me. It reminded me of those white-collared and cuffed but otherwise patterned or colored shirts. Why do that? The contrast just messes up an otherwise smooth look (if you've managed to match your clothes properly).

But yes -- nothing drives home a point like a warning that a certain behavior will result in involuntary celibacy. In fact, many here would agree, these are some of the only warnings that stick in a man's head. Since I've been old enough to sleep with them, women have told me I've failed to listen to this or that ("You're not listening to me.") If only they'd slapped the qualifier at the front, "If you do this, I [will not sleep with you]/[will sleep with you more]." The only thing that might attract more immediate attention, and action, would be, "Get out of the way of that missile overhead." The only statement that might stick more in the subconscious would be, "[Insert behavior] will cause your penis to Never Work Again."

The lizard brain associates the sock with sex preclusion. And so The Sock Goes. It's not terribly complicated. I don't have time for the terribly complicated. That portion of the brain belongs to gin, and arguing robot impacts on labor markets with Adder.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No one should ever see socks. Ever. They’re like an exposed t-shirt at the neck, or a wife beater t-shirt under a thin shirt that exposes its outline.

I have some advice for you:

1) Buy nicer socks.
2) If nobody can ever see your socks, the fit on your Dockers is WAY off.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I have some advice for you:

1) Buy nicer socks.
2) If nobody can ever see your socks, the fit on your Dockers is WAY off.

Bamboo socks.

Sebby is the kind of person who doesn't realize he's supposed to laugh at Gatsby.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Bamboo socks.

Sebby is the kind of person who doesn't realize he's supposed to laugh at Gatsby.

You can't affect Brahmin, dear boy. It's in the blood.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They're underwear worn as outerwear.

No. They're socks and they are worn under your clothes and in your shoes. What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And they're uncomfortable. Too hot in summer, bunching around your feet.

What kind of socks are you wearing? I don't find socks uncomfortable at all. And in the summer, they're no more too hot than any other piece of clothing you're wearing. Do you have excessive foot sweat or something? If you do, I would imagine not wearing socks would be an even more disgusting experience.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They add nothing to the wardrobe.

They're not supposed to. They're socks.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And that recent style of wearing strange colored socks did nothing for me.

Me either. Seems like a weird way to get attention, but it doesn't bother me when other people do it.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It reminded me of those white-collared and cuffed but otherwise patterned or colored shirts. Why do that? The contrast just messes up an otherwise smooth look (if you've managed to match your clothes properly).

This look is not for me, but for some people it works very well. I can't explain what it is that makes it work, so I won't try. But, yeah. It's rare.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But yes -- nothing drives home a point like a warning that a certain behavior will result in involuntary celibacy. In fact, many here would agree, these are some of the only warnings that stick in a man's head. Since I've been old enough to sleep with them, women have told me I've failed to listen to this or that ("You're not listening to me.") If only they'd slapped the qualifier at the front, "If you do this, I [will not sleep with you]/[will sleep with you more]." The only thing that might attract more immediate attention, and action, would be, "Get out of the way of that missile overhead." The only statement that might stick more in the subconscious would be, "[Insert behavior] will cause your penis to Never Work Again."

Someone telling you "Being naked except for socks isn't a sexy look," is many steps away from "You should never wear socks if you want to get laid." I didn't think that would ever be a sentence I would need to type.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The lizard brain associates the sock with sex preclusion. And so The Sock Goes. It's not terribly complicated. I don't have time for the terribly complicated. That portion of the brain belongs to gin, and arguing robot impacts on labor markets with Adder.

Whatever works. But I wear socks all the time and have yet to find they were a hindrance* to getting laid.

TM

*This word should be spelled, "hinderance." English makes no sense.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They're underwear worn as outerwear. And they're uncomfortable. Too hot in summer, bunching around your feet. They add nothing to the wardrobe. And that recent style of wearing strange colored socks did nothing for me. It reminded me of those white-collared and cuffed but otherwise patterned or colored shirts. Why do that? The contrast just messes up an otherwise smooth look (if you've managed to match your clothes properly).

They are neither outerwear not underwear. If they are uncomfortable, you need to buy nicer socks. If they are too hot and/or they bunch around your feet, you need to buy nicer socks and make sure they fit you. If your socks add nothing to your wardrobe, you need to buy nicer socks. This is not rocket science. I do not like the contrasting collar and cuff shirt either. Wearing nice socks is nothing like that. I beginning to wonder whether all stuff you said about collars, which I slavishly (*sniff*) adhered to, was not just all nonsense. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder whether the vast majority of what you write on this board is just nonsense.