Is it a don't to have my undershirt poking out under my sweater instead of tucking the undershirt in?

September 20, 2006 5:00 PM

Is it a don't to have my undershirt poking out under my sweater instead of tucking the undershirt in?

Ive always done this because I dont like having my movement restricted by having a not long enough undershirt tucked into my pants, but im starting to wonder if this looks dumb, and I can't think of whether people normally leave the undershirt or tuck it in... I think formally it looks messy, but casually I thought it was ok, but now I'm not sure.

posted by GleepGlop to clothing, beauty, & fashion (26 comments total)

Depends on the situation. Don't for professional situations, fine for informal, sitting around.
posted by Sara Anne at 5:03 PM on September 20, 2006

It depends. Is it a purple Prada cashmere with a gray undershit and LV slacks? Well congrats Mr. Fashion Week that's a Do. Anything else (and if you're say, over 25) you'll look like a dork.
posted by geoff. at 5:04 PM on September 20, 2006 [3 favorites]

Generally a fashion don't. Tuck it in, or find a shorter undershirt that won't show.

The exception is when uber-fasionable people wear collared shirts under sweaters and leave the tails poking out on purpose. I've most often seen this style on women.
posted by chrisamiller at 5:05 PM on September 20, 2006

I'd say it's usually ok, if (1) you are younger than 25 or so, and (2) the undershirt is NOT looser than the sweater. In other words, you don't want a bunch of extra shirt bunching up in your butt area.
posted by rossination at 5:22 PM on September 20, 2006

Yeah I know women do it because sometimes they have unnaturally short sweaters; I guess the idea is that they can have an extra band of colour to add extra depth to their outfit. Except with me its just the very end of my undershirt poking out (plain undershirt, plain sweater) and I can't decide if that's messy and a don't and I just havent figured it out yet, or if its completely acceptable...
posted by GleepGlop at 5:22 PM on September 20, 2006

I always feel very sloppy-chic when I do this but my wife assures me that it looks dorky. In matters of this nature my wife is always correct, so: don't do it.
posted by escabeche at 5:28 PM on September 20, 2006

If I'm picturing this correctly, this is a horrible look. Definitely get the lengths right... tuck it in or get shorter undershirts.
posted by empyrean at 5:37 PM on September 20, 2006

Aw, dammit. Ok i'm convinced, this is no good. The problem is it gets all bunched up in different ways. In theory it may be OK but in practice it looks way too sloppy...
posted by GleepGlop at 5:42 PM on September 20, 2006

Are you buying undershirts too big?
posted by theora55 at 5:44 PM on September 20, 2006

I've always thought they were supposed to be longer. What I do is tuck them in, but leave a little 'slack,' which makes it much more comfortable.

I'll sometimes wear it under a crappy polo shirt to look decent, but I leave it untucked if it's only a little longer. It's a little more casual but doesn't look too crappy. But if it sticks out more than a couple inches, I think it'd look ridiculous.

I've never tried with a sweater, but I can only imagine it wouldn't look too good.

Did you mark your own comment as a best answer?
posted by fogster at 6:01 PM on September 20, 2006

I associate the look with a drunk frat boy on a Friday night. So, go for it.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 6:03 PM on September 20, 2006

Ive always done this because I dont like having my movement restricted by having a not long enough undershirt tucked into my pants...

So, is your problem that you don't have long enough undershirts? I had this same problem with undershirts, but solved it by buying "tall" size undershirts that are longer and still fit snugly around the torso.
posted by mullacc at 6:23 PM on September 20, 2006

chrisamiller writes "Generally a fashion don't. Tuck it in, or find a shorter undershirt that won't show.

"The exception is when uber-fasionable people wear collared shirts under sweaters and leave the tails poking out on purpose. I've most often seen this style on women."

I love that look, and work it whenever I can.

Not a girl, though.

However, by 'undershirt' do you mean 'a shirt that happens to be worn underneath a sweater', or what is often known as a wife beater or singlet?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:29 PM on September 20, 2006

It is utterly wrong.
posted by pompomtom at 6:32 PM on September 20, 2006

I am just a humble peanut, but I think having your undershirt poke out from underneath a sweater looks stupid.
posted by mcsweetie at 6:39 PM on September 20, 2006

Well, I'm not a peanut, and it looks fine as long as the undershirt is a nice shirt.

But, hey, more importantly, f*ck what anyone else thinks about what you look. Including us. Wear what you feel looks good, and if you've started to question something you wear, stop wearing it and see if you're happy that way.
posted by Cycloptichorn at 6:45 PM on September 20, 2006

what=how
posted by Cycloptichorn at 6:45 PM on September 20, 2006

You know, you can get extra-long undershirts that you can tuck in without as much body restriction. They stay tucked longer, and are much more comfortable in my opinion.
posted by Loto at 6:47 PM on September 20, 2006

Yeah, just go buy Hanes Premium undershirts. They are a normal fit except they are several inches longer, even after a few shrinkings in the wash. They make all kinds - crewneck, V-neck, A-frame, colors.
posted by MrZero at 7:52 PM on September 20, 2006

I think your tucking-in technique is a bit lacking. Yes, buy longer undershirts. Here's what I do if/when I have to tuck (which is never, cause I'm a girl!). First, tuck in and button pants. Then, in front of a mirror, raise your arms over your head, untucking your shirt slightly. Examine yourself in the mirror - there should be a little bunching in the shirt around your waistline. Even out that bunching by pulling out more of the shirt or tucking a bit more of the shirt in some places, then put on sweater. Voila, a tucked in shirt that doesn't restrict movement. Advanced step: Bend over in tucked-in shirt.
posted by muddgirl at 8:05 PM on September 20, 2006

Kanye West does the shirt poking out a lot...



Not everyone can pull the look off though.
posted by bobo123 at 9:30 PM on September 20, 2006

Yes, it's dorky, but on the scale of dorkiness it's much better than pocket protectors, white tennis shoes, or pleated slacks. I'd say untucked white collared shirt is worse than colored, untucked collared shirt, on the dork spectrum.
posted by soviet sleepover at 9:32 PM on September 20, 2006

On guys, it looks like someone's wearing a sweater a couple of sizes too small, like the dude had a recent growth spurt.

Lolita for guys?

Maybe you need larger (or longer cut) sweaters?
posted by porpoise at 10:23 PM on September 20, 2006

If it's a button down or colorful, it's less dorky, but it could be a wifebeater and it wouldn't be as dorky as marking your own comment "best answer".
posted by Mr. Gunn at 6:16 AM on September 21, 2006

I think the look you describe is great.

On girls, this look is so common that it's almost not a fashion decision.

On guys, yes, it's dorky, but in a cool way. Geek chic is super ace. A chap sporting this look is a-OK with me.
posted by pollystark at 6:22 AM on September 21, 2006

Don't know about the undershirt issue, but if you wear a figure skating outfit like ole Britney's up there, fuggedaboudit.
posted by DenOfSizer at 10:42 AM on September 21, 2006