Since the 70s, t shirts became a mainstream thing when they were just intended to be underwears invented the late 1800s. Since then, t shirts and denim, cargo or slacks pants/shorts are the go to choice when you have to wear something casual when going outside until now while women has different kinds of tops, blouses, tank tops, crop tops, sequenced shirts, dresses and even t shirt is a choice along with skirts/short shorts or just shorts/yoga, denim or pants and etc.
Im in a church right now, and girls are wearing different kinds of tops and bottoms while guys are all wearing thesame. Just t shirts and shorts/pants.
Do you think men's casual fasion hasn't or will not change?
Men wear a lot of different things... There are casual button up shirts, polo shirts, plaid/flannel shirts, Hawaiian shirts, bowling shirts, Cuban collar shirts, denim/chambray shirts, tank top t-shirts, short/long sleeve t-shirts with various neck lines, sports jerseys, BDUs, vented shirts, etc.
i'm just basing it on my experience and yes there are a lot of tops for men but the thing is those you mention i just usually worn on occasions. But even on occasions, this is usually the go-to choice for men img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aEGb1An_460swp.webp
It depends on how much we can become androgynous as a society. As things stand now, men’s fashion is made to be “masculine” meaning it’s supposed to be very obviously separate from anything feminine. And they’re also trying to make it so that men don’t feel like they’re going to look gay, they don’t want to attract male attention and they don’t want someone to think they’re gay. We’re not going to move on from that unless hetero men grow more comfortable with androgyny, wearing skirts or different shirts or layers that aren’t flannel
The think I don’t like about casual fashion is that sometimes modesty and low cost has been replaced with bold intentional ugliness, as if the casual clothing holder is showing off the fact they don’t value beauty enough to dress in traditional colours. I’ve met people who intentionally clash their clothes to feel bold and strong.
Chances are they may wear something lose, unfitting or faded making them look like hobos or someone living in the ghetto and that's something that people may not notice. Wearing something like that has nothing to do with the wearing casual alone. Like what? Do they really go out and not keep their mouth shut spreading their agenda?
I am referring to tops that are designed to cover the body in a loose, informal, and unregulated way, and have string that dangle out in thick linear curls, as if they are showing off the fact they use cheap materials. Some people want to look like they don’t worry about their reputation, so they wear stuff that looks like they don’t care. Intentional ugliness for symbolic reasons.
That's has nothing to do with casual. Anyone can do the same thing with formal dresses or suits like it being loose, ripped and faded just making it look ugly.
Example of the difference. People wearing like this is different from people wearing like this the first one actually looks more casual while the other one looks grungy. I don't mean having a grunge look looks bad. The first picture looks more casual than the second one
The first guy has a compulsory circular contour style and the second image has a spatial and suggestive aesthetic, the aerial spatial look is just as clean cut as the close proximity contour look. It’s just a question of whether somebody has a robust and rounded body or a lanky and angular body.
is different from people wearing like this 
the first one actually looks more casual while the other one looks grungy. I don't mean having a grunge look looks bad. The first picture looks more casual than the second one
Most Helpful Opinions