comment: >
  
  The discourse of the century
context: /u/TropicalRuby (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Have you never heard of chub rub? >
  
  One major disadvantage is that they have the potential to attract unwanted attention - for both men and women wearing them.  While I prefer the short-short for all the reasons you've listed, I wear a knee length because I'd rather not deal with making myself a target. >
  
  How about in places like Brazil or Florida where it is socially acceptable for almost everyone to wear them and no one bats an eye? >
  
  That sounds more like a hypothetical than a reality.  I don't believe there's no way you'll ever get catcalled as a woman or openly mocked as a man for wearing short shorts, even if more people are dressed like that than in North Dakota. >
  
  in the 70s short shorts were the style for guys and girls. think of a reality like that coming back again. >
  
  But that's not reality.  It's a hypothetical. >
  
  it WAS a reality >
  
  So what?  It's not current reality so knee length can be preferential. >
  
  you do have a point there. Would you agree that if it was socially acceptable for everyone that it'll always be better than long shorts in hot weather? >
  
  That's what I said in the first place.  But can you agree that your view requires an incredibly specific reality that doesn't exist in which people aren't treated differently for the way they're dressed? >
  
  yes >
  
  
  First and foremost, short shorts are more comfortable to wear in warm weather. The shorter length allows for better ventilation and airflow
  
  Not really. It needs to be tighter than longer shorts (to not expose your private areas) which actually limits the airflow. It needs to be made with thicker materials (such as jeans or thicker cloth) to prevent stretching and unwanted exposition. It also exposes more of skin to sun which leads to easier heating of your body.
  Compare that to knee length shorts that can be more loose (meaning better air circulation), made from breathable natural materials (as f.ex linen or loose knit cotton) while shielding more of your skin from sun (there is a reason why in hotter climates they tend to wear robes instead of speedos). >
  
  !delta changed my view to a certain extent explained in my edit on the original post >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/poprostumort (165∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I don't like the idea of my cock and balls hanging out. When I was a kid in the early-mid 80's, short shorts were the thing. And I had to avert my eyes more than once to avoid having to see junk poking out from some guy's shorts.
  I have also become accustomed to a boxer brief and rejected the tighty whiteys that are required to not have your underwear sticking out the bottom AND minimize - but not eliminate - the risk of cock and balls exposure. 
  You could take the extra step of wearing tighter bikini briefs to cut down that risk more, but then I would say the short shorts fail as the long shorts do when compared to just wearing the speedo. That is what you actually see athletes wear in water sports.
  And if we are going to make the allowance for more fabric to avoid the speedo in favor of the short short, I'll take even more of an allowance in fabric to avoid cock and balls exposure. >
  
  On moral grounds, I say don't let people see your thighs. >
  
  /u/TropicalRuby (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Have you never heard of chub rub? >
  
  
  First and foremost, short shorts are more comfortable to wear in warm weather. The shorter length allows for better ventilation and airflow
  
  Not really. It needs to be tighter than longer shorts (to not expose your private areas) which actually limits the airflow. It needs to be made with thicker materials (such as jeans or thicker cloth) to prevent stretching and unwanted exposition. It also exposes more of skin to sun which leads to easier heating of your body.
  Compare that to knee length shorts that can be more loose (meaning better air circulation), made from breathable natural materials (as f.ex linen or loose knit cotton) while shielding more of your skin from sun (there is a reason why in hotter climates they tend to wear robes instead of speedos). >
  
  Great points you have my upvote. However my post mentioned how short shorts give more flexibility and range of motion where runners only wear short shorts and not long shorts. What would you say about that? >
  
  I would say that this is applicable only in professional runner scenario and has not that much to do with flexibility and range of motions. Longer shorts will not limit flexibility and motion in any discernible way (after all we can see Olympic male runners actually wearing knee-length shorts, and half-thigh shorts like the legendary Usain Bolt). Short shorts (or even running panties) are used for a simple reason as to why booty cuts are used in beach volleyball. Sex sells and track and field can use any bump in watchers.
  And even if there would be a slight advantage on Olympic level, would that be worth it downsides that it brings with it? After all on everyday life you don't need to beat the 100m hurdle WR, but rather move comfortably. >
  
  
  would that be worth it downsides that it brings with it?
  
  what downsides are you referring to here? >
  
  
  what downsides are you referring to here?
  
  Well let's start with ones I mentioned - limited airflow and thicker materials that limit breathability. This will be an inherent problem and can be only mitigated by buying good quality sport shorts from breathable material. But those are both expensive and don't really fit to any other style than "I am on my jog routine". While loose shorts made from breathable material will be similarly priced to short-shorts and depending on whether they are casual linen bermuda shorts, more formal linen-cotton shorts, cargo shorts from thinner cotton or other different styles - you can adjust them to fit your wanted style.
  Then you have exposition of skin to sun - another thing that athletes do not care about as they are not wearing their shorts for hours. This is something that will not be remediated as shorter length equals more exposition.
  And there are things that I did not cover - such as skin damage. Ends of shorts, especially tight ones like short shorts are gonna move against skin. In higher temperatures this will irritate the skin if you are walking for prolonged time.
  There is also problem you mentioned but incorrectly assumed that short-shorts will be beter:
  
  hey are less likely to become waterlogged or heavy when wet, making them a more practical choice for activities such as swimming or participating in water sports
  
  Actually, most of short-shorts are made with materials that aren't that great when it comes to drying and they will not take shorter time to dry. Longer summer shorts are made with thinner materials that will hold less water and more surface will allow for faster evaporation.
  In reality the major point why short shorts became more popular is nothing of above. Its this:
  
  They also show off more of the legs, which can help to create a more visually appealing and attractive appearance
  
  They look sexy as fuck and that is the main reason why they are preferred even if they have their issues. People like to look sexy after all and will accept tradeoffs (as in case of f.ex. sport bras or light bras vs. heavier shaping bras and padded bras).
  They aren't better in summer. They are worse. But they look damn good soe we don't give a fuck. >
  
  I don't like the idea of my cock and balls hanging out. When I was a kid in the early-mid 80's, short shorts were the thing. And I had to avert my eyes more than once to avoid having to see junk poking out from some guy's shorts.
  I have also become accustomed to a boxer brief and rejected the tighty whiteys that are required to not have your underwear sticking out the bottom AND minimize - but not eliminate - the risk of cock and balls exposure. 
  You could take the extra step of wearing tighter bikini briefs to cut down that risk more, but then I would say the short shorts fail as the long shorts do when compared to just wearing the speedo. That is what you actually see athletes wear in water sports.
  And if we are going to make the allowance for more fabric to avoid the speedo in favor of the short short, I'll take even more of an allowance in fabric to avoid cock and balls exposure. >
  
  Short shorts can be quite uncomfortable when sitting in chairs when hot, because your bare legs stick to the chair.  Any small adjustment in the chair means you have to unstick yourself first. >
  
  Yes! Also, long shorts prevent your thighs/legs from sticking or rubbing together when sweaty (when sitting, also when walking.) >
  
  Long shorts protect the back of your thighs when you sit down unlike short shorts, which in hot weather is a valuable function. Sitting on a black car seat that has been parked in the sun all day will show you the value of longer shorts. 
  Long shorts can be cargo shorts which provide additional storage capability. (Not to mention style-points). This is something that short shorts cannot provide. >
  
  One major disadvantage is that they have the potential to attract unwanted attention - for both men and women wearing them.  While I prefer the short-short for all the reasons you've listed, I wear a knee length because I'd rather not deal with making myself a target. >
  
  How about in places like Brazil or Florida where it is socially acceptable for almost everyone to wear them and no one bats an eye? >
  
  That sounds more like a hypothetical than a reality.  I don't believe there's no way you'll ever get catcalled as a woman or openly mocked as a man for wearing short shorts, even if more people are dressed like that than in North Dakota. >
  
  in the 70s short shorts were the style for guys and girls. think of a reality like that coming back again. >
  
  But that's not reality.  It's a hypothetical. >
  
  it WAS a reality >
  
  So what?  It's not current reality so knee length can be preferential. >
  
  you do have a point there. Would you agree that if it was socially acceptable for everyone that it'll always be better than long shorts in hot weather? >
  
  That's what I said in the first place.  But can you agree that your view requires an incredibly specific reality that doesn't exist in which people aren't treated differently for the way they're dressed? >
  
  yes >
  
  Two words: thick thighs
  Bonus word: chafing >
  
  
  they are considered to be more comfortable
  
  Yeah, I'm gonna contest that simply by saying they're not for me, as someone with a thick butt and thighs. You're welcome to wear them, but trying to insist that they're comfortable for me is a losing battle.