Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I went for a MTM suit today. I told the tailor that I never use the back pockets and we decided to not do them. Will that look awkward? I haven't really seen any trousers without them so I have no idea if it's common to leave them off.

Thanks!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,023 Posts
I never use back pockets on suits either. If I do, it's because I'm wearing the trousers alone -- I'd rather have them just in case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
What Alex says about feminine can very much be, but many men do it as you did- no pockets. What percentage, I have no idea, but probably in the UK it is normal to or not to have back pockets. As a child I learned it is normal to have no pockets or one pocket or two pockets. I never heard of dummy pockets before. If your tailor is really good no pockets is really fine. If your tailor is not so good, without the pocketing, mens butts are just plain ugly.

In the old days no back pockets were the norm, because it is less hand sewing. To get a pocket on would have to be asked for. But two pockets seemed pretty much frowned upon. Why does one need two pockets back there? That is the impression I got from what I heard.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,023 Posts
Don't a lot evening trousers have no back pockets?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,731 Posts
Even if you don't use them they look far better with two back pockets - double jetted/button and hole. Two gives symmetry and somehow finishes them.

The only case there might be for none is with fishtail back trousers for braces but they need to be very well cut to get away with it.

I vary in when I use them (usually both though) and have not had trousers without them for many years -like 30!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
Reminds me of The Office episode where Michael Scott has pants with no rear pockets.
Hah, that's exactly what I just thought of.

imho they look too feminine without back pockets.
i have made false pocket openings with no insides.
Do not get pants without rear pockets or do as Alex does and add fake pockets. No pockets = women's pants.

Enjoy your new suit.

Cheers.
I agree, to me rear pockets signify men's pants. Their absence is in part perhaps to accentuate one of the curves on the female anatomy that men's clothes generally do not accentuate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
I'd keep the pockets for the reasons discussed above.
I'd take it a step farther. My girlfriend has some jeans with no rear pockets. I've been meaning to burn them or hide them from her. I guess it's because pockets are slimming(?), but without them one's rump looks huge.
 

·
Connoisseur
Joined
·
5,988 Posts
Pants with no back pockets would look too much like women's pants for my liking. While I don't think that most men pay much attention to the details of other men's clothing, I do believe that this would be noticed and would probably generate a few chuckles behind your back. But if knowing this doesn't bother you then it's really no one else's business.

Cruiser
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,689 Posts
Pants with no back pockets would look too much like women's pants for my liking. While I don't think that most men pay much attention to the details of other men's clothing, I do believe that this would be noticed and would probably generate a few chuckles behind your back. But if knowing this doesn't bother you then it's really no one else's business.
Agree

I could live without using my back pockets; however, would still want two back pockets for trousers, jeans and chinos.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top