Men's Clothing Forums banner

No back pockets on trousers?

23K views 44 replies 23 participants last post by  Jovan 
#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!
 
#6 ·
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.
 
#7 · (Edited)
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.
 
#13 ·
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!
 
#14 ·
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.
 
#15 ·
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.
 
#16 ·
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
 
#17 ·
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.
 
#22 ·
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.
guess im just use to seeing two pockets. guess i could have saved lots of money previously.
 
#25 ·
Uniformity

Army dress mess trousers have no rear pockets, being exposed by the mess jacket, and I don't hear anyone mistaking those of us who wear them as women. Of course, my hearing was compromised by tank gunnery:(

Interestingly, the white (summer) dress mess jacket is worn with normal tux trousers, rear pockets and all. A relief, as the jacket doesn't have adequate pockets for everything we "have" to carry these days: wallet, phone, keys, handkerchief, pen, etc.

Some of my tux trousers have only one rear pocket. I just don't see the problem with no pockets. When you are wearing a suit coat, no one can see whether you have them or not, so going to the trouble and expense of adding fake pockets just to avoid having someone associate that with women's garb, when they will be largely unseen, strikes me as a bit absurd, frankly. Besides, I don't usually find myself staring at men's backsides to determine whether they have pockets or not.
 
#26 ·
Army dress mess trousers have no rear pockets, being exposed by the mess jacket, and I don't hear anyone mistaking those of us who wear them as women.
I could be wrong but I don't think anyone said that men wearing pants with no back pockets would be mistaken for women, at least I didn't. I think the only thing said was that the pants would look like women's pants which generally have no back pockets.

And who is to say that Army dress mess trousers don't look like women's pants also? After all, look at that dorky looking beret that the Army wears now. Nuff said. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser
 
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