This is not even a thought anyone has outside of /fa/. They are obviously a timeless, universal, and unassuming article of clothing, and literally anyone can wear them as long as they know how to style. Shoes will indeed make or break an outfit, so in that sense they aren't really appropriate for everything, but there's not an age limit on them. I've seen literal 70 year old dudes wearing 501s and chucks and it honestly goes hard

>>18661304
The black and white ones are fine. The colorful ones look too much like clown shoes and should be limited to teens. You should get black laces for them though the white on black has a more childish appearance.

>>18661304
When your doctor tells you to wear more supportive footwear, that's when you're officially too old to wear them.
t. achieved unc status when I was 16

>>18661409
>Needing to wear supportive footwear
Cuz you're fat?

>>18661424
Partially, also because I have genetically fucked up feet.

>>18661432
That blows dude. Back in 2013-2016 college years, I got some solid art hoe pussy because of my chucks. Back when Tinder just showed up and all the indie art hoes were on there, it was a fucking Gold Rush for pussy.

>>18661304
at around 30 you should switch to sneeds

>>18661304
In the gym or out running, any age. Otherwise wear oxfords. Long hike? Wear boots.

File: BlackChucks.jpg (51.4 KB)

51.4 KB JPG

>>18661306
I saw someone on here say chucks are for teenagers and now I can't unthink it. Black chucks are so sexy thoughhhhhhhhhhhh

>>18661304
Always hot on women. But 95% of men over 25 wearing them are overgrown balding manchildren who collect Pokemon cards and söy out over Star Wars. The real answer is they're fine in the daytime during the summer with well-fitted t-shirt and shorts.

>>18662263
>Some anonymous retard on the internet has a completely worthless opinion
It blows my mind that people will just throw away everything that they authentically love just to gain approval from absolute nobodies who have no deserved influence. Chucks have been universally popular for a reason, because they look good on most casual outfits. Some dumbass on the internet is really going to control what you do? Jesus.....

I think if you’re a white collar professional, look like you’re older than 20s, and/or fat there are better options. They’re very youthful apparel, only good for casual wear. And there are more mature footwear choices that would suit you better.

>>18661351
what if i'm young at heart?

Everyone should have a pair of the black and white ones. Not too loud, and it pairs with basically everything. Once you get the really bright colors, the shoes themselves become a statement piece and you have to be really crafty with how you coordinate the colors on your fit unless the color really complements/balances your natural palette

>>18661304
I only wear sneeds

File: chuck.jpg (58.1 KB)

58.1 KB JPG

I own a pair of these. Are the effay?

>>18663149
they're clean unc

File: tenor[1].gif (291.5 KB)

291.5 KB GIF

>>18663174

File: 1800x1000-Men-Chukka-Design_2800x1080-852646035.jpg (180.8 KB)

180.8 KB JPG

>>18662263
Chucks are indeed for teenagers, women, and darkies. No grown man should wear them. There are far better looking and more comfortable alternatives, like real leather boots.

Chukkas >>>>> Chucks

>>18661304
Whatever age one likes.

Chucks are timeless and I wish they're found in Heaven too. Fuck what others think, Chucks had got me more pussy than anything.

File: 2be5608c4fc399ac1ffad8c8c1b963e7.jpg (38.7 KB)

38.7 KB JPG

>>18661304
Never

File: 1763479473.jpg (85.9 KB)

85.9 KB JPG

>>18661304
Way ahead of you, OP

>>18661304
at like 30

Literally do what you want. I hate threads like this.

>>18663400
>come to /fa/
>why are you even talking about fashion just do what you want
ok so why are you here?

>>18663405
NTA, but the Chuck Taylor question gets posted on here way too much and just takes up space. The anti Chuck sentiment on /fa/ is literally just 1 to 2 trolls who sit and wait for someone to post chucks, and it exists virtually nowhere in the real world. It’s the same retards who are like:
>”yo, jeans are actually cringe and are not /fa/ at all”
As with anything you wear, it all depends on a bunch of different factors, but Chuck Taylors are ubiquitous enough to the point that anyone can realistically wear a pair as long as they style it appropriately. If you’re not young anymore, dont opt for the bright colored ones, and don’t wear them with anything that’s not a casual fit

>>18663413
Just because they're ubiquitous doesn't make them good. People do a lot of retarded things. Sweatpants and shorts are also ubiquitous, but no grown man who cares about fashion or not looking like a bum should be wearing them outside of the gym or his house.

Chucks aren't even comfortable to begin with. They're shitty narrow shoes that fuck your feet up. That is not something you should tolerate as you get older. Any random canvas shoes on Aliexpress or something will fit far better and not look cheesy like chucks.

In a world full of brands and models, why do /fa/ggots always default to the same couple of boring pieces?

>>18663431
Hate to break it to you, but having an opinion on the internet is not an immediate indicator that you’re right. That’s literally all you’re working off of, an opinion. All I’m saying is that they’re not the most incredibly fashionable shoe, nor are they a horribly unfashionable shoe like you retards make it out to be. They’re just ubiquitous and arguably unassuming, which is what people go for when they want to put together a well coordinated, casual outfit. They do have the ability to make your outfit look like shit especially if you go for the neon colors, but they also can make an outfit look pretty descent without going overboard. They’re as normal and universal as wearing a pair of 501s

>>18661304
I see men in their 40s in bars in chucks. it's a timeless design. that being said, boots almost always look better than chucks in a fit (summer obviously excluded)

>>18663413
>just takes up space
yeah the dead board with posts 5 months old really needs the extra room

>>18661304
Never. They aren't supportive (which is beneficial for the ankles as they train to support themselves like nature intended), they don't have a heel or wedged sole (which would make the fasciae in your legs adapt, hampering the rolling over of your feet when walking barefoot) and they're great in summer.

And if the standard Chuck is too narrow for you, you can get them in wide.

And as for me, they don't make me feel like a bloody walking billboard like those kicks with the tick.

>>18663489

>They aren't supportive (which is beneficial for the ankles as they train to support themselves like nature intended)

I'm a runner and have been running regularly for more than two decades and developed planter fasciitis in my left foot around the time of Covid. It can be painful at times and keep you off your feet. The discomfort was on and off for two years making it difficult to keep a regularly running schedule oftentimes causing me to cut a run short because it would enflame even when I thought I was 100% after a long period of rest.

The thing about running shoes is they have a heel drop where the heel rests higher in the shoe than the toes. They also have arch support. Some critics claim this support maxxing design is the cause of an increase in running injuries even if you perform a natural mid-foot strike like I do since is creates muscle imbalances in the foot. Suspecting this was preventing my foot from healing I started wearing my Adidas Sambas all time and for long walks which has no arch support and a 0mm heel drop. Soon enough my planter fasciitis was gone and hasn't returned since then despite the many kms I do on endurance runs. So I think there's truth in what you said.

>>18661304
I always thought these things were horribly uncomfortable.

>>18663584
They definitely are. Part of that is that Nike bought them and started making them shittier but it's hard to believe they were ever the go-to basketball shoe.

File: Darrel-Armstrong-feet-weird-1043752709.jpg (143.1 KB)

143.1 KB JPG

>>18663590
They are your go-to basketball shoes if you're retarded and have a foot binding fetish.

File: Lite_Racer_Adapt_7.0_Shoes_White_IE6330_01_standard.jpg (28.6 KB)

28.6 KB JPG

>>18661304
Love chucks, can't wear em cause they make my feet hurt like a motherfucker. I've firmly become a running shoe guy though. All the comfort in the world.

>>18661304
I bought my first pair at 31. For the gym, though

>>18663653
>wearing narrow bitch shoes in the gym
Sweatie, you're supposed to wear wide shoes in the gym so that your toes can splay properly to support your body and the weights you lift, and also get some workout in the process. Your feet aren't a couple of stumps of meat. They have their own dozens of joints, tendons and muscles that also need a workout in order to stay fit and strong.

>>18663582

Thanks for the feedback; I've only been rephrasing what I learned from Katy Bowman (known biomechanist) and if it was up to her, we wouldn't ever be wearing shoes.

21-22, 24 latest

Do chucks seriously make people’s feet hurt? I’ve never had that experience

Never actually, as long as they are worn in the right occasion.

>>18663786
Yes, Chucks can be ill-fitting like any other shoe. In my case, there was too little space for my toes (now I have a mild form of Hallux Valgus), but that was before I discovered the "wide" variant.

>>18661304
They’re fine, people make such a huge stink over nothing. If they’re ill fitting, that’s completely irrelevant and sounds like your own problem. Tons of /fa/ people love chucks, and tons of other /fa/ people hate them, there is no official edict on the matter. It’s similar to how tons of people hate cuffs on jeans and tons of other people love them.