t-shirts. what constitutes inside-out?

I have a confluence of values which (though likely not unique amongst permie-folk) seem a bit different from status quo around here.

Take this smattering for example:

*I don't buy new things when I can help it.
*I try to wear clothes made of natural and organically produced materials, no synthetic additives.
*I shy away from offering my person as a walking corporate billboard.

The convergence of these three values has resulted in a habit of finding good 2nd-hand t-shirts at thrift, which have designs I'm not interested in displaying.  So I cut the tag off, if necessary, and wear them  . . . "inside out."

Inevitably, someone will be standing behind me and say "ahem . . . your shirt is inside out."

Long ago, I began implementing the response: "says who?"

To which they respond "um, it just is.  See, the seem is there on the outside of your shoulder."

And I say "Ew.  Why would you want to wear a garment with the pokey side in?  That sounds way less comfortable."

Usually a shrug follows.  Sometimes acquiescence.  Rarely, further argumentation.

I have had this same conversation hundreds of times.  It's like a game that we're all playing together, only I am the only one who knows.

Seriously, the cut is still the same - front-front, back-back.

Anyone else playing the inside-out shirt game?  

What about other non-traditional, yet strangely permie harmonious habits are commonplace in your daily life?

No luck here! My son's the only T-shirt wearer in the house and he buys 100% cotton in the colour grey.  No logo, no variety, and he wears them until they're too ratty to even be rags! (He does agree with you about refusing to be someone else's billboard.)

Hubby had a small stash that he never wore and was taking up space. I scoffed the 100% cotton ones and cut and re-sewed them into "A-shirts" to wear as camisoles. Since normally they'd be under a buttoned cotton shirt, even if there is a logo, it's not seen by anyone but me.

I can't wear a t-shirt with the logo on the inside. I can't stand the way that rubber paint or whatever it is feels against my skin and it doesn't breath so I sweat where it touches me. Plain t-shirts for me.

Trace Oswald wrote:I can't wear a t-shirt with the logo on the inside. I can't stand the way that rubber paint or whatever it is feels against my skin and it doesn't breath so I sweat where it touches me. Plain t-shirts for me.

Same for me, Trace.  But many are printed without the use of the rubbery gunk.  More like dyed individual threads.

I'm with Trace on this one.
To sweaty in the summer, too cold in the winter.
I like the game!
It also reminds me of societies rules for building a fence, where we are expected to put the "pretty" side outward.
Same goes for enclosures with hidden fasteners...

I wonder if the idea of having seams inside the garment was originally for something like reducing wear and tear on the fabric.   Every raw and/or protruding edge is another opportunity to snag and tear.  

I agree with you about being unpaid advertising labor for  company.   I did like finding the name brand of a particularly comfortable pair of shorts embroidered in the inside of my zipper.  Since I like the shorts, it's good to know who makes them.

And don't get me started on labels. If I wear my bought clothing "inside out" the care labels don't irritate my skin and I don't put holes in my clothes by trying to remove them. Nowadays I tend to wear hand-me downs, thrift shop or home made clothes.

Casie Becker wrote:I wonder if the idea of having seams inside the garment was originally for something like reducing wear and tear on the fabric.   Every raw and/or protruding edge is another opportunity to snag and tear.  

I hear you there.

I think for me, every t-shirt is a future rag.  If I have one I really like, it is designated a temporary non-work shirt.  Which inevitably becomes a work shirt.  Then a rag.  

And the slow wheel of time keeps spinning, with no introduction of extra plastics into my ecosystem, and no investment in fast fashion.

Around here it's pretty much impossible to find men's t-shirts in thrift stores, so my husband buys new, never any logos. He does often wear them inside out, though. He finds the seams scratchy. I noticed that when people tell him the shirt is inside out, he says, "No, I put it on like that on purpose." So, it seems like in his mind, inside out is an accidental state only.

I've said this before, but new thread here: 100% cotton t-shirts regardless of whether they say, "exclusive of trim", are frequently sewn with artificial thread (poly blend most often). So if you're *really* sensitive to some artificial materials, wearing the shirt inside out will be more comfortable.

I will get hives if I eat too much of certain foods, +/- being exposed to some tree pollens. The hives would follow the lines of the stitching! Turning the shirt inside out, so just the cotton was touching me, solved the issue, along with cutting back on the food in question (here's looking at you, Strawberry!) and drinking lots of fluid.

Jay Angler wrote:I've said this before, but new thread here: 100% cotton t-shirts regardless of whether they say, "exclusive of trim", are frequently sewn with artificial thread (poly blend most often). So if you're *really* sensitive to some artificial materials, wearing the shirt inside out will be more comfortable.

I will get hives if I eat too much of certain foods, +/- being exposed to some tree pollens. The hives would follow the lines of the stitching! Turning the shirt inside out, so just the cotton was touching me, solved the issue, along with cutting back on the food in question (here's looking at you, Strawberry!) and drinking lots of fluid.

So true, Jay!  We are slowly moving toward a life where we make more/most of our own clothes, but while getting the farm up and running - sometimes you just need a shirt, you know?  It's always a compromise of ideals/resources/time - especially for those of us with sensitivities.

But gosh, strawberries?  That one stings.

Jan White wrote:So, it seems like in his mind, inside out is an accidental state only.

I never thought about it that way, but it makes perfect sense to me.  I agree with him, inside out is an accidental state only.  If I did it on purpose, it isn't inside out, it's just right.

William Bronson wrote: I'm with Trace on this one.
To sweaty in the summer, too cold in the winter.
I like the game!
It also reminds me of societies rules for building a fence, where we are expected to put the "pretty" side outward.
Same goes for enclosures with hidden fasteners...

Makes me think of edge cases at opposite ends of the spectrum. I don't think fences ultimately do any good, all would be better off if we had none. Or, to paraphrase woody Guthrie, the other side of the 'no trespassing' sign was made for you and me. What effect does the compulsive modesty that has us wearing t-shirts so much have on social disposition?

I also occasionally wear my shirts inside out to conceal the logo. But for the most part such shirts were obtained doing unique activities. I'll wear them just to see if i come across someone in the tiny sliver of the population that has shared that experience. At the PTJ alone i had 2 interesting conversations started because of concert t-shirts. I no longer buy and even refuse shirts offered as part of events because of sourcing concerns and an overabundance of personal inventory...

If anyone gazes askance at you, tell them that you are a fan of the (briefly) successful rap duo "Kriss Kross", whose gimmick was wearing their clothes, not just inside-out, but also backwards -- pants included.

I am a second-hand-buyer since decades. So I know: it's getting harder and harder to find the right quality (100% natural materials, no prints, made to last, etc.). Probably also in the clothing stores with new clothes there's no good quality anymore.

So the only way for me to have the clothes I want to wear is to make them myself. And even then ... it's hard to find the right (good quality) materials ...

About 'what's inside out?' Long ago seams were not made like we know them now. They were made flat. There was not visible difference between the inside and the outside. So it was easy to wear an old garment (which looked faded or worn) with the other side outwards! Only the buttons had to be replaced. This was a common practice (at least until halfways the 20th century).

Slightly lateral response but based on the benefits on wearing things inside out ... when my kids were small I used to tell them to turn their shirts inside out if they were painting or doing muddy stuff. Then turn them round when they were finished. Seems strange now but the spilled paint was on the inside on the way home - perhaps should have been worn as a badge of pride instead. 😁

Beau! what a fun idea. I have a Kansas Mother who does not like to display "words on her shirts." It's become my go-to description for what good concert clothes are for my music students. I say "don't look like a bum and no words on your shirts." I don't know why music should be tied to fancy clothes--seems like it gets in the way of the music.

I do see you like colors from the picture--nice tie dyes!

Ellen--in New Hampshire now, but a Kansas Native

Jay Angler wrote:I've said this before, but new thread here: 100% cotton t-shirts regardless of whether they say, "exclusive of trim", are frequently sewn with artificial thread (poly blend most often). So if you're *really* sensitive to some artificial materials, wearing the shirt inside out will be more comfortable.

Unfortunately, natural fiber threads gunk up sewing machines. While the clothing may be less "permie" because of poly thread, the increased longevity/decreased maintenance of the moving parts of a machine seems more "permie" as a whole. Seriously, cotton thread is such a hassle to clean up after, in the middle of a project, and silk thread is impossible to source most places.

And I can only quote one person on mobile.

As a response to whomever said that traditionally seams were flat: if I have a choice while sewing my own garments, I always finish my seams, either as French seams or as flat felled seams. Takes a bit extra seam allowance/planning/adjustment of pattern, but the final garment wears much better with only one row of stitching exposed, and all the seams are reinforced with double/triple stitching as well.

The bad reaction people seem (lol) to be having to commercial garments comes from the serging, or overlock binding of seam allowance. "Athletic" garments are often sewn with coverlock machines, which yield flat seams encased in thread. I find these to be much more comfortable, and with a bit of sourcing, you can get them in merino, which chafes much less when a person perspires, and rarely have giant logos to hide.

I do wear my t-shirts seams-out often enough: more to hide stains than logos. Sometime in the last 10 years or so there were clothes for sale in stores with the seams on the outside: in other words it was in vogue. Go figure. I agree re comfort: seams out feels better

My wife and I always go to a zoo on our anniversary.  Sometimes I buy a t-shirt.
Zoo logos are the only ones I show.

Rose Bugler wrote:Slightly lateral response but based on the benefits on wearing things inside out ... when my kids were small I used to tell them to turn their shirts inside out if they were painting or doing muddy stuff. Then turn them round when they were finished. Seems strange now but the spilled paint was on the inside on the way home - perhaps should have been worn as a badge of pride instead. 😁

Kids raised right, muddy side in for the ride home!

When someone tells me I've something wrong clothes-wise (shirt buttoned wrong, missed belt loop, hole in clothes, mismatched socks, etc...) my snappy retort is ,"Not really, it matches my perspective." Sometimes I don't limit it to unsolicited  clothing comments.

Casie Becker wrote:I wonder if the idea of having seams inside the garment was originally for something like reducing wear and tear on the fabric.   Every raw and/or protruding edge is another opportunity to snag and tear.  

That may have been the case, historically, but sewing technology has probably taken us past that possible necessity. Sergers can produce fully enclosed seams, with no raw or protruding fabric. I wear my t-shirts inside out and I can't recall ever damaging a serged seam.

I once found a shirt at the thrift store, that had strips of fabric oversewn on the serged seams. That shirt did not itch when I wore it conventionally. It's not the seam that causes me to itch,  it's the synthetic thread that is used.

Addendum:
If clothing makes me itch. the first thing I try is wearing it inside out, but sometimes I find it is the actual fabric making me itch. T-shirts, underwear, athletic wear, are all generally reversible. Clothes with pockets or buttons are generally not.

In Hawai'i, some of the hawaiian shirts are made with the printed cloth facing inward, so they look kinda faded and inside-out. I think it's an in-the-know kind of thing. They drive me nuts looking at the back of the pattern.

I buy all cotton tshirts with cotton thread that are intended for tie dying. They are mostly inexpensive, and people who dye stuff care about what the seam is sewn with (it shows after dyeing), so it's easy to find out. Yes, they're new, but I will use them all the way to rags, and I don't waste time looking at hundreds of half-plastic shirts at the thrift store. Gotten too old for that, and harder to find, too. And for a wearing or two, I get to look civilized, until I spill my soup.

I do wear my undies inside out when the seams itch.

I have a faded t-shirt that I am tempted to wear inside out so it will not look faded.  I just haven't done that yet.