I need a macro, or perhaps an icon, that says "MRIS IS AWESOME THE END."
That would be a valuable macro.
So long as it comes with the current icon, I'm all for it.
Carrot pants were necessary in order to turn Carrot Top into a complete outfit.
My hair is not so long, nor so thick, that it can sensibly be called a "Top".
If I wore carrot pants, I would look like a turnip.
2010-08-07 04:12 pm (UTC)
I didn't even get to read this yet...
and I still chuckled. Something about Mris, makes me think Le Mris. You are playing to type.
Don't I have enough problems finding pants that fit before they clutter shelves and storerooms with things that look good on nobody?
I can accept that lots of people (adults of any gender) have longer inseams than I do; I wish the fashion industry could accept that if they are selling me things to be worn off the rack, they need to allow for women with short legs. (I am one inch shorter than the average for American women; my inseam is shorter than that on many "petite" pants, and three inches shorter than the usual "average" women's pants.)
I can accept that lots of people want pants whose waistline is below the natural waist; I prefer things that don't feel like they're trying to fall off, but many people don't seem to have that reaction.
But a description like that makes me want to check that the paper wasn't dated April 1.
(I need an icon for "the clothing industry clearly wants me to wear nothing but sunscreen.")
I can explain low waistlines, though not ultra-low ones. Those of us who are short-waisted, without much room between the bottom of the ribcage and the top of the hipbones, tend not to indent much at the waist because there's just no room to. Therefor it's considerably more comfortable to wear something that's cut to sit at the hipbones, because we can breathe. Things that are cut to sit at the waist tend to assume said waist is somewhere in the middle of my ribs, and thus if they fit in the hips I can barely fasten the top. (I suspect a lot of things that hit me a little below the navel are cut with the expectation that they'll sit on my hipbones. But at least that makes them about the right diameter, and so they are comfortable.) I can see how they wouldn't work well for women with a long rise and a small waist/hip ratio, but they do work for some of us.
For carrot pants, however, I have no justification.
I, with my mad fabric skillllzz, offer to make you a pair of celeriac pants. they would have roots, and beads, and knots of twisty fabric awesomeness, and they would emphasize only that you knew a wingnut fabric geek.
also, both offspring adore your icon. The big one has been quoting it.
I can sort of understand a
desire to have pleats at the top of some pants to create volume. I have pants of that nature, with a couple of pleats at the top, where by "create volume" one means "allow the top of the pants to expand to a point whereby they have sufficient volume to accomodate the volume of me that is occupying them."
However, I somewhat doubt that that's really the sort of "create volume" that they meant, and there is a difference between a couple of discreet discrete pleats to relieve an area of otherwise-pulled-tight plain fabric, and, y'know, pleats
. (On the other hand, looking at photos, it seems at least plausible to me that that may be what they started out meaning, at least.)
While looking for photos to see what this meant, I came across this photo
of actual carrot pants
(well, at least, actual carrots). And also this pair of pants
, which are carrot pants but even worse.
(Also, about women's T-shirts being cut short: Is this just T-shirts, or all shirts? I know someone who sometimes has annoyance of her shirts being a bit short, and I wonder if this implies that getting new ones might help with that. But mostly the problems are not T-shirts.)Edited at 2010-08-07 05:24 pm (UTC)
I think it's all shirts, more or less -- and sweaters, too. I certainly found it a lot easier to find ones that would stay tucked in, the last couple of seasons. Skirt and pant waistbands are migrating upwards again as well, which helps with the problem of making the ends meet.
(I'm not talking about high fashion here, but about what's available in middle-of-the-road department stores.)
I read that as carrot plants, and it took me a bit to figure out why this wasn't a gardening entry...
I read that as carrot plants
All I can think of, vis-a-vis carrot pants, is the jumpsuit that Tina Weymouth wore in the Stop Making Sense movie. You know the one, it was beige with the wide, wide hips and tiny ankles, because this is what we did in the 80s. In the audio commentary on the DVD, she mocks her outfit mercilessly.
Speaking of the 80s, I was in Claire's the other day, and there were these earrings that had bright colors in checkerboard patterns. I had things in those exact shades and patterns in 1986. Minor flashback, there!
The celeriac pants sound like something ursulav
Sometimes I despair of ever understanding fashion. Just when I've spent long enough trying to pay attention to deduce that tapered and pleated pants are deprecated, suddenly they're the latest thing again?
That is understanding fashion, right there. Things that were just now no good are suddenly good, and vice versa. Because otherwise we could just keep wearing what we had, if it was made from decent stuff.
This sounds like something I can blame on American Apparel.
We've had carrot pants for years and years. But we've called them "mamma jeans."
Nothing new under the sun.
I remember reading a guide to fashion for men that essentially said: wear flat-front trousers, not pleated-front trousers, because the pleats make almost any man look fat.
And if that's true for men, how much more true is it for women? No to carrot-pants.
(I've certainly found that flat-front chinos (at the natural waist) are the most comfortable and flattering style for me. (YMMV.))
I love the idea of celeriac pants.
Edited at 2010-08-08 02:12 am (UTC)