posted
I first noticed this kind of pants on Gilmore Girls (yes, I know it's not very manly of me to watch such a girlish show) when Lauren Graham was wearing a pair of pants with "Juicy" written on the butt. It certainly *looked* juicy! Of course, the beautiful people make anything look good...
I think pants like that invite flirtation, because when you say something aloud about them, the woman can go "Oh, so you were looking at my ass, huh?" which then leads to compliments of said ass (which may have been the only reason for wearing the pants) and opens up a dialog that may lead to dating...I think it's fine for single, of age women with attractive asses...the problem arises when these fashions get abused! We need more fashion police!
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I first noticed this kind of pants on Gilmore Girls (yes, I know it's not very manly of me to watch such a girlish show) when Lauren Graham was wearing a pair of pants with "Juicy" written on the butt.
JNSB, those are Juicy Couture pants. That label is largely responsible for the words-on-the-butt trend and for the jogging-suits-as-every-day-clothes trend. Luckily, both are on their way out, along with the bare midriff.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*pouts* I liked the bare midriff trend, but I used to be in shape and not mind showing it off either. Now I keep it covered so as to not scare or blind anyone.
posted
My wife noticed a lot of people staring at her chest one day. She started to get upset.
Then she remembered the top she was wearing had a lot of small mirrors on it, about quarter size.
People were attracted to the shiny mirrors, and couldn't help look at them. This was more attention than she hoped for when she was given the top by her Grandmother.
Words on the rear must do the same, though the wearer doesn't notice them as often.
and back to the list>
12) These are not backup lights. 13) Help! I can't breath back here. 14) Pants by DuPont Paints 15) What you looking at perve. 16) My other backside is JLo. 17) WWJD (What would Jordache Do?) 18) Slow Down, Curves Ahead. 19) STOP! 20) Your Advertising Here.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Luckily, both are on their way out, along with the bare midriff.
If SoCal is any indication, I'd say you're wrong. Juliette and I were at the fancy mall this weekend (South Coast Plaza, if anyone cares) doing some Christmas shopping, and both the jogging suits with writing on the butt and bare midriffs were everywhere.
We were actually having a conversation about this on Saturday. Over the past 10 years, trends in women's clothing across all ages have become more and more overtly sexual. When I started high school, the hippy look was popular (this may have just been my hippy-saturated area, though), which meant that there were a lot of loose, blousy shirts, long skirts, and Birkenstocks. Then came the whole grunge thing, and girls were wearing baggy jeans, baggy t-shirts, and flannel overshirts, just like the guys. Do the changing trends indicate something about the nature of our society?
Pretty much everywhere I go, I see girls and women with bare midriffs, low necklines, low-rise jeans (and I mean low), or writing on the butt. Or all of the above. And this is regardless of the weather. Now, admittedly, it never really gets all that cold in Orange County, but when it's 50 degrees out, I like to put on a sweatshirt and long pants.
It seems to me that an increasing number of girls and women define their self-worth solely through their sex appeal, and if this is the case, it's surely worrisome. My question is, is what I see mostly just due to the dominance of image in the Southern California lifestyle, or is this a really widespread thing?
My own experience tends to indicate more the former. I was home for Thanksgiving last weekend and stopped in at the mall. What you notice about style is that, while many of the young women and girls do still dress this way, I saw very few women over 40 who did, and none over 60. The young people I can write off as just wanting to be cool, like all young people do, but when I see a woman old enough to be my grandmother walking through the mall with two sets of cleavage being prominently displayed, I have to wonder about her self-image.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If SoCal is any indication, I'd say you're wrong. Juliette and I were at the fancy mall this weekend (South Coast Plaza, if anyone cares) doing some Christmas shopping, and both the jogging suits with writing on the butt and bare midriffs were everywhere.
Yes, but they won't be for long. Check out what the trend-setters are wearing and I guarantee that it is not a jogging suit with writing on the butt that shows the midriff. Mall rats are always at least 6 months behind the fashion world. Designers are getting sick of the casual look and the new spring fashions are reflecting that.
It's actually been a long time coming - consider how well last year's Marc Jacobs tweeds did and how Carolina Herrera's profile and influence have exploded. Even for this fall, designers invoked Balenciaga and Coco Chanel.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, seeing as my familiarity with fashion trends is quite limited, I must bow to your superior knowledge. However, I highly doubt that fashion will be moving toward the conservative in the near future.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Additionally, I'm quite surprised by your statement that "mall rats are always at least 6 months behind the fashion world." It's been my experience, anyway, that the high end malls in Southern California tend to have the highest concentration of fashion-conscious people of anywhere I go (which could just mean I don't get out much). Plus, I've never heard the term "mall rat" applied to anyone older than a teenager, and it doesn't really fit with my mental image of a "mall rat" to be shopping at malls that include stores like Armani, Burberry, Christian Dior, and Chanel.
Could this be a difference in culture between SoCal and Virginia, or is it just that I'm oblivious (as usual)?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And in CA I have seen grunge and midriff fashions sucessfully combined as well. I don't know if grunge will ever completely leave the CA scene, though I haven't been there for a while.
posted
It certainly seems to have left Orange County.
Unless you're talking about the recent skater/punk fashion trend, which I've always seen as separate from the Seattle/alternative/grunge rock fashion trend.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just figured as long as there are surfers there will always be a certain amount of grunge present. But I could be totally wrong too. Orange County is a bit more upscale than where I grew up too. And like I said I haven't been there in 3 years and I wasn't horribly fashion conscious when I was there.
posted
The malls by definition are a little behind the cutting edge.
Of all people, my dad (my dad!) commented on and applauded the more modest, less slutty clothing trends he saw while in Southern California.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If SoCal is any indication, I'd say you're wrong.
That's the thing - while Southern California is undisputably the entertainment capital of the world, it is not even in the top 5 for fashion. The fashion capital is New York, followed by Paris and Milan. (I've had arguments about whether the fashion capital is NYC or Paris and I stick with NYC, but I admit that a good case can be made for Paris).
quote:I highly doubt that fashion will be moving toward the conservative in the near future.
Don't be so sure. Look at the late 60s and early 70s. My mother was a Ford model then and there are tons of pictures of her in tiny Pucci bikinis and miniskirts with platform boots. Fashion is cyclical, but the length of the cycles are hard to predict. It used to be roughly a 30-year cycle, but some 80s fashions are coming back about a decade too early.
quote: I've never heard the term "mall rat" applied to anyone older than a teenager, and it doesn't really fit with my mental image of a "mall rat" to be shopping at malls that include stores like Armani, Burberry, Christian Dior, and Chanel.
Could this be a difference in culture between SoCal and Virginia, or is it just that I'm oblivious (as usual)?
First, let's not include Virginia in any discussion about fashion. The people here in Richmond are farther behind than the people in Dacula, Georgia and that's saying something. They wear baseball caps to go out here. At night! To clubs! I always completely ignore what people here are wearing.
And it's not that you're oblivious, it's that I have altered my usage of the term mall rat. To me, a mall rat is someone who is a slave to trends and still has no style. For example, all those people running around with the Louis Vuitton Murakami multicolored bags are mall rats. People with style (and lots of money) have Hermes Kelly bags. The difference is that the Murakami people won't be seen dead with those bags next year and the Kelly people will have theirs until the day they die.
I should think of a new term, but I'm not very good at that sort of thing.
Also, let me say that people with innate style will have it no matter what, even if they never have a Kelly bag or Chanel ballet flats. Having style is not about what you carry, but how you carry it.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What, do the girls just run around naked in his town?
No, but one of his favorite mini-rant topics (in that sweet, dadly-opinion manner) is about the teenage couples he sees where the guy is wearing clothing three sizes too big and the girl looks like her clothes were painted on and they ran out of paint before they were done. Apparently, if you take the average of the two, you'll have a decent outfit for both. The last time I was talking to him, he was expressing pleasure that he no longer had to look away to avoid counting the fat rolls and reading the name of the underwear designer on the girls he saw.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't be so sure. Look at the late 60s and early 70s. My mother was a Ford model then and there are tons of pictures of her in tiny Pucci bikinis and miniskirts with platform boots. Fashion is cyclical, but the length of the cycles are hard to predict. It used to be roughly a 30-year cycle, but some 80s fashions are coming back about a decade too early.
My opinion about the near-future direction of fashion trends is based on what I see on TV and in Entertainment Weekly. Perhaps not the best sources for making such a prediction, but aren't celebrities usually the ones setting trends?
quote:For example, all those people running around with the Louis Vuitton Murakami multicolored bags are mall rats. People with style (and lots of money) have Hermes Kelly bags. The difference is that the Murakami people won't be seen dead with those bags next year and the Kelly people will have theirs until the day they die.
I should think of a new term, but I'm not very good at that sort of thing.
Also, let me say that people with innate style will have it no matter what, even if they never have a Kelly bag or Chanel ballet flats. Having style is not about what you carry, but how you carry it.
I won't disagree with you on style, but are style and fashion necessarily the same thing? And does this invalidate my observations about trends over the past decade? I mean, that's the thing about trends, right? That they involve lots of people? Most people, even? It's easy enough to say that all the girls and women I see with their butts hanging out have no style, but does that address whether or not there is an underlying social issue?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Agreed. It's right up there with "slinky" clothes for 4 year olds
I'm right with you there Rivka. I cannot stand little kids in clothes that sexualise them. There is no reason why a four year old needs high heeled knee high patent leather boots, or midriff tops, or itsy bikinis. It is now possible to buy padded bras for 6 year olds - very very wrong.
When I have a daughter, she's not gonna be out of overalls until she's at least 15.
I recently went to Wal-Mart to buy pants. That is where I buy my pants. I am not a person who cares about fashion, obviously. Usually I get my pants from friends who lose weight. They love to give me their pants! I love to get their pants! My friends have good taste and go to stores other than Wal-Mart.
So anyway, I went to buy some pants, and I bought some, even tried them on (I hate shopping for clothes so very very much). I thought they fit fine, but I must have had a different shirt on from usual. They said 'mid-rise' pants. Sounded good. Apparently 'mid-rise' pants do NOT show your buttcrack. That is good. They do, however, go way lower in the front than I am used to. I still wear them, with looong shirts, but I always feel a 'draft' on my belly. I am a size twenty in pants! I do not need or want jeans that expose my belly! No one else wants that either! Yucko!
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we’re overlooking a valuable educational tool here. I know that when I was in high school, I would have been much more excited about reading The Brothers Karamozov if it had been written on some girl’s bottom. And furthermore, I would be much more motivated about my writing now if I got to write on some girl’s hindquarters.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about being small? Stores tend to assume that if you are slim, you want to have pants that sit a few inches above where your legs end! This is simply not the case!
I do not like silly clothes, especially on children. I know a child who wants to be a rock star. She's six years old, and when I was talking about her Barbie's shoes and saying stuff like. "Look at these shoes!" and "Doesn't she hurt her poor ankles when she walks?" this poor girl said that when she's a rock star, she will have to wear shoes like that. And I mean high, high, high-heels.
I asked if she wanted to be taller. She replied, quite seriously, "no, I don't want to be taller, but I'll be prettier with shoes like that."
I could not help but cry at the state this poor girl has got herself into.
I still dress badly. With no taste, I mean, because I simply do not notice what I can wear, and what I cannot. Ooops. Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My opinion about the near-future direction of fashion trends is based on what I see on TV and in Entertainment Weekly. Perhaps not the best sources for making such a prediction, but aren't celebrities usually the ones setting trends?
No, with a few notable exceptions. Designers set the trends and they use celebrities to market them. Think of them as high-profile mannequins. For example, the reason Sharon Stone was such a fashion icon in the early to mid-90s is that she had a working relationship with Vera Wang. Vera Wang got to increase her exposure and Sharon Stone got a reputation for being stylish. Of course, Sharon Stone has since destroyed most of her credibility, but that's how it goes.
One of the most notable exceptions of celebrity trendsetters (in that she actually is one) is Gwenyth Paltrow. She has an innate sense of style, a vast knowledge of fashion, a body like a hanger, and an excellent sense of what works for her. Remember the just-below-the-knee length denim skirts? Those became popular because she hates to show her knees. She wore a vintage one and was photographed in it and the next month they were everywhere.
Television and Entertainment Weekly are not the best places to follow fashion. I recommend Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, and W.
quote:I won't disagree with you on style
I love it when people don't disagree with me.
quote:are style and fashion necessarily the same thing? And does this invalidate my observations about trends over the past decade? I mean, that's the thing about trends, right? That they involve lots of people? Most people, even? It's easy enough to say that all the girls and women I see with their butts hanging out have no style, but does that address whether or not there is an underlying social issue?
Yes and no. Fashion is dialectic. Society influences fashion trends and fashion trends influence society. I think that women have always derived much (if not all) of their self-esteem from their attractiveness. What changes is what society finds attractive. The pin-up girls of the 40s and 50s would be considered fat by today's standards, but they were the height of sexiness in their day. More recently, the glamazon supermodels of the late 80s and early 90s were replaced by the waifs of the late 90s, who were in turn replaced by the athletic models, who were in turn replaced by actresses of various sizes (well, various degrees of thinness). In the past few years, a significant amount of trends have reflected an overt sexuality, which I personally find vulgar. This reflects the fashion world's acknowledgement of the general attitude of their target market towards sexuality. That attitude is influenced by any number of things, which are always changing.
posted
I can't tell you much about Vogue or what's hot with New York designers these days, but I can definitely verify that trends oscillate towards and away from overt sexuality. Just look at Shakespeare and how bawdy his stuff was in the 1500s, then I can't think of any good examples from the 1600s, but there was Tom Jones, published around 1740 which was VERY bawdy, then the Victorians were quite prudish, then we have 20th c. lit which was all over the map. It goes back and forth, in writing, at least. So it makes sense that in fashion it must do the same.
[ December 08, 2003, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, with a few notable exceptions. Designers set the trends and they use celebrities to market them. Think of them as high-profile mannequins. For example, the reason Sharon Stone was such a fashion icon in the early to mid-90s is that she had a working relationship with Vera Wang. Vera Wang got to increase her exposure and Sharon Stone got a reputation for being stylish. Of course, Sharon Stone has since destroyed most of her credibility, but that's how it goes.
One of the most notable exceptions of celebrity trendsetters (in that she actually is one) is Gwenyth Paltrow. She has an innate sense of style, a vast knowledge of fashion, a body like a hanger, and an excellent sense of what works for her. Remember the just-below-the-knee length denim skirts? Those became popular because she hates to show her knees. She wore a vintage one and was photographed in it and the next month they were everywhere.
Television and Entertainment Weekly are not the best places to follow fashion. I recommend Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, and W.
Are we talking about high fashion or about trends? Walking down the street, I don't often see people wearing Vera Wang or Versace or whatever. I sort of doubt you'd see that all too often no matter where you were. In general, I don't see high correlation between what I see on a normal day and what I see at a club, or a fancy party, or on the red carpet on TV. Is high fashion particularly relevant to a broad discussion of society? That is, it's always seemed to me that high fashion is not typically designed to be accessible to everyone, and so, in that way, it must be somewhat marginal as an indicator of social values.
The sense I'm getting from what you're saying is that current trends in clothing are not really all that big a deal, because they'll be out in a couple of years anyway. This begs the question: does fashion follow social trends, or do social values follow fashion? Which is an indicator of which?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I always learn a lot from Mrs. M, I know she would cringe at what I wear to work. Jeans and polo shirts, with an occasional baggy sweater for variety or warmth. Almost never bother with makup either.
posted
Also at what point do you discard a pair of jeans? Is wearing it with one hole in the knee acceptable as long as the hole is small? Or do they get relegated to painting status as soon as a hole develops?
I have another pair of jeans that is still basically wearable (no holes) but the zipper is worn out, so I've tied a piece of string to it and loop it around the button so it won't slide down.
posted
Can't you have the "Joe Elliot" (from Def Leppard) look with the super faded, holier-than- just-about-anything-else jeans as long as there's lots of cool white threads stretched across them or hanging from the edges of the holes? If not, I'm gonna have to get rid of my summer pants. (but they were cool in the 80s!! *whine*)
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
saxon, elements from the runways filter down, not the specific items. The items may be avant-garde, but the elements are recyclable.
For example, there is a current lingering trend of stripes in women's clothing. Last year it was fresh (in Wisconsin), now it is established. Next year it will be old hat. But this was preceded by a runway trend toward stripes and acrylics back in 1999.
quote:A range of greens dominates the Vegetarian range. Sage, seaweed, bamboo, palm and fennel are brightened with pink and red. There are a lot of tonal stripes, patterns and mottled effects.
What filters down can be recognizable to the trained eye. Last summer pinky-peach mixed with beige was working its way down from runway trends, as well as a more feminine silhouette. I predict Wisconsin will be full of girly frou-frou pink&tan references this summer. We'll see. My money is on larger print florals, with the smaller prints now regarded as "dowdy."
I'm also expecting the A-line and bell-shaped silhoutte of the late 60's, a'la Down with Love, to make a strong appearance. This, with the detail of gloves, has been presaged for ages on the runways.
posted
PS: But of course, I defer to Mrs. M. She -- very obviously -- knows her stuff.
I've been working on a timeless style for me. My goal is to prepare for the possibility that I will accidentally enter a time warp wormhole-thingie, and I'd hate to stick out like a sore thumb.
In such cases, blending in could be the key to survival. I'm feeling pretty secure in my lightweight black cashmere turtleneck and soft lightweight wool off-white slim skirt. However, it's starting to reek.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Wussy Actor![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
