Think On It

Louis Vuitton

I am helpless in the face of this.  I may have to be made surgically chestless to have it.

3 comments March 7th, 2007

Jeans

Jeans have been an almost impossible wearable for the imperfect of body for several years now. Waistines have plunged, legs have narrowed, appliqués of everything from Swarovski crystals to weird ethnic embroideries have confused the meaning of jeans.

Today the Telegraph published an article that claims to have solved the jeans worry by saying which jeans are for whom. I’m not so sure. The main problem I found was that they identify as high waisted a jean that starts a good 3″ below the natural waist. By today’s standards that may work as a definition, but bodies don’t adopt current standards.

A bosomy type, a curvy Sofia Loren, many women currently accepted as gorgeous would look awful in that waistline because it sets an impossible proportion between top and bottom.

What do you think? Have they left out some important types or am I nuts? Just wearing jeans is a statement for me here and now. I’ve found absolutely no jean adapted to me and so I still wear my old standard classic or straight cut jeans and hope they’ll last this trend. Even if there were mom jeans here I couldn’t and wouldn’t wear them. I don’t have that butt-sprung shape at all. Mom jeans don’t get a mention at all in that article, presumably because they have little to do with style.

Later today I have to go try on the challenging Donna Karan black straight leg jeans. I should have a drink first, but I’m on a diet. Maybe I should start anti-depressives first.

4 comments March 7th, 2007