The writer who brought us surrogacy chic, who famously posed flat-bellied and high-heeled alongside the barefoot woman carrying her child, then again with the child, as an of-color, uniformed servant looked on, has seen the error in her ways, and is now addressing a more serious topic: after having another baby, this time the traditional way, her midsection isn't what it once was. Crisis! The woman needs a new pair of jeans.
Afraid that the mere fact of biological motherhood will cause her to suddenly appear in one of Kmart's less inspired creations, Alex Kuczynski decides the time has come to do as any other wayward 15-year-old would in her situation: make a cutesy remark about how the father of her children will totes leave her now that she's gotten huge; watch "Tyra"; and look for designer jeans.
And designer jeans she finds. Starting at a mere $178, you too can experience what Kuczynski charmingly describes as "trompe l’oeil-anorexia," otherwise known as jeans that fade to lighter down the middle of each leg, otherwise known as... jeans. They're all dyed like this. OK, not all, but it's harder to find jeans that don't share this feature than ones that do. (A glance down at my own legs reveals the same technique on a $30 pair.) This, along with the subtle addition of a certain percent stretchy material, has more or less defined jeans since forever.
It doesn't offend me that Kuczynski's all about the $200 denim, so much as that she's purporting to be an expert on Fashion, yet is on this bandwagon several years too late. The 'premium' look is the default, to be acquired inexpensively either new wherever jeans are sold or used in their brand-name form. Meanwhile, the jeans featured in the SNL "Mom Jeans" sketch she links to - high-waisted, pleated, and almost aggressively unflattering - are in fact so-very-now among not only moms but hipsters and fashion types. Oh, the trend is being mocked, but that just means that everyone is now out secretly buying a pair (see: leggings).
However, as this is Cheapness Studies, I'll attempt a more general point along those lines, which is that whatever anyone says, no, jeans are not an 'investment.' Buy whichever you like, at a price you're comfortable with, but by all means don't announce - to yourself or anyone else - your intentions of wearing them 'for years.' Other garments, if you must, but not jeans. Their capacity to stop fitting/look out-of-style within minutes has to exceed that of any other garment, perhaps making the very concept of jeans something a true advocate of cheapness would urge against.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I didn't understand what she was talking about with the "trompe l’oeil-anorexia" bit until you explained it, but yes, my perfectly normal (mens) gap jeans are like that, too. And while those "hello" jeans do look better in the ad than the NYMJs, the "hello" ones also have models who are significantly skinnier than average. That makes me suspect that others results will, er, vary.
That was also a surprisingly boring and self-indulgent bit of writing for someone who is, I assume, being paid for it.
I'm not impressed with the company the jeans she opts for come from. Note the page in which aforementioned model is photographed in Other Jeans and Skinny Jeans. The captions reference the model's "fat" hips and thighs in the other-brand jeans, which is just... well, it's wrong, but it's also wrong in the sense that the model looks fat in exactly none of the photos. Some of the styles shown as 'unflattering' just look dated. No, no one's wearing light denim bell-bottoms these days, but that doesn't mean the pants make the model look fat. (And who on earth is buying 'slimming' jeans with a 24-inch waist? Assuming a woman over four feet tall, that is, and that this 24 is not a vanity 24 that's really a 42.)
The marketing is also ridiculous because all jeans, especially those for women, are designed to make a woman look thinner, even, in their way, the traditional mom jeans. They don't all succeed, because no one pair works the same way for all women. For instance, one glance at the Kuczynski jeans tells me that many a woman would reveal her underwear sitting down in them, and not in a good way. What's 'special' about these jeans is that the lack that excess under-the-backside fabric present on jeans that are too large in that area for the wearer. These, assuming they're not radically pinned/airbrushed, fit a small-bottomed wearer to perfection, leaving none of those fabric folds, which means just about anyone else would have the plumber situation.
All of this is to say that jeans, at least in their current, must-fit-perfectly incarnation, are a sort of useless clothing item, seemingly the height of durability and practicality, yet especially likely to get thrown to the back of the closet soon after purchase.
Hmmm, spot the contradiction:
"What kind of person is this NYDJ-wearing woman? Divorced from some guy who never told her she looked good? Which means she has some serious self-esteem issues in the first place"
AND
"Six months after giving birth, and operating on the premise – perhaps even the promise - that my husband would leave me if I kept wearing maternity pants, I decided to wade back into the treacherous denim waters"
I can't believe she waited 6 months to get those jeans. Anything over 6 hours looking a bit fat is inexcusable in my book, especially after having a baby. Get it together woman!
Post a Comment