Tapered leg pants must not be what I think they are. Does your butt look the size of a dump truck when you are naked? Why would pants that follow the natural line of your legs make your butt look bigger than it is?
Unless they also puff out at the butt? Maybe I’m not thinking of the same thing. I see Stacy Clinton on “what not to wear” say this all the time. At the SAME time she’s wearing a skirt which follows the natural line of the body and narrows in where the knees do.
I’m so confused 
BLEEEEECHHH!! Those are hideous.
Tapered pants are straight lined, they just get smaller as they go until they get really snug around the ankle. Some of the newer pants in that style aren’t as severly tapered, but classic ones… well, unless you have slim feet and ankles you almost have to cut yourself out of them to get them off. I have high arches, it’s impossible for me to wear those pants.
Narrowing in at the knees is something else.
Right. But if we are standing naked, so our thighs narrow down to our knees and then a curve outward of calves and then narrow ankles and heels.
If a pant follows the same lines…or a skirt follows those lines to the knees and the natural tapering in of the calves to the ankles is revealed, are we saying that that TOO makes the behind look bigger?
I think the dress-over-jeans trend started in Tokyo, that frenetic teenage style trend incubator. I try to imagine what it would be like wearing that, it seems like too much material around the thighs, uncomfortable. Maybe because jeans are almost too heavy for comfort without adding more on top. And yet when I wear shalvar-qamiz (as I am now), it doesn’t feel too heavy, even though shalvar-qamiz is essentially a dress worn over pants. But then it’s slit way up the sides like ao dai to make walking easy and the material is loose and lightweight, so it works out OK and even looks good. Dress-over-jeans doesn’t look right because the two things weren’t made to go together.
Tokyo teenage street fashion is made more of imagination and audacity than good taste; I guess a lot of it is finding new combinations of the same old stuff on a limited budget.
Is a shalvar-qamiz the type of thing worn by East Indian women? I think those are lovely myself. And as you mentioned, a totally different thing. For one thing both pieces are longer and flowing, and they generally are either of the same material, or coordinating material.
Plus, if it’s what I think it is, isn’t it a traditional outfit of some sort? And as you already said, the micro dress over jeans thing, it’s like that old Sesame Street song…“one of these things is not like the others…one of these things just doesn’t belong”.
Yes, women and men both. Pakistan is the most sartorially unisex country in the world. Everybody wears the same thing.
What you’re describing. No. That doesn’t usually make the butt look bigger unless you have a big butt and really dainty feet.
This is a fairly extreme example of what I’m talking about. Can you imagine someone in that? Just draws the eye to your butt and makes it seem huge. Thinner women with no curves can sometimes pull off those sort of pants precisely because it makes the butt look bigger. Gives a bit of curve to the body (my aunt is that thin, and looks okay in tapered jeans).
I think we might be talking about two different things, but when people say tapered my example is what I think of. A good pair of pants will skim the line of the leg though, emphasizing the good points while masking the bad. My jeans are usually slightly bootcut at the bottom because it balances out my top. If I wore jeans tighter in at the ankle I’d just be floating there, would make my butt look bigger and probably add some height.
I was having dinner with a friend last night and some woman walked in wearing flip flops and no socks. It was around 20 degrees out and we got about 5 inches of snow the night before. WTF? Does she have no feeling in her feet? Or is her intention to lose all feeling in them?
Something that strikes me as funny is the fact that at the bottom of this thread are ads for buying capri pants and gauchos. Oh, the irony!
Back in 99 I used to wear my ugg boots with my surf shorts. I picked up the boots in San Diego where I lived for a bit, and moved to Kansas City.
I got quite a few disgusted looks in KC because of those boots. I find it interesting that 5 years later everyone had to have a pair. I guess I couldn’t carry off my uggs with the aplomb that Kate Hudson had in Raising Helen.
Baseball caps worn “backwards” were bad enough.
But what makes me shreek is the current style of wearing a baseball cap with the bill slightly tilted to the side.
Absolutely. Totally. Without a doubt. The most contrived fashion look/statement I’ve seen in 51 years on the planet.
One fashion choice that always makes me wonder (and I’m not trying to be culturally insensitive here, so somebody set me right if I’m offending) looks like a traditional Indian women’s outfit consisting of flowing pants, some kind of long flowing shawl/scarf/poncho, and a short fitted shirt that leaves the midsection bared. While this looks good on young and/or fit women, I’ve seen it more than once on chubby middle-aged or even older Indian women, where it’s not at all flattering.
Is this outfit required for some reason (religious purposes, maybe?) I just can’t imagine that older women, including some who looked to be in their late 50s or 60s, would enjoy having their bellies exposed to the world.
Again, please forgive me if I’m being insensitive here–I don’t mean to insult anyone’s traditions. I’m just glad that they’re not mine, because I certainly would not want to have my not-very-photogenic belly out there for everybody to see!
It’s a sari or a lehngra/ghangra choli. In any case, that patch of flesh is just not considered sexually revealing, and thus is not subject to any more scrutiny as, say, our arms or ankles or something. Older women don’t consider it “reavealing clothing”, it’s just clothing. In much of India, chubby women are considered more attractive, because it implies that you’ve got lots of yummy food to eat.
Conversly, woman walking around in a normal fitted tee-shirt would be considered rather daring and clothes that expose the shoulders or knees are somewhat inappropriate for street-wear. Different cultures, different ideas about what is sexy and not.
I saw the skirt/dress over pants thing, oh, 7 years ago in Sydney? I don’t think those young women got it from Tokyo, it was an alt-folk crowd kind of look. Rather smashing on the right girl.
I also saw shrugs there then and can’t believe they’re finally mainstreaming into fashion here. I think they’re … overrated.
The thing is, they tend to emphasize the width of one’s hips as they taper down–sort of like outlining the body in black marker. I once told my sister that tapered-leg pants made a woman look diamond-shaped–she’s already narrower at the shoulders, then wide at the hips, and narrow at the ankles.
And ultra-low rise pants make a woman’s butt look dumpy, IMO. Two inches high, perhaps–but still dumpy.
And I so agree about the pointy-toed shoes. They don’t make feet look long and slender. They make you look like Cruella DeVil.
I don’t much like square-toed shoes either–old lady shoes, I call 'em. Just add a short chunky heel, hang your wide patent leather purse from your elbow and shuffle off to town!
Interesting–thanks for the information! I wasn’t actually considering that the patch of flesh was sexually revealing, but rather that a woman might be self-conscious about having flab hanging out. But if chubbiness is sexy in Indian culture, then that explains it. It is fascinating how different cultures consider different things attractive. (The outfits you showed in your examples are quite pretty–the ones I’ve seen in real life have been more subdued and not of nearly so bright colors, usually shades of tan or gold.)
Go here:
http://www.dress-shirts.com/edwards/48a.jpg
Those are tapered leg pleated pants.
They’re being worn by a model that’s about 5’11, and weighs 98 lbs.
She looks hideous.
God, they make me want to gouge my eyes out. So very, very ugly.
I can’t imagine how hideous they would be on a woman that wore bigger than a size 2.
I’m going to go bleach my brain now.
What grieves me about those pleated, tapered trousers is that, in spite of suiting only about 0.1% of the population, eventually they’ll be back in fashion. Why do hideous looking fashions have to keep coming back?
I have to second the Appliqued kitten on sweatshirt or t shirt, or cartoon character. These a re middle aged women who are what? trying to look cute? Doesn’t work. I don’t get wearing “artwork” on your clothing.
That said, I see nothing wrong with bra straps showing under sleevless tops. Would you prefer they flop around instead?
Often worn with the pants below the butt.
It’s the stupidist thing I have ever seen.
