Sunday, September 6, 2015
debate: pants vs. jeans, winner wins nothing
There's this ongoing debate in my brain prior to a new season, specifically fall, about what kind of fabric I prefer to cover my body from the waist down. You would think that this would be a simple answer, which, realistically it is, but on any topic, people will contest.
I'm going to be frank and inform you that the discourse surrounding pants versus jeans is as simple as deciding dark chocolate versus vanilla bean. Of course, vanilla bean is the real winner, but it doesn't conclude what we actually think about pants versus jeans. The aforementioned sentences didn't really go anywhere and I'm not editing it out.
I lament the fact that jeans are aggressively pushed on consumers. Season after fucking season, jeans are what you need to complete your fall wardrobe, says fast fashion corporations. No. Jeans are great, they come in a plethora of washes, fits and you can even decorate it with your Vajazzler at your pleasure, but when everyone is at True Religion shopping for jeans, I'm walking the other direction because I don't have patience for waiting in line for something I don't need.
What you really need are pants. Pants! Pants! Pants are great. Just really, really great.
I've been championing pants for half a decade now because jeans were just too stressful when shopping and I got uninspired by all the fits and washes. I turned to pants like a non-believer turned to Christianity. Blatantly, I chose to pursue pants for their nonconforming standards.
When purchasing pants, I always make sure the length is just above the ankle. Not yet floods, not yet full-length pants. Just enough exposure to be an ankle slut. Consider these by Wooster + Lardini if you feel you're going to be street style photographed. These AMI ones are great if you're going to brunch and only brunch. Don't forget about Visvim, these beauties are for looking like a snob at your local coffee shop.
Have I convinced you yet? Or did those Old Navy ads already get to you????