Why I Think Today's Pants are Unflattering on the Feminine Figure

Once in a blue moon we'll watch an episode of Macgyver on Amazon Prime Video, and although it's no match for my favorite special agent TV series, Mission: Impossible, it's enjoyable for the most part. I like Macgyver's rugged ingenuity and hometown frankness, as well as the fact that his romantic "interludes" seem to have a smaller part in the show than others (such as Knight Rider and Airwolf).

In the last episode I noticed anew the style of 80's jeans for women. The woman had a waist! What's more, her loose fitting blouse didn't make her look boxy or heavy. I began thinking about the changes in the cut of womens pants over the years and felt it was time to address this (somewhat) important issue.

Let's begin by stepping back another 25 years.

In the movie Please Don't Eat the Daisies from 1960, Doris Day wears pants at least three times. Take a look at the cut.



Here's another example.



The style then was to come up to the natural waist, fit the hips and taper down the leg. Even if you aren't a fan of the fashion of the time, you have to admit she looked pretty chic. 

In this episode of Macgyver from 1985, actress Kay Lenz wears an average pair of jeans with a simple button-up blouse.



Here's another example of Kay's jeans.



Not a lot has changed in the two decades that had past between that movie and this show. The waistband was still located at the natural waist, fit along the hips and tapered down the leg. The only difference is in the length. Kay's jeans reach the top of her shoes instead of ending at the ankle like Doris Day's pants.

But the two styles have something very important in common --they give the wearer a waist and flatter the feminine curves.  

Despite the fact that Kay is wearing a loose-fitting blouse that shows none of her upper curves, she still looks feminine because she has a noticeable waist.

Fast-forward (if you'll pardon the outdated expression) to modern day and let's examine what has changed. 

(I intended a picture to show you exactly what I meant but Levi's does not allow the use of pictures from their site no matter what attribution you give or that fact that it will not benefit me financially. So if you click the link below it will send you to the proper product I am referring to).


Levi's 712 Slim Jeans for $88.00

Here is a pair of Levi jeans for this year. The fit is very similar along the leg, fitting at the ankle rolled up or reaching the top of the shoes if rolled down. And yet the feminine line of her body is diluted. 

There are little to no natural feminine curves to be seen here because her waistband has been relegated to the hips many inches below the natural waistline. 

Also with this style of jeans there is a question of whether the woman has a waist at all. On a slim woman like this model you naturally assume she has a small waist hidden under the loose shirt. But put this on your average Jane, who has at least a smidgen more belly fat than the model and what do you have? The muffin top. 

At this point you had better wear a loose fitting shirt, not because you like it, but because you despise the obvious flab that shows under fitted shirts. 

So you can solve this by attempting to lose the belly fat, but that is an issue of a different nature. And besides, even a woman with a tight stomach needs a waist.

There are many different styles of jeans, some of which deserve scathing reviews and others I wouldn't dare to compare to such feminine styles as those mentioned above. For example, the super skinny, with which you definitely need some spandex for those times when you drop your phone on the ground and need to pick it up without causing an embarrassing situation. Or those that look like they've been recycled from constructions workers, making you wonder if that $100+ was worth a one-time wear.


Levi's Wedgie Fit Jeans for $88.00

Now this pair from Levi's on the other hand is very similar to the earlier styles (click the link to view a picture of the product), with a few exceptions: I do not like the raw hem or the zippered ankle which obviously says grunge instead of chiq. But I have a lot of questions to ask of the style before I ever consider buying them (i.e. do they gap in the back, do they ride down, do they ride up as the crass name implies, etc.).

But if you ask me why I think today's pants are unflattering on the feminine figure I'd have to say with sound proof that it is due to the lack of waist. It just doesn't exist anymore! 


Well, I've had my say, and you've been a gem to read it all. Now tell me, what do you think about what I said? Surely you have an opinion, don't be a stranger, let me know in the comments below!

No comments:

Post a Comment