Montage of Misshapen Muffin-Topped Maidens

It’s almost fall-fashion time, and, unfortunately, my 2013 post on idiotic style is still relevant. Don’t let “fashion” dictate your look. Rise above the ill-clad crowd and look taller by wearing your garments at the actual waist, which is located about an inch above the navel.~~M-J

Elegant Survival News

Why go around short-legged, double-gutted, and half-assed when you could simply wear your trousers or pants at the waist, solving  all three self-imposed problems at once?  Ridiculously high heels don’t help.
Since 2006, I have been writing about the sort of misguided clothing-choices pictured in this photo-montage. Garments that only rise to that area just above the groin cause both the grotesque “Muffin-Top” and the risible anomaly known as “Plumber’s Crack”, yet every year, THEY’RE BA-ACK!  Resist sinking into fashion-victimhood, and stop risking your pants falling down. Wear your pants, trousers and skirts up at the waist,
and you will not look this idiotic. SIMPLE, isn’t  it?
©M-J de Mesterton 2013

View original post

Advertisements

The Folly of Following Fashion

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Since 2006, I have been writing about the sort of misguided clothing-choice pictured in this photograph. Garments that only rise to that area just above the groin cause both the grotesque “Muffin-Top” and the risible anomaly known as “Plumber’s Crack”, yet every year, THEY’RE BA-ACK! Resist falling into fashion-victimhood, and stop risking your pants falling down. Wear your pants, trousers and skirts up at the waist, and you will not look this idiotic. SIMPLE, isn’t it?

©M-J de Mesterton 2012

 

Where Is the Waist? Editorial by M-J de Mesterton

Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:29 PM     

Where is the waist? That’s what I wonder every time I look at photos of the newest “fashions.” What is new about the same old tragic clothing-concepts bobbing up again, masquerading as innovative? For the past ten years, pants and skirts have consistently been manufactured without even coming close to the waist, yet they are touted as the “latest.” To paraphrase General Honoré of Louisiana, someone’s “stuck on stupid.” I thought last spring that the tide of bad clothes was turning, but, having perused some catalogues this month, it is apparent that clothing designers are still denying their customers ample fabric to cover their “plumber’s cracks.” Snide cracks about “mom jeans” and thoroughly ignorant comments calling anything that indeed does come just up to the natural waist “high-waisted” are still being heard and read by those of us who actually remember where the waist is located on the human corpus: the place for belts, sashes, snaps and buttons is an inch or two above the navel, depending upon one’s height. The designer of the human body gave us the waist as an elegant way of keeping our pants, skirts and trousers from falling down; also to enhance our corporeal proportions. The true waist never comes below the navel, and it certainly cannot be found two inches above one’s crotch. Garments are falling down from where they rest on the hips, and the fashion world has insisted on staying down in the gutter after what seems to be a devastating, permanent fall from elegant, figure-enhancing style. Fashion-victims are afraid now to go against the hideous dictum that you must wear your clothes no higher than the hip. This is a big mistake, because if one follows the lines of his or her body, they will see that clothes descending from the waist lengthen the legs, while clothes that only come up to the hips turn even the slimmest among us into pot-bellied, short and sloppy-looking people who would have been laughed at throughout the previous decades and centuries. Wearing six-inch heels to compensate for the bad deeds done to your figure by stingy clothing manufacturers and designers does nothing but make one look even sillier. Extra-high heels will damage both your feet and back, and will not give back the height robbed from you by idiotic torso-stretching trousers and skirts. For men, extra-long trousers do not visually lengthen your legs; rather, they make you look dumpy. The fail-safe, time-tested method of developing real glamour and style is to dress in natural, luxurious cloths and fabrics from the waist-down; wear two-to-three inch heels if you are a woman, and keep your trousers from heaping into a puddle on top of your shoes if you are a man. And don’t forget the stockings and socks. No one will notice that you are not blindly and self-destructively following bad fashion. But, they will wonder why on earth you look so good, while their trousers are slipping into the mire together with all sense of style.

 ©M-J de Mesterton 2010

Montage of Misshapen Muffin-Topped Maidens

Why go around short-legged, double-gutted, and half-assed when you could simply wear your trousers or pants at the waist, solving  all three self-imposed problems at once?  Ridiculously high heels don’t help.
Since 2006, I have been writing about the sort of misguided clothing-choices pictured in this photo-montage. Garments that only rise to that area just above the groin cause both the grotesque “Muffin-Top” and the risible anomaly known as “Plumber’s Crack”, yet every year, THEY’RE BA-ACK!  Resist sinking into fashion-victimhood, and stop risking your pants falling down. Wear your pants, trousers and skirts up at the waist,
and you will not look this idiotic. SIMPLE, isn’t  it?
©M-J de Mesterton 2013

A Bad Style Mysteriously Endures–Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Since 2006, I have been writing about the sort of misguided clothing-choice pictured in this photograph. Garments that only rise to that area just above the groin cause both the grotesque “Muffin-Top” and the risible anomaly known as “Plumber’s Crack”, yet every year, THEY’RE BA-ACK!  Resist falling into fashion-victimhood, and stop risking your pants falling down. Wear your pants, trousers and skirts up at the waist,
and you will not look this idiotic. SIMPLE, isn’t  it?
©M-J de Mesterton 2012

Where Is the Waist? Editorial by M-J

Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Where is the waist? That’s what I wonder every time I look at photos of the newest “fashions.” What is new about the same old tragic clothing-concepts bobbing up again, masquerading as innovative? For the past ten years, pants and skirts have consistently been manufactured without even coming close to the waist, yet they are touted as the “latest.” To paraphrase General Honoré of Louisiana, someone’s “stuck on stupid.” I thought last spring that the tide of bad clothes was turning, but having perused some catalogues this month, it is apparent that clothing designers  are still denying their customers ample fabric to cover their “plumber’s cracks.” Snide cracks about “mom jeans” and thoroughly ignorant comments calling anything that indeed does come just up to the natural waist “high-waisted” are still being heard  and read by those of us who actually remember where the waist is located on the human corpus: the place for belts, sashes, snaps and buttons is an inch or two above the navel, depending upon one’s height. The designer of the human body gave us the waist as an elegant way of keeping our pants, skirts  and trousers from falling down; also to enhance our corporeal proportions. The true waist never comes below the navel, and it certainly cannot be found two inches above one’s crotch. Garments are falling down from where they rest on the hips, and the fashion world has insisted on staying down in the gutter after what seems to be a devastating, permanent fall from elegant, figure-enhancing style. Fashion-victims are afraid now to go against the hideous dictum that you must wear your clothes no higher than the hip. This is a big mistake, because if one follows the lines of his or her body, they will see that clothes descending from the waist lengthen the legs, while clothes that only come up to the hips turn even the slimmest among us into pot-bellied, short and sloppy -looking people who would have been laughed-at throughout the previous decades and centuries. Wearing six-inch heels to compensate for the bad deeds done to your figure by stingy clothing manufacturers and designers does nothing but make one look even sillier. Extra-high heels will damage both your feet and back, and will not give back the height robbed from you by idiotic torso-stretching trousers and skirts. For men, extra-long trousers do not visually lengthen your legs; rather, they make you look dumpy. The fail-safe, time-tested method of developing real glamour and style is to dress in natural, luxurious cloths and fabrics from the waist-down; wear two-to-three inch heels if you are a woman, and keep your trousers from heaping into a puddle on top of your shoes if you are a man. And don’t forget the stockings and socks. No one will notice that you are not blindly and self-destructively following bad fashion. But, they will wonder why on earth you look so good, while their trousers are slipping into the mire together with all sense of style. Now, there is the waist, our anchoring feature of elegant style. Pants, trousers and skirts constructed without it are a waste! © Copyright M-J de Mesterton; September 14th, 2010 Waist-to-Height Ratio and Your Health: an easy-to-use page that tells you how to find your waist, recommends its ideal measurement for your height, gender and age, calculates your body-mass index and displays one’s optimum daily caloric-intake.     Click Here to Read M-J’s Main Website, Elegant Survival

 

Clown Awards Show: Catastrophic Clothes

http://omg.yahoo.com/photos/red-carpet-report-card-2011-acm-awards/4712/1#OmgPhoid=18
Click on the link to see hideous clothes, followed by illiterate and inaccurate comments. No, it is NOT the camera’s fault–the trousers are about eight inches below his waist, robbing this fashion-victim of visual leg-length. And how does one tuck a shirt into a pant-waist when there isn’t one? This fellow is just one of many in the line-up of “country stars” shown here whose pants/trousers land so far below the navel that they look like their legs are a foot long.

>Clown Awards Show: Catastrophic Clothes

>http://omg.yahoo.com/photos/red-carpet-report-card-2011-acm-awards/4712/1#OmgPhoid=18
Click on the link to see hideous clothes, followed by illiterate and inaccurate comments. No, it is NOT the camera’s fault–the trousers are about eight inches below his waist, robbing this fashion-victim of visual leg-length. And how does one tuck a shirt into a pant-waist when there isn’t one? This fellow is just one of many in the line-up of “country stars” shown here whose pants/trousers land so far below the navel that they look like their legs are a foot long.

It’s Not the Bagginess that Offends, Butt…

…I mean but the low-hanging thereof. My photo shows elegant baggy or wide-legged trousers. Baggy pants, as in Oxford Bags, have been chic for decades in classic clothing. But, most people, when referring to the problem of low-sagging pants (trousers) just use the term, “baggy pants”. That’s really unfair, since what is being excoriated is the plumber’s crack, a source of derision for all times. What people abhor is the hideous sagging lowdown pants/trousers style. It really amounts to indecent exposure–someone’s underwear and opening showing in front, and whatever you wish to call it bared in the back–that’s the issue. Here is an article which I was sent by Sweden’s The Local–News in English:

M-J de Mesterton©2007
Note: I originally posted this, together with my original poem on the subject, in 2007.

It’s Not the Bagginess that Offends, Butt…

…I mean but the low-hanging thereof. My photo shows elegant baggy or wide-legged trousers. Baggy pants, as in Oxford Bags, have been chic for decades in classic clothing. But, most people, when referring to the problem of low-sagging pants (trousers) just use the term, “baggy pants”. That’s really unfair, since what is being excoriated is the plumber’s crack, a source of derision for all times. What people abhor is the hideous sagging lowdown pants/trousers style. It really amounts to indecent exposure–someone’s underwear and opening showing in front, and whatever you wish to call it bared in the back–that’s the issue. Here is an article which I was sent by Sweden’s The Local–News in English:
 

M-J de Mesterton©2007
Note: I originally posted this, together with my original poem on the subject, in 2007:

15 novembre, 2007

Saggin’ and Caggin’*

There’s a distinction between “baggy pants” and trousers that are sagging under the underwear. Since when has it been all right to walk round in one’s jockey shorts? That’s where the hip-hop/”gangsta” emulators are wearing their trousers–hanging under what ought to be their private parts. Baggy pants, however, are explained and depicted below.
Here is a rap “song” I wrote last December 13th:

Wit my crotch at my knees

There’s no ball squeeze

Though my bad ass does freeze

And the ‘ho’s I want to please

Say I must have some fleas

I just cough and I wheeze

‘Cause my ass it does freeze

So, it’s cool, ya sees?

Wit my crotch at my knees

I’m the epitome of sleeze!

~~Copyright M-J de Mesterton December 13th, 2006
*Caggin’ is my husband’s French slang for sporting a “pantload”!

It’s Not the Bagginess of Hip-Hop Trousers that Offends, Butt…

It’s Not the Bagginess that Offends, Butt…

…I mean but the low-hanging thereof. My photo shows elegant baggy or wide-legged trousers. Baggy pants, as in Oxford Bags, have been chic for decades in classic clothing. But, most people, when referring to the problem of low-sagging pants (trousers) just use the term, “baggy pants”. That’s really unfair, since what is being excoriated is the plumber’s crack, a source of derision for all times. What people abhor is the hideous sagging lowdown pants/trousers style. It really amounts to indecent exposure–someone’s underwear and opening showing in front, and whatever you wish to call it bared in the back–that’s the issue. Here is an article which I was sent by Sweden’s The Local–News in English:

M-J de Mesterton©2007
Note: I originally posted this, together with my original poem on the subject, in 2007.

>It’s Not the Bagginess that Offends, Butt…

>

…I mean but the low-hanging thereof. My photo shows elegant baggy or wide-legged trousers. Baggy pants, as in Oxford Bags, have been chic for decades in classic clothing. But, most people, when referring to the problem of low-sagging pants (trousers) just use the term, “baggy pants”. That’s really unfair, since what is being excoriated is the plumber’s crack, a source of derision for all times. What people abhor is the hideous sagging lowdown pants/trousers style. It really amounts to indecent exposure–someone’s underwear and opening showing in front, and whatever you wish to call it bared in the back–that’s the issue. Here is an article which I was sent by Sweden’s The Local–News in English:

M-J de Mesterton©2007
Note: I originally posted this, together with my original poem on the subject, in 2007.

It’s Not the Bagginess that Offends, Butt…

…I mean but the low-hanging thereof. My photo shows elegant baggy or wide-legged trousers. Baggy pants, as in Oxford Bags, have been chic for decades in classic clothing. But, most people, when referring to the problem of low-sagging pants (trousers) just use the term, “baggy pants”. That’s really unfair, since what is being excoriated is the plumber’s crack, a source of derision for all times. What people abhor is the hideous sagging lowdown pants/trousers style. It really amounts to indecent exposure–someone’s underwear and opening showing in front, and whatever you wish to call it bared in the back–that’s the issue. Here is an article which I was sent by Sweden’s The Local–News in English:

M-J de Mesterton©2007
Note: I originally posted this, together with my original poem on the subject, in 2007.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑