But that's magazines. Fashion confusion hits me from many different media. It's not just magazines but what people are actually willing to wear that infuriates me. At the moment the fashion seems to be a lot of horribly fake vintage clothing and a lot of beige. Why beige? And why chinos and slacks? On women!
Most annoyingly I keep seeing groups of young girls, teenagers, all wearing these odd identical outfits. The other week I saw three girls all wearing the same kind of nasty high-waisted, arse-showing denim shorts with the same style of floaty vintage-esque blouse. And it's not vintage jewellery if it's made out of gold painted plastic! It's not vintage if you got it from New Look, Next, Dorothy Perkins or fucking Primark. I have a vintage dress, it is actually vintage and I bought it from a vintage shop in Birmingham long before this current "craze". I'm not sure whether I want to wear it now. Or is actively not wearing something "fashionable" as bad as actually wearing it?
I understand why fashion happens. Otherwise people would have to have their own thoughts and where would we be with that!?
What I don't understand is why people pursue it endlessly even though in all likelihood they'll end up wearing the same as everyone else. Obviously I don't expect everyone to have their own individual style but I don't understand the obsession with needing to wear the same style as you're friends, celebrities and them-people-what-are-on-the-telly-box. And it seems that so many people wear whatever is in fashion regardless of whether it suits them or not.
There are two main fashion phenomena that I don't understand.
- Playsuits. A hideous creation I have discovered since working in the warehouse of a fashion outlet. Why why why would you want to wear a garment associated with onesies and overalls that makes you look like you're wearing a table cloth in some kind of disgusting printed material you'd find upholstering your Grandma's dining room chairs? They are unflattering, hideous and if you bend over and I can see your pants then they're too damn short... I'm talking to you woman I saw on the street the other day.
- Leggings as trousers. LEGGINGS ARE NOT TROUSERS. They are not designed as trousers, they are too thin to be trousers and they're a close relative of tights. I do not want to see that much of your arse, missus. We don't live in the land of photoshop so when struck with a legging-ed arse all I see is either a boney one or one that would need to book multiple seats on an airplane. And I never, ever, have any desire to see the outline of anyone's pants. Tops should go with skirts, shorts or trousers. "Dresses" should certainly cover arse and crotch. Arse and crotch, remember that Ladies. Relevant. Also Relevant.
I'm gonna end on a point about brands. Handbags seem the worst... extortionate prices for a label. What's so special about a £100 hangbag that has a little word on it as opposed to a £20 that doesn't? Shoes are also a big one, though with my love of Vans, Etnies and Converse, I am also guilty of this. However, I also buy shoes like this because, damn and blast it, they are comfortable. You wouldn't catch me dead in a pair of Jimmy Choos*.
Now, there's clearly a difference between Primark clothes and FatFace clothes. FatFace clothes will last you an eternity and cost you an arm and a leg whereas Primark will cost you pittance but last you an evening. For all those crappy t-shirts you bought in Primark you could have bought a similar one that would last. That's where brands are good, you get the quality but there's got to be a limit on when it goes from will-weather-the-storm to will-show-everyone-what-you-can-afford-and-still-falls-apart. I'm looking at you, Macbook.
Alas. Maybe I will never understand. Maybe I'll become one of them. Or maybe the next time I see someone in jeggings I'll punch them in the face.
*I had to Google that to learn the spelling. I'm not sure what that says about me.
A/N: If you understand the reference in the title, you get points.
0 comments:
Post a Comment