Lady Gaga loses at hair.

Thanks for nothing, Lady Gaga.



Also, you dropped your tit.

Pants or no pants?

Dear American Apparel,

Please do less of this:

And more of this:

Because really (cute boys aside) if you're going to pretend you're wearing pants when you aren't wearing pants, then it's much more honorable to just not wear pants at all.

I know that this woman is a kindred spirit and that this is clever performance art in protest against tights-as-pants. I FEEL IT.

stirrup "pants" then and now.

Now ladies, I know this might be especially confusing since the word "pants" is in the name given to this garment, but use your eyes. I beg of you. 

The stirrup pants of yesteryear have melded with the tights as pants plague of today. Two things that should never merge, just like Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck.  The result; a tighter fit sans pockets and a general feeling of nonsensical wonderment sure to ruin reputations. 

I was forced to wear stirrup pants as a child. In the late 1980's and very early 90's. This was not because my parents were sadists, but because it was "cool" and they were everywhere. Much like how when "deconstructed jeans" got "cool" it became almost impossible to locate a new pair of jeans that did not look like they had been sent through a food processor and/or "tagged" with a sharpie marker and even more recently how the "skinny jeans" epidemic has made it a somewhat of a sport to try and find pants I can actually fit my boots under; during 1988-1991 stirrup "pants" were all over the place. Especially in the children's section. 

I remember wearing the stirrups over my shoes hoping it would wear away and break. I hated the way it felt on my skin and the stirrup made it more difficult to squeeze both of my legs through one pant leg in order to pretend I was a mermaid.  Once this trend ended, even as a ten year old I was relieved. I craved actual pants. So you can imagine my horror as an adult, when walking down an East Village street I am faced with small tribes of stirrup "pant" wearing youths. Why is this happening? Maybe it is because they were not around for the original fad and therefore don't associate it with being dressed by their parents, or because they are too drunk on Papst Blue Ribbon to see themselves clearly, or because they are on their way to an Equestrian Club meeting, or maybe they are just tired of the footless tights they have been wearing as pants riding up in such a way that they look like capris. Capris are so 2003 and anyone caught that far in the past would be humiliated. So better to just strap on some elastic bands and avoid looking so out of date. Oh. Wait. 

In reality it is because some fashion house decided it was cool again. I wish I had that job. I also guarantee that all of the people at that design meeting were wearing actual pants without spandex straps at the bottom.  There is a simple and precise formula for creating the more extreme trends; resurrect a horrible fad of the past on modern models that are edgy and look strung out. This saves a lot of time in terms of actually coming up with new ideas. But there are two things that people should remember: 1) models are paid to wear these things and 2) messy hair does not an outfit make. 

Looking like you just rolled out of bed in the morning does not give you the go-ahead for also forgetting to get fully dressed.  This also applies to shirts as dresses and underwear as shorts.  The bathrobe was invented in the 18th century so the world's roommates and door to door salesman wouldn't have to see us half naked.  Why now in the 21st century would we balk at that tradition and take it to the streets? Not to mention turn that bathrobe around and market it as a blanket with sleeves to wear over complete outfits? The world is full of mysteries, but I'd prefer if I didn't have to wait in the really long bathroom line at Wholefoods next to some of the most boggling. And if I have to, well I choose the Snuggie. Or the Narwhal. 

Stay Cool.

It's been pointed out to me once again that I am dressed like a cast member of West Side Story. As a lover of musical theater and monochromatic color schemes, I have chosen to take that as a compliment.

Deal with it.

You better sweat!

I will be sure to vote Republican going forward.

On May 26th, 1996, Marianna Cook visited Barack and Michelle Obama in Hyde Park as part of a photography project on couples in America.

One half of the couple did not feel the need to put on pants.

I have to admit, part of me like this photo because Michelle reminds me of Debbie Allen in the opening credits of Fame.

"You want fame? Well fame costs. Now's the time you start paying for it. IN SWEAT!"

Strings around heads.

On non tights-as-pants, but equally important philosophical dilemmas:


Dear Mary Kate and the young women of NYU's freshman class,

I ask that you cease and desist tying strings around your foreheads for no good reason. This goes doubly if said string is made of hair. I saw you at the Ghostland Observatory show and you looked retarded.

My mother's high school yearbook (theme: Feelin' Groovy) and Janis of Electric Mayhem want their looks back.




Like, fer sure.

Low Crotch Leggings

Some person named Katie sent me this photo because she hates me. These are called "low crotch leggings".

Great. Now I'm barfing up my Egg McMuffin.

Okay, I see a couple of things wrong with this garment. the first, and most obvious flaw is the "low crotch" part. I'm grateful that I can't see her uterus, but I don't relish the idea that she's just shat herself either. Secondly, is this actually a leotard or something? It goes all the way up under her awful half shirt!

Nice boots, though.

Pants: 101

This blog is dedicated to erradicating the biggest threat to our quality of life in New York City. I do not refer to crime, nor to polution, nor to the rising cost of living. I am referring to the disturbing trend of New York's fairer sex mistaking tights and leggings as pants.

Has the whole world lost its head?

Ladies, let me be clear: tights/leggings are not pants. They are an undergarment and should be treated accordingly. Why then am I seeing scores of young ladies gallavanting about my fair city wearing just a top and no pants to speak of (Donald Duckin' it, as I like to say)? Why am I subjected to a spandex encased beaver shot when I follow certain young ladies up a flight of stairs?

Yes, I am a dandy, and therefore not inclined to give a complete stranger a vaginal exam on my way to work, but I'd like to think the same would be true if I were heterosexual. I wouldn't wear long underwear to go get a latte at starbucks, which is pretty much the male euivalent to woman wearing tights as pants. It would be inappropraite. That said, there are times that tights/leggings are totally appropriate, like if you're at the gym or you're performing in a Martha Graham piece. Dinner at Balthazar's or shopping at Bloomingdale's is not one of those occasions.

Look, I'm no jerk-- I just believe in modesty. My intentions are pure, folks. Put simply, I will work tirelessly to bring pants (and modesty) back to the women of New York. After all, we can't really call this the greatest city of all if half of its citizens can't even remember to put their pants on each morning.

So let's review:

Tights/Leggings.

Pants.

See the difference?