I believe it is unfair for a woman to be able to wear leopard-print-leggings and look comfortable chic while men lack the counterpart. I wear black sweatpants all day and they are comfortable but clearly not in fashion, and not chic enough. Black sweatpants have never been in fashion and have never been part of the main code of dress. I find them to be cheap, light, flexible, discreet, simple, resistant, thermic, mendable, and disposable. It is hard if not impossible to find a worthy clothing rival of such convenience. If I were a fashion designer, I would create a cheap, light, flexible, discreet, simple, resistant, thermic, mendable, and disposable piece that would fit into fashion. I would do all these things ignoring the fact that there is already a cheap, light, flexible, discreet, simple, resistant, thermic, mendable, and disposable piece of un-fashionable fashion which are black sweatpants. Maybe all we need to achieve is for the sweatpants to be part of a fashion show and voila! suddenly they are all acceptable and probably a bit more expensive but accesible in brand-shops. I have always believed that if fashion is ever-changing and somewhat cyclical, there will be a time when sweatpants become the shit of clothing pieces. Then and only then will I be a true hipster that always repeats “I liked black sweatpants before they were cool”. Although right now, I believe sweatpants to be pretty cool, cheap, light, flexible, discreet, simple, resistant, thermic, mendable, and disposable but not pretty pretty. And yet again, how important is fashion? Some will stand by the point of saying it is everything but it clearly not true. Nothing is everything. If it is, then there is something we are ignoring or not understanding. So how importan is fashion after all?
There seems to be an innate yet loose connection between clothing and what we, the ones that wear said clothing, think. Some ideologies support the cheap wear to the point of spending more money in order to be part of the ideology, than the money that would be originally spent for the sake of merely dressing. Some ideology supports a certain chain of command, so if a certain fashion designer or show or magazine comes up with anything, be it ridiculous, visually uncomfortable or simply vane, then the piece will become accepted and important.
So if I see a girl with a grey cardigan, is she wearing it because of an ideology? Because of respect to a chain of fashion command? Because it is effective? Because it is efficient? Or simply because it was inexpensive and cool? And if she defends that the piece of clothing speaks about how she thinks, how is it really effective at showing what someone thinks if the piece can be interpreted in all the previous ways? I guess its not only one piece but an entire attire that composes fashion, even for ideological reasons. Reason enough to use old earrings or for leopart-print to be popular once again, regardless of the voluptuous amount of visual over charge. So in the end, there is no piece of clothing that shows precisely what we think; to begin with because most pieces of clothing we buy is bought and someone else made it and someone else is meant to wear it too. It is the set of clothing we wear, and still in this way there are plenty of things that can be misunderstood or equated to some other bloke who wears exactly what you do, but acts completely different.
So, how hard is it to change the way people dress or to instaurate a new fashion strand? First, it would have to have a designer or a really stupid idea behind it (although seemingly identical). Secondly, it would have to be innovative to a certain degree. Third, it would have to be accessible to most.
Even back in the 60’s when leather was in, but no one had the chance to get it, people would buy leather print or leather imitation clothing and apparel articles. So there are indeed some ways of going about accessibility on fashion. Nonetheless for it to be fashion we need for it to be accepted by the majority or by authority. Imitation was never quite like leather though.
So I am a designer, and I have this stupid idea of comfort (I know, fuck me, right?). Wearing sweatpants is innovative in the sense that there has never been black sweatpants in a fashion show. Ever. Thirdly, we need a majority to like them, and to stop wearing them in order to achieve this is a contradiction. To wear something despite the general opinion of it is apparently a must in innovation. There are certainly a huge amount of people that wear them, else there wouldn’t be anyone selling them and no one would know what sweatpants are. Nonetheless every single person knows what sweatpants are.
Few regard sweatpants as showing what they think, but just a mere idea of comfort and efficiency. It is so simple and so scarce in ideologies that sweat pants are probably the last house of a common aspect of ideology of use: Convenience.
So I’ll just wait until there is a stupid idea or designer authority that proposes implicitly that black sweatpants rock and I will simply carry on. Black sweatpants rock, and they are cheap, light, flexible, discreet, simple, resistant, thermic, mendable, and disposable. One way or the other, the solution will never be to stop using them. This is my ideology of convenience and ultimate male comfort. Let me be.
Stop discrimination towards men, or something.
I just want to be comfortable.