Monday, May 02, 2005

A pants rant

Among the several things I did this relatively uneventful weekend was a take trip to Target. Not so noteworthy, I know, except that I got so irritated while I was there that now I must rant. An overly long and pointless rant about something of no real importance in the universe. About Target. And pants.

All I wanted was another stupid pair of ... well I don’t know what you call them. They’re not really “sweat pants”; I suppose one could call them “running pants” except that I don’t run and calling them that would give people a false impression about me. I could call them “agility pants” because that’s what I wear them for (although they work really well for flyball as well as curling up on the sofa with a good book). I’ll call them “sporty pants.” They’re comfy and stretchy and they have little racing stripes down the side. I got a pair from Target a couple of months ago and I’ve decided they are wonderful.

Which brings me to one of the things that drives me nuts about Target. In their quest to “target” people who are, or want to be, too hip for Wal-Mart but don’t have the wallet or are too frugal for higher-end stores, they turn over their clothing line at lightening speeds. So while the squares who go to Wal-Mart or K-mart know they will always be able to find their favorite Lee flat-front khaki pants (ah, but the thrill of the hunt is in finding a size 8), Target shoppers can count on never being able to find the same thing twice. I suppose if I were a fashionable person it would thrill me to be able to find cool Issac Mizrahi and Mossimo stuff at such affordable prices, but as I’m not fashionable, I just want clothing that covers my bits in a relatively comfortable and not too unattractive manner. So I guess the idea is that Target wants you to buy several of whatever you find that works for you ... but I have to wear something a few times before I know if it works of not. Nothing’s worse than buying several pairs of sporty pants that ride up your ass or sag disconcertingly in the crotch. So I had to road-test my agility pants before I got another pair. They turned out to be just the thing.

So I went to Target and headed straight for the place I figured I’d find my little sporty pants, and there was a rack full of them, in all colors and sizes and ... they were, every one of them, about 1 foot shorter than my actual legs. Hear ye, hear ye, by Target’s decree everyone shall have their sporty pants in a capri-length style this season! I could have just acquiesced to their fashion dictates, bought the sporty capris and saved my blog readers a poinless rant. But dammit, as a ’merican, I have a constitutional right to the sporty pants of my choice!! Yeah OK, I know there is no constitutional right to pants of any type, but curiously, neither is there a constitutional right to pantslessness. The US constitution is seriously deficient on the topic of pants. At any rate, the problem I have with capris is that unless one has a body like Mary Tyler Moore circa The Dick van Dyke Show, capri pants make one look dumpy. In fact, after seeing women everywhere in capri pants for the last several years, I will not even try on a pair. They look so crappy on everyone else that I know they couldn’t possibly look good on me. So no capri sporty pants for me.

There were some regular-length sporty pants of a slightly different style that I could have tried: $29.99 lo-rise Mossimo clingy thingies--very chic. They looked perfect for Dick van Dyke Show-era Mary Tyler Moore. I headed over to the clearance racks to see if they had any leftover sporty pants from days gone by. Yes indeed, in girly pink, baby blue and lime sherbet green, in sizes medium, large, X-large, XX-large, and XXX-large. No size small. Oh yeah, through the magic of size inflation, I am a size small in the target world, even though in real life I’m more of a medium-sized person (albeit a short one). I’m also not a wearer of girly pink or baby blue, so I contemplated the idea of buying a pair of size medium lime-sherbet green pants and just rolling the waist to make them sort of fit, but I decided I should go ahead and try them on first. Fortunately for me the fitting rooms were full, so I was left to peruse the rack of fitting room discards-stuff people had tried on but rejected. And lo unto me appeared one size small navy blue pair of the desired sporty pants, price reduced for clearance. I grabbed them, and in the course of my journey to the checkout, witnessed a child of about 5 years having an ear-splitting screaming tantrum because her mother wouldn’t buy her a certain toy. How on earth does a child get to the point where she can even imagine it’s acceptable to behave that way? Sigh, so many rants, so little time ...

6 comments:

wordnerdy said...

good call on forgoing the capris--i saw someone wearing a pair today and they looked pretty stupid.

HyperBob said...

Never trust a person with 3/4 length pants. If they have no dress sense then they wont make sense of anything else in life.

Anonymous said...

For someone who generally comes across as something of a leftist, you are awfully literal in your interpretation of the constitution. You'd make Scalia happy. Those who believe in a living constitution would happily read in a fundamental right to the pants of our choice into substantive due process. While the government may limit pantlessness because of a compelling interest in decency, there is certainly no rational basis for preventing you from having full length sporty pants. However, I do not think Target can be forced to provide them for you.

Lisa B. said...

Hello anonymous. You sound like Dick Umbrage. Is that on purpose?

Anonymous said...

I was just searching capri pants unattractive and came upon this. I have always hated them and think they look horrible even on most models... so thank you for also hating them :)

Lisa B. said...

You're very welcome; I'm happy to oblige!