Pants!

[rowyn]

Around 4PM yesterday, I noticed the weather outside was pretty good for January, contrary to expectations. "I think I'll go shop for more pants," I told Trask.

I waited another hour or so for the laundry in the drier to finish and swapped over another load.

For the last year or two, I've had three pairs of pants for work that fit, one of which I hate. I have two more pants that are roughly two sizes too small. I can put them on, but they're uncomfortable and look terrible. I put off buying new pants again and again. Maybe I'd lose weight and the too-tight pants would fit again. Maybe pants that fit would appear miraculously at the back of my closet. Maybe I'd win the lottery, quit my job and it wouldn't matter any more.

Really, I didn't want to go shopping. Especially for work pants. I still have traumatic memories of buying pants in 2005.

But Martin Luther King day is one of those holidays that stores like to use as an excuse for a sale, so I dragged myself out of the house and to Sears, since Sears is where I ended up getting pants the last two times.

As soon as I got to the clothing department, I wanted to leave again. I knew what I wanted -- the two comfortable pants are side-zip with a stealth elastic waist -- but I had no idea how to find it among the racks and racks of women's sizes and misses' and short and long and petite and low waist and 'natural waist' and low-rise and eeeeeee.

And I kind of wanted pockets. Comfortable creased-leg pants with pockets. It seemed far too much to ask.

I told myself sternly that I had to at least look at their selection before I ran away. After 15 or 20 minutes of searching, I found a couple of styles that looked promising and tried them on. One was too long and one was too tight, but they were otherwise acceptable. Neither was exactly what I wanted. One style had pockets, but they were actually pull-on with the distinctive and ugly crinkly elastic waist. I decided I didn't care that much since I hardly ever wear work shirts that tuck in anyway. The other style had a flat waistband but no pockets. SIGH. I can live without pockets, too. Armed with the knowledge of the style, size, and length I wanted, I returned to the fray. In another fifteen minutes, I had five pairs of comfortable new pants and made my escape.

It feels like a kind of defeat, admitting that I am a size 12 and not likely to bed an 8 again -- at least not any time in the next year or two.

On the other hand, l think of what beetiger once said: 'I don't hate my body, I just hate not having clothes that fit it and look nice.'

'Look nice' might be an overstatement, but I am comfortable in my new pants. With pockets, even.

Comments

[level-head.livejournal.com]

I can appreciate the dilemma. I've lost forty or fifty pounds since you last saw me, and in the last few weeks I've also needed to buy pants. And other things. JC Penney's "red zone" sale was useful in that regard, as $45 dress shirts could be had for $12.

After confirming with JC Penney staff that they had no French cuff shirts, I discovered that one of the ones I bought had them. Armed with the type to look for, I bought another eight or so -- and they still insist that they don't have them.

You will wind up knowing more about your particular situation than staff does. Once you are confident what sizes will work, on-line shopping can give you more flexibility. But it seems that you had some success, ultimately.

Best wishes!

===|==============/ Level Head

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how to be confident what sizes will work... I mean, I know what size I normally get and I bought three shirts from Sears a couple weeks ago when they were on sale. Despite all being nominally the same size, one fits great, one is a little tight, and one... is... not using the same scale. I can't even get the buttons to touch their button holes. x.x

[rowyn]

... or maybe men's sizing isn't consistent either. D:

[level-head.livejournal.com]

That sounds like a manufacturing problem. I've been fortunate, and haven't encountered that -- but it's likely to be a little different from manufacturer to manufacturer as well.

Your situation certainly sounds like a misfire! I hope you could swap them out -- and it would be interesting to actually measure the sizes involved and use that when reporting back to the store.

===|==============/ Level Head

[level-head.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, I imagine that the Lady Rowyn knows this, but "Pants!" is something of an epithet in England. Where an American would describe something as absolutely worthless garbage, a Brit might just call it "pants". (And here, it felt appropriate to put the period outside of the quote in British style, especially since the reason Americans do it the other way is that early American typesetting equipment was ... pants.)

===|==============/ Level Head

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

What I hate is when the stuff in side the quotation marks needs one punctuation mark and the stuff outside needs another.

Like, "Did he say, "Woohoo!"?".

[level-head.livejournal.com]

I started writing a response, and it got complicated.

Like "Did he say, 'Woohoo!'"

It doesn't look right -- the exclamation mark overriding the question mark -- but it is correct American English.

I'm exploring more aspects of British style punctuation now.

===|==============/ Level Head

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

What do the British have against pants, anyway?

[level-head.livejournal.com]

Rumps, typically.

But in England, "pants" are underwear, which gives you a clue.

===|==============/ Level Head

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

Ha. All righty. };)

[rowyn]

I don't really like shopping for clothes online -- some of the variables don't come through. For instance, I am happy with some polyester pants, but hate others, and there's no way to tell by look or label which will be which. Fit in women's clothing is also considerably less consistent than men's. :/

[level-head.livejournal.com]

And from what Terrycloth says, even that isn't necessarily reliable.

===|==============/ Level Head

[telnar.livejournal.com]

I recently tried to buy pants online. I ordered two pair. One was the wrong size, so I sent it back. The vendor promptly replaced it with another pair in the same wrong size. At that point, I gave up and returned it. Arguably, this was a success since I did end up with one pair of pants that fit with less total effort than would have been required to shop in person (I keep priority mail supplies around, so returns aren't that hard).

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

You can live without pockets? O.o

[rowyn]

I'm a girl, I usually carry a bag. :) Although with work, it's a lunch bag rather than a purse.

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

Pockets! Must have pockets! D: Who makes clothes without pockets? Who do they think we are, people rich enough to have servants carry things?

[rowyn]

Apparently, women are not supposed to have pockets because putting things in them would 'ruin the line'. To which I say: pbbbt!

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

Curse these fashionistas, trying to enslave women to their secret program of feminine helplessness!

[minor-architect.livejournal.com]

Obviously, these are the same people who invented pantyhose. And much earlier on, corsets.

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

Gasp! A historical conspiracy! They probably framed Eve for the apple thing too.

[rowyn]

Pantyhose is the reason I wear pants and not skirts. v.v

[argonel.livejournal.com]

Pockets are what separte us from the animals. Without pockets we are but funny looking monkeys wearing pants.