Pants, Shirts, and Scarves oh my!

So, this is why the rampant vanity sizing plague must be stopped: I am fairly ambivalent about what number is hanging out around the back of the pants I wear. honestly, half the time my underwear is already hanging out the back of my pants, so some little label is fairly well dwarfed by enormous day-glo cotton (hopefully day-glo, since that sort of off-color white granny look is far less stylish). Whether I'm size 10 or size 1+0  is pretty irrelevant to me... in theory. I am not a number; I am a free (wo)man!!!

And I'm sure as h*#ll not a size SIX, damnit!

But over the years, I've been unilaterally downgraded to what seems to average out to be about a size 4 in most marketable brands of clothing. It varies within brand, and I even found a 4 in Gap's long and lean selection to be baggy as all get out while another long and lean 6 fit pretty well... but on average size 4 in today-size-speak. And, therein lies the rub: good luck finding a 4 Long in your average store. After I think size 6, many manufacturers shorten the inseam. It also can make shopping at Goodwill or Value Village (etc.) pretty interesting, because not only do you have the usual challenges of different makes and models of jeans (times one hundred because the store is no longer selling jeans branded towards a typical customer, so there are as many brands as imaginable), but different vintages of your recognizable brands. Is this a Gap last year or twelve years ago? Because I assure you this will matter and it's not always clear just from sight. I guess in a a good day, it makes the whole experience feel like one grand scavenger hunt, but I tend to find clothing shopping to be more draining than invigorating.

But I have prevailed. I went numb, blacked out and split my resources between Fred Meyers and Value Village. I now have pants that fit! For the next few months until I randomly gain/lose weight or wake up with my current body-fat redistributed as per some redistricting law that I hadn't been following closely enough. A standard pair of Banana Republic Jeans, a pair of unfamiliarly branded glittery jeans, and a pair of black jeans that are actually suitable for work.The work pants are a bit odd for me, being straight legged and skinny fit. Most of my pants flare a touch from the calf, which I think is generally more flattering, while these are not quite as neurotically clingy as a pair of jeggings, but still follow the narrowing effect of my legs. Makes my black and pink Sketchers really stand out, let me tell ya. But they do not show off my underwear or other questionably suggestive lady-part-previews, so they are quite full of winning on that regard.

The downside, of course, is that they are very revealingly tight and this means that Nate - my dance teacher - can see every horrid detail of shoddy leg work when I am wearing them. I suppose this is good for me, but so many things that are good for me are awfully much like cod liver oil sometimes. Of course, he says that to really figure out what looks good while dancing, a dancer must practice in front of a mirror... in his/her underwear!! Oh the horror!

In other fashionable news, I've decided that I am ultimately not bound to wearing suits in order to look professional. Instead I have decided that I can wear pants and shirts and maybe top it off with a nice scarf. Yes, I've decided again that I am a scarf person at work and in play. Which incidentally leads me into another acquisition and completion of a long-standing fashion goal. I now own a hounds tooth scarf! It's long been a dream to own something in hound stooth and finally I do. I am victorious!

And a total narcissist. But I really did enjoy this outfit. I rarely go for full on coordination and most days go for just barely passable - i.e. not covered in food stains and more or less covered in the applicably scandalous areas.