And now a word about bras

Or rather bralettes. What we old folks used to call bras (making bra sort of a retronym, like corded phone and cloth diaper.)

Bralettes, i.e., bras without molded or padded cups or wires, are apparently all the rage. Especially at Victoria's Secret, which dominates the lingerie market (with a 61.8 percent market share -- who knew?). Which I find highly amusing.

For YEARS, all bras (or nearly all) were "bralettes." Then came underwire bras, and padded bras, and pushup bras, and sports bras, and t-shirt bras... and, finally, bralettes, aka basic bras (albeit in a variety of colors and lace).

I guess everything old is new again.

Though how many women, especially those over the age of 21 or who've had a kid, really want a bralette?

I don't know about the rest of you ladies, but as a lifelong member of the Itty Bitty Titty Committee, who nursed a kid for 12 months, I enjoy a little padding and pushing in my brassiere. And I bet most women feel the same way. Though, clearly, there is a market for bras without all the bells and whistles -- or wires and molding. (And I do think the front-close bralette is pretty, if not practical.)

But ladies -- and gentlemen -- let me know what you think (via the Comments). Do you prefer your brassieres to lift and shape (and supplement -- what the lord has forgotten, stuff with... foam)? Or do you fancy something that is "all you" (for better... or worse)?

Why bother getting dressed?

Just like wearing UGGs with mini skirts, sleepwear as day wear -- or evening wear -- has a nasty habit of rearing its tired head every few years (if the concept ever truly went away).

And per The Washington Post's fashion & style reporter Robin Givhan, designers are once again touting pajamas (or pyjamas) as evening attire. Just don't wear these pajamas to bed. Not at over $1,100 a pop -- or pajama top.

Indeed, Dolce & Gabbana has a whole fashion line titled "Pyjama Party: Underwear as Outerwear Done Right." (Note to Dolce & Gabbana: There is no "right" way to wear underwear as outerwear. Sorry Madonna.)

Now I know a lot of you reading this are thinking, "But J., pajamas are sooo comfy! And it's winter, who cares?" (I'm looking at you, Spouse, and you, Teenage Daughter.)

And I will admit to having run (or driven) to the bakery at 7 a.m. to pick up breakfast pastries in my PJs, albeit with a down jacket and boots over them, on more than one occasion. (It was twice. OK? Happy?) And there may have been a time or two where I drove the teenager to school still clad in my pajamas -- again covered by a down jacket and boots.

But wearing pajamas to a cocktail or dinner party? Or wearing them to work or grocery shopping? No. I do not care if the label says Givenchy or Dolce & Gabbana or pick your chichi designer. Or that you saw Gigi Hadid or Jessica Alba wearing pajamas to some big event.

You want to make America great again? Put pajamas back in the bedroom, where they belong. And get off your lazy ass and into some real clothes.

Next up: Putting the "sweat" back in sweatpants and sweatshirts.

Och oy: Jews finally get a tartan

For all of my fellow Jews who thought wearing plaid wasn't kosher, I have good news for you!

Introducing the first Jewish tartan, "an authentic Scottish tartan created by Heritage Experts and Rabbis. It is the only Scottish Jewish Tartan approved and registered by the Scottish Tartans Authority."

So what makes this tartan "Jewish"?

According to the Jewish Tartan website:

The colours, weave, and number of threads have all been picked for their importance in Judaism. In the tartan design we have blue and white, the colours of both the Israeli and Scottish flags, with the central gold line representing the gold from the Ark in the Biblical Tabernacle and the many ceremonial vessels. The silver is to represent the silver that adorns the Scroll of the Law and the colour red is for the traditional red Kiddush wine. There are seven lines in the central motif and three in the flag representations - both numbers of great significance in Judaism.

And it's 100 percent kosher, people!

Order yours in time for Pesach!

"Sexy" sweatpants?

It was 18 degrees Fahrenheit here this morning (probably still is), and I was freezing my tuckus off. So I figured that, since I was working from home and didn't need to go out this afternoon, I'd just throw on my old, gray Gap sweatpants.

Then I hesitated.

The last time I wore my sweatpants (and actually the time before that), the spouse informed me that I looked like I was wearing a big droopy diaper. (I wasn't.) This from a man who thinks flannel pajamas are sexy. So I knew my gray sweatpants must look really bad on me.

Granted, the sweatpants are a bit big on me, having bought them when I probably weighed 20 pounds more. But aren't sweatpants supposed to be a bit big and baggy and comfortable?

Apparently, I didn't get the memo.

Gone are the days of wearing sweatpants to sweat in -- or hang out in. Today's sweatpants must be both fashionable and sexy -- in case you are running out for a gallon of milk and there are paparazzi lurking. These fashionable, sexy sweats can also run you $600 or $700. (I kid you not. Just click on the link.)

Granted, it's always nice to be comfortable and look good doing it. But aren't "sexy" sweatpants, "fashionable" sweatpants, and "skinny" sweatpants oxymorons? When did we go from "sweat" pants to "sexy" pants? Can fleece ever be sexy?

Let me know your thoughts via the Comments. And while you're there, let me know where I can pick up a pair of these sexy, fleece sweatpants for under $50.

I don't understand "fashion"

I don't understand fashion, as in clothing trends, or why certain clothing is considered fashionable one season and unfashionable the next -- only to become fashionable a few years later.

Call me uncouth, or unfashionable, but I don't care what VOGUE or ELLE or Harper's Bazaar says. Prints and patterns rarely look good together (if ever). Ditto big, chunky clothes that make you look like an Eskimo (or Inuit) out to harpoon a whale -- or tight-fitting clothes that make you look and feel like a sausage.

Shouldn't clothing just look good and feel good -- or make the wearer look good and feel good, as in, feel comfortable? 

[Somewhere in the offices of Condé Nast and Hearst, people are fainting -- or scoffing. "No mixing patterns?! Clothing that looks good and feels good? Mon dieu!" Yeah, definitely scoffing.]

Let's take a look, for a moment, at some of the trends for this fall that ELLE Magazine has anointed "The Top 14 Trends of Fall 2014."

Such as robe (or belted) coats. These are winter coats with no buttons, or zippers, to help hold in the warmth. Just a belt. Have you ever worn a robe coat or jacket? I have, and let me tell you, they never stay shut -- and don't tend to keep you very warm. And the ones pictured in ELLE (click on the link, above) don't even look good on the models!

ELLE also predicts the 1960s are back in a big way. (Though every year since Mad Men has been on, The '60s seems to be a fashion trend.) While I don't personally have anything against mini skirts and knee-high boots, hasn't this "trend" been done to death -- and done better (like, in the 1960s)?

And I don't care what the fashion doyennes say, bigger isn't necessarily better. (See above reference to Inuits and whales.)

ELLE Magazine - Getty Images

I don't even know what to say about the "straight jacket" trend. Clearly irony is alive and well on Seventh Avenue.

As for wearing a dress over pants -- that's pants, not leggings (which I can sort of, maybe, understand).... I think I speak for many of us when I say, WTF?! Wear a dress -- or wear a pantsuit. But please, don't wear a dress over pants. People (in the real world) will just look at you funny.

Other trends I spied: the military look, the Western look, the urban zombie (I kid you not). Just. Stop.

Give me clothes that are fun, but make them functional and flattering, too. Like a great-fitting pair of jeans, a nice button-down shirt or knit top, and a sweater that doesn't make me look like the Michelin man, or itch. Is that so much to ask?

Bonus David Bowie "Fashion" video:

Does your man suffer from... Dad Pants?

You know... "the shapeless, pleated tragedy that too many men find themselves in every day." (See "Mom Jeans, male equivalent.")

Unfamiliar with the term "Dad Pants"? You may know this affliction by some of its other names, such as Droopy Drawers or Dunlap Syndrome.

Fortunately, just in time for Father's Day, Dockers is here to help.



Now if only Dockers could get rid of his beer belly.

UPDATED 6/13: And speaking of Dad Pants and beer bellies.... Last night on The Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon and special guest New Jersey Governor Chris Christie presented "The Evolution of Dad Dancing," which is basically a video for... Dad Pants (as in those baggy, ill-fitting pleated pants so many dads tend to favor). Enjoy!

Is your man a man of action?

Does he require an, uh, extra large snack sack*? If so, he needs Action Pants! by Sansabelt, "the only slack with the patented Action Zone**!"

Yes, Sansabelt, ladies (and gents). The most comfortable pants a man can wear without (or sans) a belt! "Worn and beloved by celebrities, including Johnny Carson, Dick Van Dyke and Mike Ditka" -- and Ron Burgundy.

[I bet that poodle ain't the only bitch checking out his Action Zone, if you know what I mean.]

Makes me wish I was a copy writer back in the 1960s. Though if I was, no way would I be allowed to write copy for such a masculine, manly product. (Oooo polyester.)

Btw, that is, or was, an actual ad -- and you can still buy Sansabelt pants, in polyester or wool blend, at Sansabelt Pant World. Snack sack not included.

[A big tip of my chapeau to Gary for sharing this on Facebook.]

*Snack sack? Like for carrying, um, lunch meat?

**I don't know about all of you, but I would love to see the patent filing. Also, and I could be wrong here, I'm guessing that guys who would wear Sansabelt polyester pants probably did not see a lot of action.

Remember when pajamas were for sleeping?

When I was growing up, I had a male cousin who, instead of sleeping in pajamas, insisted on sleeping in his clothes. It would save him time in the morning, he told his mother.

How times have changed. Now, instead of sleeping in their clothes, people wear pajamas during the day. (No word about this trend from my cousin who, last time I saw him, was nicely dressed in an Oxford shirt and trousers. Though I wouldn't put it past him to wear a onesie to a client meeting.)

I'm not exactly sure when the pajama-as-day-wear trend began, but I'm guessing it was shortly after stores like Old Navy (and its chicer retail cousins) began selling mix-and-match pajama bottoms and tops that looked and felt more like lounge wear or apres-ski wear than sleep wear -- that also, btw, looked fabulous with a pair of UGGs. Not.

At first the pajama-wear trend was confined to teenage girls in private schools and on college campuses and weary mothers in SUVs dropping their kids off at school. But now it seems pajamas as daytime fashion has gone mainstream. (I hesitate to call pajamas in public a fashion or fashion statement as I'm not sure what that statement would be: "Look at me! I'm lazy!" or "I couldn't bother to get dressed this morning"?)

Personally, I am okay with people wearing pajamas outside the bedroom -- within limits. You want to wear them around the house or to drive your kid to school in PJs? Super. I think it's also perfectly fine for early morning and late evening dog walkers to do the deed in their pajamas, albeit preferably with something over them (and under them, in the case of males).

However, I draw the line at strolling around in public in onesies, footie pajamas, and, pajamas that clearly look like, um, pajamas.

I especially draw the line at entire families gallivanting around in matching Christmas jammies.



[Dude, seriously, put on some underwear.]

But maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy.

Where do you think pajamas belong? In the bedroom? Anywhere inside? Wherever? Let me know via a Comment.

[For more on the "pajamas in public" topic, check out this New York Post article my friend CK sent me.]

Enough with skinny jeans + 3/4 sleeves

Men have it easy, at least fashion-wise. You don't have to worry about hemlines -- or waistlines. If you know how to use a tape measure, you can accurately deduce what size shirt and trouser you need. And when buying shoes your biggest decision is typically "brown or black?"

Sure, there have been some embarrassing fashion trends for males -- the polyester suit (and its cousin the leisure suit), the skinny tie, the wide tie, white vinyl shoes. But those are a mere drop in the fashion bucket compared to what we women have had to put up with.

I personally have never dressed for fashion or been one to follow trends. And buying clothing for comfort and fit -- not style or hipness -- was not a major problem. Until the advent of skinny jeans.

Skinny jeans, also known as cigarette or pencil pants, have actually been around for a while. But except for Audrey Hepburn, beatnik poets, girls in 1960s beach party movies, a few punk rockers, and anorexic models, they look good on practically no one. And yet somehow these uber-form-fitting, low-waisted, tapered pants continue to make a comeback -- and unlike in previous decades, refuse to go away.

Indeed, skinny jeans have become so ubiquitous that they have squeezed out nearly every other fit or form of jean (other than "mom jeans," aka "relaxed fit").

Just try finding a pair of attractive straight leg or boot cut or gently flared jeans (as opposed to bell bottoms, which thankfully slunk back to the '70s again) -- that don't hang four inches below your pupik.

I think I'm speaking for most women when I write, women's jean manufacturers, I'm begging you, enough already with the skinny jeans. Give us women over 25, who don't have toothpicks for legs, and have had a kid or two, a break (without forcing us to choose between "skinny" and something with an elastic band and a bubble butt).

And while on the topic of "fashion," 3/4-length sleeves? Really? Whose genius idea was this, designers? Did you receive thousands of letters from women complaining it was too hard to roll-up their sleeves?

WTF is the point of 3/4-length sleeves?

Oh sure, some of those shirts with 3/4-length sleeves look nice. But do you know how annoying it is to wear shirts with sleeves somewhere between the elbow and wrist? You can't wear anything over them, because they bunch up -- and the form-fitting ones cut off your circulation and are often too hot to wear in warm weather. And yet for YEARS now, I keep seeing shirts with 3/4-length sleeves. WHY?

Seriously, how hard is it to roll up your effing sleeves, people? Tell women's clothing designers, enough with 3/4-length sleeves.

Thank you.

This has been a public service announcement.

Would you pay $400K for this t-shirt?

That's K, as in $1,000. As in $400,000. You could buy a house with that. Or an Aston Martin V12 Vantage -- with enough leftover to buy a year's supply of regular t-shirts for you and your friends.

But J., you say, this t-shirt is made from 100% organic cotton!

Fie, I say. There are plenty of other t-shirts made from organic cotton that don't cost $400,000.

But J., you say, this t-shirt was made using only renewable energy sources (i.e., wind, solar) "and represents a C02 reduction of 90% compared to traditional t-shirt production."

That's very nice, I say, but $400,000... for a t-shirt?! Puh-lease.

But J., you say, the t-shirt has 16 diamonds, each weighing over a carat!

To which I would reply, well, that explains why it's the world's most expensive t-shirt, but WTF would anyone put 16 diamonds on a t-shirt?! Are you effing crazy? The first time you washed that sucker, at least one of those diamonds is going to come off -- and no way am I entrusting that baby to a dry cleaner. (Also, I bet it loses its shape in the wash and/or shrinks.)

But what really bugs me? For $400,000, you'd think they could have designed a more attractive, flattering t-shirt.

Btw, the t-shirt is for real -- and you can find out more about it, and order one, by clicking the link above.

On a related note, if this t-shirt had been around 26 years ago, do you think Paul Simon would have changed the name of the song to "Diamonds on the Front of her T"?

Man cleavage

Which is not to be confused with man boobs.

According to a "report" in today's Wall Street Journal (see, this is what happens when Rupert Murdoch buys your paper, people), "Man cleavage -- plunging necklines slit open to reveal chest hair, pectoral muscles, maybe more -- is back."

The Journal even provides this helpful, illustrative video:



I am actually for a little, emphasis on little, man cleavage, i.e., a couple of buttons artfully unbuttoned -- on the right guy -- though I in no way advocate big V-necks or shirts unbuttoned to a guy's pupic, and definitely not male tube tops.

(Full disclaimer: I first heard about this story this morning on Live with Regis and Kelly, where Anderson Cooper was subbing for Regis, and Kelly, after bringing up that she heard man cleavage was back then proceeded for several minutes to cajole Anderson to unbutton his shirt, which despite great effort on Kelly's behalf -- and I was so rooting for her, as was the audience -- he did not do, at least on the air. Boo.)

UPDATED: For those who care, here's a link to highlights of the "man cleavage" segment from Live with Regis and Kelly.