Archive for the ‘Sans Pants’ category

It is Not Summer Yet. Put the Shorts Away.

April 10, 2012

Sea-son (noun): one of the four periods of the year (spring, summer, autumn, and winter), beginning astronomically at an equinox or solstice, but geographically at different dates in different climates (

I realize that defining the word “season” seems rudimentary and unnecessary as it very commonly used, but I have noticed much confusion stem from such a simple word. Now in New England, Mother Nature is extremely finicky and our “seasons” (dubbed once by my friend Ashley and myself as Icy Death, Rain, Humidity, and Fall) are ill-defined. It was 80 degrees within the first few weeks of March, but it rained for 28 out of 30 days in June 2008. We could wake up to a Nor’easter tomorrow morning in April, or experience a balmy 65 degree day in December. It is a frustration that meterologists across the Commonwealth experience on a daily basis. So I sympathize with those of us who are easily confused by the constant uncertainty of New England weather and are either routinely under- or over-dressed. But there are certain clothing items that are clearly meant to be worn in only one season of the year, with very little overlap. One of those said items is shorts.

I’ve noticed a recent trend in walking the length of Boston University’s campus (where fashion trends are…interesting to say the least), where girls are wearing shorts with tights underneath for these current cold days that ideally should be spring-like. Now you would think that I would be pleased that these young ladies are covering their legs with SOMETHING, but alas, I have a fundamental problem with this clothing choice. Because you see, we are in dangerous territory of a no pants situation when your shorts are of summer-length (i.e. half your ass is hanging out), but your coat is of winter-length.

Let me dissect this a bit further. Your summer wardrobe is inevitably different than your winter wardrobe, no? Because what we have here is a seasonal mis-match. We have a summer item paired with a winter item. The winter item is too long for the summer item, plain and simple. I know YOU know you have something covering your ass underneath that coat, but I have no clue. So from MY perspective, you are wearing tights and a peacoat. And at this point, you leave me no choice but to get my camera and take your picture. You only have yourself to blame.

Look ladies, I know you feel that Boston winters are long and cruel and all you want is that glorious day when you can wake up, put flip flops and a skirt on, and breathe in that summer air. I long for it too. But I have my shorts safely tucked away for just such an occasion. Shorts prefer to be accompanied by bare legs anyway. There’s nothing to compete with for attention, and it’s much easier to go to the bathroom. Besides, it’s already April. Summer really is around the corner, you just have to wait a little bit longer. Stay strong. Keep the shorts where they belong right now…in your closet.

See not only was this girl wearing shorts with tights, she was wearing BLACK shorts with BLACK tights, covered by a BLACK peacoat. And you wonder why I think you're not wearing pants.

Honey when you cross seasons you have important decisions to make. In your case, it's get longer shorts or get a longer coat. Your choice.


Who’s to Blame?

January 2, 2012

Ever since the dawn of retail, when stores like Gap and Bloomingdale’s came into existence, and were kept alive and kicking with the invention of the credit card, there has been a close and dependent relationship between retail designers and consumers. For the most part, this relationship is symbiotic, much like those found in nature. Designers consult their constituents to learn what types of clothing they’re interested in, and consumers provide monetary compensation to perpetuate fashion trends and keep the industry rolling. It’s the stuff of economic textbooks. However, when a mistake is made that disrupts this balanced relationship, who is to blame?

The mistake to which I am referring is nude-colored leggings. By mistake, I more accurately mean EGREGIOUS ERROR IN JUDGMENT. But is this the fault of the pants makers or the pants buyers? Who has become the parasite in this once symbiotic relationship? I’m not sure I have an answer at the moment, so to keep with the “balance” theme I have going here, I shall present both sides of the argument.

The designers of nude leggings are the devil!

Ultimately it is the designers that create a fashion trend, so it seems natural to blame them for creating leggings that give the illusion that you have LITERALLY forgotten your pants. There are so few occasions I can think of that require the illusion of nakedness. Anything that does come to mind seems to revolve around the arts in some form (plays, dance, etc.). And even that is a stretch. In addition, I feel that one major benefit of pants is that they tend to hide all those fun little imperfections we all have and love: cellulite, little pockets of extra fat, spider veins, all that good stuff. But if the designers have created a piece that A. glues itself to your legs since spandex is very good at that and B. contours to all the bumps and lumps you have, they have given you no fighting chance at looking good. If it was possible to look anti-sexy, they have helped you achieve that. Designers wrote your sex appeal its death sentence when they created nude-colored leggings.

But wait! It’s the consumers’ fault!

Can we lay all the burden upon the creators of this atrocity? Perhaps those who spend actual money on a product that gives the opposite effect of clothing should take some of the fall. Listen, I know each and every one of you has had at least one encounter with a mirror in your lifetime. If you’re special, maybe even a full-length mirror. So if you plan on using the argument that you didn’t realize you looked naked walking out of the house, I’m not buying it for a second. Furthermore, I KNOW that every dressing room in every retail store contains at least one full length mirror, so any excuse that you didn’t know what you were buying is irrelevant. No one blindfolded you, put a gun to your head, and forced you to acquire a pair of naked pants without your knowledge. So in a culture where we tend to preach that the “customer is always right”, we need to consider that in many instances, specifically of the nude legging variety, the customer may very well just be dumb.

What’s the answer, oh pants guru?!

Sadly, I don’t have one. Both arguments are valid, but if I have to make a conclusion, my instinct is to condemn the consumer. Listen, you have to have some semblance of what your body looks like at this point in your life. You have to be able to discern what looks good on you and what doesn’t. It’s a very basic human tool. Therefore, when I see you prancing around in nude-colored non-pants, I’m going to assume either dementia or blindness has most unfortunately befallen you. Unfortunately for you, your current medical condition does nothing to save us, the unsuspecting public, from seeing your very naked-looking ass. So I beg you to be a smart consumer. Save us all.

Photo courtesy of Karen and Meredith, via Cosmo. Upon first glance, you are probably in shock that this woman has actually completely forgotten her pants. Upon further investigation, you'll realize she is African American...yet her legs, thanks to nude-colored leggings, are now Caucasian.

Go With the Flow…Chart

October 1, 2011

In the years that I’ve been forging this no pants crusade, I have always stressed that my bottom line is not ridicule, but rather education. Ladies, if you do not wear clothes, I WILL take a picture of your ass. I will also publish that picture on the Internet. But never fear. Because I a.) will not show your face and b.) will only use it as a tool to educate the masses on the virtues of pants. Yet somehow, despite my tireless educational efforts, people are STILL without their pants. Luckily, five different people have recently drawn my attention to a very poignant schematic that outlines EXACTLY what I have been preaching all along.

This flow chart, entitled, “Am I Wearing Pants?”, is incredibly thorough and takes into consideration every possible scenario that girls of all ages may encounter. It’s a pocket-size pants monitor. The IQ of this single instrument allows anyone to take the brains out of the pants operation. It’s simply fool-proof. No individual effort required. X marks the spot pants treasure map. Need I make more puns? Humor me one more…and allow me to make it catchy…

If your lack of pants has you feeling low,

And you’re just so lost on where to go,

To the leggings you just must say “Hell no!”

And instead so simple just go with the flow!


My appreciation goes out to the 5 friends who sent this my way. It is as if I had designed it myself.

Epic No-Pantscapade: No Pants T Ride 2011

January 10, 2011

When I boarded the Red Line at Alewife station for the No Pants T Ride 2011, I really thought I knew exactly what I was getting myself into. After all, I observed and documented the same event a year ago, knew how it worked, and had mentally prepared myself for the onslaught of no pants I was about to encounter. But I was not prepared. Oh no. HELL no.

The differences from last year leaped out and smacked me in the face from the very first train car we stepped into. A likely-delusional older man walked around claiming he was a Berklee School of Music grad (unlikely), asked passengers to name a band, and launched into screeching renditions of hard-to-recognize tunes. He didn’t know half of the bands people suggested anyway. At least he kept his pants on. This was bad enough, but the musical assault only continued to when someone (hopefully I’ll never find out who this someone is, or I’ll have to hurt him/her) stirred the entire car into a frenzied rendition of the Spice Girls’ “Wanna Be”. In the midst of this chaos, people started taking their pants off. So now, pantsless people of all shapes, sizes, genders and ages are down to their underwear and telling me what they want, what they really really want.

After hopping to a different car at the next station that was much quieter, thank goodness, the continuation of the ride went pretty smoothly. We followed the flock of pantsless folk from car to car, and station to station, capturing these precious pantsless moments along the way. The next hitch for these fools? They were supposed to transfer from the Orange Line to the Blue Line, but little did they realize, the Blue Line was closed for the weekend and shuttle buses were running in between several stations. Ohhh did I chuckle! They now had to exit the station to the 20 degree weather, wait in line for shuttle buses to pick them up on the street, and freeze their asses off in the process.

All in all, it was a field day for me and my trusty camera. Whereas I normally have to be incredibly discreet when taking my no-pants pictures, even the cops on the T didn’t care that my camera was flashing at rapid speed. And to see the fruits of my camera’s labor, just scroll down. But brace yourself for impact…this may be too much no-pantsness for you to handle. Take a break if necessary. And don’t forget to hydrate.

And for the GRAND finale…

If You Say It On Oprah…Then It MUST Be True!

November 18, 2010

I received the following text from my best friend at 4:03pm on Thursday, November 18: “Carson just declared on Oprah that leggings are NOT pants!” Well I’ll be damned. I’ve seen similar sentiments in a smattering of online blogs, or discussed among friends, or even in various entertainment magazines. But I never, I mean NEVER expected that pants, the item of clothing I fight oh so hard for and comfort when scorn is brought upon them by countless pantsless women, would ever be privileged enough to experience the “Oprah Effect”. What is the Oprah Effect, exactly? Well allow me to indulge you with a few examples (from

We Take The Cake – In 2003, Lori Karmel bought a floundering mail order business which later became We Take the Cake. The business only turned a $19 profit in 2004. But the company was pulled from the brink of bankruptcy after becoming one of Oprah’s Favorite Things. Ten-thousand cakes were sold after the show and today it is a million dollar business.

Spanx – In 2000, Oprah chose Spanx shape wear as one of her “Favorite Things.” The Atlanta-based clothing company quickly sold $50,000 worth of products in just three months.

Music Impact – When the Black Eyed Peas performed on this year’s ‘The Oprah Winfrey Show’ season opener, the band’s album sales jumped 29 percent. And when Whitney Houston gave a two-part interview to Oprah, her album sales shot up 77 percent. ***Author’s addendum: when Oprah endorsed the Christmas album from my favorite artist of all time, Josh Groban, the album jumped to #1 on the Billboard charts the next week, stayed there for 5 weeks and broke several Billboard records, and Josh became the number 1 selling artist of 2007. How’s that for “Oprah Effect”. LOVE it.

Barack Obama – In her first public endorsement, Winfrey gave Barack Obama’s presidential campaign her seal of approval, which a University of Maryland study found may have netted him one million votes. During the election campaign, she even snubbed Sarah Palin by not inviting her to be on her show. (But that changed this week when she invited Palin to chat about her memoir ‘Going Rogue.’)

The fact that improper use of leggings goes against one of Carson Kressley’s fashion rules is HUGE and makes me beyond ecstatic. While he finds them to be a great layering piece, he cautions to wear something over them because THEY ARE NOT PANTS! I can only imagine how the Oprah Effect will manifest when it comes to pants. Will there be an instant spike in jean sales? Will girls start justifying their fashion choices by starting with, “Well Oprah said…”? Will there be a decrease in the amount of opportunities I get to take pictures of girls not wearing pants? Well that one’s unlikely, but hey, a girl can dream…

My bottom line: I want Find Your Pants to be endorsed by Oprah. It’s a lofty…incredibly lofty…goal, but I just feel that if I really want to make a tangible difference in this increasingly pantsless world, I need an ally. A big ally. One who affects economic trends, consumer purchases and is literally one of the most influential figures on the planet. Plus, Oprah gets major brownie points for actually wearing pants. Walk the walk, eh? Oprah and Carson, I salute you. I commend your fashion choices, especially when they align with my own. And MOST especially, when they align…with pants.

A Conversation of Hybrid Proportions

November 9, 2010

Hybrids have all sorts of fun words associated with them: composite, cross-breeding, genetic manipulation, heterogeneous elements. And through the miracles of science and technology, certain hybrids have catapulted us into what will likely be the future of planet Earth. Hybrid cars = good for the environment, hybrid dogs = often very cute, hybrid television = trashy reality TV with a profound message. But a few hybrids, in the pants jeanus (get it? That’s a play on the word “genus” if you didn’t pick up on it…scientific pun…), are disturbing to me. They have hybrid names and are a composite of two breeds of pants; but in these cases, the sum is NOT greater than the parts. To what am I referring? Why, jeggings and pajama jeans.

Let me start with jeggings. They are leggings made to look like jeans. They are leggings, which often are not worn properly as pants, disguised as jeans. Due to the fact that their popularity is spreading like wild fire and it was the top item on every prepubescent girl’s back-to-school shopping list, I believe that jeggings have not only put the wool over our eyes, they put the whole damn sheep.

Let’s deconstruct jeggings a bit, shall we? The root of the word is “leggings”, and the “j” is merely the letter that makes the word a hybrid. Therefore, it is my belief that the same rules that govern the utilization of leggings should apply (see The Great Leggings Debate of 2009 for rules, exceptions to rules, and overall frivolity). Just because these hybrid pants are adorned with fake pockets doesn’t mean they can honestly be treated and viewed in the same way as jeans. Are people honestly so blind that they cannot distinguish between the two? Listen, ladies, I’m not a fan of jeggings at all because they remind me of something Barbie would wear. I’m talking the disproportionate Barbie with a waist so tiny she’d fall over if she was real; before they made her fat and ugly. Barbie’s jeans never had real pockets…her fingers were fused together anyway so it’s not like she would actually store anything in there.

On to the next hybrid tragedy, for which I saw an actual television commercial this morning. I didn’t think it would get this bad…but I present: pajama jeans. They are spandex “jeans” on the outside, pajamas on the inside. According to the ad, they look so much like jeans you’ll think they were made by a European designer (unlikely…Versace isn’t about to hop that crazy train to spandex town), but so comfortable you’ll want to sleep in them. They also claim that the spandex design fits any body type perfectly…what exactly are the makers of pajama jeans smoking? You mean to tell me that spandex is flattering on everyone? That a 100-pound girl and a 200-pound girl are going to look exactly the same in pajama jeans?? Spandex (or their cotton/spandex blend, to be exact) is the material that highlights every imperfection and curve you’ve got. You don’t stand a chance if you’re trying to hide anything. Just quit while you’re ahead.

So here are my parting words for you, my Find Your Pants enthusiasts (and victims): jeggings and pajama jeans are RIDICULOUS. You look RIDICULOUS in them. They will never be anything but RIDICULOUS. I know hybrids may be the way of the future, but let’s cherish the past. Keep the cross-breeding to a minimum and stick with a sturdy pair of jeans…real jeans.

If you want proof of the train wreck of an invention that is pajama jeans, check out the video below or their website at

Today’s Forecast: 65 and Chance of Slutty

September 27, 2010

Attaching the prefix “mini” to words often makes them cuter. For example: mini-golf (aww a windmill that’s 3 feet tall!), mini-bar (tiny bottles of alcohol are ADORABLE), and mini-series (a long movie cut into bite-size pieces, perfect for my waning attention span). But there are some things that shouldn’t be miniaturized. Some things are not made cuter when they are made mini. Case in point: skirts and dresses.

Here’s the question I’ve been pondering all week: “When is a mini too mini?” What are the criteria for measuring when mini exits its cute status and enters contentious affair standing? At what point does mini translate to slutty instead of adorable? Well, in an attempt to both educate and clarify, here is my proposed list of measurement techniques:

1. Calculate the distance (in inches) between the end of your ass (we’ll label this “x”) and where your skirt or dress ends (“y”). If y-x<6, your outfit = too mini, and you = slutty.

2. Sit down somewhere. If the amount of fabric between your ass and the object on which you are sitting is reduced to zero, then way too mini. And holy uncomfortable Batman.

3. Measure the amount of skin on your legs that is exposed (“x”), and compare it to the amount of skin that your skirt or dress is covering (“y”). If x>y by more than 3/4 of the total length of your legs, too mini. And let’s hope you shaved your legs in preparation for all that exposure.

4. Grab a friend. One you trust. This exercise is best executed when that friend is a girl. Drop something, and allow your friend to observe what happens when you bend down to pick the aforementioned object up. If your friend is exposed to anything hiding under that skirt or dress more than 1% of the time, then too mini. Go promptly buy your friend a drink because that’s a true friend right there.

5. Buy a pair of tights with control top. If you’re a girl, you know what a control top is. Put said control top tights on your legs. Then put on your skirt or dress. If any portion of the control top is visible beneath your skirt or dress, then your outfit is too mini. That’s the equivalent of your bra strap or thong T-bar showing…just tacky.

If you’re thinking, “Wow, these criteria are too complicated for me to remember and there’s so much math involved”, don’t fret. I will sum this all up in quick, easy fashion for you: If you feel naked when you are in fact wearing clothes, the clothes you are wearing are too mini. It really is that simple. Clothes are meant to cover you and prevent you from over-exposing yourself. Don’t confuse people by wearing half-clothes. Trust me, a few extra inches of skirt = a crapload more class.

Allow me to exhibit some young ladies who clearly need to be following my rules…

There's always an element of danger when you wear white. She chose a black bra (fail) and sat in something red (double fail). The biggest fail of all? It was after Labor Day.

Photo courtesy of Becca and Mom Kerr! What puts it over the edge for me is the boots. It's summer on the top and winter on the bottom. Make up your freaking mind.

Her boyfriend totally caught me taking this picture. Whatever dude, I totally caught your girlfriend not wearing pants. So we're even.

%d bloggers like this: