Last week, I was doing something I usually do when mindlessly procrastinating – window shopping with the help of my internet browser. (I hope everyone picked up on that play on the word, “window.”) I never actually buy clothes online, but I love browsing around. I’m always too worried it wouldn’t fit just right. I’m kind of picky.
I came across one article of clothing that I particularly liked… so much that I was tempted to break my rule of never buying. The $80 price tag was the first thing that pushed me away, but that was not the end of my distasteful reaction of the jacket… or “Boyfriend Blazer” as the designer called it.
This brings me to a realm of clothing that has been problematic in my mind – the boyfriend attire that’s not actually for your boyfriend or anyone with a boyfriend. Where and when did this odd trend start? The all-knowing source of Wikipedia pointed me in one direction. In 2009, “…when actress Katie Holmes was spotted in public wearing Tom Cruise’s slouchy jeans after a Broadway rehearsal…” the trend really took off.
It all comes from females borrowing their boyfriend’s shirts, pants, blazers, etc. and making your wardrobe look one size too big. I guess modern fashionistas are ignoring the fact that some females have been dressing like this for decades.
But this idea is brilliant in concept. Women want comfort, but in order for them to buy into it, it needs to have another persona attached. Of course it’s not cool or acceptable for a woman to want comfort over looks for no reason. Now, they have one – in order to look like they have a boyfriend. Thanks, H&M. I’m all for clothes that are comfortable and male-inspired. Let’s mix things up a bit… but do we really need to call them “boyfriend” clothes? Can’t we just accept an androgynous trend coming on without ascribing it to our boyfriends?