Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Things I Learned Today #7 - Floodpants Redux

Being 6’5”, I am often pants-conflicted. Don’t get carried away with the phrase “pants-conflicted.” I know which gender type of pants to wear and typically have a good sense of how to insert myself into the pants. At one point I did try on a pair of women’s pants after store closing when I worked at Eddie Bauer, but I was left with little doubt that men’s pants are the best overall route for me. Women’s pants were just way too tight in the thighs.

The pants-conflict to which I refer is a constant struggle I have with the correct length of my pants. In a perfect world, I would wear a size 35 length, but they do not sell this pants length anywhere at normal retail outlets and rarely online. There are plenty of 34s, a few occasional 36s, but 35 is not an option. 36 pants are a good length but a little too long, and so the pants suffer from horrendous fraying within a few months of purchase. 34 pants are a wee bit too short so if I go the 34 route, I need to pick a pant with a larger waistband so I can do my part to pull the pants down just a little bit so the bottom of the pant sits correctly on my shoe. Due to periodic weight fluctuation, the too-big waist methodology for size 34 pants breaks down on days like today, and I’m stuck with a pair of pants that barely reaches the top of shoe. That is embarrassing enough – not much looks worse than pants that are too short. While floodpants do a good job of keeping your cuffs dry in the event of an actual flood, today I also learned that short pants are seriously conducive to snow falling into your shoes. This is particularly bad when you are brushing all the snow off your car in the morning before you drive in to work and you are left with some cold and wet feet. Overly-short pants are a threat not only to fashion, but also to one’s ability to thermally regulate his temperature. They must be stopped.

Does anyone else have additional reasons to hate on or love on short pants? (not shorts, shorts are both functional AND fashionable)


Jeff Caminsky said...

From my angle (sitting at a right angle to the floor, legs parallel to the ground and resting comfortably on a soft, cushy surface), I see two potential solutions to your problem:

Solution One: get your pants hemmed.

Solution Two: order pants from the Lands End catalog, and specify "35-inch" length. (It's the same as #1 above, but you don't have to leave your computer to do it).

Of course, this being an imperfect world, both solutions carry potential risks:

Assuming that you (like most of us men) are a menace with a needle and thread, you'll have to get someone to do it for you. Since you already probably have to be on your best behavior to get your mom or fiancee to feed you, asking them to hem your pants might cause needless trouble. On the other hand, paying a tailor to do it costs money. So much for Solution One.

Solution Two avoids the pitfalls of Solution One, but you can't actually try on the pants before you buy them. (Of course, you're paying for them to hem the pants, too, but there's no separate charge, so it feels like you're getting it for free. And since they won't feed you anyway, you don't have to worry about them getting mad at you for asking).

shazzerxo said...

I feel your pain. I am taller than your average inseam, also requiring custom sizing.

Nothing, and I really mean nothing, is worse than coming inside from a snowy day, taking off your shoes and proceeding to step warm feet on wet pants soaking the entire sock with freezing snow-water.

This is why I prefer to just tuck my pants into my shoes, or socks, if possible. Just kidding. Unless I'm wearing Uggs.