Legging. JEANS.

As I mentioned earlier, I’ve been living in London for the past three years - I used to live in Surrey, thank you - and then my family decided to move to Scarborough because, obviously, in Red Hill they just don’t have enough flat-cap-wearing-farmers to fulfil my parent’s needs. So, I was back down there for three years, more in the heart of things, and I noticed that really the biggest difference is the fashion. And, surprisingly no, not the flat caps – it turns out that you guys wear them quite seriously, except, you know, with a cravat and skinny jeans; the occasional man-bag (a concept that is beaten out of the minds of young children in North Yorkshire after the first time they’re caught dressing up in their sister’s wardrobe).

Joking aside, I don’t have a problem with man-bags. What I do have a problem with is legging jeans. Legging. Jeans. Legging jeans. Legging jeans. Legging jeans leggingjeans legging jeeeeeans.
It doesn’t sound right, does it? That, sir, is because they’re not.

Now, if you’re not familiar with the legging jean, you have obviously never been to Wood Green Shopping ‘City’. It is a full-length pair of leggings with a denim pattern printed on it. It is essentially the pantaloon version of brick-wall wallpaper: fake, tacky and heartbreakingly disappointing when you get up close and stroke it.

Now, the humble legging is a fine thing and I know it was a terrible shock to horse riders and house wives all over the world when popular culture banned it in the late 1990s, but I do believe that when we gave it its second chance in fashionable society, we stipulated that it must be plain black and mid-calf length, because that way we could at least pretend it was a ‘50s rebirth. It was clearly stated that the legging, under no circumstances, was to be in any way compromised through the adding of gloss, fluorescent colouring or patterns, and if this was done we would take those bad boys back faster that Madonna in an orphanage.
And now, the modest legging has been so manhandled that we have been left with the legging jean.

It was bad enough when we were being presented the original, classic black legging as a substitute for trousers and all and sundry had to deal with the mind-altering consequences of the camel-toe & cottage cheese bum. But it has now been deemed necessary to print an unconvincing denim façade on them to try and trick us innocents into believing you are wearing actual trousers. We’re not that thick and we can still see your camel-toe!

So girls, I really must ask: is it because you’re poor? – Can you simply not afford an actual pair of jeans? I mean, these girls obviously can’t afford to eat. Can I recommend that if you wish to preserve your funds you stop wasting your money on tack and big earrings? As Vivienne Westwood said, save up your money and spend a lot on one brilliant wardrobe item, don’t just spend lots of little chunks of money on a hunk of crap. She obviously didn’t put it as eloquently as me.

So! I hate the legging jean. But, still, I guess it’s nice that Elizabeth Duke has decided to pick up trade in these difficult economic times by branching out into leg-wear. I guess she’s just gutted she missed the flat-cap train.