Jeans - who doesn't? : Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:32 pm  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17101768 I've seen a fair bit of argument in the chattering sections of the papers recently and there is a vociferous group out there who loathe jeans. Are you one of that group? If so, what is it you don't like about them?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17101768 I've seen a fair bit of argument in the chattering sections of the papers recently and there is a vociferous group out there who loathe jeans. Are you one of that group? If so, what is it you don't like about them?

Re: Jeans - who doesn't? : Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:42 pm  

What I don't like about jeans is my habit of not paying enough for them, being tempted by the cheap £8 supermarket jeans and then looking like a bag of rags in them - old man jeans my daughters call them, the ones that might well have a waist measurement on them but everything else is left to chance.

Its taken me a long time to admit it but I have a wardrobe full of "gardening jeans" but only one pair that have any sort of stylised cut to them that I'd dare to wear on a night out.

Re: Jeans - who doesn't? : Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:53 pm  

My issue with jeans is when they go all new fangled and start putting elasticated cuffs on the ankle. What the hell is that about. They just look ridiculous

Re: Jeans - who doesn't? : Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:02 pm  

Ski wrote:

My issue with jeans is when they go all new fangled and start putting elasticated cuffs on the ankle. What the hell is that about. They just look ridiculous

"New fangled" ???

Do you mean "retro", or "retro 1980s" ???

Re: Jeans - who doesn't? : Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:05 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote: "New fangled" ??? Do you mean "retro", or "retro 1980s" ??? They had THESE? (even worse with black fabric) in the 80s? That decade has a lot to answer for!

McLaren_Field wrote: "New fangled" ??? Do you mean "retro", or "retro 1980s" ??? They had THESE? (even worse with black fabric) in the 80s? That decade has a lot to answer for!

Re: Jeans - who doesn't? : Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:09 pm  

Those are still not as bad as that new 'creation, 'jeggings'.

Re: Jeans - who doesn't? : Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:14 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Those are still not as bad as that new 'creation, 'jeggings'.

Good god. If ever something displayed a badly timed camel toe it is jeggings.

Re: Jeans - who doesn't? : Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:16 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Those are still not as bad as that new 'creation, 'jeggings'.

Off topic.
You bad.

Jeans, OK ?

Re: Jeans - who doesn't? : Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:16 pm  

Ski wrote: They had THESE? (even worse with black fabric) in the 80s? That decade has a lot to answer for! Oh yes, and more.

Ski wrote: They had THESE? (even worse with black fabric) in the 80s? That decade has a lot to answer for! Oh yes, and more.

Re: Jeans - who doesn't? : Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:16 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Off topic.
You bad.

Jeans, OK ?

Jeans fine.

But since jeggings are a supposed marriage of jeans and leggings, it's hardly very much off topic.