Fashionably Ridiculous: $4000 Pajamas

Photo: net-a-porter.com

Photo: net-a-porter.com

The world is full of problems. It is full of wrongs that need to be righted, needs that need to be met; gaping chasms of despair, injustice and suffering, which, in many cases, could be avoided if the right people directed the necessary resources where they are so desperately needed.

It is with these harsh truths in mind that one begins to feel utterly ridiculous falling in love with $4,000 pajamas. You can reason that they are not pajamas, they are clothes and the wearing of such magical pajamas out on the town with the right loafer and a beaded clutch would be a look so devastatingly chic that it warrants the price tag. You can reason that, though you own numerous pairs of pajamas, this pair will be the be-all and end-all of pajama purchasing and you will never need to buy another pair or want for any item that bares even the slightest resemblance to pajamas ever again—for these pajamas are the penultimate PJs. You can even argue with yourself that, although you sleep sans pajamas, these are the pair that you have been waiting for, the pair that will make you a proper pajama wearer, finally leaving behind the natural, yet “in flagrante,” life you’ve been leading.

Yes, you tell yourself, these magic pajamas will change your life. You have to have them. Any way you look at it, all reasoning points to yes.

Except, of course, that these are $4,000 pajamas. People the world over don’t have food, shelter, school supplies, access to clean water; the list goes on. And on. And then, the ridiculous, overly analytical you is right back where you started—lusting after the magic pajamas and chastising yourself for it. But, you wouldn’t be the person we know and love if you weren’t.

And regardless of whether you sleep in the nude or clad in pajamas, we accept you, in all your ridiculous glory.

Because what makes the $4,000 pajamas so ridiculous is also what makes you so amazing, they really are that fabulous. They are to be coveted, pined for, thought of with pangs of desire and longing, just like you should be. So donate school supplies to a child in need, lend your voice to a cause that works to end global hunger and then, when it comes times for slumber, stick with your birthday suit or buy the magic PJs and quiet your inner voice. Perhaps you can split the difference and just get the top, no one needs bottoms. 

Whatever you decide, we support you, because that’s what ridiculous people do. Especially ridiculous people who want to feel better about lusting after $4,000 pajamas.

"Fat Barbie:" A Life of Ridicule and Bad Fashion

There is nothing like putting on a few pounds to make the world take notice. Case in point: “Fat Barbie.” Mattel’s reveal of its new, decidedly more politically correct Barbie dolls last week sent the media into an all out frenzy. The new additions to the iconic doll line include Petite Barbie, Tall Barbie and Curvy Barbie—who didn’t make it five minutes before she was predictably dubbed “Fat Barbie.”

Adding insult to already ridiculous injury.

Adding insult to already ridiculous injury.

It was bound to happen sooner or later. In the space between a culture obsessed with physical appearance and a society attempting to make progress on the sensitive topic of young children and body image, something as iconic and stereotypical as Barbie had to make a change. And change she did. While Petite Barbie and Tall Barbie remain as slender as ever, Curvy Barbie went from Barbie’s classic size 0 to a size 10 (that late night pizza will do it every time). Given that the average American woman is a size 14, that puts “Fat Barbie” well under the benchmark of what we would commonly interpret as fat, and significantly underweight when compared to the majority of women in the country.

And I know how much we all love to be compared to the majority of women in the country.

But what I find most ridiculous about the images of “Fat Barbie”—yes, I should be calling her Curvy Barbie having just debunked her “fatness,” but “Fat Barbie” is so much more amusing and I need this—is not her average looking size, but the fact that Mattel has given her a variety of outfit options that make her look like a middle-aged mall-goer desperately clinging to some far-off, overly suggestive idea of fashion relevancy.

All of “Fat Barbie’s” skirts are short, her tops are generally tight and her shoe options trend toward the platform variety. She can have blue hair and even sport a mesh mini-dress with a back leather baseball cap if you like. Mattel describes “Fat Barbie’s” style options as looks, “from casually cool to boho bold,” adding that the fashions are, “inspired by the latest trends!” I can hear Anna Wintour howling from here.

Take the “Fat Barbie” pictured above. She is the “Everyday Chic” model, decked out in what Mattel muses is, “a cool red and white striped tank with bow graphic and trendy denim capris.” In reality, “Everyday Chic Fat Barbie” is clinging to life in her purposely worn-in, too short to be flattering capri jeans, her passé blonde blowout, an impractical white wristlet and a tank top adorned with a bow that looks like it may eat her boobs in the next five minutes. What’s next—jeggings, a big white “sport watch” and knockoff Tory Burch logo flats?

“Fat Barbie” does, however, have options like thick, black nerd glasses, because apparently even Barbie is a hipster, and wedge sneakers. Thank you, Isabel Marant.

Yet, it’s still only the skinny Barbies that have more flattering wardrobe options like ankle-length pants, pencil skirts that hit below the knee, tailored tops and little jackets, appropriately taking her from day to steamy night on the town with Ken. These svelte ladies can also change into sensible yoga pants, carry convenient top handle bags and sport modern hairdos like the “lob” and a topknot.

Still no $1000 fur mules though.

It seems that just as Barbie has attempted to move forward and embrace more broad definitions of body image, she is still being held down by how she is allowed to outfit herself. And if the worry is that young girls are getting unrealistic expectations by playing with skinny Barbie, how are they to picture themselves alongside Curvy Barbie and her mini skirt? I’d like to propose that all Barbies have the option to wear more realistic clothing and get away from the need to be “on trend,” a term that is obviously subject to interpretation.

Jeans and a T-Shirt Barbie, Belted Shirt Dress Barbie, Power Suit Barbie, Pajama Chic Barbie, Caftan Queen Barbie; there’s nothing Barbies of any size can’t wear if they put their minds to it. Just like there’s nothing girls of any age can’t and won’t wear if they so desire. So let’s give them realistic options to desire and save the world another teenager clad in a mesh dress.

Now that we have that settled, Ken is looking seriously metrosexual these days.

Spring has sprung... a leak in your brain.

 

With an end to winter’s brutal smack in the face finally upon us, residents of New York City greeted the first solid weeks of warmer temperatures with enthusiasm for a much-needed wardrobe change and hope, as ever, for a sunny disposition. Yes, the hills are alive with the sound of chirping birds, fire escape gardening and ridiculousness, the way every spring should be.

Maybe it’s the fact that winter took its sweet time packing its bags this year—which is odd considering all it had was a duffle stuffed with long underwear and a fake Triple F.A.T. Goose parka—or maybe the lone, lingering effect of six-months of sub-arctic chill is, in fact, one giant brain freeze, but this year, it is achingly apparent that humanity’s enthusiasm for friendlier temperatures is being joined by an over-zealous desire to not simply transition into warmer weather clothing, but dive head first off the cliff with as little covering our bodies as possible. Public Service Announcement: G-strings and frozen glaciers don't mix. Yes, we can all agree that an end to the obscene, ten-minute, coat-scarf-hat-gloves-boots-shit, I forgot something-wait, I have to go to the bathroom-now I'm hot performance we’ve been starring in since October can’t come soon enough. But with temperatures in the high-60s one day and the low-50s the next, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

In any season there are always those that hit the town South Beach style, without a care or a coat, shivering away on the sidewalk, waiting in line to get into a club and groove their way to warmth, looking pretty cold and pretty ridiculous, all to spare themselves the pain of not ruining their “look.” And we all remember that irritating guy in college who wore flip-flops and a t-shirt no matter what the weather, channeling the earthy hippie he strived to be (something tells me that these days on college campuses that translates to channeling the Steve Jobs portrayed so ridiculously by Ashton Kutcher. My eyes are still burning.). That guy looked like an idiot then and is probably still looking like a bona fide idiot to this very day. But I’m not talking about him or the wanna-be Miami Sound Machine back up dancers, I’m talking about the generally wise-minded citizens of NYC that are going above and beyond merely switching to a lighter coat, and going straight to mini skirts and shorts. Public Service Announcement: Not everyone is beach ready.

Now I believe, as a human and a citizen of a free society, in the right to bare arms and bare legs, but is it really wise to be breaking out your gams with the temperatures still teetering on the brink of chilly? Are you not, as my grandmother would say, “asking to get a cold,” by going so scantily clad, exhibiting a lack of judgment in the first weeks of spring that indicates you learned nothing during your long period of frigid winter hibernation? Perish the thought. There must be some data to support underdressing as well, ridiculous.

According to the facts of modern medicine, you do not actually catch a cold from being cold, “at least not directly.” Thanks WebMD, for leaving a sliver of gray area there. You catch a cold, and worse the flu, primarily from not washing your hands. And so I must wash my hands of this debunked myth (but not of that amazing pun). Don’t tell my grandmother.

What then is the real risk of not having enough layers on when the weather is cold? Is there one? I don’t mean frozen, death-inducing temperatures here so obvious threats aside, is there scientific research supporting the decision to not wear sufficient clothing in nippy weather as being totally asinine? Or do you merely run the risk of looking like an idiot?

Some of us run that risk every day.

Weighing in on this heady subject, the CDC points out that a number of cold weather related injuries and conditions can occur when it is “as warm as 60 degrees.” Those include chilblains, trench foot and even hypothermia. The CDC goes on to say, “Mild hypothermia can make you feel confused, and you may not think anything is wrong until it is too late.” Um, kind of like not wearing enough clothes. “Being too cold can also cloud your judgment and cause you to make mistakes while you work, and mistakes can sometimes be deadly.”

That’s right. The right to bare arms equals death.

Well, there you have it. Though science contends you will not catch a cold by going without proper layers in borderline cold temperatures, you may end up dead. Or, as the Miami Sound Machine would say, “un tonto muerto.” Okay, I’m dramatizing a bit for production value, but making an inadequate clothing choice could propel you towards more serious conditions and it is important to know that covering yourself up intelligently as those projections for weather in the high-50s turn into days in the mid-40s might safeguard your health.

It might also leave you looking less ridiculous in the long run, something your fellow citizens would really appreciate. You may recognize us, we’re the ones with the scarves around our necks and the socks on our feet.