>
> It all depends on what kind of pants we are talking about. I myself
> prefer pants to dresses most of the time, but the domination of
> midriff-bearing low-riders with flared bottoms (which in my opinion
> are *extremely unflattering* on all but a handful of young women) made
> my search for a comfortable and yet stylish pair rather difficult.
> Hopefully, they will be soon on the way out:
I'm not exactly sure why they reappeared except that fashion must swing from extreme to extreme, otherwise it's hard to force people to spend money on stuff they don't need. The pre hip-hugger fashion emphasized length in legs, so you couldn't bring the waist down (cuts off the leg); now the emphasis has moved to the waist. Whatever. It could possibly be tied to the fact that a lot of MTV "dance" is incorporating belly dance moves, which require that the waist be fluid, visible and the hips emphasized.
What is scandalous is that men, the majority of whom fling their bellies over their low slung trousers with abaondon, should have the galls (!!!) to complain about women's love handles. Boo, guys...boooo!
What the hip huggers have brought home to me is the fact that pants need belts. On women, normal pants stay up because waists are smaller than hips. When you take the pants down to the hips, there's nothing left to hold them up so you wind up continually hitching them up, like a toddler. Yes, I wear them because I don't like things around my waist. Whether appropriately or not, I guess is for others' judgement.
Joanna