- Fashion world is agog over blogger, 13
- A young designer getting noticed
- Wang reviews skating outfits from Olympics past
- Get a leg up on texture with patterned tights
- The best and worst fashion trends of the decade
- Bright, Bleiler among those making slopes stylish
- Catsuits for 2010? Oh No!
- America remains fascinated by First Lady's fashion
- Fashion Q&A: Lower that hemline
- Mirror, Mirror: Pinup calendar sports local women in Vargas poses
- Why does comfort shoe always spell U-G-L-Y?
- Jeans plus leggings equal jeggings
- Big girl takes on skinny fashion world
- Looking for your clothing brand? Might need a map
- Curvy jeans on a lean budget
- Fashion Q&A: How to mix, match travel wardrobe
- Gallery: Boudoir photography
- Gallery: White Hot Fashion
- Elizabeth Wellington's fashion column
RELATED STORIES
Mirror, Mirror: A leg up for pants
NEW YORK - Spring Fashion Week here has come to a close, and as the collections roll out in London, it's clear: Pants have earned permission to be feminine.
In women's high-fashion circles, top tastemakers - Phillip Lim, Michael Kors, Philadelphia's own Behnaz Sarafpour and Tory Burch, and London-based designers Graeme Black and Matthew Williamson - presented pants as more than basic Hillary Clintonesque trousers. They were the sexy focus of outfits in shiny, lacy, and ruffled splendor - a trend we haven't really seen since the late '70s.
"The pant has become more feminized [and] more detailed, like dresses," said Lim, whose presentation of his stellar 3.1 collection opened with a sleek cherry-red pantsuit.
One of the strongest looks in Lim's 39-piece grouping was a pair of navy blue, slightly skinny pants with ruffled tiers. So cool. So original. So feminique.
"Details like frills and bows usually reserved for dresses can now be applied to pants," Lim said.
Constance White, eBay's fashion director, agreed. Taking a break between London shows, she e-mailed me raving about the "feminine" pants by Rebecca Taylor (metallic with elastic cuffs), Diane von Furstenberg (roomier bottoms with layers), and Marc Jacobs (sheer pantaloons).
"There were certainly a lot more choices in pants than we've seen in a while," White said.
My favorite - and, of course, the least wearable for me - was a Sunkist-orange ruched pant by designer Tracy Reese, who usually is more sensitive to the hippy chicks. Still, she fearlessly showed the body-hugging legging. I know I'd have to pair this with a tunic, but a shiny three-quarter-length gold cropped jacket would be so much cooler. The boldness was quite refreshing.
I'm not saying this ends the era of the dress. Far from it. The majority of spring pieces previewed for next year were dresses and skirts - the shorter the better - in bold, jewel-toned shades. In fact, my bet is next summer's color will be a greener turquoise.
But pants are stealing some of the spotlight.
"Instead of being a foundation, we saw pants as a layering piece," said Sean General, women's wear buyer at Boyds. "Remember how women used to put the sweater over their shoulders? Now they are putting a skinny pair of pants under their dresses."
The focus on feminine detailing in pants crept onto the fashion scene late in fall 2008 as skinny jeans and leather leggings became standard under baby-doll dresses and chunky knits. (Remember the leather legging promotion at Express last fall?)
This fall, leggings are back. Some are studded. Others have glitter. Some are liquid metallic. I've even seen some lacy ones a la Prince Rogers Nelson.
With retail's focus on leggings combined with designers' focus on harem pants (which debuted on the runway in February but have yet to be hits with shoppers), the runway was primed for more trousers.
Fashion historians say that except for the smattering of decorative pants seen 30 years ago, the newfangled feminine detailing is something unique to this time.
Of course, women have worn pants regularly starting with the equestrian pant of the late 1800s. But, said Clare Sauro, curator of the historic costume collection at Drexel University, women have always been appropriating a man's look.
There were the '80s power suits and, in recent seasons, the boyfriend trousers. Pants often were a political statement. They were a way to be taken seriously in the workplace. Or they were worn to relax and do physical work.
"Women have never really claimed trousers as a feminine extension of themselves," Sauro said.
So this trend, now in its infancy, is one to watch. The good news: Those detailed pants you buy this fall will be in style for a while.
But we may have some trouble handling our trousers' new identity.
Traditionally, pants have been the go-to article of clothing for hiding our shape. Eat a little too much cheese? Those cuffed menswear trousers and a cute little top would hide your girth.
And those tight leather pants have always been about tough girls, not girly girls. (Just ask Grease heroine Sandy.) As for layering denim with my dresses, it always was about keeping warm.
Am I really bold enough to pair a dress with orange ruched leggings? Will I look feminine or just loud? And how will I disguise my one-night stands with bread and wine?
I feel a fashion conundrum coming on.
Contact fashion writer Elizabeth Wellington at 215-854-2704 or ewellington@phillynews.com.
