- Share This Post
- submit
- 12
-
Sparkle (0)
This week I had the opportunity to guest post at Mrs. Chicken's, where I waxed philosophic about shorts, and in response I got the following e-mail from the very pretty (and very recently wed) Mir:
I tried on some of those just-above-the-knee shorts a week or two ago and I think I look completely stupid in them. And I can't tell you why, exactly, except that proportionally I felt like I just looked STUMPY.
When I wear an A-line skirt, the flare helps to balance me out (and disguise my saddlebags).
When I wear pants or capris, the straight leg (again) helps to balance me out and minimize the difference in width between my thighs and calves.
When I put on those long shorts, I felt like I'd hung a sign on myself that said THIGHS IN MIRROR ARE EVEN LARGER THAN THEY APPEAR even though they fit me properly. (And my solution is to eschew shorts in public entirely, but I really WANT to be able to wear them, especially since I'm MOVING SOMEWHERE REALLY HOT soon.)
So, which is it?
A) Not everyone can wear shorts, Mir. Sucks to be you.
B) You think those shorts fit properly, but they didn't and here's why.
C) You are a hypercritical spazz and probably looked fine.I anxiously await your reply. ;)
M
While all of Mir's options are funny (and plausible, especially that part about being a spazz) the real answer is D) Some legs look better in shorter shorts.
I know! Goes against everything I said before! But it's true.
Knee-length shorts are good for the majority of women, but not EVERY woman looks great in long shorts. For Mir, who is wee and tiny over all, a shorter inseam may do more to balance her hips and legs. By "shorter" I don't mean a three-inch inseam, or any shorts worn recently by Britney Spears; I mean a pair that hit mid-thigh or slightly lower, rather than at or below the knee. A slightly shorter inseam reveals more leg, of course, but it also avoids that sense that you are cutting yourself in half just below the widest part of your body. A longer leg line (here, more bare leg) balances a wider bottom half. Think of it as the summer equivalent of matching your tights and shoes.
J.Jill offers a nice range shorts in different lengths; their shorts also have the added bonus of being cut slightly higher in the waist, which is good for those of us who don't want to show EVERYTHING every time we bend over. J. Jill also offers a decent range of sizes: regular and petite from 2 to 20, and women's 14W to 28W. The pair pictured above sit at the natural waist and have a 9" inseam, which is not exactly SHORT but not knee-length (petite sizes come in an 8.5" inseam). Cotton Sheridan shorts, available in stone, tan and shale, for $39.00 (misses and petites) and $45.00 (women's).
Another option for Mir would be to look for longer shorts that are NOT tapered at the knee. I prefer this option in general because while most of us actually ARE slimmer at the knee than at the hips, shorts that follow that shape can make us look like an ice cream cone (narrow on the bottom, wide at the top). The J. Jill shorts pictured here fall straight from the hip, which draws the eye to down to the calf. Buy shorts that fit through the hip and have the waist taken in if you need; you can also have those pockets sewn shut if you like, although if the shorts fit right the pockets should lie flat anyway. Amalia cotton shorts, available in tan, black and stone, for $39.00 (misses and petites) and $45.00 (women's).
Finally, I think it's important to think carefully about where you are going in your shorts. Shorts are great for casual wear, particularly in hot climates, but like flip flops, they are not office friendly (no, the shorts suit is NOT a suit and should not take the place of one). Shorts are also not appropriate for places of worship--I don't care how casual your congregation is, put some real pants on for God's sake (literally). If you're going to dress
