I spotted my first romper on a grown-up in the summer of 2007. Of course, Go Fug Yourself muse Chloe Sevigny had been sporting the unholy adult-sized playsuit since at least April 2005, but she’ll wear anything. This civilian I saw walking down First Avenue in New York was a slender, pretty teenager wearing a skintight denim onesie. I had a single thought: She looks like a slutty toddler. Then last summer, I went to see a concert at McCarren Pool in Williamsburg, Brooklyn—the epicenter of misguided hipster fashion. Every third woman there was wearing a romper. Not shorts. Not dresses. Rompers. Bohemian types wore loose linen ones with leather sandals; American Apparel devotees stuck to soft cotton jumpsuits; the truly fashion forward (or the truly exhibitionist) wore super short denim versions.
By the name alone, it should be obvious that rompers were not originally intended to make adult women look hot. The “romper suit” first appeared on toddlers early in the 20th century. The idea was that babies needed something roomy to play in, and a onesie with bloomer bottoms seemed just the thing. The romper started popping up in women’s fashion in the ’30s. But it was meant mostly for the beach, a kind of fitted sarong. Now, this garment with its origins in the sandbox is considered sophisticated streetwear for the fashion-forward. What does this mean?
Rompers are the latest in a long line of infantilizing sartorial choices, along with ruffle-overloaded baby doll dresses and vintage T-shirts with cartoons on them. Nobody, it seems, wants to grow up anymore. People in their 20s are experiencing an extended adolescence. Grups dress like a version of themselves from 20 years ago. Moms buy Disney pajamas to match their children’s. It’s all pretty embarrassing, except when it’s disturbing. (This would be the sexy jail-bait variety.)
And there are practical questions to consider: How do they pee in those things? Are wedgies a constant concern? Does a set of finger paints come with purchase?
Then this spring, the unthinkable occurred. I was trying on what I thought was an eye-catching amethyst dress from the Chilean label Zero+Maria Cornejo. When I attempted to climb into it, I realized that there was a rogue piece of fabric in the middle of the skirt. A label? A pad? No! Quelle horreur! I had unknowingly tried on a romper. And even more disturbing, I liked it. I couldn’t justify paying $598 for toddler clothes, but it was clear that I had fully succumbed to romper Stockholm syndrome.
I decided that I would go on the quest for the perfect playsuit, if such a thing exists. A big part of me still feels like they’re not really meant for anyone over 20 years of age or 100 pounds, but I needed to find out definitively.
Methodology
I tested six rompers, evaluating each using the following criteria:
Versatility (10 possible points): If I’m going to shell out for a romper, it needs to be one that can be worn in several different situations. Could it go to the office, or would it only be appropriate at a beach party? Could it go day to night, or was it exclusively casual? A higher score means it can be worn more frequently.
Price (10 possible points): I loved that Zero+Maria Cornejo, but paying close to $600 for a summertime-only piece of clothing when you live in New York is insanity. The better the value, the higher the score.
Non-Absurdity (10 possible points): I’m a reasonably trendy person, but I have very strict limits when it comes to fashion risk-taking. Does this make me look like an adorable French exchange student or like I just escaped from a fetish club? Japanese comic book? Locked ward? The lower the score, the more likely it hangs in Chloe’s closet.
Jessica Grose is the managing editor of Double X and the co-author of Love, Mom: Poignant, Goofy, Brilliant Messages from Home. Click here to follow her on Twitter.
SNL: Equal Opportunity Objectifiers
Jon Hamm spent most of the Saturday Night Live episode he hosted last night shirtless.
Confessions of a Woman Comedy Writer
Allison Silverman accepts one from New York Women in Film & Television (and tells us why it's rare).
Comments
Two things...
By: Di | Wed, 07/22/2009 - 17:35
1.) I have a problem with the word "slutty." Please explain...does it mean if you wear a short, tight romper you loom slutty? What is slutty..wearing short clothes? Ugh. I am not some bitter feminist; I am not all about being PC and crap but this word really gets to me.
2.) "However, several spin classes a week do not make my thighs miniscule enough for this to be even remotely flattering." Yeah...because of course your thighs have to be skinny for things to be flattering. I am SO sick of this obsession American women have with being skinny.
I am very put off by the
By: akhavish | Tue, 07/21/2009 - 20:17
I am very put off by the presence of this article on a what I had thought to be feminist website during a time of economic crisis which much of the USA and the world is experiencing with great pain. This article was not, as I had hoped, an analysis of why women like to dress like children; instead, as if in a glossy fashion magazine, it served as a pitch for a frivolous trend complete with severely overpriced suggestions. Are these fashion design companies advertising on DoubleX?
Today's DoubleX refers the reader to this article, which I hope the editors will take to heart as well:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1200751/Patronising-fake-point...
Feminism has been accused of excluding women of color. This, I felt, was insensitive with regard to social class. What most women need right now is articles which help them save money, not those which encourage them to purchase $400 trends.
Found this article via Hotmail news
By: Dark King | Sun, 07/19/2009 - 21:47
Somebody thinks that women celebrities need to start wearing pants again.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com.au/just_add_pants.htm
I want the A.P.C. one
By: Shana | Fri, 07/17/2009 - 18:00
But I am currently thirty nine weeks pregnant, so anything that will make going to the bathroom take longer is totally out of the question. I do not see rompers as a whole as infantilizing. Baby doll dresses with mary jane shoes and white socks is infantilizing. Most of these rompers are just shorts with the shirts attached. Would you say a woman wearing shorts is infantilizing herself? I do agree that they can be very unflattering on some women, but that is not a reason for them to not be worn in general. High waisted jeans, pencil skirts, peg leg jeans are all unflattering on some bodies and show off what your made off and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as you look in the mirror before you get out of the fitting room at the store. I'm really not a fan of those terry cloth American Apparel ones, but I have seen a few ladies around my neighborhood that would make you think "wow they look suprisingly good?" Oh and I am the pregnant lady that owns a crapload of babydoll dresses. Let me tell you, there is nothing more comfortable than a babydoll dress in July when you are pregnant, except well just walking around in underwear.
On another note, I went to high school with a guy that pretty much wore rompers (occassionally). Technically they were Dickie's one piece work jumpsuits. This dude was pretty popular also. And don't forget Dr. Venture's speedsuit!
The infantilization of women's clothing ain't new
By: Anna Balkrishna | Fri, 07/17/2009 - 14:44
My mother always used to complain about the '60s, when short baby-doll A-line dresses, Mary Jane shoes, and skinny prepubescent figures were in style, a la Twiggy. She thought the fashions were trying to make women looks like children. So this romper thing is just the latest in a longer trend. Anybody feel like doing an analysis of why infantilization is so appealing?
"Infantilizing choices"
By: DaveStPaul | Fri, 07/10/2009 - 17:33
I had high hopes for this article, because it had the potential -- as an article trying to tell people to avoid common, poor, and thoughtless choices -- to be the first in about five years to find a different and better adjective than "incredibly." Oh well.
A Man's View
By: rth | Fri, 07/10/2009 - 00:06
I had a girlfriend in the 80s that found one in a vintage shop and was quite excited. I didn't have the heart to tell her how absurd I thought it was.
But I want to be honest with the rest of you: If they're comfortable, buy one to lounge around with your girlfriends. But please, please don't wear one to impress your man.
the black one
By: caro.alvarez | Tue, 07/07/2009 - 16:18
... but just because it doesn't look totally like a roper (they're not for everyone). for me "mostly nothing" is a total NO in fashion until it looks awful on me. i've learned to try on and look in the mirror before saying 'never in my life'. having said that, disney shirts, pajamas or whatever piece with a mickey mouse on are totally unnecessary in a grown up wardrobe. and i agree with sisi, people on disney clothes: few crayons short of a full box.
One thing to say....
By: irishgrrl | Tue, 07/07/2009 - 11:20
camel toe.
I've never seen a romper without a camel toe.
Rompers? Seriously?
By: MessyONE | Mon, 07/06/2009 - 10:15
If you're built like a boy - that is to say a child, fine. Most of us are not, and even though I'm thin, my waist is 11" smaller than my hips and 10" smaller than my bust. That would be "built like a grownup", and any of these would look silly to the point of hysterical laughter on me. This is a garment that should NEVER be manufactured above a size 6, and even then it's an iffy proposition.
Then there's the whole idea of getting naked in a public toilet, dragging the garment on the floor in said public toilet, and having to readjust the entire ensemble upon leaving the public toilet. Nope. NOT happening. Pretend this trend never happened.