Last year while standing at a bus stop with C1 and C2, one of London’s Double Decker Open Top Routemasters came down the street full of ‘Hot Lifeguards’. I can’t confirm if they were ‘hot’ (I know, shame on me), because I was immediately distracted by both C1 and C2’s wanting to know, ‘why those naked men were throwing pants off the bus.’ I looked up and can confirm that they were not exactly naked, but it was difficult to see with the hailstorm of hipsters, bikinis and thongs thrown from atop the big red bus, along Kensington Church Street…
I was curious as to who’s wares were being so disgracefully discarded so I scurried out into the street to grab a pair of what I then found out were ‘Down Undies’, from Gilly Hicks, Sydney. Back on the pavement (sidewalk) I then of course tell C1 and C2 to never, ever, run out into the street like I just did…EVER.
Since it should be perfectly clear by now how much of a shopper I am not, (Find it, Get it, Enough of it!, A Fitting Place,) it should come as no surprise then that I had no idea that Gilly Hicks, Sydney is the ‘cheeky cousin’ of American company, Abercrombie and Fitch. However, what IS somewhat of a surprise, is that Gilly Hicks, Sydney has nothing really to do with Sydney and perhaps more shockingly is not even a real person!!!
You didn’t hear it from me, and certainly not first (Reel Deals), but turns out Gilly Hicks, Sydney is nothing but a contrived fantasy story about a fictional fashionista. Kinda clever if you like that sort of dupe the consumer, manage the lifestyle brand approach. Okay, whatever. It probably sells well after the Hot Lifeguards come to town anyway.
I should clarify that ‘Pants’ as they are known here in the UK, are not trousers, (as known in the US) but are underpants or underwear, (maybe even sometimes called panties as known in the US). Here in the UK, we wear our pants under our trousers and we are told to ‘keep our pants on!’ if we need to calm down, or get accused of having our ‘knickers in a twist’ if we are getting upset.
But right now I AM upset, and not because I am having latent regrets of missed ogling opportunities. I just had C2’s parent-teacher meeting and while waiting, CSr and I had the opportunity to view some of C2’s workbooks. One of the latest projects his class is working on is a story board for a fantasy story based upon Where the Wild Things Are. I didn’t think any MORE fantasy needed to be created around Maurice Sendak’s wolf suited Max, but what do I know. Perhaps the teacher could explore possibilities surrounding fantasy character Gilly Hicks?
Anyway, the first part of C2’s fantasy fantasy story has Max waking up on the moon. Okay, slightly different setting than his bedroom. The next part of the story, C2 was asked to use descriptive words to describe one of Max’s actions. C2 writes (and I quote) ‘Max picks up his mummy’s smelly knickers’. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!?!?!
We all think our children are influenced by ‘those children’ and that our own flesh and blood would never be rude, ill-mannered or foul-mouthed. So of course mine isn’t, and C2 definitely is not. Further evidence is the fact that I don’t even use the word ‘knickers’ so it is perfectly clear that C2 is being unduly influenced from THAT one on the playground, right? RIGHT?!?
It’s our turn to meet the teacher and CSr and I sit through 10 minutes of how C2’s work is ‘outstanding’, and ‘what a delightful child C2 is’, but all I want to do is get home and discuss ladies undergarments. At home, we praise C2 on how incredible all of his work is and I add, very casually, that I saw his most recent work about his fantasy story. Without even asking, C2 tells me that THAT boy, his best friend and the one I have my eye on, told him to write ‘smelly knickers’. Ah hah! Case closed. Outstanding.
I then ask if C2 knew what knickers were and he said, ‘yes…shoes.’ Ahhh, right. That’ll be me then getting upset about something not important at all, while C2 explains the situation.