(I don't have a) Boyfriend Jeans.

I am wildly fascinated by the phenomenon of the

"boyfriend jean". 

In fact, I'm pretty interested in the whole "boyfriend" trend in general. 

It took me an embarrassingly long amount of time to relinquish my stubborness and jump on the trend bandwagon, but now that I have, I'm not quite certain how I feel about it.

I want to know when "oversized" and "ragged" became equated with a (nonexistent) male partner, 

and would those same physical qualities prove as appealing if they weren't?

Would "lesbian" slacks or "homeless person" cords be as alluring as the "1969 sexy boyfriend jean" ? 

I'm guessing not.

In fact, after researching the subject a bit (on Wikipedia...no shame), it seems like most iterations of the "oversized" trend are related in some manner or another to the male sex. Which is unfortunate, because it there's one woman I see embracing the "boyfriend" aesthetic most often, it's the bold and independent one. 

So the notion that she's subconsciously emulating another gender is . . . 

annoying. 

I'm likely (definitely) over-analyzing this, 

and saggy raggity denim is probably just another way for a woman to prove that she doesn't care,

but then why the name?

There's always been a sexy vibe to a woman wearing a man's clothes, 

but I don't feel as if that vibe is the same one that many of the women wearing this trend wish to convey.

The notion of "throwing on your bf's jeans" is easy and effortless, and imbibes an aura of cool - I get that -
 but there's got to be another equally easy source of torn oversized denim not reliant upon a romantic relationship. 

shirt, jeans: Gap, cashmere sweater: Cynthia Rowley, boots; Etienne Aigner

Plumber pants?

Trucker trousers?

Duck hunter dungarees?

Take your pick. They're all equally obnoxious. 

Cheers.