tights (pantyhose) instead of leggings

[Bri]

I was in Macy's today going to sniff parfum for my fiancee (DKNY delicious night) and I sniffed it after a very helpful woman assisted me and told me much more than I thought I would ever learn about parfum (and most women for that matter).

I ended up getting samples of it because I wasn't going to spend full price on that cheap alcoholic based scent.


And now moving along to the real reason I created this thread... I was in the socks (guys') and bought some for an interview tomorrow and thought to myself, I wander if there are any women's socks that are better, turns out men's are softer and stronger. Women's also don't have that many variations that you can wear with slacks.

So after looking at socks I wandered the store for a few more min. to find some leggings and didn't come across anything, rather disappointed at that time, I went back to the socks dept. and looked at these "tights" they had on the wall in little cardstock type wrapping with a picture of a girl wearing them (black ankle length) and a dress or long skirt over them. Naturally thinking that these were very opaque I picked a package off the wall and felt them, they were very soft and not super light. I was like, ok these are leggings and so I asked a woman who was asking another women if she needed help; about if the package I was holding were leggings or not, and she felt them and took a look at the box and said "yes, they're basically the same" (LIE) and so I bought them and took them home. I get home and try them on and they're a bit stickier and more difficult to get on than any pair of leggings I've ever worn. I then rung up my fiancee or she rung me up, one of the two.. Think I missed her call so I rung her back. Told her what the "leggings" looked like and she said, "honey, you just bought pantyhose" and was like "grrr, that lying piece of #$%@, she told me they were leggings". I said that I planned to sleep in them since living on the bottom floor of the house gets about 20deg. cooler than the top. I also have a massage tomorrow in the morning before I go to the interview and wasn't even going to attempt a shower and just wear the leggings (what I wear to bed) and a shirt. But I don't know if I want to wear the ones I have on, that are "partyhose/tights" or the ones with a hole in the knee from Gap that I KNOW are leggings.

[AndrewH]

Or you could take the view that I do that pantyhose are unisex, just like skirts.

I wear them everyday, under trousers when I can't wear a skirt.

[Bri]

I didn't have it in my mind that they weren't unisex, but I just wanted the cotton ones that deflected wind. Bought some at Target for $7 a pair, bought my fiancee purple ones because she likes purple.

I bought a black pair and white pair for myself, but don't know when I would wear the white ones. They do me look less thin, but I don't care. The only thing they do is put attention in some places where I would rather not have it.

[Pythos]

Are they transpearant or something? Can you see your underwear through them? If not, then those are leggings. Women for some reason can't handle the word leggings for fear of conjuring up 1980s horrors.

Stupid really.

[SkirtDude]

Deleted.

[crfriend]

Women for some reason can't handle the word leggings for fear of conjuring up 1980s horrors.

"Leggings" in the 1980s were, in my opinion, positively hideous things -- right up there with "stirrup pants". That opinion comes back to my liking of continuous unbroken lines.

To my tastes, lines can be curved, but not arbitrarily broken with intersecting lines. Placed in the context of 1980s style leggings, this means the "break" (a horizontal line) at the ankle is what I found objectionable because almost without exception 1980s leggings were ankle length. Needless to say, I found the things positively repulsive (and stated so to a couple of women folk who could not for the life of them understand why I thought the "fashion" hideous).

It should be noted that 1980s-style "leggings" are nothing like tights (US meaning), but rather very heavyweight (think "Lycra plus") things that had no transparency whatsoever. Lycra may not have been the primary fabric used, but the (damnable) things were designed to be "clingy". Needless to say, with the extremely awkward "cut" at the ankle, and the shape of the average woman in the US in the 1980s, they were an out-and-out fashion disaster.

[Pythos]

I happen to love leggings, and do not find them reprehensible. The colors of the 80s were pretty awful though.. The break you talk about is no different than a pair of pants, so honestly I don't get your beef with that aspect.

If they fit right, and are worn by people with the build for them, they look great. If they are worn by people who are positively out of shape and choose to wear tight underwear with them they can be without a doubt horrible looking. Bright colors are not so bad, though black or dark blue is the best in my book. Polka dot, and crazy patterns look horrible to say the least.

I hope those ladies you put down for what they were wearing, didn't join on the band wagon that killed the style off.

Leggings need high boots worn with them, or a proper shade sock, or sheer tights beneath.

[crfriend]

I happen to love leggings, and do not find them reprehensible. The colors of the 80s were pretty awful though.. The break you talk about is no different than a pair of pants, so honestly I don't get your beef with that aspect.

That's your prerogative, and I'm not slagging off on you but merely stating my aesthetic on the style in question. If everybody lined up perfectly on matters like this, the world would be a vastly more boring place than it already is.

As far the "break" at the cuff of a trouser leg, at least those have some movement to them, and cut properly cover the top of a man's shoe. Leggings, on the other hand, fit very tightly, have no motion component whatsoever (motion "distracts the eye"), and were frequently worn with ballet flats creating a "double cut" around the ankle (although leggings were occasionally worn with heels -- which further exacerbated the problem).

If they fit right, and are worn by people with the build for them, they look great. If they are worn by people who are positively out of shape and choose to wear tight underwear with them they can be without a doubt horrible looking.

You happen to have the shape for them -- skinny and strongly vertical; on a physique like that, they can, and in fact sometimes do work. However, they're a very difficult look to get right. It's like jazz; it's either very very good, or it's almost unbearable -- and the hysteresis point is up near the top end. I've got the same general body type as you, and I know that I could not pull the look off.

As far as the underwear matter goes, leggings may have been one of the vectors for the introduction of thong underwear. The typical "granny knickers" of the time created huge problems with lines (there's that word again...) and excess bulk that could only be gotten rid of by wearing tights (UK meaning; "pantyhose" in the US) with nothing under those or by going "commando". Remember "Underalls"?

I hope those ladies you put down for what they were wearing, didn't join on the band wagon that killed the style off.

I don't put the person down (unless, of course, they sorely deserve it); I point up opinions of taste. One woman, in fact, used to tease me about how "behind the times" I was, and would usually wear leggings when she knew I'd be around just to try to get my goat (she was a girlfriend of a guy I used to work with in the 1980s). She just couldn't understand that she looked positively silly in such garments (she was pretty enough, but didn't have the figure required to pull the look off).

[ChrisM]

Say Carl, do you remember the TV series Wild Wild West, with, err, Robert Conrad or some such name? It was one of my favorites when I was 8 or so.

Well I recently received a DVD set of the first season episodes and have enjoyed watching them. (Remember Dr. Loveless?)

I was also moved to chuckle when I noticed that James West wears only stirrup pants throughout the series.

The pants are disguised, with the stirrups hidden inside the cuffs, and clearly the purpose is to keep the trousers crisp and taut while he's rolling around on the floor or leaping off rooftops onto the bad guy.

But nevetheless, there you go: I offer you James West as an example of one of the times that stirrup pants can look good.

The exception that proves the rule, perhaps?

All the best,

Chris

[sapphire]

I know a woman who does the leggings and tunic look very well. She's petite and slender, full of energy, has "big hair" that's flaming red, wears outrageous earrings and ballet flats, AND is over 65 and speaks with a northern NJ accent.

[crfriend]

Say Carl, do you remember the TV series Wild Wild West, with, err, Robert Conrad or some such name? It was one of my favorites when I was 8 or so.

Why yes, now that you mention it, I do. However, I have to admit I was much more a Mission: Impossible fan. I found West's character a rather pompous ass; his sidekick Artemus Gordon was vastly more interesting, and the interiors of the private railcar were enough to make me covet such a conveyance until well into adulthood when I discovered precisely what the cost per year/mile would be .

I was also moved to chuckle when I noticed that James West wears only stirrup pants throughout the series.

The pants are disguised, with the stirrups hidden inside the cuffs, and clearly the purpose is to keep the trousers crisp and taut while he's rolling around on the floor or leaping off rooftops onto the bad guy.

I believe there's a difference betwixt theatrical stage-wear and everyday looks. Whilst certainly we couldn't have a Real Man's shins showing (or his trousers getting bunched up in knots), you did note that the "inverse garters" were explicitly camouflaged. Good thing, too; you can't let the hero look rumpled.

But nevetheless, there you go: I offer you James West as an example of one of the times that stirrup pants can look good.

The exception that proves the rule, perhaps?

I grant you that one -- happily, too. But, what of the actual fashion in the 1980s where the stirrups were designed to be visible? Couple that with wearing heeled sandals where the stirrup was completely visible right to the bottom of the (bare) foot. I've seen that done, and it's one of many memories I wish I didn't have.

[r.m.anderson]

Another neatly tucked in pant cuff hero was Clayton Moore; "The Lone
Ranger".
And still another was Buster Crabbe; "Flash Gordon".
The best yet were some of the characters in "Buck Rogers in the 25th
Century".
When Hollywood turned to sex - the plot made no difference whatsoever.
"Robinhood Men in Tights" another fine spoof although the tights were
really not so tight.
I am into stirrup pants more than pantyhose/tights. I like the stitched
creases; really makes a smart look.
It was quite fashionable ski wear in the 30's and 40's. The pants leg being
snugged inside a ski boot. Then came the semi bellbottom pants that
covered the ski boot sometimes with a strap going under the arch of the
boot.
So dictate your own fashion rules - If it is comfortable and it fits you well
- well wear it! And wear it well!
It has been mentioned in this forum as well as others about men wearing
womens wear. This stereotype has to stop. If you are wearing what would
have been characterized as a womens item of clothing - it is not a womens
item of clothing; if you are wearing it then "IT IS 'YOUR' ITEM OF
CLOTHING"! With one notable exception (the bra) virtually all clothing is
unisexual albeit some items do look better on some individuals more so
than others. But that is for you to decide how far to push the fashion
envelope.
Ah but this is the SkirtCafe - I also wear kilts/kilted skirts/skorts and the
dreaded pants. If it looks smart I wear it and damned the dress codes!
rm

[Peter v]

Hi guys, what's all the problem with leggings?

I at first had to get used to the look, but after a while began to understand the function and joy of them.

They can give the visual effect of tight pants without the restriction, being themselve thin and body hugging.

Having no "feet" gives the pants pipes effect. And breaks the line. Thus also enabling the use of bare feet or other colour pantys / socks.

Also when worn in boots, they do not pull down as much as pantys ("tights") often do, as there are no closed ends.

Leggings, in varying materials, and lengths, the shorter ones "capri's ", enable the use of very short skirts / dresses / long jumpers ( actually dresses) and still give modesty, and the effect of being "normally" dressed, as if wearing pants. An advantage possibly, is that they can also be thin, but most often would be of a thicker, sturdier, more durable material, making them very durable / practical in use, as against normal pantys ( tights).

Although I still love to see nice women wearing mini's and bare legs,
I am very happy that leggings are available and in fashion. I myself wear leggings as well. Leggings can be used as if being a sporting / trimming/jogging attire, giving modesty, but being topped off with a flap of material, (skirt,) or long jumper / short dress, tunic. giving a freedom without being overly exposed.

Some things just have to be re assecced. We men are also not used to wearing shoes without any form of sock, whereas women seem to wear shoes barefooted quite often. TRhen leggings are quite suitable.

You don't have to like them, but I do, now, and I wear women's skirts and some other female shirts etc. Trying to get a satisfactory ""feminine clothing composition"" but without compromising my being a man.

I get constant compliments from women for looking good, well dressed. Even though I am very much a man. With regards to that, I must be a fore runner, as we all know bravehearts, very manly, and travy's, but possibly men who are definitely men, but dressed in femme clothing, quite tastefully, may be a new concept to many. It IS POSSIBLE to wear OTHER clothing, as a man, be seen as a man, but a man who choses to be drssed tastefully, colourfully with the help of clothes derived from the women's shelves. It is my choice, and very enjoyable.

I know several men who at first dressed as travis, just because they thgought that was the only way they could wear skirts and get away with it. Now they wear skirts, as men in skirts. But fashion freedom. based on skirts does not have to end with the skirt, it can be part of a whole fashion composition. To daring for many, not wanted or thinkable for others, and for some like me, thought it, wanted it, done it. Leggings have helped here too, as comfort and modesty, along with the look, the line of the outfit can be complimented with them.


Peter v.

You don't have to walk on the wild side to wear skirts....

[Departed Member]

"Leggings" in the 1980s were, in my opinion, positively hideous things -- right up there with "stirrup pants". That opinion comes back to my liking of continuous unbroken lines.

Needless to say, I found the things positively repulsive (and stated so to a couple of women folk who could not for the life of them understand why I thought the "fashion" hideous).

Needless to say, with the extremely awkward "cut" at the ankle, and the shape of the average woman in the US in the 1980s, they were an out-and-out fashion disaster.

Gosh, Carl! I have to say I agree with your observations - 100%!!!

I remember (well, I've still got) "stirrups". Wore them when I was running a local football club, and on very rare occasions when cycling in sub 30F temperatures. However, I would always nip home and change, before heading to the pub for after match drinks! I can also remember when they (stirrups) were about the only tr*usered garment (other than jeans) worn by younger women (late '60s). They looked a bit like flimsy jodphurs!

I suppose one day I might see someone wearing leggings and not laugh. Even my wife (who is very 'laissez faire') occasionally has to stifle a giggle. Thank goodness its "Fashion", and by inference will gradually disappear from the streets.

[Pythos]

*As far as the underwear matter goes, leggings may have been one of the vectors for the introduction of thong underwear. The typical "granny knickers" of the time created huge problems with lines (there's that word again...) and excess bulk that could only be gotten rid of by wearing tights (UK meaning; "pantyhose" in the US) with nothing under those or by going "commando". Remember "Underalls"?*

Leggings may have been the vector for thongs. But honestly I can't be too sure.

Personally the only thing I wear under them is hose or tights, if I wear anything at all (aside from a sheath). I have tried a thong and found it not pleasant to say the least, and lines were still visible at the very top. My experience is that they are usually worn commando, or with tights. Now what is being worn with thongs is tight tight jeans. Now this is what confuses me. Leggings are considered uncomfortable because they are tight, yet skin tight jeans are considered comfortable. Jeans have next to no movement, whereas as leggings move with you, not against you.

I recall unexpectedly seeing my friend's sister getting into a hot pink pair of spandex capri leggings as I walked by her partially open door. There she was standing up from a sitting position from her bed, and pulling the things up, she was wearing nothing below her waist. (hey, I was a teenager and oportunities like this didn't come often). Later on while I was in the kitchen getting something to drink from the fridge, she came in. So I complimented her about the look (she had put on a black T-shirt, shoes, and a thick shiny black belt,very punk rock look) then commented on the pants and how tight they were, after which i asked if she could wear anything under them. She exclaimed "Are you kidding! No way! They are way too tight! Hello? VPL city!" Then she said to me "None of us wear anything under them, not even the guys." This was before I even tried on a pair for myself so I was astonished that guys wore them so I asked "guys wear them too?" her response "uh huh. At the clubs I go to. They are not common but they do. You should try a black pair, full length, not capris like these"

So from then on, till I wore my first pair a couple of years later I was always looking for any VPL when I saw the girls in them...very few had such. After I tried my first pair, I learned why.

(The conversations with my friend's sister is a faint memory, but I am pretty sure that this is how it went.)