Winter Leggings

[phathack]

[crfriend]

'80s fashion victim. The look was sad then, and it remains sad now.

Face it, leggings destroy what really should be the nice clean line of the leg. They can work when worn with footwear the comes up higher than the lower cut-off point but fail miserably with anything else. Or at least that's my take on the matter.

[oldsalt1]

replace leggings with tights. Kohls has thick sweater tights and also fleece lined tights on sale the are good quality and less that $8 a pair

[hoborob]

I would think that while the leggings may keep your legs warmer than just going bare, the ankle area would be exposed to the cold air and you would suffer tremendously. The suggestion of wearing tights would be a better option than allowing bare skin to be exposed to frigid air even for short periods of time. This is especially true if you live in an area where you can experience below freezing temps as you could easily wind up with frostbite on exposed skin very quickly.

[moonshadow]

Perhaps it's my age showing... but I think the guy looks pretty cool!

In fact... I think I'll give it a pin!

[john62]

I agree with Carl, if you are going to wear leggings, whether it is a guy or girl, the ankle should be covered, that way it looks so much better.

John

[partlyscot]

I would think that while the leggings may keep your legs warmer than just going bare, the ankle area would be exposed to the cold air and you would suffer tremendously. The suggestion of wearing tights would be a better option than allowing bare skin to be exposed to frigid air even for short periods of time. This is especially true if you live in an area where you can experience below freezing temps as you could easily wind up with frostbite on exposed skin very quickly.

While the look can work, I am with you in that this is ridiculous style for Winter. If, as Carl says, you have footwear to cover up the gap, it would look different, but then you would have socks on anyway. The ankles and wrists are the areas where the blood supply is closest to the skin, so in Winter keeping them covered is important.

[Sinned]

Yet women do this look all the time, volubtarily, without much complaint, and without apparently suffering cold feet. Illogical, certainly.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Just because women do it doesn't mean it looks good.

When I see anyone in both a skirt/dress and pants/leggings I wonder if they couldn't make up their mind in the morning when they got dressed ... but I sure wish they had been able to BEFORE they walked out he door.

[PatJ]

After seeing the picture and reading the posts that followed, I experienced a memory flashback.

I was in grade school (sixty years ago) and all the boys in class had to face the front of the room while the girls - (who were required to wear skirts or dresses at school) could take off the pants they wore under their skirts.

Of course it was winter and the temperatures were far too cold for bare legs so the girls were permitted to wear pants under their skirts and dresses to and from school. This was before pantyhose was invented, and good girls didn't wear nylons and garters until they were much older.

It is funny that I had not thought about that in just about forever and then suddenly the memory was there and I clearly remember even the orientation of the classroom, (we were facing West) where the lockers were in the back (East) side of the room, and the name of the teacher.

[moonshadow]

Well so much for fashion freedom....

People have the right not to like something, and by all means we are under no obligation to wear a style if we don't want to, but this is turning into a thread of "clothing thou shall nots".

The man in the photo obviously thought it looked good.

I still think he looks fine, and not because he's the fashion underdog either- No, from the bottom of my heart I am baffled about what the big deal is over 2" of skin showing...

[crfriend]

People have the right not to like something, and by all means we are under no obligation to wear a style if we don't want to, but this is turning into a thread of "clothing thou shall nots".

It's not my business whether somebody wears something that makes themselves look like dolts. That's their prerogative. This isn't about, "Thou Shalt Not.", it's more "Think that look over very carefully." Details can make or break an outfit.

Dave summed it up best, "Just because women do it doesn't mean it looks good." Case in point, clam-diggers and flip-flops. Fine for the venture when one is pursuing it but which looks entirely naff out of context.

No, from the bottom of my heart I am baffled about what the big deal is over 2" of skin showing...

It's not the two inches of skin, it's the sharp break that the contrast causes; if the guy had black skin it'd look fine, or was wearing ankle-boots or dark socks.

[moonshadow]

Understood, however we're talking opinions here. Even my opinion is just that.. an opinion. There are two people who clearly don't take issue with the look, the man in the picture and myself. I'm sure there are others too.

Recall that there are still a good majority of people in the world who still think that a man wearing a skirt looks silly, wrong, ugly, or even a dolt. There is a ever shrinking population of people (men and women) who think women look wrong in trousers, and they stand behind their pulpits and don't mind telling you so.

Constructively criticize? Okay, but this thread is getting a little "preachy".

I'm writing this and sticking my neck out again (as I've done in the past here) for the un-named lurker kid that's reading this thread, looking down at the leggings under his skirt with the skin showing and thinking "uh oh... maybe I should just stick with trousers even though I don't like them... I don't want to be judged by everybody".

When you think about it, if a man can't find "love" here [at skirtcafe] in regards to his style, then where can he? Facebook?

If we eliminate every style that somebody somewhere out there has an problem with, then we end up nude. Then people have a problem with that too.

Dave's remark seems out of character of him with regards to some of his past writings here.

Again, I'm not trying to overly criticize criticism, I guess I'm just a little taken with some of the responses.

"That's a nice look, but I don't care for the ankles showing" is much more inviting to a diverse society than "he shouldn't wear that" [paraphrasing some of the responses here]

As for me? I don't care for the hair style, but it's his head and it's not like it's hideous or anything, just not something I'd do.

[crfriend]

Understood, however we're talking opinions here. Even my opinion is just that.. an opinion.

Fair enough, but I suspect the photo was staged and that the subject is a model and likely not calling the shots on the outfit in question.

"That's a nice look, but I don't care for the ankles showing" is much more inviting to a diverse society than "he shouldn't wear that" [paraphrasing some of the responses here]

Agreed, "He shouldn't wear that" is too strict, but how does, "The look really needs to be reconsidered, possibly using the vantage-point of a photograph" sound?

Looking down at the thing won't yield what others will see, and a mirror will lie to you because you'll see yourself the way you want to and not the way you really look. A photograph taken at an eye-point of average height and using a non-distorting lens will tell you what you look like to others, and that's when the gaps and goofs in an outfit will come to the fore.

The trick is in paying attention to the details. If the un-named kid lurking and reading here gets put off by some of the commentary and opts to go back to trousers he'll probably recall that properly-fitted and hemmed trousers don't put a break in the line of the leg either. (Not that anybody pays attention to that any longer in the world of droopy-drawers.)

[moonshadow]

Fair enough, but I suspect the photo was staged and that the subject is a model and likely not calling the shots on the outfit in question.

Well, that's certainly possible, and maybe even probable. However somebody thought it was a good idea...

Looking down at the thing won't yield what others will see, and a mirror will lie to you because you'll see yourself the way you want to and not the way you really look. A photograph taken at an eye-point of average height and using a non-distorting lens will tell you what you look like to others, and that's when the gaps and goofs in an outfit will come to the fore.

That's true, and I can't argue with it, myself having different takes on my own outfits on how they present in a mirror versus a camera. Also, things tend to look different through the lens of time, as I've had a few that suited me at the time, however looking back, I'm not to keen on. But then again, what was new becomes old, and may become new again.

If the un-named kid lurking and reading here gets put off by some of the commentary and opts to go back to trousers he'll probably recall that properly-fitted and hemmed trousers don't put a break in the line of the leg either. (Not that anybody pays attention to that any longer in the world of droopy-drawers.)

Now I got a kick out of that. (a real world chuckle) I admit that Ive had trouble with those in droopy-drawers over the years, although my practice in skirt wearing and confronting the social prejudice that comes with it has gotten me to lighten up a little on certain "obnoxious" styles that others wear. Although even high water trousers had their day of commonplace practice. Older successful men still don them from time to time. Why just a few years ago at our company ESOP meeting I noted our C.E.O. as he was sitting and his pant hems came half way up his shins as he sat. Or course, he, being a tall, somewhat thin man anyway probably meets challenges trying to get a pair of trousers to fit perfectly.

Then again... the man signs the paycheck of 18,000 people, so people tend to not point fingers at him and giggle.