skirtcafe.org

Found a place in the UK that's all about men wearing what they want. Stitch Leggings. they seem like an interesting company. and leggings are definitely nice to wear! they are to me anyway

Here's the link.
https://stitchleggings.com

Not my cup of tea, but others may like them.

I love them. I like more of the cotton blend ones though. a lot of people wear them under skirts and stuff. i prefer plain colors.

I don't get the leggings-under-skirt idea. To me, leggings are essentially trousers, albeit stretchy and therefore relatively comfy ones. So why wear them under a skirt? The crucial difference between leggings and tights is the feet. When they start to recede from the stretched position, garments move towards the fixed point. In a pair of tights, that is the feet, so they slide down away from the crotch and leave room for the male genitalia. In a pair of leggings? I haven't tried, but it seems to me they could only recoil upwards towards the groin.

That said, more power to those guys for rocking the boat and resisting the notion that we men have to hide our bodies under loose baggy clothing.

skirtyscot wrote: So why wear them under a skirt?

I have a few pair that I only wear in the winter time. That's really the only reason I have them. They are comfortable to an extent, but still I'd rather be bare legged.

Right, I only wear leggings when needed for warmth.

I am experimenting with leggings to keep mini skirting in winter but I think I look enough like a joker with plain leggings, let alone colourful ones.

skirtyscot wrote:So why wear them under a skirt?

I tend to agree that wearing leggings is a bit like wearing pants, however they are tight and stretchy, so conversely a man may need to wear a skirt if wearing leggings in the interest of modesty.

My attitude towards leggings, also pantyhose and tights for that matter, is that yes, they cover the legs and introduce a restriction around the groin, but if they fit properly, that is not the same issue as bunchy crunchy pants. In the same way I prefer snug briefs to boxers, a little bit of support and control is welcome for parts of my anatomy. As for putting them under skirts, well as denimini said, modesty. I am trying to find a suitable short dress or tunic I can wear with leggings, or possibly tights.

I do like some of the patterns that stitch leggings sells, but the construction doesn't seem any different from any of the ladies leggings out there, and slightly pricey. If they were going to be designed for men, the front seam should be split in a Y.

denimini wrote:...I tend to agree that wearing leggings is a bit like wearing pants, however they are tight and stretchy, so conversely a man may need to wear a skirt if wearing leggings in the interst of modesty.

Runners, bicyclists, gymnasts, dancers, and Batman all wear thick uncovered tights with no violation of modesty.

But I agree that women's fashion leggings may be another story.

skirtyscot wrote:So why wear them under a skirt?

The same reason I don't wear tight jeans - I'm really not at all interested in having every bulge in my nether anatomy emphasized on public display. And unless the intention is specifically to provoke a sexually excited response, I don't think it's appropriate for women to do so either. There are places where sexually provocative clothing is a great idea and quite enjoyable, but not for everyday wear just going about your business. That probably marks me as a cranky old prude from the last century, a charge to which I plead guilty on all counts.

Ralph wrote:That probably marks me as a cranky old prude from the last century, a charge to which I plead guilty on all counts.

I don't think so. In fact, I view sex as a sacred gift of nature. Personally I believe people should only share this gift with those who deserve it and no go around prancing like some wild animal that looks to mount anything that won't fight back. Modern men and women alike have cheapened sex to the point where it's no longer sacred. People are just turning into animals.

moonshadow wrote:People are just turning into animals.

It is too late to stop it now the human race are animals! We can only hope that we evolve to a higher state before it is too late and we go the way of the DODO bird.

Fred

Caultron wrote: Runners, bicyclists, gymnasts, dancers, and Batman all wear thick uncovered tights with no violation of modesty.

That's fine, if you are running, cycling, dancing, or being batman. I have no issue if I'm riding my bike, I'll even go into the store wearing bike shorts if I've ridden my bike there. Going into work, or to the coffee shop while wearing uncovered leggings as a guy, having walked there.... little off I think. If a woman does that, and the leggings are say, a bit tight and thin, I think that's a bit off too.

I have no objections with dressing in a somewhat, noticeable or provocative fashion, myself or others, but with a bit of style and class please. Keep the trashy stripper look for the places selling overpriced trashy beer. (because I'll never go there)

partlyscot wrote:

Caultron wrote: Runners, bicyclists, gymnasts, dancers, and Batman all wear thick uncovered tights with no violation of modesty.

That's fine, if you are running, cycling, dancing, or being batman. I have no issue if I'm riding my bike, I'll even go into the store wearing bike shorts if I've ridden my bike there. Going into work, or to the coffee shop while wearing uncovered leggings as a guy, having walked there.... little off I think. If a woman does that, and the leggings are say, a bit tight and thin, I think that's a bit off too.

I have no objections with dressing in a somewhat, noticeable or provocative fashion, myself or others, but with a bit of style and class please. Keep the trashy stripper look for the places selling overpriced trashy beer. (because I'll never go there)

So, why would cycling shorts be OK but not cycling tights?

And again, I agree that women's fashion leggings may be another story.

skirtyscot wrote:I don't get the leggings-under-skirt idea. To me, leggings are essentially trousers, albeit stretchy and therefore relatively comfy ones. So why wear them under a skirt?

Fashion? Some people even wear skirts over jeans!!! Also, some leggings are footless tights and aren't really suitable for wearing on the outside on account of having a gusset, so great under skirt, jumper dress or an a-line hoodie for instance.

skirtyscot wrote:The crucial difference between leggings and tights is the feet. When they start to recede from the stretched position, garments move towards the fixed point. In a pair of tights, that is the feet, so they slide down away from the crotch and leave room for the male genitalia. In a pair of leggings? I haven't tried, but it seems to me they could only recoil upwards towards the groin.

As an owner of more than 100 pairs of leggings then I hope I'm qualified to speak on the matter lol. Leggings, as opposed to footless tights (sometime sold as footless tights, sometimes as leggings) are not simply tights without feet. The material, design and seams are differnt. Typically leggings will be a 95% cotton 5% lycra mix (although a number of other mixes exist), which gives them flexibility and so hugs the legs and body well. There is not so much stretch that they contract leaving parts of the body exposed, unless you've bought ones that are much too small. Also, leggings generally, if not always, have elastic in the waistband to help keep them up, whereas footless tights do not. When I was studying dance a few years ago, I always wore cotton mix leggings and never had an issue with them sliding up or falling down.

skirtyscot wrote:That said, more power to those guys for rocking the boat and resisting the notion that we men have to hide our bodies under loose baggy clothing.

I agree. The designs are great too. Especially love the tartan. The big stumbling block is the price.... if I buy leggings in New Look, for instance, then I pay £6 - £12 typically. I would imagine the Stitch Meggings are probably more durable, but that's not really an issue for me.