Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Leggings ≠ Pants

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for anyone that I ever made fun of because they were wearing leggings. I now understand that wearing leggings is a fat mess tactic, and is a way to remain decently clothed in stretch fabric while avoiding the donning of actual pants that would hamper your fat mess quotient. That being said, I would also like to take this opportunity to declare three things: 
  1. If you are wearing leggings as actual pants (eg: your crotch is not covered), you are wrong and I can no longer respect you. Listen. There have to be boundaries. Leggings are not pants. 
  2. Opaque tights are NOT leggings. Seriously. You can still see through opaque tights. That is why they are tights, and not leggings. Tights are not leggings. And once again, leggings are not pants. If you think this should lead you to the conclusion that tights ARE pants, I regretfully inform you that you are stupid.
  3. In especially bad form is: white leggings as pants, and panty lines of any sort while donning leggings as pants (if you're going to do it, can you at least put some effort into it?)
Now that I have let you know these things, college students of Boston, please stop making me want to claw out my own eyes, I don't even care about the uggs anymore, just "check" yourself before you "wreck" yourself. Thaaaaaaaaaanks. 

(PS: I was going to include pictures in this post, but after browsing google images, I am too angry to post them)

2 comments:

  1. Ok, so...first off, I would like to make it clear that I've never worn leggings as pants, well at least not as an adult. Secondly, what about footless opaque tights as leggings? I mean, not as pants, but...under a dress or a very long shirt? Let's say, in gray. That's still ok, right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that if your butt and crotch are both covered, leggings and tights are interchangable.... right?

    ReplyDelete