Please tell me why I hear people saying leggings are not considered pants.
I know tights are opaque pantyhose, and usually much too thin to be worn without something covering them.
I've seen skinny jeans that are just as tight as leggings.
So what's the big fuss over leggings being worn as pants?!
If wearing a tshirt under a sleeveless top makes it "modest", why can't you wear leggings under a shirt or sweater that isn't quite long enough to be a dress? I just don't get it.
Monday, March 26, 2012
LEGGINGS DEBATE
Posted by Deanna
Labels: leggings vs pants
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Uhmmmmm I think it's the underwear issue with me!
It seems nobody wears underwear these days anyway...
I see leggings as pants all the time. I'm not a leggings fan in any scenario, but I'm not going to discriminate - I don't like them ever, not just when people wear them as pants.
And, yes, no one wears underwear.
I think the problem is that leggings are thinner than pants (even skinny jeans) and end up looking just like tights when worn as pants- the problem isn't the tightness, it's the level of opaque-ness. At least that's how I see it...
It's because they're too tight. Skinny jeans are too tight. Workout clothes are too tight. When clothing is too tight it is immodest, even if it covers all the places it should. We teach this to the youth all the time and refer them to the For The Strength of Youth booklet. They're not allowed into dances unless the skirt comes to the knee, even if leggings are there. It's very clear. Hope that helps :)
Post a Comment