Viewport width =
May 10, 2010 | by  | in Opinion |
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

Tights are not pants

FOR

When I was little, tights were pants. They came in all colours of the rainbow, bundled up with a matching oversized t-shirt and a scrunchie. If you were even cooler, they had three stripes down the side and a stirrup on the bottom. They were arguably cute and yes, I’ll admit it, they were comfortable.

However, like my Barbie dolls of many moons ago, I left my tights behind when I grew up. Gone was my need for stretchy, all-purpose, barely there leggings and instead, human decency intervened and compelled me to wear actual pants. In much the same way that bras became essential, pants that leave something to the imagination became preferable to those that show off every nook and cranny.

Tights are not pants. I like the Black Eyed Peas as much as the next girl (maybe more so), but I don’t care for your lovely lady lumps. Nor do I care to see what kind of underwear you’re wearing, or not, as the case may be. Tights are not pants. They are undergarments that exist solely to provide extra warmth/cover on days where simple pantyhose just don’t do the trick.

In my scientific research, conducted with my lovely flatmates, I was told the following: “No one likes a big camel toe.” This argument is irrefutable, unless of course, you’re a camel with a foot fetish. Presumably, no one reading this is such a creature, thus it can be ascertained that a camel toe is not a sexy look. Furthermore, from the camel toe, it’s a slippery slope to what the lovely ladies at gofugyourself.com refer to as a “polterwang”, where the crotch region is emphasised to the extent that people think that you actually have a penis…

Jeggings are not pants either. Sure they look like pants, but they’re not. Just because they have a ridiculously small fly, tricksy pockets and exposed stitching doesn’t mean that they are pants. The same goes for the new generation of zipped, studded, ribbed-for-your-pleasure leggings. Just because they’re fancy, doesn’t mean that they are pants.

Tights are not pants. They force innocent ladies such as yourself to be compared with David Bowie in Labyrinth (cos it looks like you’ve got a boner, tehehehe). Do us all a favour, please. Put on some pants. We’re not as comfortable with your body as you are.

Jasmine

AGAINST

I’m down with tights as pants. In fact, I’m wearing this hot getup right now, in my bed. But I also wore it through the city streets to go to Chaffers New World. Passers-by loved it.

The real issue with the trend is when it’s not done right. There are some rules. These include:

  • Tights as pants is only okay if they are leggings. Pantyhose is not okay.
  • No faux denim tights, or ‘jeggings’.
  • No saying ‘jeggings’, ever.
  • No tight tops.
  • Your top should preferably cover at least some of yo ass.

I know I’m not alone in my belief tights as pants are okay. My flatmate just said: “I wish I was wearing tights right now.” I shit you not. She is jelly of my tights as pants, and I can see why. I look hot in my tights. I am werqing them, with my fluoro yellow Supre singlet (still not joking).

Oftentimes tights are more convenient than jeans. You get less muffin (hopefully), don’t get cut in half when you sit down, and can easily reach to tie up your shoes, unlike when you wear skinny jeans.

Blogger Definatalie (definatalie.com) says while she doesn’t wear tights as pants because her body type doesn’t conform to society’s standards of what is ‘attractive’, she believes wearing tights as pants is “a powerful symbolism of body love and acceptance”.

The woman is a genius. She continues: “Maybe nudists have got it right, you could call them Kings and Queens of body acceptance! Certainly then those who wear tights as pants are the Prime Ministers of the turbulent state of Body Love.”

Twitterers point out that tights as pants is part of the “time-honoured tradition of saying ‘hey world, here is is my crotch’”, like the hotpants, miniskirts and tight jeans of decades past.

There’s no excuse for Lindsay Lohan’s wearing of tights as pants, though. That woman is always doing it wrong (although I guess we should be greatful she’s wearing tights, let alone underpants). She has her own range of tights, and one pair has kneepads sewn on. They are blowjob tights, for hussies. Not pants. Please don’t buy/wear them, ever.

Tights as pants are harmless. What you really want to watch out for is underwear as outerwear. Or leotards as eveningwear. Be grateful tights-as-pants wearers are wearing any pants at all.

Laura

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

About the Author ()

Comments (1)

Trackback URL / Comments RSS Feed

  1. Sammie says:

    I agree. Any women with a little class would never wear tights as a replacement for pants.

Recent posts

  1. An (im)possible dream: Living Wage for Vic Books
  2. Salient and VUW tussle over Official Information Act requests
  3. One Ocean
  4. Orphanage voluntourism a harmful exercise
  5. Interview with Grayson Gilmour
  6. Political Round Up
  7. A Town Like Alice — Nevil Shute
  8. Presidential Address
  9. Do You Ever Feel Like a Plastic Bag?
  10. Sport
1

Editor's Pick

In Which a Boy Leaves

: - SPONSORED - I’ve always been a fairly lucky kid. I essentially lucked out at birth, being born white, male, heterosexual, to a well off family. My life was never going to be particularly hard. And so my tale begins, with another stroke of sheer luck. After my girlfriend sugge