The Critical Eye: On Leggings

When I began this blog I made a promise to myself---I would never write anything mean-spirited or cruel.  I would not mock any individual’s fashion faux pas.  I’m no Joan Rivers, and I despise how some people set themselves up as the fashion police for their peers.  Being informed, in a hushed and disapproving tone, that one’s clothing choices are somehow inappropriate can be emotionally crippling.  I sometimes wonder if this type of critique is a method that women use to keep other women, especially younger women,  ‘in their place’ in professional settings.  I have no intention of doing this on my blog.  Nor will I take apart certain celebrities despite the way they seem to court derision.  Maybe it’s their job to provoke controversy, but I won’t give them the space or the attention on these pages.

However, I wouldn’t be much of a writer or observer if I sacrificed my right to be critical.  Part of what makes fashion so much fun is the discerning eye.  People-watching is a great pastime.  Subjecting every ensemble to an analysis can be a mental game; a ‘fashion thinker’ is never bored. 

But fashion is also very personal.  What I perceive as a bad choice (and it’s always the choice, not the person wearing the choice, that draws the criticism) may be seen as edgy, stylish, or beautiful to someone else.  I worry that as I grow older I grow more conservative---and I surely don’t want to be a frump.  So feel free, in the comments section, to chime in with ‘you’re crazy!’  While clothes are intimate to the wearer, they are also public to their viewers.  So fashion should be a discussion, not just a meditation.

Today’s critical eye is directed at something I’ve been seeing---and cringing at---ever since the air grew chillier.  Take a deep breath and say it with me, if you agree, that leggings are not pants!

It’s not that I disapprove of leggings.  Worn correctly, I think leggings are versatile, trendy, and youthful.  I love the bright colors and patterns that fill the store windows.  I often find myself wishing I was about thirty years younger and had the body to pull them off.  So why do I argue that they aren’t they pants?  For a very simple reason---to have them fit snuggly, to avoid unsightly wrinkles and sags, the wearer needs them to fit like a second skin.  While this is fine for a pair of shapely legs, revealing the ‘second skin’ over one’s derriere is questionable.  Put plainly, I see far too many behinds where nothing is left to the imagination, despite the covering of stretchy fabric. 

For some reason that I cannot fathom, this look has become very popular in Spartanburg.  Everywhere I go, I see women of all ages and body types prancing around in lower body coverings that might as well be grafted onto their skins.  Unsupported, that’s a lot of wiggling and jiggling going on. Even women who are in superb shape look as if they applied a quick layer of black paint and raced outside with nothing more than a tee shirt above to hint that they’re really not as naked as they seem.

 

I’m not such a prude that I disapprove of sexy clothes.  And maybe a pair of skin-light leggings with a midriff baring blouse would be a big hit in a nightclub, where the wearer wants to be provocative.  But that look doesn’t work so well in the aisles of Wal-Mart, especially on ladies who haven’t been to nightclubs since the babies came along.

Leggings can be terrific on younger women.  The trick to wearing them well, I think, it to have something less fitted up top.  Work with layers, and make sure that one layer covers the bottom.  A tunic style blouse or long, loose sweater can conjure an 80s vibe that is still hip today.  Boots seem a necessity---after all, leggings are cool-weather clothes, so why not pair them with footwear that draws the visual attention to the length of leg?  (Though there is certainly room for debate here---I know many fashionable ladies who pair leggings with high heels or cute flats and get away with it!) Worn with some degree of concealment, leggings should follow the same general rule of fashionable sexiness---leaving something to be imagined is better that allowing everything to be viewed.

Perhaps I’m too old-fashioned.  And yes, I understand that leggings are comfortable and something you can just throw on and run to the store with.  I’ll concede that we don’t have to think ‘fashion’ every time we leave our homes.  I’m certainly not against being relaxed; perhaps I just have a different standard of tastefulness, and think that things that might be great in a club, in a gym, or in the bedroom belong in those areas exclusively, no matter how ‘comfortable’ they are in other areas as well.

Maybe we can agree on one thing—if you follow Revels’ Rule of Leggings, you might be deemed too cautious, but at least you’ll never be a victim of the bad choice that I spotted in the mall yesterday.  A young woman, with rather sizeable lower regions, was sporting leggings that were so thin they also revealed her bright red panties with huge white polka dots.  Her non-pants let everyone walking behind her see that she was wearing Minnie Mouse drawers!

And that’s just a look that doesn’t flatter anybody over the age of six.