i loved this look from the moment i pinned it (from my super stylish/hot friend who would rock it all night long).
having all of the components, i tried to wear this today and eeeeeeeeeeee, i couldnt pull the trigger. even with the long undershirt, we are dangerously close to visible crotch/underbutt.
what i am wondering is: is that allowed? i always thought tights were like pants, but not a direct substitute. from the thigh down, you can get away with a shorter overlayer if you have them on underneath, but you cant treat them as independent bottoms: there must be something on crotch and buttcheek duty whether it's a tunic, a skirt, a dress, whatever.
but then again, i have seen chicks wearing tights like they are pants without the longer-than-crotch outer later and it looked fine. even in the above inspiration photo, she is technically covered, but is she bends eve one degree more acute than full upright, something has to give and you will see--front or back--where those 2 leggings become one. but she looks fine! it just looked so weird when i went to do it myself.
i realize we live in the age of jeggings, yoga pants and all sorts of clothing that leaves nothing to the imagination, i'm just trying to get a bead on the general thoughts of the public.
is it a matter of tight thickness? like obv panty hose arent okay to go solo down south, but a nice thick legging that wasnt just basically showing your every curve, just in a different color, maybe could hold the fort.
or is it a matter of the person? like skinny chicks can do it but maybe we curvy ones cant/shouldnt?
someone advise me.
at
9:38 AM
