12.14.2012

in a tight spot (fashion SOS)

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.

24 comments:

  1. TIGHTS ARE NOT PANTS! Sure, if you are super skinny you can put a pair on a look great-but hello skinny people we aren't all dying to see you crevices and every inch of you butt so go get a pair of skinny black jeans and carry on with your sassy skinny self.

    NOW...someone is going to respond with "wear whatever you want-you are beautiful in whatever you wear!" which is totally true. I get that. But we aren't all going to walk around in fish net stockings and no bra just because it has somehow become trendy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, it has always been my rule that LEGGINGS ARE NOT PANTS. Having said that, if you are toothpick thin, you may be able to get away with it, but those of us that have actually eaten a carb in the last month should make sure the shirt comes down a bit farther.

      Delete
  2. Hmm..I'm like you Keight- any time I try to attempt this look without full coverage, I just can't do it. Not sure what the powers that be of fashion would say, but I think I lean more towards full coverage at all times

    ReplyDelete
  3. YES, it's a matter of thickness, but it's never appropriate to see your ass cheeks or skank undies, so wether you are Aretha or LeAnn Rimes, you MUST cover the booty. I only make exceptions for workout wear...when working out(or "dressed for a run later today and if I'm dressed already I'm more likely to follow through" aka me, today).

    Tresics makes a long tank that is my absolute FAVE(I pinned a link to it) that's cotton and ribbed and soft and so long.

    The Blue Door Boutique also sells a tank that I can literally stretch to my shins- one size fits all but I think it's polyester. Depends on which material you're more comfortable in...this one is almost like shape wear, but more comfortable.

    Anyway, DO this. You can rock it...just yes, cover the booty.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wear this look, and I'm WAY larger! My rules: cover the front and back and make sure the leggings are not see thru. You're good to go, and Keight you'll look so cute rocking this look!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I know nothing about fashion, but to me this issue is more about modesty and appropriateness in a given situation. I.e. where are you rocking the tights? It does creep me out when I see a woman, or even a teenage girl, in tights without her lady parts covered. I don't think you have to treat tights the same as pantyhose, as long as the shirt is long enough and they are thick enough, but at least make sure your shirt covers your junk, even if you have to bend over to get a kid. However, like I said I know nothing about fashion and find bikinis (or as I like to call them "thick, public, bra & panties") awkward too, so my opinion might not matter at all

    ReplyDelete
  6. So I'm confused...are we combining tights and leggings as being the same thing? In my mind tights are that thin see-through material that can get runs, while leggings are actual fabric and NOT see through. In my mind you could do this look with thick leggings and manage the microskirt effect just fine, but if you're wearing tights, you would definitely need a longer top. The black skinny jeans seem like a good option too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So I'm confused. Are we combing tights and leggings as being the same thing? Because in my mind, tights are made of that thin, stretchy see-through material that can get runs, while leggings are made of actual fabric, and are not see through. I think that with thicker leggings, you could definitely pull off this microskirt effect. but with tights, you would definitely want a longer top, and even then it would be iffy. The black skinny jeans seem like a good option too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Heck to the No! Tights/Leggings are not pants! :-)

    http://tightsarenotpants.com/manifesto

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's a modesty thing... Where are you going? Who will you see? If it's ok to reveal, then cool. But if you have to bend over at the grocery store... I'm going to think you're icky. But if you're going on a date or hanging out w friends or not going to bend over, then yes girlfriend, rock it! Also make sure your butt is not touching my couch when you sit down... that is eww. Always buy the thick ones... they're warmer anyways.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Debra Joy... some tights are opaque and don't easily run like hose.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ok I'm coming out of blogger hiding! I have wondered the same thing!! I want to wear those the leggings style but then every time I see a girl's butt in them I'm like "i can't believe she came out in that" (butt bared)! Soooo I would say a definite YES to covering the "zones" and showing a tid bit of modesty! But also yes to rockin' this look... Covered!! So let's go shopping and find some thick leggings and looooong cami's and we can be bold fashionistas together!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nope, nope, nope... these are not pants! Even if you're skinny. I see girls wearing these and it's like looking directly at their butt cheeks. It doesn't matter if it's covered in black material, I see your butt cheeks. Sometimes you can find a jegging that is way thick and doesn't curve the cheek and va-jay like a legging does, more like a jean. That is acceptable. I wear tighter black pants to work out in, but even then I like to wear a top that is longer. You want someone to look at you because your outfit is cute, or your hair is nice, or your scarf is pretty, but not because your arse is hanging out.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tights? No way. (Even if they are opaque.) Leggings? Personally, nether regions need to be covered, full time. But I will rock spandex work out gear no-problemo!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't care what size you are, always say no to camel toe. And just think, that picture is of a woman standing and the angle is appropriate. Eventually she will have to walk and bend and sit and frolic or whatever and nothing will be left to the imagination. I'm no fashionista, but this is a huge pet peeve.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I pinned this look too! And love it. But yes, you MUST have something that covers the butt (and crotch! Ew, gross word!) to wear leggings. I found a GREAT pair of skinny blank pants that are by Lucky Brand. Three of my girlfriends and I bought them at the same time....we each have different body types and they look great on all of us! Kinda like the sisterhood of the traveling pants, but not lame. : ) Anyway, I feel that a black skinny jean or even a skinny colored cord would look great with this outfit. Good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I haven't tried to go uncovered, but if I was going to, I'd prob ask my husband what he thought. Is it a huge difference to him whether butt is covered or not? In his eyes would it be modest-er (?) to stay cov'd? Cause fashion-wise, idk, either. I usually think only skinnies can pull off anything, and thus most of cool stuff is off limits to my bod.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I say it's about thickness mostly. And cover at least half your butt with a shirt/tunic. But if it is thick enough fabric, I love the leggings/tights look.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have another option or two. Personally I don't feel comfortable in the just leggings look, unless I have a looooong top and very thick leggings. Even then I'll have to check if it's acceptable by bending over in front of a mirror before venturing out in public. Yep.

    Sooo I often wear short shorts or denim mini over tights. I've seen lots of girls wearing a short, body-con skirt over either so you get coverage and still keep the same silhouette for the baggy shirt look.

    It's not just a look for the skinnies but you need to feel confident in whatever option you go for Keight. x

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree that it depends on both thickness and opacity. If you get some thicker, opaque black leggings (I recommend these: http://www.victoriassecret.com/clothing/yoga/leggings/daily-legging?ProductID=78763&CatalogueType=OLS) then a long tee will be fine (if you're comfortable). Otherwise, use caution and a TUNIC length top (Victoria's Secret also has some great tunics).

    ReplyDelete
  21. I agree with all of the above comments--opacity and thickness helps. I still just don't feel comfortable without at least my bottom covered. I've tried to figure out what my problem is...but maybe it has something to do with height? When I see girls out with this look and I think it looks cute, they are almost always short, petite girls. I am tall with long legs, so when I try do the leggings look, it looks like a whole lotta leg is showing, and since that is most of my body proportionally, I feel very uncovered. But maybe I'm just weird.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree with all of the above comments re: opacity and thickness. But even with a good thick pair of leggings, I can't bring myself to do it either. I've wondered if my problem has to do with height. Whenever I see girls out and about with this look and I think they look cute, they are always short, petite girls. But I am tall with long legs, so when I try it, it looks like a whole lotta leg is out there, you know? And since my legs are proportionally most of my body, I just feel really uncovered. But maybe I wouldn't feel like that if I was shorter or had shorter legs? Or maybe I'm just a weirdo.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I wish I could, but I just can't do the leggings-as-pants look. Not to say it doesn't look awesome in that pic, but I can not have my booty hanging out like that!

    ReplyDelete