Leggings as Pants - In School

[bonyk]

Interesting.  I never thought of the gender difference in this situation before.  I've had 4th grade girls wear shirts so low that it distracts me while I'm teaching.  It creeped me out beyond belief, and I felt *very* uncomfortable discussing it with them and explaining why it wasn't appropriate.  I've had boys of the same age with their pants on the ground, and had no problem telling them to pull their pants up and get a belt.  Hmm...

[Elizabeth]

As long as skin/underclothing is covered, I don't have a problem with them. To me, they are pants. In fact, as a child, I used to wear leggings with regular tops pretty often. I was rail skinny with looooong legs and most "regular" pants didn't fit me, so my parents got me lots of leggings.

I would have a problem with transparent leggings, like a PP mentioned. They need to be completely opaque.

[WillyNilly]

Actually my biggest issue is of verbiage.  Way too many people (I see it on these boards A LOT) call "tights" "leggings".  "Leggings" are pants.  They have a seam along the inner leg and often one along the outer leg as well.  They have a separate piece of elastic sewn into the waistband.  They are totally opaque.  "Tights" are undergarments.  They are knit tubes with usually just a seam up the front and back torso part holding the two sides together.  They sometimes have feet and are sometimes footless. Usually the waistband is just a thicker, tighter knit of the same fabric, perhaps some elastic is knit in, but its not a wholly separate piece of elastic sewn in.  They are vaguely opaque but also at least some what see-through.

Its completely fine to wear leggings as pants because they are pants.  They are not universally flattering pants, but they are pants. 

Its not ok to wear tights - even if the package was mislabeled and called them "leggings" erroneously - as pants as one can see through them.

[StoutGirl]

I believe that as long as the leggings are opaque and the top is flattering and proportionate for the wearer, there should not be a problem.  I have seen much worse when it comes to other fashions, like super low riding hip huggers.

[Piratelvr1121]

I remember as a kid the style of wearing a tunic style shirt over leggings, actually I think I probably had a lot of outfits like that.  So I really have no problem at all with that look so long as the rear end's covered and they're not so tight that they're showing things in the front that need not be seen. (ie Camel toe)

I'm with WillyNilly. Leggings are pants. 

[Twik]

Actually my biggest issue is of verbiage.  Way too many people (I see it on these boards A LOT) call "tights" "leggings".  "Leggings" are pants.  They have a seem along the inner leg and often one along the outer leg as well.  They have a separate piece of elastic sewn into the waistband.  They are totally opaque.  "Tights" are undergarments.  They are knit tubes with usually just a seem up the front and back torso part holding the two sides together.  They sometimes have feet and are sometimes footless. Usually the waistband is just a ticker, tighter knit of the same fabric, perhaps some elastic is knit in, but its not a wholly separate piece of elastic sewn in.  They are vaguely opaque but also at least some what see-through.

Its completely fine to wear leggings as pants because they are pants.  They are not universally flattering pants, but they are pants. 

Its not ok to wear tights - even if the package was mislabeled and called them "leggings" erroneously - as pants as one can see through them.

I agree. The terminology is confusing.

I gather what the school is objecting to is people wearing what I would consider thick panyhose as pants, with nothing else covering the lower torso? To me, that's about as couth as my "interesting" cousin showing up for a restaurant dinner wearing a pair of men's briefs as shorts.

[Margo]

Although I don't personally like leggings except if worn under a long shirt or short dress, I think the real problem is less the leggings themselves but the fact that so many pirs, expecially the cheaper ones, are so thin that they are see-through.

I think a 'no visible underwear' would be a better rule - it would cover both too-thin leggings, excessively saggy jeans/trousers.

i agree with Dawbs that the suggestion that it is the girls' responsibility not to distract the boys is inappropriate.

(I recall being given a similar talk by a (rather embarrassed) teacher when I was in the 6th Form about how we shouldn't wear low cut tops or short skirts lest we distract the male pupils and teachers. Since we were a bolshie lot, we said we would be happy to comply as soon as it was confirmed that they had had a similar conversation with the 6th boys, and the male staff, to ensure that they would not be wearing shorts or tight fitting t-shirts lest they distract us. We didn't hear anything further about the issue. (We already had a dress code which forbad denim and a few other things, this was apparently an "informal chat" ))

[Jones]

Regarding the sexism....I have a feeling that if boys tried to wear leggings, David Bowie in Labyrinth style, they would probably get the same chat as the girls have received. They just haven't tried it yet. 

[acicularis]

A blanket "no leggings as pants" rule ignores the fact that not all leggings are created equal. Some are skin tight and almost sheer, almost indistinguishable from footless tights. I would not allow my girls to wear those without a skirt or long shirt or tunic. Some are made of thicker fabric, fully opaque, and not worn skin tight. They look like pants, and I have no problem with them.

My 12 year old wore "jeggings" to school today. Would they be banned? They are basically stretchy jeans, opaque, and actually less revealing than some "super skinny" low rise jeans I've seen other girls wear.

[jmarvellous]

I spent an afternoon at a coffee shop near the big local college recently. There was a girls' club meeting in the shop, and fully 90% were wearing leggings, chunky boots and something else. At least 3/4 were not fully covering their rears/fronts, and of those I could have easily told you what color and style more than half of their underwear was (not that I was trying to see, but it was mostly neon and skimpy). So 20+ girls who I asssume were 18-21 years old, showing me their underwear on a Sunday afternoon. I just plain do not get it. Some of the leggings were thick, but you could see panty lines anyway, and others were careful to cover with tunics, skirts or even that sort of unusual shorts-over-leggings thing, which I have no problem with in terms of propriety.

So while I fully agree that sexism has no place in a dress code, I also understand urging people to be more conscientious about this particular trend, and I understand putting limits on it if common sense is in short supply.

[acicularis]

So 20+ girls who I asssume were 18-21 years old, showing me their underwear on a Sunday afternoon. I just plain do not get it.

Yuck. I don't get that either.

My 9 year old got into quite a snit with me when we were shopping for school clothes this fall, because she kept wanting "super skinny" jeans in a size that was too small, that showed her underwear. Maybe I'm just plain silly, but if it's called "underwear" I think it's supposed to be covered by your clothes. 

[Yvaine]

I remember as a kid the style of wearing a tunic style shirt over leggings, actually I think I probably had a lot of outfits like that.

Yeah, I'm not really into the leggings-as-pants trend for women (or for girls with womanly bodies) because they tend to be so thin over the curvy parts, but I also remember these children's outfits and they were not revealing at all. There would be a big T-shirt and then a pair of "leggings" that were either not even tight or as thick and opaque as bike shorts or both. The kid version I can't see being wrong for school.

[MamaMootz]

OP again: Back in the 80's when I was a teen, it was the trend to wear skin tight leggings or tights with an oversized top that covered your rear. I think they are trying to re-introduce the trend, but I also think that lots of people are taking it too far. I think the low rise jeans and wearing tights with a crop top is not a good trend, and not appropriate for school. I would not let DD out of the house that way.

I guess what I don't understand is why the parents are letting the kids go out of the house that way and the school has to get involved at all.

[Sharnita]

FWIW, some kids change after leaving the house.

[SPuck]

I think it comes down to the material in the end. A solid description of what you can see through your pants (no panty line showing, that sort of thing) would probably be better then just banning leggings. I looked it up on Amazon, and I got pictures of leather pants, yoga pants, and what looked like panty hoes to be appearing under the search.