Leggings as Pants - In School

[yokozbornak]

Leggings as lovely pants, even with short top (body shape permitting):
http://blog.thefind.com/tag/denim-leggings/
or
http://www.scoutnetworkblog.com/2009/10/780/leather-latex-and-leggings/

Leggings as pants, but not so lovely:
http://jerkmag.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/leggings-a-growing-epidemic/
and
http://www.sodahead.com/living/high-waisted-jeans-hot-or-not/question-1438145/?page=6&link=ibaf&q=&imgurl=http://images.watoday.com.au/2010/04/07/1295432/Article_leggings-420x0.jpg

Marketed as "leggings" but actually footless "tights" aka undergarments, not ok to wear as pants:
http://coolspotters.com/clothing/wayne-textured-leggings
and
http://bloggers.com/post/fahion-aversion-vol-3-see-through-leggings-7048549

You make a good point.  I have seen way to many women wearing leggings like those in the last link, and it's not a good look.  I wouldn't think twice about the first couple of pictures you posted.  I also have noticed that not all jeggings are created equal.  Some truly look like jeans, and others are so thin that they are see through.  I have a coworker who wears them often (with a long sweater or tunic), and you can see her skin through them. 

[MamaMootz]

I don't get how leggings *with* a skirt or dress would be especially provocative. Seems that since more skin is covered, it would be less provocative.

Just realized that not only did I send my 12 year old to school in jeggings, but my 9 year old is wearing a short skort with leggings (and some adorable pink knee socks with owls on them.  ) So by some people's standards my girls are inappropriately dressed. Not seeing it, myself.

I don't think leggings with a skirt or a dress are provocative at all. My DD (10) wears them all the time. What I think the school is objecting to, are kids coming in with skin tight leggings and crop tops or tops that are too short to cover the kids' posterior. Some of the leggings show too much skin and underwear colors/panty lines and that was the reason for the dress codes.

[Yvaine]

I knew this sounded familiar.

Earlier there was a big kerfuffle at a Utah college that has an honor code that covers dress code. 
Basically, a student wore a dress that ended just above the knee, with boots and a pair of leggings. Another student gave her a note stating that her outfit was too provocative. The problem was that the honor code said dresses had to be to the knee, but didn't say anything about leggings.

As far as I know, the college still hasn't come out firmly for/against leggings, with or without a skirt.

CBS Article

I think it's really silly to ban (or chastise for) leggings in a situation where the whole outfit would be decent if you completely removed the leggings!  A knee length dress is decent with bare legs, decent with pantyhose, or decent with tights; adding leggings doesn't magically make it indecent again. The note-writer was silly.

[Erich L-ster]

I think the butt needs to be covered with a long top or skirt. Think of leggings as very opaque tights/hose, you wouldn't wear those without a covering would you?

[SPuck]

In the case of the student passing the other student a note, the note passer is a rude and other words I want to say but can't in polite conversation. It is not his place to enforce the school policy. If he was really worry he should have gone to faculty.

[Bexx27]

Maybe I misread the article, but it didn't seem like any school administrators were using "it's distracting for the boys" as the justification; that was in a comment made by a disgruntled student. It doesn't seem sexist to me if both boys and girls are required to conceal their underwear. "Don't show your underwear" doesn't strike me as particularly controversial as part of a school dress code.

I wouldn't want to see an outright ban on leggings just because some people don't use common sense about how to wear them. They're a great option for little girls. My 3-year-old wears them a lot because they don't restrict her movement, she can get them on and off herself, and regular pants tend to be too long on her. I always pair them with a tunic or dress, however. Even the leggings that are marketed as stand-alone pants are usually thin enough that the patterns on her underwear show through. Again, common sense over marketing.

[magicdomino]

Wearing them as instead of tights with a dress - OK.

Wearing them with a shirt instead of pants - not OK.

Unless that shirt is long enough to cover your butt when you bend over, definately not OK.

Kids, we went through this in the 1980's, and have the photos to prove it.  Some of them ended up in the back of Glamour magazine with a black bar across the perpetrator's eyes, and a big DON'T next to the photo.  Trust me, the look ain't a good one, even if you have a fabulous butt.

[Sharnita]

I get the "body shape permitting" concept out in the world but school staff can't tell one kid they are allowed to wear them because they have a "good"  body shlape and then break the news to another kid that their body is not good enough to pull it off.

[Yvaine]

I get the "body shape permitting" concept out in the world but school staff can't tell one kid they are allowed to wear them because they have a "good"  body shlape and then break the news to another kid that their body is not good enough to pull it off.

That, and with almost any garment, the issue is not so much body type as it is fit. I've seen even really slender women make themselves look awful and lumpy by stuffing themselves into too-small clothes. I imagine the same goes for leggings--if they're too tight, you'll see more because they're stretched further. Probably also some of the "I can't see this woman's undies because she's thin" is actually more like "I can't see this woman's undies because she wore undies that match her leggings."

[WillyNilly]

I get the "body shape permitting" concept out in the world but school staff can't tell one kid they are allowed to wear them because they have a "good"  body shlape and then break the news to another kid that their body is not good enough to pull it off.

Well I put the body shape permitting in parenthesis because it pertained to my "lovely" commentary.  I think body shape not withstanding so long as underwear is not revealed, and 'need to be covered' body parts are covered (in schools that would usually mean genitals, chest, midriff/stomach, upper thighs, and feet) with opaque fabric, I think leggings - actual pants leggings not tights mis-marketed as leggings - are fine for students to wear even if a fashion crime.  Even with a shorter shirt (not a mid-riff baring shirt, but ok if the shirt doesn't cover one's butt*).  If there is a rule about "tight" or form fitting clothes so be it, but I see no tangible difference between woven denim skinny jeans and thick knit cotton real leggings.

*I actually think as often as not very long shirts are as equally unflattering as leggings on people with the wrong body shape.  Dresses can be lovely but giant shirts are almost always awful looking IMO.

[lilfox]

I've seen the (opaque) leggings with too-short shirt on a) a friend in her own home and b) several coworkers in the office.

Situation (a) is, to me, appropriate enough - I wouldn't do it myself, but I'm more self-conscious of my posterior particularly if I have guests over.

Situation (b) continues to surprise me.  We aren't customer-facing (for the most part) but that is taking casual wear to an inappropriate level.  The office in general is not actually that casual - some men and women still wear suits or blazers on a daily basis and most people wear slacks + button downs or nice sweaters.  My inner fashion cop also frowns on men wearing loose cargo shorts to work.  We are neither a gym nor a campground - these choices are not work-appropriate.

Banning leggings outright is not a good solution.  As a PP suggested, the rule should be more along the lines of no visible undergarments, whether they are visible above, below, or through the covering fabric.  This should be a rule for all ages in most public contexts.

[TootsNYC]

When my DD was very little, the leggings really were just slim-fitting knit pants. They weren't undergarments.

I want to find pants like that for me now, and I can't. DD wants to find pants like that and can't.

[Yvaine]

When my DD was very little, the leggings really were just slim-fitting knit pants. They weren't undergarments.

I want to find pants like that for me now, and I can't. DD wants to find pants like that and can't.

There's a woman at my work who has found them somewhere. They're slim-but-not-snug-fitting (if that makes any sense), elastic-waisted, completely opaque, absolutely not undergarments pants, and she's getting them from somewhere. She has some in a capri length too.

[WillyNilly]

My Danskin leggings - real pants with an inseam - are made of thicker cotton then some of my sweatpants and yoga pants!

[squeakers]

I get the "body shape permitting" concept out in the world but school staff can't tell one kid they are allowed to wear them because they have a "good"  body shlape and then break the news to another kid that their body is not good enough to pull it off.

That, and with almost any garment, the issue is not so much body type as it is fit. I've seen even really slender women make themselves look awful and lumpy by stuffing themselves into too-small clothes. I imagine the same goes for leggings--if they're too tight, you'll see more because they're stretched further. Probably also some of the "I can't see this woman's undies because she's thin" is actually more like "I can't see this woman's undies because she wore undies that match her leggings."

Or "I can't see this woman's undies because she went commando."