Leggings as Pants - In School

[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."

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

  But then I figure you can see skin tone!

[Kiara]

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.

Land's End Starfish collection.  They have both slim fit pants and leggings.  And ungodly comfortable.

[TurtleDove]

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.

I find them everywhere?

[jmarvellous]

I think some people are using leggings to mean what we used to call "stretch pants." That is, pants that were stretchy and form-fitting but meant to be worn as pants -- and generally with more "give"  than "leggings," which in my view are either for athletics or for wearing with outfits that cover your nethers.

Stretch pants (or their wacky cousins, stirrup pants) haven't been very "in" in a while, but they may be something of a compromise for people who like tight, thin pants and short tops.

I'm looking forward to flying across the country in opaque leggings and a sweater dress tomorrow, by the way.

[WillyNilly]

I think some people are using leggings to mean what we used to call "stretch pants." That is, pants that were stretchy and form-fitting but meant to be worn as pants -- and generally with more "give"  than "leggings," which in my view are either for athletics or for wearing with outfits that cover your nethers.

Stretch pants (or their wacky cousins, stirrup pants) haven't been very "in" in a while, but they may be something of a compromise for people who like tight, thin pants and short tops.

I'm looking forward to flying across the country in opaque leggings and a sweater dress tomorrow, by the way.

Yes.  To me "stretch pants" and "leggings" are exactly the same thing - pants.
If they are see-though they are "tights" or "footless tights".

[TurtleDove]

Yes.  To me "stretch pants" and "leggings" are exactly the same thing - pants.
If they are see-though they are "tights" or "footless tights".

Ditto.

[miranova]

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

I don't think any of those, regardless of what they are called, are appropriate for a school or work setting without a skirt or long shirt over them covering one's butt.  Some of them are perfectly acceptable as evning wear, but not for school in my opinion.  I'd be fine with a principal banning all leggings.  They are banned in many schools here and there is no outcry.

[Giggity]

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.

I got mine at Target a year or so ago - they're probably Merona. They are completely opaque, they're thick enough not to show panty lines, and they have a nice little faux seam stitched down the front of each leg. And I *still* wear them with tunics or long shirts.

[Iris]

A school perspective: The reality is that schools often have to make blanket rules simply because the differentiation issue would be a *nightmare*. Can you imagine a male teacher saying to a female student "Although leggings in general are not banned, YOURS are inappropriate because I can see your underwear." Never going to happen. The principal may not necessarily think that thick, seamed leggings are too revealing but realistically what can he/she do? Install a material-thickness-and-underwear-contrast machine in the school lobby? As a related example, many girls can wear short skirts and look perfectly lovely and maintain their dignity. However many other girls wear the same short skirt and flash their underwear multiple times during the day. So we end up with a blanket ban on skirts under a certain length. Not really fair to the first set of girls, but in a school with 1000+ students it's the only realistic way to deal with it.

My personal perspective: I'm a big fan of leggings - under things. I have dressed DDs in them under skirts, long shirts etc often. I wore them myself back in the '80s. I have yet to see them teamed with a really short shirt and no skirt and look really good outside of a magazine. I think they tend to ...erm... creep ... and end up in places where they were never intended to be. To me, that is the difference between leggings and tight jeans. The jeans may be as tight as jeggings, but the stiffness of the denim usually mean they stay where they are supposed to. Disclaimer: I should add that that remark doesn't apply to little girls. I don't know if it's the hips or what but I do think that young children can wear them just fine.

[Katana_Geldar]

This is why I'm glad school uniforms are standard policy in Australia, thetes no need to worry about interpreting a dress code as its all there. Even down to skirt length at my girls catholic school. When I was in school, there was never any confusion over what to wear. Just make sure my uniform was clean and ironed, I had a clean pair or socks and my shoes were polished.

I agree that there's leggings and there's leggings. I wore them in the 90's when they were still trendy, usually with a big jumper, jacket or shirt.

[Oh Joy]

I'm on board with the principal's request.  It would be essentially impossible to write a clear enforceable guideline on this, but I was at the nearest shopping mall to this upscale community last weekend...there were plenty of young ladies illustrating this trend.  They looked well-groomed and fashionable, but I certainly found myself averting my eyes.

[Hmmmmm]

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

I don't think any of those, regardless of what they are called, are appropriate for a school or work setting without a skirt or long shirt over them covering one's butt.  Some of them are perfectly acceptable as evning wear, but not for school in my opinion.  I'd be fine with a principal banning all leggings.  They are banned in many schools here and there is no outcry.

I completely agree with you.  None of then would be acceptable wear at my DDs highschool.

[blarg314]

I was a teenager the last time leggings were in. 

I figure - under a top that is long enough to cover your but, fine, with a shorter top, not. And I'd say that for girls or boys.

I think it's much easier for the school to just say no leggings, or only covered leggings, than it is to say "Leggings as pants are fine, but only if they are of a fabric thick enough to cover visible panty-lines, are tastefully worn, and suit your body type (ie, yes for long skinny girls, no for curvy ones).  Looking at the links below, I'd say that while some of these would be fantastic out at a nightclub, none of them are appropriate for either school or most jobs.

I do think it's reasonable for schools to set some boundaries on what kids are allowed to wear - no leggings, no visible underwear (girls or boys), no lounging pyjamas, skirts and shorts of a certain length, and so on.  Some schools do go overboard, to the point that uniforms would be an improvement.

Part of the bias in girls vs boys dress codes is that girls' clothing is generally designed to be much sexier than boys clothing. If boys came in wearing skin tight leggings that outlined their package, or shorts so short that they risked falling out, or navel baring tops with plunging necklines, the schools would ban those too. These fashions exist, but they're not strongly marketed towards adolescent boys.

As an aside - shorts are interesting. I end up wearing men's shorts a lot, for the simple reason that I can't buy shorts larger than a US size 10 where I live. When I go back to North America, and can buy women's shorts in my size, I find that they are on average about six to eight inches shorter than the men's shorts in a similar style. It can be quite difficult to find women's shorts of a length I'm comfortable wearing in public.

[Sharnita]

The leggings we wore in the late 80s were nowhere near as tight as the ones in the examples posted.  I think the new generation are signinficantly different from the stretch pants/stirrup pants that Tiffany fans wore.

[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.

Land's End Starfish collection.  They have both slim fit pants and leggings.  And ungodly comfortable.

Good to know! They were actually on my "purchase these pretty soon" list. I'll move them up higher.