Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Just pulling your leggings.

Ask any follower of fashion about the most controversial issue currently plaguing our nation, and chances are you won't hear some formulaic tirade on health care reform or the newly elected senator of Massachusetts. (Disclaimer: I am not trivializing these things. This is a fashion blog. You can find somewhere else to air that dirty laundry.). Instead, you'll hear a formulaic tirade on a debate that has been brewing since long before Michelle's toned arms registered a blip on our national radar: are leggings (workout staple-cum-darling of catwalk and sidewalk) a privilege, a right, or a bar none fashion faux pas?

The most interesting thing about this debate is our tendency to oversimplify it into a mere question of categorization. We all have that aggressively opinionated friend (Deanna): "I don't care how skinny you are. Leggings are not pants. They just aren’t." I hate to break it to you, haters, but leggings are pants. Dictionary.com defines pants as "an outer garment for covering the body from the waist to the ankles, divided into sections to fit each leg separately," so by definition, leggings are an acceptable pants substitute. You heard it here: leggings are literally pants. Case closed.

But the question, then, takes a far more inward turn: should I wear leggings? Is it in my best interests (and the best interests of the innocent bystanders who are going to have to look at me all day) to do so? It would be ridiculous to say that pants with tapered ankles aren't pants, or that pants a size too small for you aren't pants. But do I recommend that the unfettered masses take those looks out for a spin? Hell no. The key to looking chic has always been to wear what flatters your body, and leggings happen to offer a little less leeway than, say, an A-line skirt or a pair of straight-legged jeans.

So let’s instead define that boundary with a simple litmus test. Stand up. Jog a few steps. If you can feel the cushiony part of your rump bounce independently from the rest of your body, the only place you should be wearing leggings is to the gym. (And that’s not to say your lady lumps aren’t hot. Is Christina Hendricks gorgeous? Duh. Does she run around in leggings? No, and to her credit.) The line is a fuzzy one: in-between territory can be tough (holla atcha, sixes!) and becomes more of a matter of confidence. If you think you “can’t pull off” leggings as pants, you probably can’t. If you have a feeling you just might be able to rock the look, wear them with heels for a little extra lift.

Having said all this, I love the look of leggings when worn appropriately (that is, with a shirt that’s not a crop top; the ‘80s may be back in vogue, but they are definitely over). Like skinny jeans, leggings provide an excuse to play with more billowy upper-body proportions, and, as such, pair well with the boyfriend shirts/tees/jackets we’ve been seeing these past few seasons. Texture is another variable ripe for experimentation (I’m a major proponent of the Shiny Leggings from American Apparel in Lamé Matte Black; their visage hovers somewhere between leather and sparkly mica). As for spring's jeggings? Use your judgment. Personally, I think jeans and leggings are great, but I’d rather wear them separately. Don't all those seams and rivets look lumpy in such a tight cut?

I’ll leave you with a few inspiration shots from "collective fashion consciousness" Lookbook.nu. For day:

Photobucket


Photobucket


Photobucket


For night:

Photobucket


Photobucket


And for weekend:

Photobucket


Photobucket


Photobucket


However, even by modern standards, wearing leggings to the office might be a bit of a stretch.

7 comments:

Deanna said...

If tights/stockings are garments for covering the body from the waist to the ankles, divided into sections to fit each leg separately, do they count as pants as well?

Leggings call for a top of the appropriate length, in my opinion. If I can see the outline of a butt cheek, my day has been effectively ruined.

Emma Aubry said...

Tights get dicey because they cover the feet, which kind of puts them in their own category. In theory, if tights stopped at the ankles, I suppose they would be pants. Albeit sheer pants. Which is just inappropes.

Deanna said...

Because leggings stop at the ankle, though, they cut off the line of the leg and stumpify the limbs in a less-flattering manner.

Emma Aubry said...

Potentially, yes. Proceed with caution, is all I'm sayin'.

Deanna said...

What about leggings with stirrups?

Emma Aubry said...

I mean...might be convenient with boots? I'm not gonna lie, I was wishing I owned stirrup jeans the other day. Danielle watches me fight with my Frye boots all the time.

Leslie said...

Ok I just created a blog so that I can follow yours haha. Who knows maybe I'll find things to write about haha.

So does this mean my whole snow boots, L.L. Bean sweater, and leggings look is in?? Because I thought that was just a grizzly Maine thing.

Also, you're brilliant. I love this - from now on I'm not taking fashion advice from anyone else INCLUDING MK+A. Love you :)