Fun Stuff > CHATTER
There oughta be a law!
Carl-E:
AAAHHHH!!
I just realized she was a cashier, and not just standing in line at a checkout.
Dress codes FTW...
nekowafer:
--- Quote from: Welu on 10 Nov 2012, 03:43 ---Thank you all for explaining and much better than I could, including the pants/trousers definitions. Nekowafer linked the image I couldn't find, even. My discussion skills are a bit rusty, it seems.
--- End quote ---
It took me a little while to find it, if that makes you feel any better.
Barmymoo:
I personally would consider leggings to be underwear, yes. I think this isn't just me (I also consider shorts to be underwear, at least for myself - not that I wear shorts as underwear, just that they're too... short... to be outerwear), I think most people do. But not those people, clearly!
Lines:
I see leggings as an accessory. They can add to an outfit, but the outfit should be able to survive without them if need be. Same as tights, opaque or sheer. This is why I do not classify tights as pants and if I do wear them out of the house (my reasons tend to be it's chilly, I'm wearing a top/tunic/dress that would not be suitable for pants, or I don't feel like wearing real pants), my butt and crotch HAVE to be covered at all times but whatever top/tunic/dress I'm wearing. And for fashion aesthetics, I think this rule should apply to all people, but it never does.
bainidhe_dub:
Leggings and opaque tights are acceptable as the only thing covering your legs, but not your butt/crotch. But I wouldn't necessarily say the outfit has to be able to stand without them. They can serve to bring a top from "is that supposed to be a shirt or a dress? either way it's way too short to wear in public" to "acceptable because now I won't see your panties if you happen to bend over".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version