ForumGarden

I just found the following on a web page.it has become commonplace to wear leggings instead of pants in almost every informal social situation.

Even discounting the problems of translation from whatever language that's written in, I claim it is unlikely to be true.

My personal testimony is that I have never owned a legging, much less worn a legging, not in the privacy of my own room behind locked doors, not in a retail outlet, not on public transport. Nowhere.

Who are these dubious phantom barbarians? In which horde are they alleged to skulk?

It's probably an american website written by someone with nothing better to worry about. leggings or tight jeans or trousers who cares. I do actually have leggings though- long jiohns for hillwalking in winter.

My approach to style is to have no style at all.

gmc;1508349 wrote: It's probably an american website written by someone with nothing better to worry about. leggings or tight jeans or trousers who cares. I do actually have leggings though- long jiohns for hillwalking in winter.

My approach to style is to have no style at all.


Longjohns under jeans is one thing, leggins as an outer garment is a whole different kettle of fish.

...reading that in English rather than American my poor little mind is still wrestling with the idea of substituting leggings for underpants...

It's an appropriate attire for women but I think I'd disown any male friend or family member if they wore them in public...along with crocs and sandals with socks

Snatching a sentence from the WWW without some context isn't worth worrying about.

Was it historical?

Was it a fetishist site ?

What sort of social situation ?

Airliners.net

Aviation Forums

Civil Aviation

"UA Denies Boarding to Non-Rev Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts".





Though given the generalized nature of the quote, I don't see how context adds any useful information.

Noting a previous post when you told us that you change spellings to suite who you are talking to.......should that not be "Generalised" ?

I think you will find context is extremely relevant.

Robert E Lee was Generalised. I was speaking of generalization.

Oh.....I sea.

spot;1508364 wrote: Airliners.net

Aviation Forums

Civil Aviation

"UA Denies Boarding to Non-Rev Girl in Leggings, Social Media Revolts".





Though given the generalized nature of the quote, I don't see how context adds any useful information.


It's on a par with making women wear headscarves.

You may be legging behind the times.

The only way I can see it working is if you were to tie one legging round the waist and tie the other loincloth style between the legs front and back. But then to stop it just slipping off you'd have to haul the waistband up over your shoulders and end up with an impromptu mankini.

Informal social occasions in the the US seem more demanding than I thought...

Bryn Mawr;1508354 wrote: Longjohns under jeans is one thing, leggins as an outer garment is a whole different kettle of fish.


There's always some absolutely tasteless and stupid clothing trend going around, usually with the young adults. The idea is for it to shock and confuse the older generation, thereby giving the teens and young adults a sense of rebellion and independence. Never mind how ridiculous they look! That's the idea!

In the 1970s, it was long hair on guys, hiking boots, and denim overalls. In the 1980s it was bike shorts and mullets, especially with wildly exaggerated primary colors. In the 1990s, it was the "grundge" look with flannel shirts unbuttoned and hanging out, the more unwashed the better. Earlier this century came the "sagging and bagging" look of oversized clothing and pants down under the bottom with underwear showing. Now it's "leggings" and skin-tight jeans...on men or women. I just quietly laugh, sigh, and get over it because...who am I to judge?:wah:

Attached files

Saint_;1508416 wrote: There's always some absolutely tasteless and stupid clothing trend going around, usually with the young adults. The idea is for it to shock and confuse the older generation, thereby giving the teens and young adults a sense of rebellion and independence. Never mind how ridiculous they look! That's the idea!

In the 1970s, it was long hair on guys, hiking boots, and denim overalls. In the 1980s it was bike shorts and mullets, especially with wildly exaggerated primary colors. In the 1990s, it was the "grundge" look with flannel shirts unbuttoned and hanging out, the more unwashed the better. Earlier this century came the "sagging and bagging" look of oversized clothing and pants down under the bottom with underwear showing. Now it's "leggings" and skin-tight jeans...on men or women. I just quietly laugh, sigh, and get over it because...who am I to judge?:wah:


What on earth are you babbling about. the 1970's started with glam rock amd ended with punk

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=1970s ... 3uAy0a1hbM:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=1970+ ... 0&bih=1011

Oh wait a minute were you a bay city rollers fan

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bay+c ... 0&bih=1011

I'm one of the lost generation - post hippy and pre punk.

gmc;1508418 wrote:

Oh wait a minute were you a bay city rollers fan


Yes..to my eternal shame..

I'm one of the lost generation - post hippy and pre punk.


So you never wore outrageous clothes or styles? Yeah right.

The thought of my first winklepickers still embarrasses me.

My lad wears blue suede shoes.

spot;1508425 wrote: My lad wears blue suede shoes.


Is he all shook up ?

Bruv;1508426 wrote: Is he all shook up ?


Naah. He's nothin' but a hound dog.

Saint_;1508427 wrote: Naah. He's nothin' but a hound dog.


I wanted the last word on this......Don't be cruel.

:yh_rotflROFL Ok, OK, you win. I give!

Leggings!!! I love those things. Oh on men you mean.... hmmm well they would leave very little to the imagination....

and even less if it were the plumbers who wore them, bending over and showing off ... oh never mind.

The great thing about fashion, it's ever changing. And if we live long enough we can even revive some or our old duds. (duds is right)

A couple of waitresses at the local diner have taken to showing up in leggings.

All I can say is that I am glad they also wear aprons while working.

think the late 60's and early 70's, leggings and mini skirts.

Ok seriously leggings with nothing to cover your butt, and rolls ewwww that is just underware

Leggings is a very broad term. I have my active wear leggings, formal leggings ....yes they have a seam (appropriate office wear) And junk around the house leggings. Ive seen some youngmen in leggings but you couldnt tell they were what they were without closer inspection. And that should give great comfort to older men used to retiring off to the mens toilets to release a few notches in their belts after a large meal.

minks;1508548 wrote: think the late 60's and early 70's, leggings and mini skirts.

Ok seriously leggings with nothing to cover your butt, and rolls ewwww that is just underware


Yep, certain types of leggings that shoul be classed as tights........or informing the wearer they are wearing tights, not leggings. Stretch that material amd it becomes transparent lol

Saint_;1508416 wrote: There's always some absolutely tasteless and stupid clothing trend going around, usually with the young adults. The idea is for it to shock and confuse the older generation, thereby giving the teens and young adults a sense of rebellion and independence. Never mind how ridiculous they look! That's the idea!

In the 1970s, it was long hair on guys, hiking boots, and denim overalls. In the 1980s it was bike shorts and mullets, especially with wildly exaggerated primary colors. In the 1990s, it was the "grundge" look with flannel shirts unbuttoned and hanging out, the more unwashed the better. Earlier this century came the "sagging and bagging" look of oversized clothing and pants down under the bottom with underwear showing. Now it's "leggings" and skin-tight jeans...on men or women. I just quietly laugh, sigh, and get over it because...who am I to judge?:wah:


I see what you mean