What leggings aren't pants?

[Guinevere]

I feel like leggings are sort of pants.  I mean, I have a white pair of leggings that I got super cheap at Walmart, and they are a touch see through, so I don't wear those like pants.  

 

But, my girls have some leggings that are like the play pants stretchy things.  Are those considered leggings?  

 

Can anyone link a few pictures so I can see the difference between leggings-that-aren't-pants, and leggings-that-might-be?  

 

I'm so confused about this, and I'm trying to understand their POV.

[Bluegoat]

If they are so thin you can see through them (try bending over!), or if they give the impression of being tights, they are not pants.

 

One clue can be that if they are meant to be used as pants, rather than with a tunic or other longer shirt, they will tend to have more detail at the top and waistband area, and have heavier materials.  So, the waistband will look finished, there won't be seams that look odd up the front or back, they my have details that look like pockets or belt-loops.  They should be sturdy enough that they don't cling to bulges in the same way underwear or tights would - they should skim over them more like pants.

 

With kids, its a little different - they can get away with things adults wouldn't, I think because their little bodies are just smaller and more bendy, and we have different expectations of their clothing generally.

 

 

[Kiara.I]

I'd sort of say it depends on the age of the child.  Age 2?  Whatever, they're pants.  Age 12?  Hmmm...nope, definitely need to be doing some "is it too clingy" testing.

[Tangerine]

I am whole heartedly in the leggings are pants camp, and do not care how much cling anyone else's pants do or do not have. Tights have a crotch gusset I guess? Where's that popcorn emoji guy? These threads always go so well.

[Bluegoat]

I am whole heartedly in the leggings are pants camp, and do not care how much cling anyone else's pants do or do not have. Tights have a crotch gusset I guess? Where's that popcorn emoji guy? These threads always go so well.

 

But not all leggings are intended to be worn in the same way pants are.  Even without a crotch gusset, some are meant to be partly covered.

[Tanaqui]

I generally assume that most leggings are really like tights. They can be worn with long shirts instead of dresses/skirts (unlike tights), but... they're really not pants unless the person wearing them is very young, in which case, whatever. (But I don't mind very young people going about with just a diaper cover either. Or even a bare butt, though I think a visible uncovered diaper is the grossest thing ever. This may be a little inconsistent, but that's how I feel.)

 

Edit: Back on the subject of leggings, though, I suspect that our kids mostly think of them as pants, and their kids definitely will consider them interchangeable with pants. Fashion marches on.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Tanaqui

[bolt.]

For me, it's about the level of "definition" provided to the butt. If you can see a separate defined outline of *each* buttock, and/or if the transition from but to thigh has a really defined scoop: those things are too much for me.

 

Similarly, at the front pubic area, if there are three defined curves (right upper thigh, pubic zone, left upper thigh) it's not meant to be seen.

 

I don't want to wear any leggings as pants, but for other people, I'm not really bugged as long as things still skim, not cling, to each curve of the underwear zone.

[Farrar]

As long as you can't see through them, they don't have a different outwardly visible material in the crotch, and they don't ride up on you in absurd ways, they're pants.

 

I agree with Bluegoat about the clue of how they're designed being the feel of the material and the waistband.

 

Now, I personally cannot wear them as pants because I'm not comfortable enough out like that. But to all who are, go forth and enjoy.

[Guest]

You must use two mirrors and strong, bright lighting to observe yourself from the rear; bend. If you can tell the shape and color of your underwear, they are not pants. Personally - and this is strictly one woman's opinion, feel free to disregard - I think the "leggins" that have a sheen to them are not pants.

 

But, yeah, for a toddler, it doesn't much matter.

 

ETA: a pretty good example of leggings not meeting the requirements of pants: http://rockstarresearch.com/new-study-confirms-leggings-are-not-pants/

 

Pretty good example of leggings functioning properly as pants: https://theskinnymemorandum.wordpress.com/2015/09/12/l-a-n-p-leggings-are-not-pants/

Edited June 26, 2017 by Quill

[Tangerine]

You must use two mirrors and strong, bright lighting to observe yourself from the rear; bend. If you can tell the shape and color of your underwear, they are not pants. Personally - and this is strictly one woman's opinion, feel free to disregard - I think the "leggins" that have a sheen to them are not pants.

 

But, yeah, for a toddler, it doesn't much matter.

But if you bring in athletic leggings, does that complicate the sheen issue? Or are those in a different category? Because those are often shiny, and it doesn't seem like athletic leggings are meant to be covered.

[Guest]

But if you bring in athletic leggings, does that complicate the sheen issue? Or are those in a different category? Because those are often shiny, and it doesn't seem like athletic leggings are meant to be covered.

To some, it might. But I - again, personal opinion alert! do not wear athletic clothes as every-day wear except if I'm at the park or somewhere for the purpose of exercise. I personally do not think it looks nice. I don't actually like any kind of shiny pants that are form-fitting because I don't want the attention to go *there*.

 

The athletic pants that cost a lot of money (i.e. lululemon, Title IX) are very unlikely to have underwear or butt dimples or other personal info showing through, so they more easily pass for pants to the general population, though it's NMS personally. At least you aren't likely to experience wardrobe malfunctions in $70 pants. But even if I did wear athletic wear as every-day pants, I would not take a risk with Walmart or Target leggings as pants with the hiney in full view. Nope. I have seen enough shiny butt cheecks and polka-dotted underwear to guess that some people do not see what everybody else is seeing. Maybe their bedroom is too dark. Maybe they lack long mirrors. I would err the other way.

[Tangerine]

Is it clear yet, OP? Go forth and shop! Take a flashlight and some calipers.

[Guinevere]

*Checks Walmart athletic capri legging things for hidden polka dots*  (didn't find any)

 

Yes!  Thank you for getting me up to speed on this very important topic!  I am prepared to face the world with my new educated stance.

 

And Quill, those pictures were just what I needed to clarify this in my mind.  I will definitely not be wearing those sorts of pants like that!  

[wonderchica]

For me, it's about the level of "definition" provided to the butt. If you can see a separate defined outline of *each* buttock, and/or if the transition from but to thigh has a really defined scoop: those things are too much for me.

 

Similarly, at the front pubic area, if there are three defined curves (right upper thigh, pubic zone, left upper thigh) it's not meant to be seen.

 

I don't want to wear any leggings as pants, but for other people, I'm not really bugged as long as things still skim, not cling, to each curve of the underwear zone.

Are jeans not pants? You have an obvious butt in most jeans. And a "scoop". Heck, in most pants! Color me confused. I agree I don't want to see any camel toe, although that can occur in 100% non-legging pants too. Edited June 26, 2017 by wonderchica

[bolt.]

Are jeans not pants? You have an obvious butt in most jeans. And a "scoop". Heck, in most pants! Color me confused. I agree I don't want to see any camel toe, although that can occur in 100% non-legging pants too.

I think, to my eye, jeans -- even when they scoop -- seem to move and hold a shape differently. They somehow seem to have their own standing? Thickness? They strike me as following a form, not clinging to it.

 

It's a little bit like the way some evening gowns fit every bit as closely to the curves of the body as swimsuits do. Both are skin tight, but the dress doesn't have that same stretched-and-skimpy way of moving with the body that the swimsuit does.

 

It's really hard for me to explain exactly what I mean here.

[Ausmumof3]

Jeggings are definitely pants. Leggings with zips or significant detail and thicker quality fabric are pants (if you want them to be) Active wear leggings are pants.

 

Thin Kmart style leggings are mostly tights.

 

Check the mirror and make your decision I reckon. For me I mostly want a tunic no matter how thick the leggings are but different people have different bodies and comfort zones.

[blondeviolin]

If you buy it in the lingerie section, not pants. Anywhere else that sells clothes? Pants.

Edited June 26, 2017 by blondeviolin

[Tangerine]

There seems to be an intersection that gets blurred between "things I don't prefer to wear" and "things that are therefore not pants." Sometimes the distinction is made, but it is getting confusing to separate out the two.

[Guinevere]

There seems to be an intersection that gets blurred between "things I don't prefer to wear" and "things that are therefore not pants." Sometimes the distinction is made, but it is getting confusing to separate out the two.

 

I'm about to make a trip to a place where people have very strong feelings about this sort of thing, so I was trying to learn the rules.  I think it really comes down to basic decency.  If my stuff is all hanging out everywhere, then I should probably wear a longer shirt or change my pants.  If not, then I'm okay.  

 

ETA Like the pics in Quill's link.  If that's what people are talking about when they say "leggings aren't pants", then I can understand people objecting to other people walking around in public with super tight see through pants!

 

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by Guinevere

[Audrey]

Oh this argument gets old.  But... what the heck... :smash: 

 

All leggings are pants, but it entirely depends on how you want to look in your pants.  If you don't want others to see through your pants, then you have to check them in good, strong lighting to be sure of how exposed you are to others' eyes. 

[Guinevere]

Yes, I didn't mean to start an argument.  I just wanted to know which was considered which. 

[Desert Strawberry]

If you buy it in the lingerie section, not pants. Anywhere else that sells clothes? Pants.

 

Not really though. 

 

my local walmart sells thick, fleece lined leggings that are pants in the lingerie section, with the socks. I don't know why they are there, but that's where they are. 

 

They also have thin, translucent leggings of questionable quality and garmentness in the junior's section. They really shouldn't be, I guess. 

[Carrie12345]

As someone who is pro-leggings-as-pants, I go by opaqueness. 

 

I don't think I own a single top that doesn't cover my rear (at the very least) while standing, but everyone bends over at some point, and I am anti-showing-one's-panties.  *TIP: Legging may be less opaque while in a bent over position than while in a standing position!!!

 

Generally speaking, I don't approve of dressing for others' comfort. I think most dress codes are more vulgar than banned clothing.  That said, I have spent 30 minutes on an elliptical machine, with an obvious thong under tights stepping away on the stepper in front of me.  It was probably the most uncomfortable 30 minutes of my life.  I kept wondering if that guy from the What Would You Do show was going to jump out.  (I did nothing.)

[Guest]

Yes, I didn't mean to start an argument. I just wanted to know which was considered which.

Well, I suppose you are innocently new to the forum, but we old-timers have seen this question go in a bad direction.

[lynn]

Oh this argument gets old.  But... what the heck... :smash:

 

All leggings are pants, but it entirely depends on how you want to look in your pants.  If you don't want others to see through your pants, then you have to check them in good, strong lighting to be sure of how exposed you are to others' eyes. 

 

I agree if I could wear leggings, I would also have my sister or a  good friend double check before I wore them out.  I have seen to many leggings worn  as pants gone wrong.  

Edited June 26, 2017 by lynn