Please help me understand the leggings’ look. No, Liz, I’m not talking about the cute leggings you sport with a dress and boots. Or with a tunic and flats. Or their varying combinations. While they are a bit too 1980s-ish for me, those looks are cute.
This time around, I’m talking about leggings worn with a blouse/shirt/sweater that comes to the waist, leaving one’s posterior wide open for public viewing. From all angles.
I don’t get it.
Because no matter how thin, thin, thin, thin, thin or thin a woman might be, leggings worn in that manner show off every single, single, single, single, single, single bump, crevasse, nook, indent, cranny and related surface that her skin has. Because that’s the nature of leggings. The thin-stretchy-opaque-tights material does nothing for a woman’s legs and backside. Nothing. Well, nothing positive, that is.
And, it’s not just the thin, thin, thin, thin, thin, thin, thin women sporting the look. I’m seeing women of all shapes and sizes bounce around in posterior-revealing leggings. While I applaud their courage, I’m disturbed.
In Costco the other day, I saw a young woman sporting a black mini-mini-mini skirt with leopard-print leggings and knee-high boots. The mini wasn’t quite long enough to cover her rear-end. Tragically. A few days later, at the local mall, I noticed several women walking around in leggings and waist-length sweaters and jackets. With flats. No side ponytails though. And now, everywhere I go, I’m seeing women’s bottoms encased in leggings.
So, what gives? What am I missing? What is it about this “leggings and top that does not cover my bum” fashion that makes women exclaim, “I must wear you!”?
Please, help me understand. Really. I’d like to understand.