American Apparel, home to nightmare-boss Dov Charney, controversial ads, and aesthetically offensive metallic leggings is now planning on selling vibrators. Or, rather, they’re selling the Hitachi Magic Wand “massager,” which everyone knows is rarely used on the shoulders. I don’t really know what to think about this one, beyond yay to vibrators, but boo to creepy bosses.
So I’ll take this post to make a quick public service announcement: Leggings are not pants. Yes, I wear them too, but they are more like tights than anything else — which means that if what you’re wearing on top doesn’t cover your ass, you should re-consider. They are great under dresses — even really short dresses — and leggings-esque exercise bottoms are acceptable when you’re working out. But leggings are not, nor will they ever be, pants. I blame American Apparel for leading usually sensible people to believe otherwise. That is all.
{ 48 comments }
Mommmm, I want an American Apparel massager for my birthday. But MOM!!! IT’S AMERICAN APPAREL!!!!!!!!!
Leggings are the new Uggs! Or maybe the new Crocs?
Wait. So now you’re telling me I have to cover the shape of my ass? Exactly who are you to say so? What makes the shape of my ass in leggings any different than the shape of my ass in tight jeans?
I get that you’re making some kind of aesthetic appeal meant to be amusing here, but still…
Kenzie–
Tight jeans on an ass look a heck of a lot different than leggings on an ass. It’s not the shape, it’s the panty lines and the fact that generally one can see buttcrack, etc., through the leggings. If you’ve got a pair thick enough to be pant-like, then fine, but most leggings are pretty damned thin. It’s like saying that you should cover your ass in tights, basically, which I think is something most if not all people would agree with.
Also, for the record, this is coming from an “apple bottom” girl. I love my curves, I flaunt them in short shorts, but I don’t think the world needs to see my spandexed ass or anyone else’s, even if they’re a size 0 or whatev.
Uh, no. I don’t care about the shape of peoples’ asses. I’m telling people to cover their actual asses, because leggings are often partially see-through in daylight and are more like tights than anything else. It’s like walking down the street in thick pantyhose. It’s not the shape of your ass issue, it’s the they aren’t pants issue. Jeans, including tight jeans, are pants. I can not see the design of your underwear or your entire buttcrack (or your entire front-crack) when you wear jeans. Because jeans are pants.
Of course, that said, you are free to walk down the street wearing whatever you damn please. I often walk down the street wearing very stupid things, and I may have, once or twice, worn leggings with a dress so short it bordered on leggings-as-pants. So I’m not trying to make a law against anything. I just reserve the right to think that people who appear to not be wearing real pants look foolish (and that definitely includes the people who wear short-shorts under long shirts, giving the appearance that they simply forgot to put on bottoms).
I also reserve the right to hate crocs, Uggs, gladiator sandals, bubble skirts, ankle boots, polo shirts with the giant horse, rompers (or “onesies”) and those ugly vent sunglasses that Kanye has unfortunately popularized.
Or, in other words, what Jill just said.
No, hon. What she’s telling you is, when you go out in public, to put on some pants.
Leggings=/=pants
personally, i hate the whole leggings-as-pants look because of their transparency, jill’s right, they are much more like tights than outerwear.
i was recently coming up the escalator from the subway behind a woman wearing leggings as pants and with each stair she climbed the leggings would stretch and become see-through, showing anyone behind her the delicate pattern of her underwear, call me a prude but thats a little more intimate relationship than i care to have with strangers on the subway. and, i felt, not the most professional attire for someone (likely) on their way to work.
Of course, for the record, I don’t actually care if people want to dance in the streets naked. People can wear whatever they damned please. It just always creates a personal dilemma for me when I see a woman walking around and I can see all her bizness, and it’s clear that she just doesn’t have great light in her apartment is is unaware that her leggings are fully see-through. It’s not my business, but if it were me, I’d want someone to tell me (kind of like if your nipple is accidentally hanging out in public — sure, going bare-breasted should be good and legal, but I’d still want to know if my bag had accidentally pulled my whole shirt to the side and my boob was out).
This could all be solved if people would just wear real pants.
And don’t even get my started on the dudes who wear inappropriately tight non-denim pants. At least tight jeans cover up your junk. But the too-tight Dockers… there are some things I’m happy to not know about you, and unless I’m dating you, the size and shape of your balls is one of them.
Also when men wear sweat pants without underwear, and you can see… things… just bobbing around in there.
/end clothing rants. For now.
This is the funniest discussion I’ve read here so far. I know you all are serious, and I agree with most of what’s been said here. It’s just the way it’s being said that is… cracking me up.
Thanks for the laugh!
I find it incredibly creepy that American Apparel carries vibrators… and that’s simply because of the creepy owner/proprietor’s history with the sexual manipulation of his female staff. When my Hitachi dies in a million years, I’ll probably just pick up another one at Toys In Babeland instead, even though I live super close to American Apparel, just to purposely not support that gross dude.
But I’m also all about women wearing whatever the heck they want, showing off whatever parts of their body they want to. If you feel like you look hot, rock it!
See, if we all just went naked, this leggings thing wouldn’t even be an issue :p
Ewwww. Not because it’s a sex toy but because it’s THERE.
I always feel like I’m alone in the leggings-as-pants. My problem isn’t that it’s pantlessness–unless it’s the dead of winter, in which case, yeah, I am, but only because it’s so cold that I’m dumbfounded over the lack of pants–but that I feel like people are fooled into believing it works as pants. Emperor’s New Pants! Now available at American Apparel in a variety of colors…
Most leggings I’ve ever run across were opaque, even in bright light, leaving only the shape issue at, well, issue. If the issue is, in fact, transparency then I guess that’s a little different. However:
I guess I’m just not understanding why Feministe, of all places, is putting up one more post to add to the millions which appear, at first glance, to be policing what women wear. Surely feminists, at the very least, could learn to master the art of “looking away” if something another woman wears offends their sensibilities?
If what is being expressed is a personal dislike of certain items of clothing because they are not fashionable, which nonetheless does not intend to suggest that anyone can wear whatever the heck foolish clothing they like, that is certainly clarified with Jill’s comment, but wasn’t apparent in the original post. My apologies for coming across all strident-like.
Ha. No worries — I’m pretty sure we like strident broads ’round these parts.
Yeah, you’re right, and when I was putting up the post I was just expressing a personal fashion pet peeve. I can see how it would come across as policing.
The point about leggings is that many people tend do buy them in the wrong (smaller) size because “they stretch”. That’s why even thicker ones give you the shine-through effect.
My grocery store sells Trojan cock rings and mini vibrators hidden in with the condoms. I didn’t even realize it until my sister and I surveyed the whole section for about five minutes, but they’re there. Crazy.
Lindsey Lohan gets some of the blame, too. She even has her own line of leggings. One pair actually has padded knees.
THANK YOU THANK YOU for using your blogging powers for good, not evil! The world needs to know that leggings are not a substitute for pants. They just…aren’t.
Yay American Apparel.
Seriously, it’s not easy to obtain a vibrator when you’re underage. Spencer Gifts is just about your only options, and that store isn’t nearly as widespread as AA.
I may disapprove of creepy Dov Charney and disco-ball leggings, but I certainly approve of this. (Also, I own one of their wrap dresses. It’s adorable.)
OMFG WHY?!?!?!
I wore leggings to a themed party, with a long, sort of fitted ballet sweater, and I totally got why they’re so popular- they’re very comfy! But I also felt naked from about the bottom of my ass down the whole night.
So I’ll take this post to make a quick public service announcement: Leggings are not pants.
Oh, for the love of dog, if only someone had told me this in 8th grade!
(Not the most fashionable teenager, was I.)
I’m with Jill on this one.
I wear yoga shorts to do Pilates — they are snug, but they breathe. (I’m all about Lululemon), and here are the shorts. When I walk to my Pilates classes, I wear baggy over-shorts over these. Stephanie, my Pilates instructor, can cope with seeing me in these tight puppies, but there’s no need to inflict them on other people.
One ex-girlfriend, upon seeing me in a pair of biking shorts, said: “Hugo, you look like you’re smuggling plums.” Plum-smuggling is now what I struggle to avoid.
Oh come on Jill! Bubble skirts?? Man, I love bubble skirts. Completely agree with you on everything else though :)
it’s not the shape of someone’s ass or the pattern/lines of their panties i’m worried about seeing under leggings.
it’s what one inadvertently sees when they’re NOT wearing anything underneath.
Nattles:
You can still open and have a checking account when you’re underage and therefore you can have a debit card. Babeland.com is terrific and so even if on that checking account (since you’re underage) your parents have full access to it Babeland only shows like TMV or something like that as the “company” that you bought this thing from on the online account record. I don’t even know what it means, but you could always make up a name for the store that you spent money at if they ask you. Happy Shopping!
I don’t feel the leggings hate. They’re great with wrap-around skirts or really short skirts. If someone wants to wear them as pants, big deal. They’re comfortable, and who cares if pantylines show? The day I start worrying about details like that is the day I start curling my hair and putting on make up in the morning.
There are a bunch of ads for American Apparel on Facebook, and they creep me out.
Especially the ones for a certain “Slack” that I was reading as “SACK”, because I thought they were referring to the top, not the pants. For a long time I was like “Ew, that IS a sack, why are they advertising it that way???”
I’m so glad my mom always made me cover my ass when I wore leggings as a child… I was a huge fan of Clarissa
Dude. I wore leggings as pants in sixth grade (which was early-mid ’90s), but I had NO IDEA how to dress at that age. It was not cool or trendy. I got made fun of for it (I distinctly remember being asked why I wasn’t wearing any pants).
I would say I was just ahead of my time, but I wore the leggings-as-pants with bright screaming turquoise sweatshirts with parrots painted on them. With sequins. So, no.
i’m also creeped out by American Apparel’s ads. they have a 70’s exploitation movie feel to them.
I agree. It doesn’t have anything to do with modesty – I am a major advocate of topless women in summer – just aesthetics. I just hate the look of leggings.
I wear leggings when I don’t feel like wearing pants, but I never wear them as pants. I wear them with a long shirt that covers my bottom, which is what they’re for. Whoever is wearing them as pants either has no fashion sense or is very, very brave.
And I shop at American Apparel because their stuff is sweat-free and not as expensive as some other sweat-free companies. If I boycotted every company that was headed by a creepy CEO, I’d probably be dead.
You’re not the only one who thinks so SoulFrieda..
Check out the message’s take…American Apparel’s Next Top Model
Hate Dov Charney, but in the end, the more easily accessible vibrators the better! American Apparel is a big enough retailer that maybe this will go a little way toward destigmatizing sex toys a little. And at least it’s a decent vibrator and not some horrific jelly dong thing.
That asshole’s pockets are getting lined one way or the other, and at least this way someone might get her first orgasm out of the deal.
http://www.tightsarenotpants.com, fun site with good message, would also apply to leggings.
“Its low vibration works as well on your sore back as it does in the bedroom.” (http://store.americanapparel.net/magicwand.html#i)
I’m starting to hate AA, but I’m starting to love their normalization of female desire.
the only reason to cover one’s ass in pleasant weather is because you believe in supernatural god-men who tell you that the human body is icky. And the law. Which sucks. Because it follows what a supernatural god-man suppositely said 2000 years ago. Yay for naked asses! Yay for see through tights! Yay for bobbing balls under sweat pants! Yay for human bodies in all their reproductive glory!
Disclaimer: I’m British
Y’know, I was utterly confused about this whole “put some pants on” talk for a couple of minutes. I thought you were all suggesting people put some underwear on when they went out. I was all “but how can you tell if someone is wearing pants or not?!”
It has just clicked. In America, pants =/= knickers.
So yes, leggings are not pants. But they do look good under dresses!
I’m more with the aesthetic issue, personally. (And yes, this is a purely subjective, not-rationally-justifiable opinion.) See, my problem is that the human body tends to narrow pretty abruptly from the thighs on down to the ankles. Tights or leggings really emphasize that, drawing attention to the relative largeness of the thighs and thinness of the ankles and making the whole body look top-heavy. Pair that with (as I have often seen leggings used) a looser tunic or blouse, and people start to look like they’re about to tip over if a strong wind blows. So that’s my issue. But then, I wouldn’t take my fashion advice–with my anti-skinny-leggings-and-pants stance I’ve had trouble buying new pants the last couple of seasons, so I must be in the minority here. :P
the only reason that leggings were “OK” (and I use that term very loosely) in the ’80s was because we all wore those ridiculous oversized shirts that went down to our knees. I’m having flashbacks now just thinking about it.
…and, just to agree, Tights Are Not Pants.
Why should Dov Charney get a cookie for being sweat-free when AA is known to be a horrible company to work for and deliberately gives its ads a creepy exploitative vibe? I smell a serious whiff of because-I-wanna-shop-there rationalization here.
Mosquitoes, poison ivy, sun rash, sudden falls backward while gardening -
I own a HItachi Magic Wand, and it really does work well as a massager. I even got one for a close friend of mine for his birthday. That said, yes, the Hitachi Magic Wand may also be used as a sex toy. In my opinion, it works better as a massager. Other devices make much better sex toys. I reviewed the Hitachi Magic Wand on my blog.
http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2008/06/vibereview—th.html
That review was originally on my other blog, but I copied to my main blog so that anyone interested may read it.
Watch for American Apparel to sell the Hitachi attachments next. I bet that’s what’s in store for place now.
I also agree with all the comments about Charney being creepy. I’ve read more than enough about him on various blogs.
Are they carrying any of the cool attachments that come with the Hitachi? because if they’re not, you should just go to your local sex-pos sex toy shop and get the hitachi and an attachment.
Also, why would you get your vibrator at a clothing store when you could support local feminist businesses?
/sex toy/smut peddler
Furthermore, leggings and tights will lead to crotch rot because if the cunt can’t breathe it dies (or smell like it). Knee/Thigh high socks or hose are a better choice, though they have a tendency to eventually slip down. Then there is this gator thing? Ah, I forgot the name.
I just stick to wearing loose knee length skirts, and loose gym shorts underneath for the pockets, and when the wind blows up my skirt. This set up is excellent, when it gets too hot I can stick my gym shorts in my bag, or if I want to suddenly climb a tree or whatever I can roll up my skirt and put it away because I have pants underneath.
Also when men wear sweat pants without underwear, and you can see… things… just bobbing around in there.
Even worse … *tights* without underwear. DUDE, *not interested* in the show.
But, then again, I’m queer, what do I know?
Out of curiosity, I wear short-shorts that look basically like this:
http://flickr.com/photos/48782317@N00/1251883629/
Is that inappropriate?
Comments on this entry are closed.