Tights Are Not Pants

I'm not sure if any of you have been around college undergraduates recently, but those of us who have (The Atlantic's offices are right by the GWU campus) have noticed a somewhat distressing trend toward young women wearing tights as pants. Under the circumstances, I thought I might take the opportunity to plug the work of the good people at TightsAreNotPants.com who are trying to point out that tights are, in fact, not pants.

This comes to me via Nylon magazine which it seems also has a print feature on this in their May issue.

Comments

Yglesias specializes in douches. That's what he knows about. That's what he does.

Posted by Petey | May 31, 2008 9:57 AM

Yeah, this is really distressing. Nothing drives me up the wall like young women wearing anything tight. Seriously, this might be the worst attempted meme since the "Blow Jobs: Never Before 8 PM" movement back in '82.

@Petey: Ah, raising the level of discourse as usual early on a Saturday morning, eh, Creepy Matthew Yglesias Stalker Guy?

Posted by moff | May 31, 2008 10:14 AM

Seriously!

80s aerobics videos = not sexy.
Ballet class = not sexy.

So who in their right mind would think that tights-as-pants would be sexy? Why not add a sweatband, crimped hair, and ballet shoes while you're at it?

But seriously, American women seem to be afflicted by chronically bad fashion. Remember "Capri pants"? If SUVs were an item of clothing, they'd be Capri pants.

Posted by Mr. Noah | May 31, 2008 10:21 AM

Let me echo the comments of the distinguished Senator from the State of Moff. Young women in tight clothing are a part of the American way of life-- a national resource that should be cherished and held sacred.

Posted by James Gary | May 31, 2008 10:27 AM

I'm not sure if any of you have been around college undergraduates recently, but those of us who have (The Atlantic's offices are right by the GWU campus) have noticed a somewhat distressing trend toward young women wearing tights as pants

Oh it's distressing alright. Distressing the front of my pants...because of all the boners I get looking at them.... which in turn stretch my pants...because of my ample penis.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 31, 2008 10:31 AM

Seriously. You think this is disturbing?

Posted by drjimcooper | May 31, 2008 10:39 AM

I'm with Matt and Noah, there's much more attractive clothing out there than (often oddly colored) tights.

When I was in college I remember it became the fashion for girls to wear pajamas around all day. I had no problem with it as long as understood it to simply be a sign that it was now acceptable to be too lazy to put pants on (an idea I was very sympathetic to at the time), but when I discovered that many girls would change out of the cloths they actually slept in, and put on going-out-pajamas I was perplexed. Maybe that's when I relized I would never understand the "trendy" aspect of fashion.

Posted by JK | May 31, 2008 10:52 AM

I miss campus life, especially in the spring when the skankwear comes out.

But I hope the tights thing doesn't migrate to older women if they haven't kept themselves in fighting trim. Maybe it's just the big govt liberal in me, but there ought to be a license to go below certain minimal levels of coverage.

Posted by aleks | May 31, 2008 10:54 AM

drjimcooper's first post wins.

Posted by Andrew | May 31, 2008 11:03 AM

I too work near the GWU campus, and have found my afternoon walk to the Metro increasingly enjoyable lately

Posted by dirty old man | May 31, 2008 11:08 AM

We must put a stop to these college girls in their tight clothing!

Usage note: isn't the word "douche" normally reserved for males? I've never heard anyone in my life call a woman a "douche" or a "douche bag."

Posted by jim | May 31, 2008 11:12 AM

I wish someone would tell the buff MALE students that tights are pants. Codpieces optional.

Posted by CParis | May 31, 2008 11:13 AM

The less pants women wear the better.

Posted by John Emerson | May 31, 2008 11:20 AM

Just as an addendum, though, I think there is a way that tights-as-pants can work: if they're combined with a long jacket and a pair of Uggs in the winter. That look is kind of sexy, actually. It's pretty popular here in Michigan these days.

As for the pajama look, I'm really sad to see it go out of style. Also, hip-hugging cargo pants - weren't those great?

Posted by Mr. Noah | May 31, 2008 11:25 AM

Usage note: isn't the word "douche" normally reserved for males? I've never heard anyone in my life call a woman a "douche" or a "douche bag."

Posted by jim | May 31, 2008 11:12 AM

I thought that was weird too. I thought it was another attempt to find a male equivalent to "bitch."

Posted by aleks | May 31, 2008 11:25 AM

It could very well be argued that pants and so called 'tights' are a construct of subsets, in which tights are a subset of pants. The universally accepted definition is thus:

"A garment extending from the waist to the knee or
ankle, covering each leg separately."

I think this argument is a distinction without a difference, and ultimately a charade designed as a marketing tool in order to distract young men and women from...from...from, uh, what my 61 year old wife would call 'sloppy seconds.'

McCain-Clinton 2008!

Posted by Professore Emiliono Bistardinetti | May 31, 2008 11:28 AM

I don't understand what il professore said, but I'm changing my answer to agreement.

Posted by aleks | May 31, 2008 11:32 AM

Uh, what, exactly, is disturbing about women wearing tights?

Posted by josephdietrich | May 31, 2008 11:36 AM

This post is useless without pics.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | May 31, 2008 11:42 AM

Skirts are not pants, either.

Are you going to come out against skirts too?

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 31, 2008 11:50 AM

Every man Jack here is eager to shout his approval for tight clothing on women, but at least remind yourselves that every new skanky revealing fashion trend always gets worn by 100 ugly heifers for every 1 smokin filly.

Posted by Bill | May 31, 2008 11:52 AM

Matt, this is just a weird post. The pictures I found ostensibly being women wearing tights as pants are actually women wearing short shorts with tights, or short skirts with tights, or long shirts with tights. I've been seeing that since the 60's and miniskirts. I found only one picture of a woman wearing just tights with underwear beneath. My daughter noted that she looked about as confused as anyone caught without pants in public might look - and probably doesn't count.

Posted by wvng | May 31, 2008 12:01 PM

Aleks, there's already 2 male equivilent words for 'bitch'. They are 'dick' and 'prick'. Sometimes dick is elongated to 'dickhead', but only usually among older people. There's a gender neutral term for it as well, 'asshole'.

I believe 'douche bag' is an attempt to find a term for it that isn't considered an obscenity.

Posted by Soullite | May 31, 2008 12:07 PM

Although it's your blog and you can say whatever you want, I just want to say that I want back the minute I spent reading this post and skimming the comments.

Posted by mwg | May 31, 2008 12:09 PM

From the following article:

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/node/8132#

"Muslims’ modest clothing shouldn’t prevent anyone from trying sports, Huq says. “We do everything, it’s just differently. There’s not as many restrictions as people think.” This fall, for a beginning running class, she ran wearing tights, a big shirt, and a loose-fitting scarf."

You see, Muslim women wear tights when they play sports or go jogging. Obviously, the women who wear tights are leftist, defeatist, anti-American traitors who supporting Islamic terrorism and global jihad.

Michelle Malkin

Posted by Michelle Malkin | May 31, 2008 12:11 PM

Socal, I'll come out against skirts. Legs never did anything for me, personally. All skirts do, unless they are the very short and clingy type, is obscure a woman's ass. Tights though, I'm all for that. Anything that clings to a woman's backside is a pleasant fashion trend as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by Soullite | May 31, 2008 12:12 PM

Aleks, there's already 2 male equivilent words for 'bitch'. They are 'dick' and 'prick'. Sometimes dick is elongated to 'dickhead', but only usually among older people. There's a gender neutral term for it as well, 'asshole'.

I believe 'douche bag' is an attempt to find a term for it that isn't considered an obscenity.

Posted by Soullite | May 31, 2008 12:07 PM

Have you heard a girl called a douche bag or an asshole? I haven't, so I think both of those, as well as dick, prick, fag (yes, obviously it's a gay specific slur, but it's usually directed against guys the director doesn't truly believe are gay), cocksucker, and bastard are all generally male equivalents of bitch.

Posted by aleks | May 31, 2008 12:24 PM

douche -> louche

Posted by ndm | May 31, 2008 12:32 PM

Tight clothes and skirts are made of win.

Posted by Gozer | May 31, 2008 12:53 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | May 31, 2008 12:55 PM

MATT SHUT UP.

ANY ATTEMPTS TO COME TWIXT 'WOMAN' AND 'TIGHT,' IN ANY FORM, IS COUNTER TO MY WEEN.

WE LIKE OUR WOMEN TIGHT.

WE LIKE THEIR CLOTHING TIGHT.

WE LIKE IT WHEN THEY TIGHTEN UP THAT FIGURE.

MOST OF ALL, WE LIKE IT WHEN THEY TIGHTEN UP THEIR SPENDING HABITS

YAH, THAT'S TIGHT.

Posted by KOOL KEITH'S RETARDED CLONE | May 31, 2008 2:01 PM

Aleks: Yes, I've heard girls and women called 'assholes' before. You're right about 'Douche', though. I've never heard it used to refer to women. It's kind of bizarre when you think of it, really. But my point is that they all essentially mean the same thing, a mean/rude person who acts out of either spite or with the complete disregard of other people.

Posted by soullite | May 31, 2008 2:17 PM

Let me second Matt's denunciation of women wearing clothing that reveals their shape. This I shall not abide!

Posted by Brad | May 31, 2008 2:26 PM

Seriously, this is a movement I can get behind. I'm no fashionista, but I often wonder how many college girls actually look in the mirror before leaving their apartment.

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg | May 31, 2008 2:32 PM

Ahaha! That made me smile!
http://seoanalytic.com

Posted by Dragos | May 31, 2008 2:32 PM

This post has really brought out the best from the MY.com community.

I wait to hear from Rap Scold Douthat.

Posted by otto | May 31, 2008 2:50 PM

This reminded me of something else I had seen.

http://armsandinfluence.typepad.com/armsandinfluence/2008/05/pants-against-n.html

Posted by Will | May 31, 2008 3:08 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by joejoejoe | May 31, 2008 3:09 PM

Like, remember back when in the future the cool kids were all going to wear skintight monocolor unisex bodysuits?

And then back when we laughed at the idea that the cool kids would all wear skintight monocolor unisex bodysuits?

And then Dov Charney?

Posted by Senescent | May 31, 2008 3:17 PM

mwg @ 12:09 pm:

Me, too.

Posted by Edward, the mad shirt grinder | May 31, 2008 3:36 PM

mwg @ 12:09 pm:

Me, too.

Posted by Edward, the mad shirt grinder | May 31, 2008 3:39 PM

Reminds one of the answer Robert Mitchum gave when some reporter asked him: "What makes a woman good in bed?"

Mitchum: "Proximity"

Posted by Trevor | May 31, 2008 3:46 PM

I've used and maybe overused the terms "douche" and "douchebag" in the past few years. However, after doing some recent high school and college newspaper advising and then picking up some bartending shifts at my old job from college, I must declare that the people now using this term the most are undoubtedly who it was supposed to describe.

Posted by Mike | May 31, 2008 4:50 PM

One might also say -- and I wish someone would -- that "Pants Are Not Shorts." With the advent of the warm weather, once again young men are appearing in public wearing what I think they think are shorts -- but if they were perhaps one millimeter longer people would be saying, "Why are your pants so short?" Seriously, doesn't wearing "legwear" that's that long defeat the purpose of wearing shorts in the first place?

Posted by navamske | May 31, 2008 4:56 PM

I don't know if I am the first to say it (too lazy to read all the comments) but this really does make the distinction between pants (underwear) and trousers (well, pants on you side of the pond I guess) in British English all the more important.

Posted by tadhgin | May 31, 2008 4:57 PM

One might also say -- and I wish someone would -- that "Pants Are Not Shorts." With the advent of the warm weather, once again young men are appearing in public wearing what I think they think are shorts -- but if they were perhaps one millimeter longer people would be saying, "Why are your pants so short?" Seriously, doesn't wearing "legwear" that's that long defeat the purpose of wearing shorts in the first place?

Posted by navamske | May 31, 2008 4:58 PM

GWU girls in tights? Can we have some pictures please?

Posted by Chasm | May 31, 2008 6:39 PM

Judging from my perspective as a het male at a large university two hours south of DC:

Tights as primary legware=crazy awesome!

However:

1) As I think someone said above, the ladies generally aren't wearing tights as pants per se, but under a skirt or a long sweater;

2) if they're not, most of the time they're either jogging or going to/coming from the gym.

Conclusion: tights are far less douchey than the midriff-baring jeans that were the previous tacky fashion trend, in part because tights tend to flatter a greater variety of body types. Lowcut jeans make all girls who aren't model-thin look unconfortable.

Posted by thafunx | May 31, 2008 7:09 PM

As I think someone said above, the ladies generally aren't wearing tights as pants per se, but under a skirt or a long sweater

That was the case one/one and a half years ago. Nowadays, the tights are worn without anything over them.

Posted by in high school | May 31, 2008 7:34 PM

Anyone willing to denounce capri pants has clearly never worn them. They are awesome. They are not pants. They allow a bit of breeze on your leg. They show off sexy ankles and sometimes calves. They aren't shorts so you can wear them to work. They are short enough to motivate you to shave but not short enough to make you feel naked. They make your legs look longer. They give us short women regular length pants to wear. (Yes, I've worn wide-leg capris as real linen pants. I'm not ashamed.) And, they're cute as hell. Also, they make you feel really springy without making you look underage. Short shorts are for 16 year olds.

http://islandsurf.com/images/products/large/473766_stn_LG.jpg

Look! Look at the awesome cute!

Posted by brenna | May 31, 2008 8:23 PM

yea. anyways, pts for guy who did "distressing" a la family guy, the guy who equated attractive women to fillys.... and those who managed a discussion over douche while not high. i'm sure there were others but not everyone can win.

Posted by maeniel | May 31, 2008 8:47 PM

This generation has fashion troubles.

I don't think they know a thing about raising children either.

Posted by Linus | May 31, 2008 10:39 PM

I wouldn't call it "troubling" - my God, how? - but if it reduces the number of sundresses being worn, that would be a bad thing.

Posted by TL | June 1, 2008 1:06 AM

Every man Jack here is eager to shout his approval for tight clothing on women, but at least remind yourselves that every new skanky revealing fashion trend always gets worn by 100 ugly heifers for every 1 smokin filly.

That's the price we pay for progress. Only a Luddite would complain.

Posted by beowulf | June 1, 2008 1:35 AM

They make your legs look longer.

No they don't. The other points you made I can agree with, but Capri pants make your legs look shorter.

Posted by BP | June 1, 2008 2:36 AM

Whether or not you find something attractive should have zero impact on whether strangers wear it. As strange as it may sound, other people may have priorities that they rank higher than your viewing pleasure.

Posted by cminus | June 1, 2008 8:18 AM

Male tights are traditional and, as I just discovered, amazingly affordable.

Posted by piotr | June 1, 2008 6:50 PM

They make your legs look longer.

Maybe capris really do that, but they also make your hips look 5 ft wide.

Posted by jacobus | June 1, 2008 11:28 PM

some gay men do not like women

Posted by just sayin' | June 2, 2008 12:09 AM