Wednesday, May 19, 2010

TIGHTS AREN'T LEGGINGS, ARE THEY?


Since when was it OK to walk around in public with your knickers on display under your tights? This exact lack of skirt featured in my childhood as a frequently recurring nightmare in which I would go to school as usual only to discover that I had omitted to put my skirt on. This meant that my underpants were fully visible to my peers, this understandably caused much mirth to them and much mortification to me. Therefore I cannot fathom why young women seem to willfully put themselves in this situation, do they not know that footless tights aren’t an acceptable substitute for leggings? To this I would also like to add that unless your physique is comparable Claudia Schiffer’s in 1997, leggings are no substitute for trousers.

Today, on my way down Bold Street in Liverpool, there was a girl walking in front of me whose wide blue and white striped underpants were fully visible under her footless tights. She had coupled this highly questionable lower half with an elegant biscuit coloured satin top, resting perfectly on her hips, leaving her buttocks for all to behold. It didn’t help matters that her posterior was of the flat, low-slung ilk, yet especially jarring was that the unfortunately shaped rump was suspended in nautical, cotton knickers with a shiny, black nylon mesh stretched over it. Worst of all, the seam of the tights, slightly askew, was worming its way up along the girl’s crack, where her hungry buns were slowly devouring the gusset of her sensible pants. Why parade your wardrobe malfunctions in broad daylight?

It is wrong, right? I mean, I don’t mind an accidental flash of someone’s pants, find a VPL reassuring, and if someone is capable of just sporting pants and nothing else with confidence, that is more than fine; but if you are going to risk a pant/tights combo, please keep the pants on the outside and at least pretend that you are doing it on purpose as a homage to a superhero.

Mia Tagg 2010 ©


Mia Tagg 2010 ©


2 comments:

  1. The active courting of minge-invasion shots can be the only answer to the question of motive in Gay Hilton's case.

    As for your Bold Street chum, happen that she would NOT covet the insertion of a camera up her fannoir, except perhaps for some task endoscopical, and as such could either (a) think her pants are awesome enough to warrant such a display; and/or (b) love her granny-bum so much that to sheath it in a material any thicker than 40 denier would be to do it a profound disservice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They remind me of mimes in leotards. But they're not funny.

    ReplyDelete