leggings, tights and pants: the distinctions.

pants: i think we all know what pants are.
leggings: stretchy material in a pants-esque shape. may be cotton, shiny, lame, black, pink, etc. NOT sheer. generally do not have pockets or a zippy crotch plus button. except for the sometimes questionable jean leggings.
tights: sheer. can sometimes be of a thicker sweatery material, but still less substantial than leggings.

i am of the thinking that leggings can be worn sans pants, shorts or skirt on top, as long as the shirt worn mostly covers the crotchular region. while leggings will not expose said region, there is always the danger of camel toe. CONSTANT VIGILANCE IS REQUIRED.

tights, on the other hand, SHOULD NEVER BE WORN SANS PANTS, SHORTS OR SKIRT. seriously. they are not designed to cover your lady bits, even if they are of a less sheer knit.

i honestly cant believe that some people need to be told this, but i swear during the first week of school this year i saw a girl walking around wearing ONLY BLACK TIGHTS with a shirt that did not come close to covering her crotchular region. now i know youre probably thinking, come on blair, they were probably just questionable leggings. no. they were not. they were most definitely tights and i know because i stared at this girl for a full five minutes. i could not look away i was so fascinated/horrified.

anyways, apparently the Apparel does not agree with me that leggings can stand on their own. oh well. theyve started including warning labels in their leggings.
image here.

on a semi related note: went out downtown for a friend's birthday last night, and did not realized until this morning that my outfit was entirely american apparel aside from my shoes. im sort of proud and sort of disgusted with myself.