East Village Rant: Sluttiness Does Not Fashion Make

Yesterday's Thursgay Styles (thank you, Gawker, for that moniker) tells us that a lot of today's female youth is running around town without pants. There's nothing new about going commando, but can you please tell us, smarty-pants Times, the difference between "tights" and "leggings"? The terms are used interchangeably, which could create confusion between sluts and non-sluts. The Times has a responsibility towards its readers, many of them mothers of slutty daughters, to be clear on this point.

"Last Sunday, Rebecca Levy, an account executive with a New York advertising agency, was dressed in a jacket and tunic that barely grazed the tops of her thighs. Underneath she wore nothing but footless tights."

Goodness gracious! Well, as Ruth La Ferla says, "Times change, it seems, and with them what may pass for 'dressed' in polite society."

But as I thought back, way back, to various fashion articles written about five minutes ago, I started to wonder if this was all about leggings. Fashion is all about the detail, and to determine the difference between these phenomena - "footless tights," "tights," and "leggings" - I checked out online underwear emporium Bare Necessities. On the left here, we have a pair of C&C California leggings described by Bare Necessities as:

  • Constructed of stretch, soft cotton
  • Delicate scalloped lace on waist and hem
  • Thin, elastic waistband
  • Perfect to wear with this season's trends

Now on the right we have Hue's footless tights, described as:

  • Modern, footless tights
  • Constructed of semi sheer (emphasis mine), stretch microfiber
  • Designed to fit and flatter average figures

Perhaps, upon reading this description, you feel the same trepidation I felt as the article progressed. There is nothing so frightening as the combination of the words "semi sheer" and "average figures." The photos from the Times provide the proof. Interestingly, the slutty photos were not published online, but luckily for the Times, I have a scanner!

How would you feel if you were the perfectly stylish Collette LoVullo, left, who is wearing opaque leggings, and you were lumped in with slutty coeds Heidi Goldstein and Naomi Stuart, left and right, below? Especially when you, Collette LoVullo, tell the reporter: “It’s important to cover your rear,” she said. “Anything shorter looks a little hoochie mama.” (I bet she didn't use the 1950's-era word "rear," either.)

In Naomi Stuart's case, I think you can almost see her hoochie mama. Imagine riding up a subway escalator behind that thing. Fortunately, she lives in St. Louis - always a sign that one is on the cutting edge of fashion.

There's nothing new here, folks. The old 80's rule still holds true. The genius of sluts is they can take any article of clothing, even a school uniform, and make it slutty. Ergo, tights with nothing covering your ass = slut with no fashion sense; leggings under long sweater = fashion. Even Madonna knew the difference.


Anonymous said...

I love De Hoochie Mama!

Anonymous said...

Hahaha... this is why I stay away from the trend altogether. But thanks for the clarification. Gross, the girl with the huge smile and her butt sticking out.