(In)appropriate Attire, Part II

The March Hare's post brings up an issue over which I have long wanted to fuss and fume. While it is indeed unacceptable to wear mini-to-the-max skirts, not wearing any bottoms at all is, in my not-so-humble opinion, the clothing equivalent of forcing strangers to smell your pits. While some people may have armpits that exude Amortentia instead of sweat (yes, that is a Harry Potter reference. Deal with it), the vast majority of people have smells under there to which no one should be subjected. Just as arms are Baby Jesus' way of saying "Cover up yo stank," pants and skirts are how we normal human beings protect our fellows from being exposed to our hoohoos and jiggle-joggles. So please, ladies of the world, wear some effing pants!!!

No, I am not talking about the "No Pants Subway Ride," which I find hilarious, mostly because I love being on the inside of inside jokes and the outside of outside jokes. Plus I enjoy a self-esteem booster as much as the next gal - I might be having a fat day, but I still look better than Cellulite McCankleson across the way. Which brings me to my main point: clothes are meant to enhance assets and obscure flaws, NOT the other way around. Therefore, I would like to say to womankind across the country (and perhaps across the world? I hope this trend has not spread too far): TIGHTS ARE NOT EQUIVALENT TO PANTS.

As you can see from the link, this is not a novel thesis. However, as a former all-girls-school inmate upon whom were forced dress code rules such as "no spaghetti straps" and "no midriff-baring shirts," I object to such flagrant public camel-toe flaunting. If spaghetti straps and flashes of bellybutton could even remotely be considered too risque to exist in the company of purely womyn and gay male teachers, it seems to me that leggings or tights which expose every curve and bulge of your entire bottom half should be completely outlawed. Keep in mind, I like leggings as much as the next girl. In fact, as a former serious athlete, I could frequently be seen gym-bound in sporty Nike leggings that showed off my thunder thighs. However, the difference between sportswear and regular American Apparel style leggings is THICKNESS. Normal leggings are about as thin as my ever-diminishing patience, and thus do not smooth your cellulite or de-emphasize the outlines of your snatch. Even those super skinny bitches with negative 7% body fat who commit the sin of leggings-as-pants (and you know they're just doing it to be all "hey fatties! look how skinny i am! two of my legs are the size of your pinkie finger!") are still camel toe-ing it up.

In conclusion, and I cannot reiterate this enough, tights are not pants. If your "shirtdress" isn't long enough to cover the bottom of your ass, you need pants or a skirt, PERIOD. That or you need to not mind when I punch you repeatedly in the ovaries.

Postscript: I Googled "period" to see if I could find an amusing image. Instead I found a frighteningly happy-looking naked anime girl holding a white ghost in each hand while blood made out of red smiling animals erupts from her crotch like a volcano of crazy. I am slowly learning that frivolous and undirected Googling is not to be encouraged. However, it does remind me of James Franco on 30 Rock as a dude in love with a body pillow he calls Kimiko. And as I am a huge fan of Everything-That-Is-Or-Ever-Will-Be-James-Franco, this picture also makes me smile a little. So I am now grossed out, smiling, and vaguely confused. Thanks, Google, as always you have made my day just THAT much more interesting.