But don’t the tights cover your “modesty” also? This seems to be the conceptual disconnect I am trying to grok here.
Hindi pāyjāmā, pājāmā and Urdu pāyjāma, pājāma, loose-fitting trousers
Jeans == pajamas, but despite some dispute in terminology, neither are sleepwear. (See also dungrī) I had to actually explain this to the local school district two years ago when they complained about parents coming to school in their “pajamas”.
Presumably that would depend on the opacity of the tights, what, if anything, I was wearing under them, and my position on the concept of modesty.
I was kind of assuming they meant leggings, because I don’t know anyone who thinks tights are pants. Except, I suppose, for “workout tights” which are really leggings?
Edit: to add to the confusion, leggings are sold both in the women’s pants section (where they are probably pants) AND in the hosiery/socks/tights section (where they might be pants) of department stores.
What the carp on God’s green earth is this fresh hell!?
I own pinstripe sweatpants, myself.
The look on her face says “I’m being paid to smile at this moment, but I need to go home and re-evaluate my life.”
Hey hey hey! Can you watch the coarse language please?!?
That’s it, I have a series of new inventions.
Pajama high visibility vests.
Sleepwear ten gallon hats.
Nighty night eight inch heels.
Often the question is answered with an implied or explicit “why”. If the implied tone were "what pants should I wear to avoid frostbite?, but nobody said that out loud, it might take a while to determine the context if you only heard several people answering.
Similarly, if two people are answering sligtly differentin implied questions, or even responding to an implication they have each added to an explicit question, that’s exponentially less obvious. Example “What pants should I wear skiing” mught be explicitly asked, but one person answers by also addressing frostbite and the other answers entirely literally.
So, moving forward from there. When people give an opion on what other people should wear, they (at least) may be actually answering the question, or seeing an implied question where nobody asked (like commenting on a strangers tights), etc…
I don’t know really, or agree really, that there are double standards per se, just 7 billion people only tangentially aware of what they’re doing. There are billions of standards
I think my question would be, why be an asshole about someone else’s taste? That’s what makes us unique, the inside stuff. We should celebrate that, and teach others how to also!
One consideration I had forgotten is that in the US, “tights” refers specifically to opaque hose. But in the UK it also refers to sheer see-through garments which would be called “pantyhose” in the US.
Indeed. I suppose that since I have always been at heart a nudist, I always thought of modesty as a bogus, coercive concept. And that, not unlike any other clothing choices that people choose to be offended by, those who don’t like it could instead choose to mind their own business.
But I do appreciate that there are practical reasons to be clothed, that it can be protective and hygienic. So these are the factors I consider with regards to being covered, rather than whether or not they should be used to obfuscate the person wearing them.
I still have problems understanding people talking about pants here.
I used to wear thermal leggings with shorts on top in high school and college. Better insulating than shorts, but cooler than jeans alone. I’m a dude, and yes, I learned to dress that way from scouting. Hiking up in the Cascades you always wear your thermals. It might be sunny right now, but just step into one of the big mountain shadows.
I’m confused by the existence of this discussion.
This is the definition of pants that I’m using:
An outer garment worn by men and women that covers the body from the waist downwards, covering each leg separately, usually as far as the ankles; trousers.
Okay, so let’s break it down into two parts:
garment worn by men and women that covers the body from the waist downwards, covering each leg separately
I don’t think that there’s much argument that tights don’t fit that part of the definition (except that they are worn much more by women than by men, which would only be a valid argument if suit pants, worn much more by men than by women, are similarly excluded).
As far as I can see, the debate is about the first part of he definition, and whether tights are suitable to be worn as an “outer garment.”
As for that part: I’m still confused about the existence of this discussion.
If people can wear bikinis and speedos to the beach, which are far more revealing than tights, how is anything that covers more than that not a suitable outer garment? For that matter, I don’t feel comfortable judging anyone (especially women) by what they choose to wear in public.
I thought you gave up fish puns for Lent…
(I doubt anyone will even recognize the show, episode, and plot)
…
(Yes, I have visited Craggy Island Parochial House)
What? Priests? Don’t tell me I’m still on that feckin’ island!
I was wondering when someone was going to say something about that!
My only real language gaff in the U.K. was telling a 6-year-old girl, whom I’d always seen in dresses but that day was wearing a pair of jeans: “I’ve never seen you in pants before.” Poor little thing. She was so young that she didn’t know it was a language issue.
Is it appropriate to insert a “fanny pack” joke here?
What do you think, young man? 
And that’s barely even approaching the garters/suspenders/braces issue 
Saying a businessman in the UK is wearing suspenders implies that he’s a cross-dresser. Saying a businessman in the US is wearing braces implies he’s got bad teeth or is physically disabled.
I would hate to come off as being a perpetual contrarian, but…
To me it certainly seems that tights do fit that definition. I don’t see it as a gendered popularity contest. There are many traditions of men and/or women alike wearing hose as part of normal attire. And as neither man nor woman that is bound to appear as a false dichotomy to me.
OR it implies to some that he simply takes measures to keep his stockings up. Occam’s razor for simpletons such as myself!
