| Bruno |
05-07-2012 03:30 PM |
Re: Clothing in Spaaaaaaace!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2
(Post 1367582)
Remember the miniskirt-legging combo? That alway struck me, objectively, as rather odd (wear a dress designed to show off the legs, and cover the legs anyway.)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wellspring
(Post 1367792)
Not just odd. It strikes me as very, very sad.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by roguebfl
(Post 1367811)
Not that odd. Consider this the skirt/dress vs pants when looked at as feminine vs masculine. The look at from warm and mobility issue. Skirt + leggings gives back the mobility and warm while remaining a feminine outfit.
|
80's child checking in here: It's a brilliant compromise position for teenagers looking to try to scandalize their parents without getting grounded.
The thick opaque tights or leggings with stirrups + Miniskirt combo is far more revealing than slacks or the contemporary baggy 80s rapper pants for boys. Like Hose in the Elizebethan area, they show off every curve of your legs.
However, they hide your complexion so any funny spots are concealed, shaving your legs becomes far less critical, and you're still able to argue with your parents that you're still wearing pants. It's also much warmer than miniskirt+nothing but panties (or nothing at all).
Of course, the 80's generation were children of 60s and 70s parents, who invented the miniskirt. In actual practice it seems a lot of moms remembered that, and thought the whole leggings thing to be somewhere between funny and adorable.
The baggy legwarmers on the other hand were just an attempt to balance out the incredibly baggy sweater/tunic with the tight waist belt struggling to define your middle in there somewhere. Same opaque tights, no miniskirt (the huge sweater/tunic serves as a short dress), and without either huge boots or the baggy legwarmers, your legs would look like ridiculous pipe cleaners holding up a melting egg.
It all made some sense. It was also all very stupid looking. :D |