Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good gosh, there are a lot of skimpy clothes in view today, but y'all must have forgotten the late 60's and early 70's. I remember wearing hot pants to the office (my boss certainly never complained) and buying tunic-length tops to wear as dresses. Mini-skirts, the shorter the better, were de rigeur for all my friends. The only difference I can think of between then and now was we didn't have much cleavage exposed, nor did we have our navels in sight. Otherwise, it was pretty wild back then!
I think there are a variety of reasons for the people who complain about lack of modesty and declining morals...
Between 1795-1820 English and French fashion for the upper classes dictated showing the human form beneath clothing. Men's fashions were very fitted and tight. Women's fashions were sheer and you could see the breasts beneath. Women often chose to dampen the muslin fabric to make it cling and some rouged the areolas.
That's just one example, as there are countless ones throughout history.
Each generation is not getting more hedonistic, immodest, or spoiled. Some people are more modest than others, and it has been that way for all of human history.
OP, I don't see the semi-transparent-type yoga pants or leggings where I live. If that's what you're complaining about, it makes more sense. But I might consider it another weird variation on on tendencies toward revealing dress in the past: mini-skirts, low-cut blouses, etc.
Really, you haven't seen anything outrageous until you've been to Russia, and seen the women there wearing tiny black spandex skirts that ride up over their rears whenever they have to bend over. This is common for restaurant workers. Even the guys I was with on one trip were put off, and asked why so many young women dress like prostitutes, and don't care how much they show. And this is not a recent trend. It's been going on since the USSR crashed.
With the word "covered" it seems you're overlooking the main effect of yoga pants, i.e. the visual appearance of nudity without actual skin showing. They are ridiculously form-fitting. Do women somehow not see them as men do?
I don't see how they're any different then most other pants or skirts/dresses in terms of showing off the shape of a woman's body. I am wearing a dress today that doesn't show any cleavage, is flowy, and goes down to about my knees. But guess what? Anyone can still tell that I have breasts, a butt and all the other parts that any other human being has. And since it doesn't go down to my ankles you can also see the shape of my legs!
Yoga pants do not make a person look nude. There is a big difference between being naked and wearing these:
Well, surely you've noticed that leggings aka yoga pants (and jeggings) are a lot more common as casual public wear in the past X years (maybe 5, maybe 10)?
Leggings are NOT aka yoga pants.
They are distinctly different articles of clothing.
I don't see how they're any different then most other pants or skirts/dresses in terms of showing off the shape of a woman's body. I am wearing a dress today that doesn't show any cleavage, is flowy, and goes down to about my knees. But guess what? Anyone can still tell that I have breasts, a butt and all the other parts that any other human being has. And since it doesn't go down to my ankles you can also see the shape of my legs!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.