Most of Dr. Isis's regular blog reading comes in science form. You folks are prolifically wonderful writers and I do my very best to keep up. Still, there are a couple of non-science blogs in the reader. Once of them has been in there a long time and is one of Dr. Isis's favorite guilty pleasures, Go Fug Yourself.
I can't seem to help myself. Some of the things people design and wear crack me up. This week, however, GFY hit a little close to home with a picture of Lindsay Lohan:
Figure 1: Dr. Isis is wearing, basically, this outfit in her office today. Dr. Isis's top is teal and her boots are black but otherwise she and La Lohan are twins.
Heather at GFY writes:
You know what else hasn't changed in the new year? LEGGINGS STILL AREN'T PANTS. Take a memo, Lohan. Jot it down right under "beg Tina Fey to write another movie role for you" and "prune hair extensions."
You know what? Yes they are! Don't hate because I look cute today, Heather! I am far too irrational for that. Also, they are perfectly acceptable manuscript writing pants, so "thhhhhhhhhhhhhhbbbbb!"
Comments
sorry isis, I'm a hater of leggings as pants. I'm sure you're rocking them...
Posted by: ScientistMother | January 7, 2009 3:32 PM
As far as I'm concerned, if you're self-confident enough to squeeze your ass into something that looks like an infant size jumper, more power to ya.
What I don't like about Lohan's outfit is the fact that the "leggings" actually look more like tights, in that I can see her skin through them. So even though this could have been a wicked stylish outfit (as I'm sure Dr. Isis's is), she still looks like a slut.
Posted by: JLK | January 7, 2009 3:41 PM
Hey, hey, hey. Let's all remember Dr. Isis's rules on misogynistic name calling around these parts.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 7, 2009 3:44 PM
GFY is on my feed as well. I
I am sure Dr. Isis looks totally hot, but I only wear leggings under dresses and skirts - otherwise I feel the world is staring at my behind.
Posted by: Miss Outlier | January 7, 2009 4:06 PM
Only with permission, I promise.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 7, 2009 4:15 PM
Only as furtively as I can, I promise.
I only recently have read somewhere, elsewhere, the advice that it was 'alright to look but not to track'. Words I try to live by now, if only to mitigate my 'dirty ol' man' reputation. ...:minism:...
...tom...
.
Posted by: ...tom... | January 7, 2009 4:37 PM
$HERSELF has been very clear about my instructions: "Lech but don't touch."
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 7, 2009 5:07 PM
The major difference is that pants are a lot more forgiving of less-than-perfect figures.
If you've Lindsay Lohan's body you can get away with leggings. Personally I could never carry it off: my legs are too short and too skinny. Plus I'm a man.
Posted by: Me | January 7, 2009 5:13 PM
It's that kind of intolerant social conditioning that ruins so many lives.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 7, 2009 5:23 PM
"What I don't like about Lohan's outfit is the fact that the "leggings" actually look more like tights, in that I can see her skin through them." You can?
I can detect a sort of vaguely linear pattern. It could be "sheerish" alternating with "blacker" or it could be "shinnyish" alternating with "blacker".
You can, however, see her bra quite clearly.
Posted by: Becca | January 7, 2009 5:30 PM
And there goes her hope of passing as our Isis' twin.
Loser. She doesn't even get a chance to display her total lack of science hotness.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 7, 2009 5:39 PM
I'm with Becca. Skin? What skin? I also can't see the bra, so maybe I'm just blind. Although I hasten to add that with Dr.Isis, neither would happen even if I were blind.
Posted by: arvind | January 7, 2009 6:19 PM
I have black shiny leggings very much like Ms. Lohan's. However, I wear mine under shorts for jogging on chilly days. I don't think I could bear to wear them under anything shorter than a skirt. It's not just because I'm self conscious of my bumps and like to wear non-thong underpants (which is a major consideration). It's that the long shirt and leggings look is way too similar to what I wore as a 15-year-old way back in the 80s. What's next, leg warmers? Frilly ankle socks? Giant shoulder pads? The madness must stop!
Posted by: Peggy | January 7, 2009 7:13 PM
That said, Dr. Lohan looks pretty darn hot!
Posted by: gnuma | January 7, 2009 7:33 PM
I LOVE Go Fug Yourself!!
It is possibly the only thing that can cheer me up when I am feeling like this job is not worth it. Except maybe some Tim and Eric:
http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=8a25c39217ab41660117ad6b17df013e
Posted by: Arlenna | January 7, 2009 8:00 PM
Of course they are pants!! One of the best kinds!!!
Posted by: Silver Fox | January 7, 2009 8:54 PM
I hafta agree with Dr. Isis...they are too pants! Well, ok, strictly speaking, they aren't, but they are an acceptable substitute. I like that look because it is soooo comfy and cute.
Posted by: Nekohime | January 7, 2009 10:59 PM
They are most definitely not pants.
I LOVE GFY.
Posted by: ecogeofemme | January 7, 2009 11:02 PM
Yeah - I'm with Peggy. I did the leggings/XXL t-shirt combination at high school in the mid-80's and the photos do NOT bring back pleasant memories. I'm 100% certain that nobody wants/needs to see my butt/thighs jiggling about while I'm at work, unless I'm doing a run/cycle commute and even then, I'm still not convinced that it's in the public interest.
Posted by: Professor in Training | January 7, 2009 11:24 PM
To all the males who answered, or will answer, at any analytical depth beyond 'Looks okay to me; I would do her' , your gay (not that there is anything wrong with that)and simply jealous that your ass doesn't look as hot as hers does.
So, for the record, I think Lohan looks okay and, yes I would do her in a skinny minute. Assuming Dr. Isis wore a similar outfit I think she would look good also and, yes, I would do her too if given half a chance.
And, that is the proper form of for sartorial critique as heterosexual males if you don't want to be mistaken for a Nancy.
Remember that to a heterosexual male clothes on women are entirely superfluous outside of their characteristics of being easily removed and keeping a woman warm so we don't have to do something lame like offer our jacket. I lose more jackets that way. Coloration matters only to the extent that it shouldn't scare the livestock or clash with the paint on my truck. This last point being negotiable if she isn't planning on staying in said clothing for very long. I wouldn't want to be mistaken for being inflexible or unreasonable.
Posted by: Art | January 7, 2009 11:49 PM
I dunno...if you can (regardless of whether you do) wear a skirt, or even real pants, over them without it looking stupid, they're not pants.
Posted by: DrBubbles | January 8, 2009 9:21 AM
Nekohime, you are my new favorite reader. Congratulations!!!
And, PiT, this is horribly disappointing!!! I too did the big sweaters and leggings in the 80s, but this is clearly different! I would have thought the gal who just flashed herself to her neighbor and bragged abotu her 6-pack abs would not lack to confidence for leggings!
Ack! This is close to a fashion mutiny!
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 8, 2009 9:22 AM
My dear Isis, there is a time and a place for leggings. Cycling: yes. Running: yes. Vegetating on couch: yes. Hiking: yes, but only if worn under hiking/waterproof pants. Work: no.
Flashing the neighbor was an accident; wearing leggings to work is pre-meditated. I may have 6-pack abs and chiseled calves that are to die for, but I will admit that my thighs are too muscular for tight-fitting leggings in a non-sport situation. Sigh. Maybe it's just the jealousy talking.
Posted by: Professor in Training | January 8, 2009 10:11 AM
Oh Isis, I had such confidence in your fashion choices. But leggings as pants? Really? I won't tell you the names I have for girls who wear leggings as pants. ;o)
That said, I do love to wear a good pair of leggings in my own home. Not because I don't have the confidence to pull them off at work, but because my labmates already think I'm so good-looking, and I don't need the sentiment to get any more out-of-control. :)
Posted by: Candid Engineer | January 8, 2009 10:28 AM
Ha! I told you in a previous comment in your post with the hot pink boots that leggings are NOT pants, and now the fashion authorities are backing me up!!
Posted by: Disgruntled Julie | January 8, 2009 10:46 AM
Isis, I will continue to back you up on this one! Although I probably wouldn't wear that particular outfit to work - well, never say never, I actually can imagine it!
Posted by: Silver Fox | January 8, 2009 11:25 AM
I wear leggings as pants basically everywhere BUT work. Usually but not always with a longer top. I was around for the 80s but not enough to remember it, really, so I'm protected against the fear of their revival.
Oh and Peggy, I hate to be the one to break the news, but...leg warmers have been back for at least two years.
Posted by: Erin | January 8, 2009 12:16 PM
I don't want to live in a world where ladies can't wear leggings as pants
Posted by: Chris | January 8, 2009 12:20 PM
Sorry. Not pants. It has nothing to do with hot vs. not hot people rocking the fashion. Hot people will wear whatever they want because they are hot. This doesn't change the fact that leggings are not pants. They are tights without feet. (Anything that I put on my 2 year old daughter to keep her legs warm under a dress are not pants.) I still love the boots, though, and would rock them over a pair of slim jeans.
Posted by: KS | January 8, 2009 12:46 PM
>28 where ladies can't wear leggings as pants.
*Ladies* don't. It matters not whether they can.
Posted by: DrBubbles | January 8, 2009 1:35 PM
Well, Dr. Isis, *I* wouldn't call them pants, but that's only because leggings don't have pockets. I have never understood why designers think that women don't need pockets! Where am I supposed to keep my chapstick, keys, cell phone, ID, tissues, etc? I'm not going to lug a *purse* around the lab!
Posted by: JustaTech | January 8, 2009 2:35 PM
Don't hate on the leggings. Ain't nothin' wrong with wearing opaque leggings and, say, a cashmere sweater on multiple occasions (even if not on a job interview). I thought we settled this in the pink boots post.
No one ought to be stuffing their pockets with cell phones or keys or lip balm or any bulky objects, woman or man! This ruins the drape of the clothing! Where's Juniorprof when you need him? Homeboy will back me up!
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | January 8, 2009 3:46 PM
I wore leggings in the eighties and I've bought more every time they've come back around. They're perfectly lovely pants. I'm very sad that my job demands noncasual wear and I can't wear them there.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | January 8, 2009 4:21 PM
Erin: I get most of my current fashion knowledge from observing the local 20-somethings, so I suppose I should be thankful that legwarmers don't seem to have made a local comeback. I'm more concerned about potential return of giant shoulder pads, though, which made me look like I was ready to head to some kind of fashion-forward football practice. Come to think of it, that was part of the reason why the leggings looked so goofy on me - worn with a big-shouldered baggy sweater they gave me the shape of a popsicle.
Posted by: Peggy | January 8, 2009 5:05 PM
no. not pants.
Dr. Isis, please. Put the leggings down and back away from the bureau drawer. You need an intervention.
here...look at the pretty naughty monkeys...
http://zeta.zappos.com/search/%20naughty%20monkeys
Posted by: CanadianChick | January 8, 2009 6:35 PM
They ARE pants. But only in a very specific British sense (see definition h here).
Posted by: Cath@VWXYNot? | January 8, 2009 6:47 PM
==> wears leggings as pants.
Posted by: The Perky Skeptic | January 8, 2009 7:55 PM
I have to admit, when leggings made their comeback, I loudly declared "NEVER AGAIN" in fear of reliving the mid-90s. Then I bought a pair ... and now, leggings rock my socks.
Also, I would classify them under "pants" - they cover your legs and they look great with a sweater dress (especially in the winter when it is too cold for nylons) or a long (fitted) sweater/cardigan (my current favourite look).
Posted by: x-ine | January 11, 2009 10:57 AM
Perky Skeptic and x-ine, thank you for standing up for me! I concur that they are pants and, thus, hereby dub them to be totally acceptable to wear.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 11, 2009 12:57 PM
Now, if I could only find my leggings of a print inspired by Van Gogh's "Starry Night" in neon pink, yellow and orange. Hey, under a long black sweater with high boots, they knock the socks off long before they knock the eyes out!
Er... hope I didn't damage our position statement there. ;)
Posted by: The Perky Skeptic | January 11, 2009 6:10 PM
I'm Dr. Isis' favorite? *swoons*
The comfort factor of the ensemble is more important to me than the cute. I do a cycle commute to school (in LA, yes, I'm kinda crazy), and I hate wearing pants on the bike, so this look is perfect for me. Hop on bike, hop off and do totally hot psych learning, then back on the bike--all without having to change clothes or look like a cycling roadie dork! (With apologies to any cycling dorks/freds around :p)
Posted by: Nekohime | January 12, 2009 12:02 AM