The Case for Leggings: Do's and Don'ts/Dainty versus Dumpy

I've never been a legging nazi or a member of the POP (Pants Only Patrol). I own quite a few pairs of leggings myself; I frequent AA (American Apparel, not Alcoholics Anonymous). I wear them in a variety of ways: an extra layer under a dress when it's super cold, an extra layer under one of those questionable tunics; you know, too-long-to-be-a-top-but-doesn't-quite-cut-it-as-a-dress; and yes, on occasion, I have worn them under sweaters or long tops essentially as pants. Note to card-carrying POP members: No need to go all Naomi Campbell on me; please read my reasonings about this magical garment before you throw a fit or pass judgment. The picture to the left is perfect evidence that, despite what all the hataz may say, LEGGINGS ARE, IN FACT, A GREAT THING and CAN be pulled off (and not just by the Olsen twins, although I feel like I'm going to die from an Exposure to Olsen-ian Fabulousness Overdose whenever I see that picture. Can I just be the long-lost third Olsen right now please?)

I am very pro-leggings; however, like the rest of the world I have seen them mis-worn on more than one occasion. It breaks my heart and burns my eyes, thus I have come up with some guidelines for donning leggings. The following are the most pertinent:
1. Coverage.
2. Context.
3. Contrast.

Explanations:
1. COVERAGE. We've all seen her: the unfortunate soul who bought her leggings in a poorly-lit shop and didn't realize that THEY ARE COMPLETELY SEE THROUGH. (Ok, and admittedly, there are people who bought their leggings in a shop with perfectly adequate lighting YET THEY DO NOT CARE THAT THE LEGGINGS ARE COMPLETELY SEE THROUGH. Whatever. I can't help people who won't help themselves.) The problem, however, is not just that they are completely transparent, but that the garment chosen for top-half-wear does not completely cover the backside. Ashley Olsen has even messed up in this regard-her shirt is slightly shorter than necessary:



Granted, she still looks near-perfect, but Ashley is the exception, not the rule. Also, her CONTEXT (see Rule 2) makes this T-shirt pretty okay...she was clearly just heading to pick up coffee. Generally, though, stay on the safe side and make sure your top comes down and covers adequately.

2. CONTEXT. Throwing on a hoodie (one that adequately covers, see Rule 1), leggings, and UGGs, or a long cozy flannel top over leggings and wellies (lumberjack chic) is all well and good for a long day in the library, a coffee run, trip to the drive-thru, etc. There are just some occasions in life where it is ok to be dumpy-chic, and dumpy-chic can be cute in the right time and place (better flannel and leggings than sweatpants and hoodie, right?) HOWEVER, if you're wearing leggings as your primary bottom-half-garment in public, somewhere other than Wal-Mart/Starbucks/McDonald's/college library, class it up with something semi-dressy on top; college classes, downtown shopping, lunch dates etc. are not dumpy-chic occasions. Contrast Ashley's Kova & T legging look below with the picture you just saw:



3. CONTRAST. Leggings are some of the few tight, fitted garments that can actually be really forgiving and flattering (IF you purchase the right kind...more on that later). To maximize flattery, wear a contrasting shape on top. We've already covered how the top should cover yo' bee-hind. Now aim for an interesting silhouette. Choose a billowy cardigan over a mid-length tank (not tightly fit). Bottom line: you don't want an all-over '80s spandex workout look. Rachel Bilson (love her) and Rihanna NAIL it below:



Also think back to how unbearably chic Mary-Kate & Ashley looked sitting front row at Chanel in their leggings (top photo). It's all in their balanced fit/aesthetic proportions. CONTRAST. (Also, remember the picture where Ashley's shirt wasn't technically QUITE long enough, but she managed to pull it off since she was simply on a coffee run? Well, look closely. Part of that was the contrast between her super-caz leggings and sky-high heels/fabulosity-oozing handbag. You know, that mixture of high-low/dumpster-department store that Karl Lagerfeld and Diane von Furstenberg have come to worship the Olsens for.) Don't wear a skintight turtleneck or supershort tube top with leggings. That ought to go without saying.

REMEMBER: Coverage. Context. Contrast.

Moving on to another issue: Cost.
I don't want to be a snob, but the old adage is true: You get what you pay for. It may not apply to everything in the world, but when it comes to leggings, if you truly want to wear them without disgracing your grandmother's name you must be willing to shell out a little extra for a sturdy pair. Let's face it, if you fork over $10 for Miley Cyrus's "Liquid Leggings" at Wal-Mart, it's going to show. Slightly difficult to continue your carefree Partying in the USA once your seams split and Miley leaves you in the cold. (somehow Herve Leger/BCBG icon Max Azria's name is attached to these liquid...things; all I can say is...huh??). Cheapo leggings are acceptable for Halloween parties (but remember the previous warning, and also remember to wear a top that covers sufficiently) and dance classes. And that's about it. If your interest is in everyday wear, you will need a tried-and-true, quality pair; try Kova & T, Bop Basics from Shopbop, or Rachel Pally. Also, American Apparel has a wondrous invention called the "Winter Legging" which is less expensive than the aforementioned brands; the Winter Leggings are also thicker (aka warmer, aka NOT AT ALL TRANSPARENT) than their classic Cotton Spandex Jersey Legging. Bonus: They're thicker but DON'T let that lead you to believe that they'll "add weight" to you-they don't appear any bulkier at all! The Winter Legging, at $38, is also $12 more expensive, but that's a small price to pay for a garment that is worlds more flattering (and more practical) than some of its counterparts. Say it with me now: You get what you pay for.

2 very important side notes: 1. Faux-denim "jeggings" (read: jean leggings) are another issue altogether and since they are a relatively new trend I haven't seen too many distasteful uses of them...YET. However with a name like "jeggings" i'm having trouble believing that these will be completely non-problematic during their reign as the hot new legwear.

^"Jeggings" by Joe's Jeans, a tried-and-true denim brand. You know, I like leggings, but why the need for faux-denim? Why not just invest in some solid Joe's leggings...or a pair of Joe's (actual) Jeans?

2. I will defend leggings like Bill Clinton defended the ambiguity of the word "is." However, there is one disturbing trend a little bit reminiscent of leggings-as-pants (except HORRIFYING) that i will never view as anything other than a huge threat to society. Click here to find out all you need to know. Spread the word.