Megan Fox falls foul of “leggings are not pants” rule

Megan Fox in leggings

Repeat after us, Megan: “Leggings are not pants. Leggings are not pants. Leggings are not pants.”

Not even when they have a funny little wrinkled “skirt” bit at the top, that doesn’t even cover the crotch. 

NOT LEGGINGS.

Got it?

OK, as you were.

7 Comments

  • November 25, 2009

    EricB

    I still think she can wear anyhing and nobody will notice. Only when she does not wear anything, they will notice.

    View Comment
  • November 25, 2009

    naomi

    the weird ankle bagginess is incongruous with the tightness everywhere else…also wtf is that odd skirt thingy anyways?!

    View Comment
  • November 26, 2009

    Katie

    Even better than that, the sign in the back says “penis” in Japanese.

    On topic, the outfit is not only breaking a fundamental rule, it’s also completely random and that pink is probably the most awful pukey pink I’ve ever seen.

    View Comment
  • November 26, 2009

    Melanthios

    I don’t… I’m not quite sure what ‘leggings’ even means anymore. When I was little and wore leggings, they were made of stretchy cotton, not the same material that stockings and tights were made of. Are ‘leggings’ now just tights without feet? If so, then I don’t want people wearing them without something covering their hips.

    View Comment
  • November 28, 2009

    kevie

    These look more like a bad body-stocking than leggings. Plus, it looks like half of her Wonder Bra is escaping her top.

    View Comment
    • November 28, 2009

      The Fashion Police

      They do, don’t they? I think the weird colour is the main problem – it almost looks like skin, only skin that’s really cold and/or bruised. I think if they’d been black (or another dark colour) it would’ve looked much better (although I still think leggings are best worn with something covering the crotch!)

      View Comment
  • December 2, 2009

    Carla

    leggings work great as pants

    View Comment