(Did anyone else read that line to the tune of Salt n’ Pepa’s ‘Let’s Talk About Sex’? Because, if so, our work here is done.)
For the past few months, you see, our fashion friends have been getting very, very excited about tights. This happens every year, and is part of the whole “OMG Autumn is my favourite season!” trend evident in fashion blogging, and the excitement mostly revolves around all of the good things that tights bring to the world of style. For instance:
1. They keep your legs warm. Well, d’uh.
2. Thick tights make it possible to get away with wearing shorter skirts than you’d wear with bare legs.
3. Brightly coloured tights add a multitude of styling possibilities to your closet, and also have the ability to make a plain outfit look instantly more interesting.
4. Don’t love your legs? Tights to the rescue!
So tights, as you can see, are beloved by fashionistas for many, many good reasons.
Despite this, though, we hate them.
Now, we have to make it clear here that we don’t hate the way tights LOOK. We’re fine with the way they look. Sometimes we even like it. So we would in no way say tights were a crime of fashion, and we very much agree with each of the four positives above.
We still hate wearing them, though, and every year, as women across the land start to enthuse about the prospect of slipping into a pair of opaque tights AT LAST, we look forward to tights season with dread. This is mostly because we find them just plain uncomfortable. The way the crotch always seems to be heading towards your knees, forcing you to haul it up every few steps. The saggy knees. The toe seam, when it gets caught underneath your toe making you feel like there’s something stuck in your shoe. That feeling of being tightly encased from waist to toe. HATE. IT. And sure, some brands are better than others, and not all tights are horribly uncomfortable, but even the most comfortable pair of tights is less comfortable than an outfit that doesn’t involve tights.
We realise we’re alone in our hatred of the fashion-lover’s BFF, however, so please feel free to share your love of tights in the comments section now. Do you love them? Or do you look forward, like us, to the days when you can go without them once more?
Buy “nude” tights: they… don’t. Ever noticed how so-called “flesh toned” hosiery is only ever available in ONE shade: and how it’s a shade that’s only really “flesh toned” or “nude” on people who have mid-toned Caucasian skin? The models above in the image above, for instance, are not wearing tights.
Now they ARE:
It’s not great, is it? Sure the two women on the far right ended up with legs which look more or less like their own skin, only smoother. It’s a different story for the two on the left, however, who now look like they’re wearing someone else’s legs. (The girl second from left is wearing someone else’s shoes, too. She clearly drew the short straw on this assignment.) This is a bummer, especially now that Kate Middleton has single-handedly (or should that be single-leggedly?) made nude hosiery fashionable again.
Don’t worry, though, for help is at hand, in the shape of Debenhams new “invisible” skin tone hosiery, which they’re claiming is “a first for the high street” in that the tights are available in a range of different shades, including “bronze” and “coffee” along with lighter tones such as “beige” and “honey”.
Here are the same four models wearing tights from the new range:
Much better.
Now we just need the same thing to happen with the “nude” shoe: sure, there are some ranges which include “nudes” for different skin tones (Christian Louboutin does this, but not everyone can afford his prices), but when it comes to high street shoes, if it’s “nude” it’s normally a pale beige. But that’s another story for another day. For now, Debenhams’ new tights range is priced at £3.50 per pair: they don’t seem to be available online yet, but you’ll be able to find them in store, and hopefully online soon.
It’s tights season: what better way to celebrate than by making your legs look like they have fins? And lacy fins, at that!
The presence of the fins isn’t the worst thing about this picture, though. Nor is the fact that the model appears to be wearing a fur coat, shorts and a pair of patent workboots. No, the worst thing about this photo, and the main reason this counts as a SOCK HORROR is the fact that these tights? These tights are £129. One. Hundred. And. Twenty. Nine. Pounds. That’s over TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS. For tights. Ugly tights. Ugly, finned tights. And yes, we know they’re OMGWOLFORD, but seriously, this whole “Oh, but Wolford tights are SO worth $200!” crap has to stop. No tights are worth $200. In fact, no tights are even worth $100. Especially not sheer tights, because let’s face it, this is not an investment that will pay you back over a period of many long years. In fact, in the clumsy hands of someone like the Chief of Police, say – or anyone who owns a cat/dog/small child/other being liable to ladder your sheer hosiery – we’d estimate the cost-per-wear of something like this to be around about, ooh, $200.
A quick reminder:
Do these look like something you’d pay $200 for? Click here if you answered “yes”…
As the nation’s obsession with Kate Middleton continues, the latest news from brands desperate to be mentioned in the same sentence as the Duchess of Cambridge, is that Kate is responsible for a huge rise in the sale of sheer hosiery.
Selfridges is reporting a 40″ increase in sales of sheer tights since this time last year, while TightsPlease are doing even better, with a 90″ increase in sales of their “Kate Middleton style” nude tights.
For Kate Middleton herself, of course, shiny, sheer tights have absolutely nothing to do with fashion: they’re purely a matter of royal protocol, which dictates that female members of the royal family should always wear hosiery, and closed-toe shoes. (Kate slipped up on that one, by the way, when she wore a pair of LK Bennett sandals to a polo match last week in California. Don’t worry, Kate, we won’t tell…) It’s always possible that Kate would chose to always wear tights anyway, regardless of that fact, but it has to be noted here that she is operating under a very different set of “rules” from most of us.
Sheer tights and the Kate Middleton effect
As for the rest of us, however, it would probably be fair to say that until the so-called Kate Middleton effect took hold, sheer hosiery, especially of the “nude” variety, had rather fallen out of fashion. In fact, unless you have an occupation with a dress code which forbids bare legs, or are a lady of a certain age, for whom the very idea of bare legs goes against a lifetime of fashion teaching, it’s entirely possible that you don’t even own a pair of nude tights. Opaque tights, yes: in fact, over the past few years, opaque tights have stopped being simply undergarments, and started being fashion items in their own right, with brands constantly bringing out new colours and patterns. You may even own some fishnets, or lace tights, or tights in some other fabric or style.
But the sheer, shiny nylons of the 70s and 80s? We’re going to take a guess that they probably haven’t had much of a role in your fashion life, at least not within the past few years, when it’s been pretty much a case of bare legs or opaques, with nothing in between. Memories of the American Tan of the 80s have made sheer hosiery seem dated and fussy to some generations of women – and, of course, the fact that sheer tights tend to ladder easily and aren’t always the most comfortable things in the world to wear don’t help much either.
Sheer hosiery makes a comeback, nothing new under the sun
Of course, there was a time when bare legs were seen as a serious fashion faux pas. That time wasn’t even particularly long ago: in fact, any time we write about the issue of tights with sandals, we can guarantee we’ll get a selection of comments from women who were raised to believe that a lady never goes bare-legged, and who can’t imagine deviating from that rule, especially in the workplace. So if, indeed, sheer hosiery is making a comeback, it’s just one more example of fashion coming full-circle.
Do you wear sheer hosiery?
Never mind Kate Middleton, though: we want to hear about you, the woman on the street. Or on the internet, rather. What’s your take on sheer tights? Do you wear them? Would you wear them? Are you starting to see them as “fashion” item now that they’ve been given the royal seal of approval -albeit as a matter of protocol – or will you be sticking to your trusty opaques or nothing at all, and letting the royals keep all the sheer tights for themselves?
In other words: what do you think of sheer hosiery?
(Bracing ourselves for the usual male-generated nylon-fetish comments on this one…)
So, did everyone have a good New Year? Did you do anything exciting? And did you wear a pair of eyeballs on your knees while you were doing it? No? Shame on you. If only we’d posted these images before New Year’s Eve!
Still, these tights are all part of the current hosiery collection by Les Queues de Sardines, which means you still have the opportunity to buy them. We think they’re a whole lot more interesting than the usual black opaques many of us tend to stick to at this time of year, so take a look under the jump to see some more!
Lord knows this is a minor gripe compared to some fashion issues we could mention, but can anyone explain to us why you’d want to wear a pair of cosy, wool tights… which leave your calves totally bared to the elements? Are calves the new armpits? Do they have a tendency to get really warm, while the rest of the legs remain cold?
Further to that: why would you want to pay $79 to bare them to the elements?
Answers on a postcard (or in the comments box if it’s easier…).
[Image: Primark]
