Tights Are Not Pants: Pamela Mann “ski pants”

Pamela Mann ski pantsWe don’t know who Pamela Mann (or Tights Please for that matter) are trying to kid by labelling these as ski pants, but we can clearly see that they are tights.  And if you refer back to the Fashion Police rules, you will recall that leggings are not pants and tights are not leggings.  Meaning that tights cannot possibly be pants.

However, that is not what we are debating here, valid point though it is.  The ‘on trial’ in question is the style of tights which are not quite footless, not quite footed: the ski pant tights that hook neatly under your foot.  What do you think of these readers?  Are they the answer to wearing sandals with tights?  Do they stop your leg looking stumpy as footless tights often can make them look?  Or are they just a crime of fashion that should be banished to our jail as soon as possible?

These tights come in red, blue and black, and are available here for £5.99.

5 Comments

  • August 10, 2010

    Areya

    well, technically, if tights aren’t leggings and leggings aren’t pants, tights could still be pants… hahaha but point taken. i would call them tights.
    anyhoo i think they’re fine as long as you’re wearing shoes with them.

    View Comment
  • August 10, 2010

    Kate

    Ski? Pants? Those?

    DOES NOT COMPUTE.

    View Comment
  • August 10, 2010

    naomi

    so these are “ski pants”
    i guess a designer who never actually skied in actual snow could label them such…maybe they intended them for water skiing?

    View Comment
  • August 10, 2010

    Miranda

    I definitely don’t think they are pants in any sense, but since they are $12 and come in blue (my roller derby team’s colors are black and blue), I want a pair. 🙂

    View Comment
  • August 11, 2010

    Rebecca

    Yeah, any kind of stockings or tights that do not cover the entire foot, including footless tights and these stirrup things, have no place in my wardrobe or my esteem. I’m firm on this.

    View Comment