Leggings Are Not Pants, hooves are not shoes

leggings are not pants

We’re not quite sure what’s worse here:

a) the fact that she’s wearing leggings as pants

b) the fact that by “leggings” we mean “tights”

c) the fact that by “tights” we mean “patchwork tights”

d) LACE patchwork tights

e) the fact that some poor Shire horse is currently wondering where his fetlocks are.

What we ARE sure about is that it all adds up to “crime of fashion” – and an expensive crime of fashion at that, because the leggings in question are $248 at Alex & Chloe. Yes.

Unfortunately, the shoes, which are really the most interested thing about this outfit don’t seem to be available for sale on the website. Perhaps they’re the model’s own? If we really needed proof that modelling is hard, this would be it…



  • March 13, 2012

    Debbie via Facebook

    Oh dear,poor nag lol!!

    View Comment
  • March 13, 2012


    The heels on those shoes look like weapons. I wonder if you would be able to get through airport security wearing those?

    View Comment
  • March 13, 2012


    When I first saw those shoes, my first thought was, “Holy shite, are those alive?”

    But to be fair, those tights are kind of hard to style and model. Wearing something decent would cover the design. But I’d rather she wear that jumper thing than some transluscent blouse with a black bra showing and call the whole look “sex-kitten”. Yeah, “sex-kitten” all right, in the red light district.

    View Comment
  • March 13, 2012


    The whole getup is just awful. Agree that leggings are glorified tights and these ones should be binned.

    View Comment
  • March 14, 2012


    I would pair those tights (if they were reasonably priced) with the ‘sexy’ black dress and never have to leave the bedroom again. 🙂

    View Comment
  • March 16, 2012

    Rock Hyrax

    I think the tights (they are not leggings) would look OK if worn as tights, and with human looking footwear.

    View Comment