Leggings | Imamother

amother

Emerald

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 10:50 am

amother [ Pumpkin ] wrote:

And who is making that judgment? Because if you're worried about secular society, we look strange anyway. If it is frum people, they understand and should appreciate the wearer is biding by halacha.

I'm not worried about anything.

What is the halachic problem with leggings worn under a skirt where no ankles show?

amother

Cyan

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 11:06 am

I don't have time to read all of the posts, but I've read enough to amaze me. Leggings do not look like pants. The true concern held by people who have OUTLAWED leggings is the whole slippery slope deal. First the girls who wear long skirts and leggings will start wearing shorter skirts with leggings till the skirt is above the knee. This is VERY common in my community. Girls and women want to get away with wearing black skirts above the knee so they wear black leggings thinking no one will notice, lol. The idea that you can ban someone from wearing leggings while worn with an ankle length skirt and boots - well don't complain when your kids goes OTD. My EXTREMELY modest 20 year old has no problem wearing long denim skirts that aren't remotely tight with leggings underneath in the winter for warmth. Heck, I've read of fathers who don't let their under ten year old daughters wear some sort of pants or leggings UNDER their very long nightgowns because, gasp! this will cause them to GET USED to the feel of pants and then they may want to wear just pants outside. Why don't we just all live in caves by ourselves and never see the light of day or another person because who knows what may happen.

amother

Cyan

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 11:08 am

amother [ Emerald ] wrote:

how about - that looks so funny - wearing a skirt over pants. Why don't they just wear pants?

LEGGINGS DO NOT LOOK LIKE PANTS!!!!!!!

and what an absurd statement? "that looks so funny..why don't they just?" I would question the intelligence of someone who said that. Sounds like soft brains to me.

amother

Emerald

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 11:18 am

amother [ Cyan ] wrote:

Leggings are pants in the general population.

amother

Cyan

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 11:22 am

amother [ Emerald ] wrote:

Leggings are pants in the general population.

They are not pants, they are an item of clothing that the general population may wear instead of pants. That's like saying that a tube top is a shirt. It is something that some wear in place of a shirt.

And when the leggings are worn under a skirt, they do not look like pants. Quite the contrary- leggings always have an amount of spandex in them and they are tight to the leg, so they look very much like tights.

amother

Azure

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 11:29 am

I work in an OOT high school and we do not allow leggings. Nothing to do with getting the "top" girl or keeping up appearances.
Leggings until just a few years ago were considered even in the secular world as gym or lounge wear. We don't need our girls coming to school feeling like they're wearing pjs.
Tznius aside, I see this as similar to flip flops. Flip flops are for the beach, but for some reason in the secular world they've become acceptable footwear for almost anywhere - doesn't mean we should adopt that thought.
Why can't we teach our children that there are dignified ways to dress, not necessarily to do with halachos

amother

Emerald

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 11:30 am

amother [ Cyan ] wrote:

the general population wears leggings without a skirt on top. For this reason - I classify them as pants.

amother

Azure

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 11:32 am

Quote:

The true concern held by people who have OUTLAWED leggings is the whole slippery slope deal. First the girls who wear long skirts and leggings will start wearing shorter skirts with leggings till the skirt is above the knee. This is VERY common in my community.

This is also very true!
My DD 9yo even came home from school one day and asked me if it's true that if you're wearing tights or leggings your skirt doesn't need to cover your knees? (This was the information given to her from a friend)

amother

Cyan

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 11:37 am

amother [ Azure ] wrote:

If a girl has only a few inches of leggings showing, why is that as if she has a few inches of underwear showing? How is wearing leggings less dignified? It is not at all the same thing as coming in wearing pjs. ESPECIALLY because leggings do not look very different from thick tights. The amount of energy people waste on this sort of thing is astounding. I wouldn't want to send that message to MY children? I think you are teaching yours to look down at other people who are not dressed as "dignified" as them.

And BTW, leggings have been worn by the secular world with tunic tops for many years, the fashion didn't start just a few years ago. I bought them for my daughters from TCP and LE starting at least 10 years ago.

amother

Azure

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 11:50 am

Quote:

If a girl has only a few inches of leggings showing, why is that as if she has a few inches of underwear showing?

Seriously? That's what you're implying from what I wrote? I don't know how you equate undignified looking to walking around with underwear showing...that is absolutely not what I wrote. I wrote that leggings are for the gym or sleeping. You don't need to agree, but please don't put words in my mouth

amother

Cyan

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 12:03 pm

amother [ Azure ] wrote:

Quote:

If a girl has only a few inches of leggings showing, why is that as if she has a few inches of underwear showing?

I am not implying it from what you wrote. I wrote that because the uproar over leggings is of a magnitude that would be more appropriate if someone was walking around with their underwear showing. The uproar over leggings is out of control, over the top and unjustified.

chestnut

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 12:16 pm

amother [ Emerald ] wrote:

See above - and I'll add to it - "sloppy".

Why do the BY schools have rules about how the girls dress outside of school? Or how their mothers dress?

Once again, the world doesn't think of themselves as unrefined or sloppy when wearing leggings, but does think that of Jews. And you seriously think it makes sense.
A million dollar question - how exactly do you know that's how the world thinks of Jews who wear leggings?

amother

Emerald

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 12:21 pm

chestnut wrote:

karat

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 12:21 pm

I don’t believe there is anything untznius about wearing leggings according to the strict “letter of the law”.
But I’m assuming that if you were to ask any mainstream chasidish/yeshivish Rav you would be told it’s not in the “spirit of the law” or “si past nisht” kind of response.

Last edited by karat on Fri, Jul 05 2019, 1:48 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Cyan

Fri, Jul 05 2019, 12:42 pm

karat wrote:

I don’t believe there is anything untznius about wearing leggings according to the strict “letter of the law”.
But I’m assuming that if you were to ask any mainstream chasidish/yeshivish mainstream Rav you would be told it’s not in the “spirit of the law” or “si past nisht” kind of response.

How can it be not in the spirit of the law to have a few inches of leggings showing on the lower leg while it is within the spirit of the law to have a non-Jewish maid do melacha in your house on Y"T because you don't want to lose "your day" that week if it falls out on Y"T, yet I haven't heard of anyone having a problem with that?

amother

Plum

Sat, Jul 06 2019, 1:11 pm

mommish613 wrote:

WHOA. Everyone needs to calm down. You don’t have to agree with the standards in anyone’s community but please be respectful. There are many things that are not assur in the shulchan aruch but are not done in certain yeshiva/bais yaakov communities. For example, owning a dog- and there are many other such examples.

And if you do live in a community that has these standards, understand that just because they are standards for your community they may not be for others. And that’s OKAY- be respectful to that too!

No need to be preachy on either side of the table.

There's nothing wrong with saying that our community wears X but not Y. There's something very wrong about saying that X is "on a higher level" than Y.

You can impose whatever nonhalachic standards you want, but you can't call them halacha.