Thursday, February 12, 2009

Pants: 101

This blog is dedicated to erradicating the biggest threat to our quality of life in New York City. I do not refer to crime, nor to polution, nor to the rising cost of living. I am referring to the disturbing trend of New York's fairer sex mistaking tights and leggings as pants.

Has the whole world lost its head?

Ladies, let me be clear: tights/leggings are not pants. They are an undergarment and should be treated accordingly. Why then am I seeing scores of young ladies gallavanting about my fair city wearing just a top and no pants to speak of (Donald Duckin' it, as I like to say)? Why am I subjected to a spandex encased beaver shot when I follow certain young ladies up a flight of stairs?

Yes, I am a dandy, and therefore not inclined to give a complete stranger a vaginal exam on my way to work, but I'd like to think the same would be true if I were heterosexual. I wouldn't wear long underwear to go get a latte at starbucks, which is pretty much the male euivalent to woman wearing tights as pants. It would be inappropraite. That said, there are times that tights/leggings are totally appropriate, like if you're at the gym or you're performing in a Martha Graham piece. Dinner at Balthazar's or shopping at Bloomingdale's is not one of those occasions.

Look, I'm no jerk-- I just believe in modesty. My intentions are pure, folks. Put simply, I will work tirelessly to bring pants (and modesty) back to the women of New York. After all, we can't really call this the greatest city of all if half of its citizens can't even remember to put their pants on each morning.

So let's review:





See the difference?


  1. I've seen this! Waiting for the L train at 3:30am...I witnessed two girls wearing tights as pants! It was horrible. I kept looking and thinking, "shit, she's not wearing proper pants".

  2. As Blair Waldorf said, tights aren't pants.

  3. So... no tights at all? Like under actual dresses (not long freaking shirts) or skirts?