are dresses with black leggings unfashionable?

[Kittyrobin]

I'm tall and don't like my legs from the knee up, searched the Internet and can't find any dresses that are long enough, I don't suit skirts or maxi dresses so planning on getting through the summer wearing dresses with black leggings underneath. Is this terrible? Or ok? I wore this style throughout my pregnancy but could defiantly get away with it then.

Actually I wear leggings because I like the look of them.

Leggings are ugly with almost anything.

Only if you're wearing them wrong.

They go on your head, yes?

On the basis that my DM and MIL would never set foot outdoors again rather than swop their polyester slacks or tan tights/pop socks for leggings, I am going to consider them youthful and trendy.

Tights = legs encased in expensive sweaty plastic
Bare legged = either freezing or exposing of unpleasant skin textures / colours

Leggings really arent a bad alternative.

I wear lacy cycling shorts under dresses in the summer.

So if black is apparently the worst colour for leggings, what is the best? And which is better, 3/4 length, capri length or cycling shorts?

God I hate leggings under dresses. Whenever I see Sarah Millican on TV she's got them on under some polka dot frock. Not a great look.

Leggings over head might be a good solution for all the people who apparently can't bear the sight of them.

Bare legs or tights look 100x better.

But be fair, not all bare legs are equal. Even when waxed and primped with moisturiser mine look like misshapen slabs of spam.

Lljkk, I think you are confusing tights with hose. tights often have a cotton content, hose is meant to impersonate silk (or be silk if you're rich )

There may be some cultural/language differences going on here. Where I am, tights are those ghastly things that make your legs feel like they're wrapped in clingfilm and that rip before you even leave the house. Possibly the worst invention in the history of crap.

If they had cotton content they'd probably be opaques. If they were footless too ...well they'd be leggings

Hoses are for watering the grass.

Ugh, an English girl explained the difference to me but Google suggests that you are correct (though "opaques" isn't there. .. "opaque tights" are ) ! I think of it as pantyhose (hose for short ) vs stuff with a bit more to it, like school tights.

Yeah opaque tights are the full name but everyone (well at least everyone round here) just calls them 'opaques'.

I love the word 'pantyhose' but I would never be able to say it without laughing

Two continents separated by a common language

Well tights are the ones that encase the whoke leg and foot (whether see-through or opaque), unless they're footless tights of course.
Leggings are (usually) more substantial, and emerged in the eighties with the invention of lycra. Hth.

Interesting that the English find a distinction between hose & tights. I find no distinction. They are both very thin, revealing much about the leg within, provide minimal warmth & tear quickly.

There isn't an English distinction between hose and tights - I only come across the word 'hose' v occasionally in US novels. They're all tights. If they don't have feet they may be footless tights, otherwise they are leggings.

Just the word pantyhose makes me snigger

At the risk of adding to the mayhem:: TK Maxx sometimes sell Spanx leggings. Well it says 'leggings' on the packet. I would call them footless opaques.

They do a few colours - I like the grey - and they have Spanx sucky-in qualities plus they're indestructible. Next time I see them, I am buying the lot.

I wear them under boots in autumn/winter. In what passes for summer round here, I remove the boots and flash my ankles until the temperature hits 20 degrees. Which means that, in a good year, they may come off for two weeks.

My ankles are very nice but thank you for asking.

Interesting that the English find a distinction between hose & tights.

We don't! I have never heard an English person say the word hose unless they are talking about watering their garden!

Primark sell what they call "60 denier leggings" which are clearly footless tights. They are mostly nylon, have a control top. No-one could seriously consider them leggings in the sense of cotton-mix garments that are the same all the way up and do not show your underwear (or should). So the whole naming of these things is confusing.

As to whether you can wear shorter garments with leggings or tights than without. I think you definitely can. Certainly I can wear tunic type dresses/tops that would be far to short with leggings. Provided the leggings are thick enough to hide underwear! (Although this may be the look that is being considered frumpy on this thread.)

With tights, I'll wear short-ish things until I get the fake tan on and the confidence to bare legs.

Leggings with a dress/skirt is the ultimate mum frump outfit- sorry!
But life is too short to give a rats ass what anyone else thinks.

Tights are too ladylike for me.

It's a maximum of 17 degrees today. No way would I have bare legs in this!

I like leggings and dresses. I wear a variation on the theme all year round.

I never got over grunge tho, but I'm OK with that.