Since I opened a can of worms on Facebook, I thought I would take this space to expand upon my opinions on pantyhose. First, let me define pantyhose. Unlike tights, pantyhose seek to cover a woman's natural leg with a similar tone, so as to create the illusion that the woman's leg is flawless and smooth. I deplore fraud. Pantyhose and make-up serve the same purpose; both cover and protect, but a courtroom does not require your cheeks be blushed and lips be rouged.
Tights on the other hand give purposeful color or pattern to a woman's leg. Wearing tights or lack thereof represents a fashion choice as part of a complete ensemble.
I equate the requirement of pantyhose in many law firms and courtrooms with women who cover their natural hair with a wig as not to arouse men. Is natural leg any more arousing than a sheer layer of simulated tan? If your skirt is an appropriate length(knee length or lower), then pantyhose do not cover anything the eye wouldn't see anyway.
I believe the requirement of pantyhose to be archaic, but as modern women we have choices--and the decision to wear pantyhose is among them.
But when you wake up tomorrow and make a decision about leg-wear, consider whether your appearance on this show is inevitable:
http://tlc.discovery.com/videos/what-not-to-wear-how-to-wear-pantyhose.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment