Eek!! I bought some leggings!

Not a defence against the lightning strike of Cupid's arrows either.

AC faraday cage would be the perfect defence against lightening strikes, but no defence whatsoever from a wildly swung broom.

Marriage does not affect the eyesight - and I was assured by an ex-electrician/physicist that a wedding ring is not a Faraday Cage.

Agus it affected mine.....and being short sighted means that DH looks exactly the same as the day we wed

Marriage doesn't affect your eyesight!

I'm talking very early 60's, by the time bras were burning I was married.

The 60s was when we burnt our bras. Remember? Plenty nipples on show

Nowadays, nipples can be covered by self adhesive circles which you can buy in lingerie shops. I have some in the back of a drawer somewhere!

It's a sad fact that the women who least need a bra often are the ones with huge nipples.

Also the few girls I knew back then who went braless occasionally wore plasters over their nipples, if they were on the large side. I was horrified, it must have been very painful to remove them.

If I remember the 60's correctly, substantial is an understatement, more like Fort knox, impossible to get into. (enough said)

Now Pompa you are bringing us on to the subject of bras, which were much more substantial for all in the 60s. Today a lot of women lean towards lightweight support or nothing at all

DeeDaa, I though mentioning the " gynaecological detail" as you call it was a step too far for me, but as you raised the subject, it was part of what I meant by "lumps & bumps" (also known as "camel toe")

Now we have lowered the tone completely I have another question -

When did women acquire nipples?

When I was in my testosterone filled youth, the 60s, not a nipple was to be seen. Nowadays they pop up everywhere, never short of somewhere to hang my hat.

Please appreciate that like leggings this is all part of a scientific study, and not as Linda says the dirty old man syndrome.

And, before I get slaughtered, mens dress suffers the same failings, but I am not including men in my study.

I do hate it when people don't wear long enough tops with cheap leggings. But it's the wearers who wear them badly that give them a bad name. If you see what I mean.

It's not so much theVPL pompa as the gynaecological detail you get with thin leggings or, even worse, cheap black tights waorn as trousers!

I think you should definitely continue with your studies - the world should be told

Perhaos I was too critical of leggings initially.

As part of this thread I have been studying ladies in leggings much more closely than normal (all in the name of science of course).

I have spotted some very nicely filled leggings and I did notice the amazing ones being worn by Naga on TV this morning. Do jodhpurs count as leggings ?, now they are sexy. even if they smell of horse (but as I like the smell of horses, perhaps this adds to the allure.)

I still stand by the dislike of cheap leggings that are either too tight or baggy and displaying VPL, just add a bit of builders bum or a few lumps/bumps and it is not a good look.

As I wish to be open in my personal opinions, I will continue this study.

If you were happy with the way they looked, ignore her! I had the same problem when DD was staying with me, she bought some that were too loose. They were too cheap and thin, really. She asked if she could do a swap with my best ones, saying, you don't care as much what you look like! I wear her cheap ones in bed in the winter. They are excellent for answering the door in under a very long t-shirt as you look dressed when parcelforce turns up at the crack of dawn.

Apparently, I shouldn't have gone out in mine - they are too loose!! If DD wasn't living with us, I could have been going out embarrassing myself for months!

I was thinking about ski pants yesterday but couldn't remember what they were called - thank you! I was a tad thinner when I wore ski pants

I went out in mine!!!!

Do you all remember ski pants? They were similar to leggings, but had a stirrup type thing which went under your foot, and stopped them riding up. I would think one might have to consider buying leggings long enough to prevent that problem? (still haven't bought any....)

JaneR - the thing is, I don't! (Wear a dress that is!!)

Just thought of an interesting way to ensure that leggings don't fall down- simply wear the commodious underwear OVER the leggings! A la Supergran Sorted!! What an attractive vision that should present to pompa

Anyone who would wear thick opaque tights under a dress with perhaps boots can wear leggings. The difference is, they are warmer, more comfortable and last for ever - no holes in the toes or heels, the length isn't an issue as you can wear socks under them or indeed, over them.

OOOOH! That's brave Jane, I daren't wear mine in public!

Inspired by what I read here, I went out and bought some leggings and a woolly dress. I cant believe its possible to go out in public in such comfortable clothes-thank you, thank you, thank you!! My life is changed for the better. Also learning from this thread, I will ensure that I wear the right size of leggings at all times and that my commodious undergarments are all in place before venturing out

pompa I think you need more exercise and some cold showers!