I Love Me Some Yoga Pants...

[Mr S]

I kinda like this fashion trend, as long as it's on a hot chick with a nice ass and pair of legs. Too bad they weren't around when i was in the gym still living in the states back in the day. I don't see Asians in Philippines wearing these, ha,ha; at least not yet anyways...

Here's a funny commentary on the subject:

Hawks Herald - http://www.hawksherald.com/news/when-yo ... sfsP3MgwgW

When you wear yoga pants, I can see your vagina

By BEN WHITMORE

There are many things I do not like about Roger Williams University. For starters, I don’t like that most RWU students appear to not place value on education. I don’t like that many professors reward under-researched, inarticulate, and thoughtless work with pass­ing grades, rather than calling students on their bunk junk. I don’t like that some University administrators make policy de­cisions based on how perceived outcomes would make the Uni­versity look rather than how the student population and the quality of their education will benefit. I don’t like that I am in the same senior class with a girl who asked a friend in the library the other day, “Wait, where is the Supreme Court? Like, is there more than one?� Yet, I understand that RWU’s flaws are not unique to the school; the world is full of people who have views and be­haviors that I don’t personally agree with. I have made peace with the good, the bad, and the ugly at RWU, and I will be proudly walking across the stage in May and getting my diploma with the University’s name on it.


However, there is one school trend that I can no longer remain silent about, one article of clothing that most female students wear that makes me ashamed to be a fellow class­mate of theirs. I hate yoga pants. I’ve heard that what I refer to as yoga pants, some consider to be “leggings.� I’ll elimi­nate confusion by offering a Jeff Foxworthy-esque defini­tion: you might be wearing yoga pants if you are wearing form-fitting spandex tights and it is rainy out, or you need a self-esteem boost, or you are fulfilling exhibitionist desires, or you don’t know how else to express your sexuality, or if you are wearing attire that is so skin-tight and so form-fitting that I can see your vagina. There, I said it. Yes, ladies of RWU, when you wear yoga pants and your shirt stops at your waist, I can see your lady parts. Yoga pants do not count as real pants; they, unlike actual pants, reveal the intimate cur­vature of women’s bodies with unabashed honesty. Yoga pants are opaque nudity. Now, I refuse to be called a pervert for noticing that sex organ of yours that is separated from me by only a thin layer of spandex. I am not asking for you to show me; you are show­ing me and asking me not to look. There is a difference. And also, I understand that yoga pants are soooo frickin’ comfy and that because other women wear them, you get secret female style points for publicly demonstrating your ability to be a part of a trend. I respect your right to be comfortable and to earn these points. But I still don’t like them, and I don’t like how many women on this campus wear them.

I wonder, women, when you wear yoga pants, why you don’t just wear a shirt, or a sweater, or a vest, or a jacket, or some article of clothing that is long enough to reach below your waist. Why is the trend to wear spandex-based, highly form-fitting pants, and not to cover your privates? Don’t you remember that scene from Little Miss Sun­shine? About a specific part of a camel’s foot? About the embar­rassment? The awkwardness? That’s how I feel when I see you. And it is an embarrassment and awkwardness fraught with mixed emotions. There are an abundance of very attrac­tive women on campus and, I must admit, I don’t think yoga pants are all bad. Yoga pants make butts look good, and I can’t truly blame you yoga-pant wearers for wanting to flaunt. Part of me is, at heart, a yoga pants fan. But the rest of me stubbornly objects. I can’t help but feel that women who wear yoga pants have a false modesty that says, “I want to show off my body, but I am too embarrassed to be overtly sexual, so I will just wear skin-tight, curve-revealing clothing to satisfy my exhibitionist desires in socially acceptable means.� There’s nothing wrong with personal empowerment, but there is something phony about the way women seem to do it by wearing yoga pants. I get the sense that women wear yoga pants to feel sexy without getting judged as a slut, yet I see something demeaning in women wear­ing yoga pants and parading around their half-silhouetted vaginas all day. I sincerely encourage you, ladies of RWU, to feel sexy and be comfortable in your own skin. But please realize this: when you are immodestly flaunting your body by wearing next-to-nothing clothes and thinking that you’re still keep­ing it classy, the joke is on you.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/81329411/
http://uberhumor.com/girls-in-yoga-pant ... -pictures/
http://girlsinyogapants.com/

[E_Irizarry]

And can even see how fat a woman's "entrepierna" ("crotch" in English) is now and not have to grope them to find out. That's one thing good about feminism nowadays: yoga pants emancipates the woman's private sector of the economy. Bawhahahahaaha!

[Free]

Although incredibly attractive obviously, there is a part to it that can be TORTURE for the men in public magnetically drawn yet who are not getting with it. In some ways at least 1700 victorian dresses with fine bodies underneath didn't torture the 99% rest of the men that were not getting that lady. The gold wasn't on display and not rubbed in the faces of the men going without. They could carry on in their day with peace of sorts.
Too many laws and regulations are not good but dare to say it should almost be illegal. Permitting it, driving men in society even more insane! While providing more power and control into the women's court sucking energy from men. More imbalance. Just what this world needs more of these days (sarc.)
How do the single men out there stay sane seeing this around? This is a golden question. Maybe they just look then move on and forget about it but that's highly doubtful.
Comments?

[momopi]

Although incredibly attractive obviously, there is a part to it that can be TORTURE for the men in public magnetically drawn yet who are not getting with it. In some ways at least 1700 Victorian dresses with fine bodies underneath didn't torture the 99% rest of the men that were not getting that lady. The gold wasn't on display and not rubbed in the faces of the men going without. They could carry on in their day with peace of sorts.
Too many laws and regulations are not good but dare to say it should almost be illegal. Permitting it, driving men in society even more insane! While providing more power and control into the women's court sucking energy from men. More imbalance. Just what this world needs more of these days (sarc.)
How do the single men out there stay sane seeing this around? This is a golden question. Maybe they just look then move on and forget about it but that's highly doubtful.
Comments?

1. The 1700's occurred during the Georgian Era (1714-1837), not Victorian era (1837-1901).

2. The Victorian era was less prude than many would think. In London alone there were at least 80,000 prostitutes in 1850's. When an unmarried man wants sex he just go and pay for it. And when a lady wants sex, she visits specialized doctors for treatment of female hysteria, where the male doctor and his assistants perform pelvic massages to give her a hysterical paroxysm (orgasm).

[E_Irizarry]

I cannot even f**k with Momopi on that one. Nice post. LOL

[Grunt]

I do not agree with the need for iron fisted leadership in the West.

I think Napoleon said it best: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Only in our case, it is she that is is making the mistake.

Our goal is to facilitate the complete collapse of Marxist feminism. In light of that fact, any attempt to educate females to the degree of their stupidity is ultimately self-defeating. The typical feminist in incapable of effecting any permanent improvement. A rat does not change its whiskers.

What is most needed are millions upon millions of poverty-stricken single "career women" staggering through our streets. Their bewildered eyes, disheveled appearance, and massive credit card debt will serve as a stark warning to all the younger females.

Disrespect men, they will disappear into the mist, never to return.

[Grunt]

All men need to do is exactly what they have been doing for the last 30 odd years.

Nothing.

When men stop actively contributing to the advancement of society (marriage, children, working themselves into an early grave, etc) that society will collapse in short order. And that is what we are seeing.

Now it is women that are working themselves into an early grave, and with no man to support them. When you add into the mix the short "shelf life" of the America typical female of 5 to 10 years max, you have a recipe for disaster. Meanwhile, American men have a marketable shelf life in excess of 30 years or more.

We have won the battle of the sexes, and we haven't even fired a shot.

[Free]

Although incredibly attractive obviously, there is a part to it that can be TORTURE for the men in public magnetically drawn yet who are not getting with it. In some ways at least 1700 Victorian dresses with fine bodies underneath didn't torture the 99% rest of the men that were not getting that lady. The gold wasn't on display and not rubbed in the faces of the men going without. They could carry on in their day with peace of sorts.
Too many laws and regulations are not good but dare to say it should almost be illegal. Permitting it, driving men in society even more insane! While providing more power and control into the women's court sucking energy from men. More imbalance. Just what this world needs more of these days (sarc.)
How do the single men out there stay sane seeing this around? This is a golden question. Maybe they just look then move on and forget about it but that's highly doubtful.
Comments?

1. The 1700's occurred during the Georgian Era (1714-1837), not Victorian era (1837-1901).

2. The Victorian era was less prude than many would think. In London alone there were at least 80,000 prostitutes in 1850's. When an unmarried man wants sex he just go and pay for it. And when a lady wants sex, she visits specialized doctors for treatment of female hysteria, where the male doctor and his assistants perform pelvic massages to give her a hysterical paroxysm (orgasm).

But my point still stands. To note - just sort of slapped together the two terms. Picked a random time period that seemed different, 1700 - and then made use of the well-known stereotypical term of "Victorian" that people use to describe ultra conservative dress. Didn't mean it as literal. Thanks for clarifying though.

The point of my post was that I'd wager they certainly didn't dress like the women these days - putting their sex organs on outright display amongst daily social interactions. I don't mean pros, I mean the mass crowd of females.

Fairly sure men weren't getting as aroused so constantly going about their daily business back then as they do in these modern times. For men in the Western worlds these days, there probably is less of an outlet for them to deal with that constant stream of this torture.
Yeah, it's nice eye candy but sometimes I wonder if men would be somewhat better off if the females simply dressed in dresses or something. That was the point.

[odbo]

Although incredibly attractive obviously, there is a part to it that can be TORTURE for the men in public magnetically drawn yet who are not getting with it. In some ways at least 1700 victorian dresses with fine bodies underneath didn't torture the 99% rest of the men that were not getting that lady. The gold wasn't on display and not rubbed in the faces of the men going without. They could carry on in their day with peace of sorts.
Too many laws and regulations are not good but dare to say it should almost be illegal. Permitting it, driving men in society even more insane! While providing more power and control into the women's court sucking energy from men. More imbalance. Just what this world needs more of these days (sarc.)
How do the single men out there stay sane seeing this around? This is a golden question. Maybe they just look then move on and forget about it but that's highly doubtful.
Comments?

I'm sure some bloggers have taken on this issue before, but I only have 1 link which is sort of related.
http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com ... inity.html

In my opinion the sexualized fashion is a big part of controlling men. The ratio of the projection of sex vs the actual occurrence of sex, is ridiculous. Seeing a beautiful woman in a sun-dress might brighten a man's day. Seeing a woman in slutty clothes does not brighten anyone's day, it only makes men horny, and then angry if they know they can't get a piece of that.

[E_Irizarry]

@LinuxOnly,

Damn that one on the right got shape. I'd smash her in a NY1 heartbeat!