Seriously, SJP is supposedly wearing (Earnest Sewn) pants, but she answers the question better than anyone possibly could: slouchy, low boots, a fitted motorcycle jacket, and a shirt just long enough to cover up “the bum,” as they say. Generally, we’re more flexible on this last point than any other: We figure, we’re wearing leggings; no one really cares if they can see the vague outline of anything, or not. We typically wear shirts that come to our waist with ours. SJP’s is the perfect length, in our opinion, and we definitely wouldn’t go any shorter.
What we are really, really anti, though, is longer tunics (or short dresses) with leggings—to us, it’s just so 2006. Those situations call for black tights! (Preferably super-black-matte Wolford tights, but we also like American Eagle tights, too, in a pinch, and the last pair we bought cost $8.) We will say: We’re biased because that was never a look to flatter the world’s shorter people, and it just made us look like Violet Beauregard when she turned into a giant blueberry in “Willy Wonka.” We’re not sure that people really do this anymore, but when they did (er, we did, as well), we would always be flabbergasted by how ridiculous and disproportionate we looked. Not a good thing whatsoever.
We’ve tried them all, and without a doubt, our favorite/only leggings source is Lululemon. (Apparently we cannot escape our suburban roots.) Our runner-up is far away: American Apparel. What “Lulu” does right that AA leggings do wrong: They hold their shape better, they’re better engineered (one word: gusset), and they last long (no obvious holes even with regular wear). There’s no contest—it’s a strict cost-per-wear situation.
Speaking of, a couple years ago Lululemon did an awesome series on how to wear leggings from the office to the gym—what’s interesting is how the writer started with the more tunic-y situation but soon moved to tops closer to SJP’s length. We approve.
For leggings, there can be only one winner: the Wunder Under pants, $82
