Those aren't pants . . .are they?

It's a sunny nearly-autumn day and I'm at my desk pondering today's outfit: denim jacket, long button down shirt, belt, leggings, flats.

It's comfortable, but I can't decide if it's cute (in a Peter Pan sort of way) or on the verge of indecent. I looked down at my adopted outfit, then into my email inbox in which an ad for jean-leggings ("jeggings") appeared . . .and then I decided to write about it: have leggings gone from '80s resurgence to pants substitute? And why, exactly?

I found a breezily-comprehensive history, which stated that this popular item's functions promote its continued popularity:

1. Leggings are protective. Whether it's cold or the elements, leggings cover legs -- much like pants.

2. Leggings are comfortable and can be used in sport or every day activity -- not always the case for pants.

3. Leggings, for the most part, are inexpensive. Pants, at least in my budget, tend to cost more than leggings.

So that's 2/3 functions for which leggings "wins" the debate. But does this justify replacing pants? Let's look at the "decency" factor.

1. Leggings are tight-fitting by nature.

That's really it. Leggings have a lot of positive attritbutes, but it's up to the wearer to choose how to flaunt them. I follow only one rule: that my rear is covered by something other than just my leggings.

After all, there's a fine line between my outfit and "Robin Hood: Men in Tights".