Get Dressed!

[bex1218]

I was embarassed for like 2 seconds but then got over it. People at both stores knows I am crazy. I just didn't feel like getting changed.

[Zaiida]

The sloppiest I dress out now is tracksuit pants and a jumper with my hair neatly up because I went shopping once with fuzzy pink bunny slippers in PJ's, sloppy hair and my Dad caught me. He went yelled 'YOU ARE LETTING YOUR WHOLE SIDE DOWN!!!', snatched my slippers and threw them in the garbage and chased me . Meh, they were the last $5 pair and they deserved it and I dress a little more approprietly now. I was 21 when he did that and it's stuck with me. This is the guy that chases my mum around the house with his false teeth 'GONNA EATHS YA!!'

I don't mind cute or funky PJ's out and about (hell, even costumes are great) I do draw the line at seeing your underwear or giant rips and tears in clothing. I do NOT want to see your buttcheeks through a rip thanyouverymuch. Especially when you dont wear underwear and have a front pants tear!!!*bleedingeyes*

[Boozy]

I live in a university town, so I see students wearing pajamas everywhere. They just don't bother getting dressed unless they're going to a club. Kids these days.

Also, they should get off my lawn.

[the_std]

I have to ask...

Is there really so much of a difference between yoga pants/sweat pants and pajama pants? They're both very casual, sweat pants are just as shapeless as pajama pants... Personally, I think that wearing yoga pants/sweat pants out and about all the time is on par with wearing pajama pants, so I'm not going to get my panties in a twist if I see someone doing errands or heading to class in PJs. It doesn't hurt me, they're comfortable, and unless they're being officially marked or judged on their appearance, they're not detrimental in the slightest.

[blas87]

My workout pants/yoga pants aren't shapeless or baggy. They're pretty form fitting. They look almost similar to a pair of black dress pants, till you you get up close.

[the_std]

My workout pants/yoga pants aren't shapeless or baggy. They're pretty form fitting. They look almost similar to a pair of black dress pants, till you you get up close.

[/snip] sweat pants are just as shapeless as pajama pants...

I do understand that yoga pants aren't as baggy as sweat pants, but most of the yoga pants that you see people wearing are not the more structured/tailored look, they're still ultra casual.

[telecom_goddess]

me...I will go out in any number of things, could be my loose "mom" jeans, sweats if it's cold, basketball shorts if it's hot. I generally wear some kind of t shirt, usually an old tie dyed shirt Shoes and socks and I'm done. Hair is usually up in some way. I used to wear flip flops but they seem to hurt my feet now, I need the support of my athletic shoes.

[Andara Bledin]

I do understand that yoga pants aren't as baggy as sweat pants, but most of the yoga pants that you see people wearing are not the more structured/tailored look, they're still ultra casual.

There's a step between "ultra casual" and "going out in underwear" and pjs are in that space.

I won't dress ultra casual out in public except in very limited circumstances, but I draw the line at clothing that is meant to be worn to bed.

^-.-^

[the_std]

But I'm mainly wondering WHY. Pajama pants cover the same flesh as sweat pants, tend to look pretty similar, and yet the line is drawn there because of where they are intended to be worn? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand why this is the line.

[Nekojin]

But I'm mainly wondering WHY. Pajama pants cover the same flesh as sweat pants, tend to look pretty similar, and yet the line is drawn there because of where they are intended to be worn? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand why this is the line.

Pajamas, at least in SoCal, tend to be a much lighter fabric than sweats. Light enough that you can see fleshy details that you probably don't care to be seeing. Cameltoes and worse.

[Amanita]

On another forum I'm on, somebody explained it like this:

Workout pants, sweat pants, and regular clothing give the appearance of "being dressed for the day".
Meanwhile, PJ's are usually something that only a person intimate to the wearer would see- a partner, family member, or friend close enough to be invited in before people are dressed, or allowed to spend the night.

So if PJs are something that most people would only see if they're close to someone, then wearing PJs in public creates a sort of false or forced intimacy with the viewers.

Especially in the example above, where they might show things normally left to the imagination, or where the pajamas look like lingerie.

And here's a funny- I remember seeing a group of teenage boys trying to look tough near a local bus terminal- posturing their butts off. One of them was wearing Elmo print PJ bottoms, no word of a lie. Wow, so gangsta and bad-ass, not!

[Boozy]

But I'm mainly wondering WHY. Pajama pants cover the same flesh as sweat pants, tend to look pretty similar, and yet the line is drawn there because of where they are intended to be worn? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand why this is the line.

This is frustrating to have to explain. People either understand the difference between pajamas and sweat pants, or they don't. There are usually subtle differences in fabrics, prints, and sizing.

It reminds me of the time I had to explain to a young employee why sneakers are not the same as dress shoes and aren't appropriate for work. "They're both leather!" "They're both black!" "They both lace up the same way!" They could not grasp that there is a difference between black leather running shoes and black leather oxfords from a societal and business perspective.

Which fashions society finds "dressy" and "casual" is obviously extremely subjective in ALL cases. Most people get the gist of it.

[Cats]

I think part of the problem here might be in defining what we as individuals think of when we think "pajamas", and having one specific image.

Pajamas come in quite a variety. There is no one-size-fits-all. There is a difference between footy pajamas, robes, mumus, and even PJ tops and bottoms that can double as sweats, workout, and yoga wear. If you're dressed in the latter for a quick errand, I don't see a problem. The other stuff, sure, I can totally get you guys. But when I go out to a place where there isn't an expected dress code (or I'm not violating it in any way), I'm staying comfy and I'm not dressing to impress strangers. I will agree on the slippers front; put some shoes on at least.

I wear Pajama pants CONSTANTLY. If I'm not going to be out of the apt for more than 30 minutes, the PJ pants stay on. Heck, sometimes I'll throw on a matching shirt (I'll always put on some shirt at least, since my apt is hot and I'm always in a tank), and I've even gotten compliments on my cute-but-quirky getup. Many of them are black and you can't even tell they're PJs. I'm fully covered and my clothing is clean. I put on sneakers. Could I be more dressed? Sure. Could I be less dressed? You bet. I'm fine with the happy medium. I'm not putting on jeans or dress pants to go on a 10 minute trip to the grocery store only to take them off again once I get home.

I've seen customers come in my store at all hours of the day covered in grime, paint, and with so many holes in their shirt it looks like they ran it through the washing machine with a cheese grater eight times. Do they look silly? Sure they do. So instead of just picking on the PJ people, let's pick on everyone else as well who could dress a little better before going out (and that's not meant as sarcasm, I'm serious). There's more 'fashion violations' out there than just Pajama People.

[blas87]

Meh. It's been so ungodly hot these past few weekends since I moved home, I'm sure the neighbors are sick of seeing me in short skirts and my bikini.

One night, I walked the dog in a pair of pink heart boxers and a Spongebob tanktop.

[the_std]

This is frustrating to have to explain. People either understand the difference between pajamas and sweat pants, or they don't. There are usually subtle differences in fabrics, prints, and sizing.

I do understand the difference between sweat pants and pajamas. I know that they serve different purposes, look slightly different, are usually made of different material.

Look, I'm not trying to insult anyone here, I just would like to know why people draw this line in the sand. As with any seemingly-arbitrary decision that all of society participates in, I'm curious as to why it is the way it is.

It reminds me of the time I had to explain to a young employee why sneakers are not the same as dress shoes and aren't appropriate for work. "They're both leather!" "They're both black!" "They both lace up the same way!" They could not grasp that there is a difference between black leather running shoes and black leather oxfords from a societal and business perspective.

I can understand why you see similarities, but that's a different situation. Most workplaces have a clearly defined dress code they can point to. I've also had employees like that and I don't bother with explanations. I will point to their shoes and say, "Those are sneakers. They are unacceptable," and then point to mine and say, "These are dress shoes. They are what is expected of you," because, at that point, arguing is like talking to a 2-year old. This is not the same scenario - I'm not demanding we let people roam the streets in pajama pants without any judgement at all. I'm simply curious.

Which fashions society finds "dressy" and "casual" is obviously extremely subjective in ALL cases. Most people get the gist of it.

I do get the gist of it. I'm not sure if this quote is referring back to your work situation, but if it isn't, then we're not talking about dressy and casual here. We're talking about ultracasual and ultracasual that are split into two groups "acceptable outside the home" and "unacceptable outside the home".