Some people should not wear leggings. Some really don't have the body for it.
I think sometimes they are innaportate. It's like wearing sweat pants.
I heard that 12 year olds can wear leggings and if you dont like it, you are sexualizing them.
Since feminists can wear whatever they "f***ing" want....
Sarada can wear a mini skirt and heels.
they are comfy AF though. It's only sexualizing if they have the right form but that is not their fault at that point.
It still covers enough.
that is true that feminists can wear more revealing clothes and saying otherwise would mean oppressing them but yoga pants/leggings should not be one of those just because you find their shape appealing or disgusting. If it covers, it should be ok and your stance is subjective in that matter.
Think of it this way, if you were buff or some other male was wearing sport/compression shirts, is that objectifying?
not really because it does not reveal anything. But you or any other might say that it does then the discussion would move into a subjective point of view.
Does it obstruct the view, yes but it is so fit that it reveals outlines of the body then which parts of it would be acceptable?
if it is obviously the sexual parts of the body like the crotch or the chest then that is simply understandable (both genders BTW)
but as for legs and arms, that would be subjective. It's like looking at a face, you can find it attractive but it is not enough to be considered as sexualization.
So yoga pants/leggings shouldn't be controversial.
low cut shirts and high cut shorts are (both for male and females)
like I don't wanna see a dude's low cut v neck and his shorts higher than his knees.
Like that's danger zone for me that any activity that requires high mobility/flexibility would just reveal too much of my junk
IK it's a different matter for women but at that point it would be their chest. low cut would reveal cleavage and IDK why that acceptable is wierd.
On a man's perspective, that is a sexual trait even though it plays no role in reproduction.
