It seems to me that "sports gear", "workout wear", and "yoga wear" are pretty broad terms, especially if people are saying that it ought not to be worn anywhere but the gym or at home. To my eye, there is a world of difference between the type of thin, stretchy legging worn with a sports bra and athletic shoes by an active woman who has just run several miles--and a pair of well-designed, thicker, straight-legged yoga pants worn with a stylish top and flat shoes by a young mother walking her child to school.
To my eye, well-designed "gear" can look every bit as attractive as any other type of clothing. And, if I'm being blunt, I have a hard time seeing how faded, ripped and torn jeans can be deemed perfectly OK to wear in public while a pair of well-designed yoga pants automatically gets the thumbs down treatment. To me, context and location also plays a big role; I'm perfectly happy wearing my Descente ski jacket into a nice restaurant in Whistler, but admit it wouldn't be my first choice if I was in Paris.
I guess my point is that a blanket condemnation of "gear" doesn't take into consideration the daily lives that many of us lead and the environments in which we live. To call it a "slippery slope" implies that most of us wouldn't discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate designs and contexts. I'd like to think that most of us on this forum would be as careful in our choice of "gear" clothing as we are with any other type. And maybe we could set the standard for showing others how this type of clothing can be both functional and fashionable.
This post has 1 photo. Photos uploaded by this member are only visible to other logged in members.
If you aren't a member, but would like to participate, please consider signing up. It only takes a minute and we'd love to have you.