I lived through the '60's pushback on female "demure" attire. We were told it was "liberating," but even at the time I thought it was just giving men what they wanted -- jiggling boobs, lots of leg, and the "liberation" of being sexually available to men with "no strings, no rings." Single motherhood skyrocketed, as did women's and children's poverty rates. Women weren't liberated enough to ask the man to put a little overcoat on their John Thomas. Still aren't, apparently.
Most women are not built for yoga pants, which explains the first joke I saw on Twitter this morning -- "Seeing women in yoga pants makes it difficult to believe they do yoga." I don't think the garment adds anything to society, and if there were a crime called "visual assault," a lot of the women who wear them would qualify.
I for one am not insulted.Lululemon,the company that kicked off the craze, charges some $125 for a pair, making the company a tidy profit.
Women it seems are willing to pay for them. The stock is up some 40 percent this year. I liken it to an arms race, if you are a young women of childbearing age, trying to attract a man, you will not go to the gym in sweatpants when some other woman gets a date or more attention because she is wearing tight yoga pants.
It could be worse for women, during the correset craze in the 1800's a thin waste so was desirable that some women removed their lower ribs.
It's usually older people who try to look their best to be as young as possible.
This includes getting into trends not associated with their demo, such as fitting into tight yoga pants.
Sometimes, the attempt comes off looking silly, no different from anyone else aspiring to appear hip or youthful.