Now, I'm thick as pigshit, but I reckon that, on balance, she does say yes or no.. Also, if she wore a thick bulky sweater it would take a crane to lift her out Again afterwards..
Potatoman-J said: Looks fantastic, but once again reinforces something young girls round here need to learn. Leggings ARE NOT PANTS!!!
No but you can see her pants though her leggings (which is something I particularly like to see, though I prefer to see and wear multiple sheer tights without pants at all, where possible, as that feels much nicer) ... and very nice both pairs are, too!
Quite strange that the front appears to be opaque and shiny while the rear appears to be partly sheer and matt.
Actually, that does also raise the interesting question of when footless tights become leggings and vice versa.
Either way, she looks absolutely stunning in them. (I'm now imagining a pair of big muddy handprints on the clean shot of that sexy little arse of hers ... preferably made by my hands! LoL!)
Potatoman-J said: Looks fantastic, but once again reinforces something young girls round here need to learn. Leggings ARE NOT PANTS!!!
To be more accurate, tights are not leggings.
Proper leggings are indeed trousers (aka pants in the US), because they are completely opaque, and usually have a slightly (or not so slightly) shiny finish, and don't end up showing the wearer's underwear underneath. These aren't leggings, they're tights pretending to be - which will probably go down a storm here, esp as Leon is the grand master of gunging girls in tights
Potatoman-J said: Looks fantastic, but once again reinforces something young girls round here need to learn. Leggings ARE NOT PANTS!!!
To be more accurate, tights are not leggings.
Proper leggings are indeed trousers (aka pants in the US), because they are completely opaque, and usually have a slightly (or not so slightly) shiny finish, and don't end up showing the wearer's underwear underneath. These aren't leggings, they're tights pretending to be - which will probably go down a storm here, esp as Leon is the grand master of gunging girls in tights
Right...I think. Damn English having too damn many dialects and versions.
LizzieClaymore said: Well as I said earlier, it's difficult to define where footless tights turn into leggings.
I suspect the answer to that depends on whether the person answering likes tights or not. To me, if something goes see-through it's not leggings, it's tights. Not my thing but I know others love them.
Right...I think. Damn English having too damn many dialects and versions.
LOL! I spent years trying to get MM to add "trousers" as an option in the scene tags, because to me (and most folk in the UK), "pants" means basically men's underwear, and not the sexy kind either. Though as a mate pointed out the US usage is more logical, pants are what you wear over the top, underpants are what you wear under your pants.
LOL! I spent years trying to get MM to add "trousers" as an option in the scene tags, because to me (and most folk in the UK), "pants" means basically men's underwear, and not the sexy kind either.
Not just mens ... and the female sort can be sexy!
I think the differences between tights and pantyhose is often lost too. In the UK, they're all tights whether sheer or opaque, unless they're leggings, which are really thick opaques but more like skin-tight trousers (and arguably men sometimes wear leggings for special circumstances though, confusingly, they're often now referred to as tights (e.g. running tights)). The main distinguishing factor is that leggings are always footless. However, you can get sheer footless tights but you don't often come across those.
If I understand it correctly, in the US, sheer tights are pantyhose whereas opaque tights are leggings, not to be confused with our leggings. I'm not sure what the US equivalent of our leggings would be; possibly skin-tight pants?
The one thing we can probably all agree on is that they're great when filled with gloop!
Love you, too
) 
