Explain to me. Parkas and Bare Legs. Really?

#MBTA Orange Line | Back Bay Station | Feb 9 8:25 a.m. | 25F/-3.8C

Fully understanding that this will make me sound like I'm a hundred and eighteen years old, I have to go ahead and ask it.

"Ladies. Seriously? Bare legs with a parka? In Boston? In February? Seriously?"

Sorry. I had to get that out.

I don't get it. And by "don't get it," I mean... "AREN'T YOU FREEZING COLD????"

Now. I know that I come from a more conservative place, and that in that place, winters rarely brought snow and frequently required nothing more than a light wool coat.

New England is not that place.

And maybe it's just me, but I don't really find blue icicle legs (mine) attractive or comfortable really (mine) when the wind whips off of Boston Harbor and around the financial district.

COLD! THAT'S COLD!!!

So there's that.

I was just thankful today to find out I'm not the only one questioning this. Capitol Hill Style and Corporette both have had (similar) entries on the issue recently. None of the commentors could really land on a consensus (weird!) with some being pro bare legs and some pro-tights.

I will note however that no one seemed to be taking a pro blue icicle legs (mine) position.

Just something I noticed.

Comments

[Randy B]

I can't believe it either. Never-mind that a large percentage of the women have no business going bare, bare legs just don't cut it in the business world.

The "bare is better" theme that has ruled over the past decade is just wrong. Now that spring has arrived, the even-worse trend of women wearing flip-flops and ugly, crusty feet is just aweful. I mean it is hard not to notice; like watching a train wreck.

Ladies, wear stockings, and please hide your feet if they are not attractive and well-kept.