What do we think of Athleta?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm 31, 5'8" and a size 4. Athleta for work out clothes, like you're seriously working out, is fine. Athleta for casual wear looks frumpy to me and is really just a step up from wearing yoga pants and a tshirt. It seems to be moms that want to wear something that they can run after their kids in and be supported, but they think because it's a dress or because its colorful, that they look like they've tried.

It's definitely not sexy - pp with those three dresses, I hate to break it to you. Everything is full coverage, thick stretchy looking material, holding you in, cross in the back stuff that looks athletic rather than stylish. The colors and patterns are dowdy and say late 30s to 40s mom to me.

Want to be comfortable and stylish and still able to run after your kids? The slim moms in well-fitting skinny or straight jeans, ballet flats or ankle boots, a tshirt and a scarf or fitted moto jacket have the same effect and for much cheaper than a bright patterned stretchy dress with a built-in bra.

Hmmm lemmesee ... the HUSBAND of the PP who posted three dresses said he found them to be quite sexy. A heterosexual woman says they are not sexy. Who gets more cred?

Everything is full coverage? I guess it's sexy to run around with your junk hanging out?

Material that holds you in (and slims you down) is not sexy.

Dresses that cross in back are athletic, not sexy.

I think someone wishes she could fit into Athleta.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 31, 5'8" and a size 4. Athleta for work out clothes, like you're seriously working out, is fine. Athleta for casual wear looks frumpy to me and is really just a step up from wearing yoga pants and a tshirt. It seems to be moms that want to wear something that they can run after their kids in and be supported, but they think because it's a dress or because its colorful, that they look like they've tried.

It's definitely not sexy - pp with those three dresses, I hate to break it to you. Everything is full coverage, thick stretchy looking material, holding you in, cross in the back stuff that looks athletic rather than stylish. The colors and patterns are dowdy and say late 30s to 40s mom to me.

Want to be comfortable and stylish and still able to run after your kids? The slim moms in well-fitting skinny or straight jeans, ballet flats or ankle boots, a tshirt and a scarf or fitted moto jacket have the same effect and for much cheaper than a bright patterned stretchy dress with a built-in bra.

But can you explain to us how you run after your kids with a stick up your ass?

Hey, the question up for debate was is Athleta "in" or "out"? Others have asserted that it's stylish and sexy. I disagree and I posted why. What did you want to post?

I get tired of reading on these boards the only way to be stylish/sexy is to wear skinny jeans and ballet flats, which I personally think look terrible on most women (and reads a little uptight). There is no "one size fits all" approach to looking good.

The other day I had lunch with my husband near his job, wearing my Athleta shorts and some random shirt. Later that day, his co-worker said to him: "Who did I see you having lunch with? Your girlfriend? I thought you were married." My husband said: "That was my wife." The guy said, "Oh, I thought it was some college kid you picked up." I'm 37, so this story obviously made my day (though, admittedly, maybe I was dressed a little casual). But you don't put on a pair of [insert brand here] shorts and automatically become frumpy/dowdy. There are plenty of frumps wearing ballet flats, skinny jeans, and scarfs. If you find something that flatters you--regardless of whether it's at the Gap or Nordstrom, or whether it is trendy or not--by all means, buy it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of the women on here bashing Athleta are too...portly to fit into them. Except for the 5'9" chick, who probably needs to stop buying the tall sizes.

Or maybe too....stylish.

I mean, really? The Gap? Do you also dine at the Olive Garden for a nice meal?

Ummm, did you go to some community college for intellectual enrichment?

Athleta is not the Gap. It is owned by the Gap. Chanel owns L'Oreal.

Is Banana Republic not up to your standards, either?

[Anonymous]

The other day I had lunch with my husband near his job, wearing my Athleta shorts and some random shirt. Later that day, his co-worker said to him: "Who did I see you having lunch with? Your girlfriend? I thought you were married." My husband said: "That was my wife." The guy said, "Oh, I thought it was some college kid you picked up." I'm 37, so this story obviously made my day (though, admittedly, maybe I was dressed a little casual). But you don't put on a pair of [insert brand here] shorts and automatically become frumpy/dowdy. There are plenty of frumps wearing ballet flats, skinny jeans, and scarfs. If you find something that flatters you--regardless of whether it's at the Gap or Nordstrom, or whether it is trendy or not--by all means, buy it.

Exactly. Men do double-takes when they see me wearing these size 6 shorts: http://athleta.gap.com/browse/product.do?cid=86349&vid=1&pid=739408092

Suburban frumpy? How about sour grapes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm 31, 5'8" and a size 4. Athleta for work out clothes, like you're seriously working out, is fine. Athleta for casual wear looks frumpy to me and is really just a step up from wearing yoga pants and a tshirt. It seems to be moms that want to wear something that they can run after their kids in and be supported, but they think because it's a dress or because its colorful, that they look like they've tried.

It's definitely not sexy - pp with those three dresses, I hate to break it to you. Everything is full coverage, thick stretchy looking material, holding you in, cross in the back stuff that looks athletic rather than stylish. The colors and patterns are dowdy and say late 30s to 40s mom to me.

Want to be comfortable and stylish and still able to run after your kids? The slim moms in well-fitting skinny or straight jeans, ballet flats or ankle boots, a tshirt and a scarf or fitted moto jacket have the same effect and for much cheaper than a bright patterned stretchy dress with a built-in bra.

Skinny jeans are tacky. Ballet flats make everyone's legs look fatter. Ankle boots are dowdy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 31, 5'8" and a size 4. Athleta for work out clothes, like you're seriously working out, is fine. Athleta for casual wear looks frumpy to me and is really just a step up from wearing yoga pants and a tshirt. It seems to be moms that want to wear something that they can run after their kids in and be supported, but they think because it's a dress or because its colorful, that they look like they've tried.

It's definitely not sexy - pp with those three dresses, I hate to break it to you. Everything is full coverage, thick stretchy looking material, holding you in, cross in the back stuff that looks athletic rather than stylish. The colors and patterns are dowdy and say late 30s to 40s mom to me.

Want to be comfortable and stylish and still able to run after your kids? The slim moms in well-fitting skinny or straight jeans, ballet flats or ankle boots, a tshirt and a scarf or fitted moto jacket have the same effect and for much cheaper than a bright patterned stretchy dress with a built-in bra.

Skinny jeans are tacky. Ballet flats make everyone's legs look fatter. Ankle boots are dowdy.

Hey, feel free to disagree with me. I maintain that if you want to look "in" as the OP originally asked about - Athleta is not going to be your look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 31, 5'8" and a size 4. Athleta for work out clothes, like you're seriously working out, is fine. Athleta for casual wear looks frumpy to me and is really just a step up from wearing yoga pants and a tshirt. It seems to be moms that want to wear something that they can run after their kids in and be supported, but they think because it's a dress or because its colorful, that they look like they've tried.

It's definitely not sexy - pp with those three dresses, I hate to break it to you. Everything is full coverage, thick stretchy looking material, holding you in, cross in the back stuff that looks athletic rather than stylish. The colors and patterns are dowdy and say late 30s to 40s mom to me.

Want to be comfortable and stylish and still able to run after your kids? The slim moms in well-fitting skinny or straight jeans, ballet flats or ankle boots, a tshirt and a scarf or fitted moto jacket have the same effect and for much cheaper than a bright patterned stretchy dress with a built-in bra.

Hmmm lemmesee ... the HUSBAND of the PP who posted three dresses said he found them to be quite sexy. A heterosexual woman says they are not sexy. Who gets more cred?

Everything is full coverage? I guess it's sexy to run around with your junk hanging out?

Material that holds you in (and slims you down) is not sexy.

Dresses that cross in back are athletic, not sexy.

I think someone wishes she could fit into Athleta.

How would I not fit into Athleta? So you agree with me that material that holds you in and that dresses that cross in the back are not sexy? And the opposite of "full coverage" is not "all your junk hanging out." I'm glad PP's husband thinks she looks sexy in those dresses, but they are not "in."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 31, 5'8" and a size 4. Athleta for work out clothes, like you're seriously working out, is fine. Athleta for casual wear looks frumpy to me and is really just a step up from wearing yoga pants and a tshirt. It seems to be moms that want to wear something that they can run after their kids in and be supported, but they think because it's a dress or because its colorful, that they look like they've tried.

It's definitely not sexy - pp with those three dresses, I hate to break it to you. Everything is full coverage, thick stretchy looking material, holding you in, cross in the back stuff that looks athletic rather than stylish. The colors and patterns are dowdy and say late 30s to 40s mom to me.

Want to be comfortable and stylish and still able to run after your kids? The slim moms in well-fitting skinny or straight jeans, ballet flats or ankle boots, a tshirt and a scarf or fitted moto jacket have the same effect and for much cheaper than a bright patterned stretchy dress with a built-in bra.

Skinny jeans are tacky. Ballet flats make everyone's legs look fatter. Ankle boots are dowdy.

I disagree. I disagree. I disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The other day I had lunch with my husband near his job, wearing my Athleta shorts and some random shirt. Later that day, his co-worker said to him: "Who did I see you having lunch with? Your girlfriend? I thought you were married." My husband said: "That was my wife." The guy said, "Oh, I thought it was some college kid you picked up." I'm 37, so this story obviously made my day (though, admittedly, maybe I was dressed a little casual). But you don't put on a pair of [insert brand here] shorts and automatically become frumpy/dowdy. There are plenty of frumps wearing ballet flats, skinny jeans, and scarfs. If you find something that flatters you--regardless of whether it's at the Gap or Nordstrom, or whether it is trendy or not--by all means, buy it.

Exactly. Men do double-takes when they see me wearing these size 6 shorts: http://athleta.gap.com/browse/product.do?cid=86349&vid=1&pid=739408092

Suburban frumpy? How about sour grapes?

I don't get why it's "sour grapes" to say that something is suburban frumpy. My opinion is that Athleta is, generally speaking, suburban mom, which is generally the opposite of "in." It doesn't mean that some people don't think some of it is sexy mom or that you don't look hot in those shorts. What straight men don't like well-toned women in shorts? It doesn't mean that because you look hot in those shorts that Athleta is "in." Also stating my opinion that it is not in has nothing to do with how I look in Athleta or that I'm jealous of those that do look good in Athleta. The simple fact is that I think it says suburban mom. Is your look suburban mom? Your husband likes you in Athleta? Awesome, rock on with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I get tired of reading on these boards the only way to be stylish/sexy is to wear skinny jeans and ballet flats, which I personally think look terrible on most women (and reads a little uptight). There is no "one size fits all" approach to looking good.

Note that no one has ever said that the "only way" to be stylish/sexy is skinny jeans and flats. I said that if you want an easy to wear and throw on, stylish look that you can run after your kids in, then skinny jeans and flats would be perfect. The reason that look keeps coming up is because this is a mom board and it's an easy look for a mom that wants to still look stylish to look good in. I disagree wholeheartedly that it reads uptight if done casually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 31, 5'8" and a size 4. Athleta for work out clothes, like you're seriously working out, is fine. Athleta for casual wear looks frumpy to me and is really just a step up from wearing yoga pants and a tshirt. It seems to be moms that want to wear something that they can run after their kids in and be supported, but they think because it's a dress or because its colorful, that they look like they've tried.

It's definitely not sexy - pp with those three dresses, I hate to break it to you. Everything is full coverage, thick stretchy looking material, holding you in, cross in the back stuff that looks athletic rather than stylish. The colors and patterns are dowdy and say late 30s to 40s mom to me.

Want to be comfortable and stylish and still able to run after your kids? The slim moms in well-fitting skinny or straight jeans, ballet flats or ankle boots, a tshirt and a scarf or fitted moto jacket have the same effect and for much cheaper than a bright patterned stretchy dress with a built-in bra.

Hmmm lemmesee ... the HUSBAND of the PP who posted three dresses said he found them to be quite sexy. A heterosexual woman says they are not sexy. Who gets more cred?

Everything is full coverage? I guess it's sexy to run around with your junk hanging out?

Material that holds you in (and slims you down) is not sexy.

Dresses that cross in back are athletic, not sexy.

I think someone wishes she could fit into Athleta.

How would I not fit into Athleta? So you agree with me that material that holds you in and that dresses that cross in the back are not sexy? And the opposite of "full coverage" is not "all your junk hanging out." I'm glad PP's husband thinks she looks sexy in those dresses, but they are not "in."

You said they were not sexy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I get tired of reading on these boards the only way to be stylish/sexy is to wear skinny jeans and ballet flats, which I personally think look terrible on most women (and reads a little uptight). There is no "one size fits all" approach to looking good.

Note that no one has ever said that the "only way" to be stylish/sexy is skinny jeans and flats. I said that if you want an easy to wear and throw on, stylish look that you can run after your kids in, then skinny jeans and flats would be perfect. The reason that look keeps coming up is because this is a mom board and it's an easy look for a mom that wants to still look stylish to look good in. I disagree wholeheartedly that it reads uptight if done casually.

Flats and skinny jeans are not stylish, nor do they look good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The other day I had lunch with my husband near his job, wearing my Athleta shorts and some random shirt. Later that day, his co-worker said to him: "Who did I see you having lunch with? Your girlfriend? I thought you were married." My husband said: "That was my wife." The guy said, "Oh, I thought it was some college kid you picked up." I'm 37, so this story obviously made my day (though, admittedly, maybe I was dressed a little casual). But you don't put on a pair of [insert brand here] shorts and automatically become frumpy/dowdy. There are plenty of frumps wearing ballet flats, skinny jeans, and scarfs. If you find something that flatters you--regardless of whether it's at the Gap or Nordstrom, or whether it is trendy or not--by all means, buy it.

Exactly. Men do double-takes when they see me wearing these size 6 shorts: http://athleta.gap.com/browse/product.do?cid=86349&vid=1&pid=739408092

Suburban frumpy? How about sour grapes?

I don't get why it's "sour grapes" to say that something is suburban frumpy. My opinion is that Athleta is, generally speaking, suburban mom, which is generally the opposite of "in." It doesn't mean that some people don't think some of it is sexy mom or that you don't look hot in those shorts. What straight men don't like well-toned women in shorts? It doesn't mean that because you look hot in those shorts that Athleta is "in." Also stating my opinion that it is not in has nothing to do with how I look in Athleta or that I'm jealous of those that do look good in Athleta. The simple fact is that I think it says suburban mom. Is your look suburban mom? Your husband likes you in Athleta? Awesome, rock on with it.

What is it, exactly, about those shorts that says "suburban mom" to you? Do you feel bad about yourself because you can't afford DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The other day I had lunch with my husband near his job, wearing my Athleta shorts and some random shirt. Later that day, his co-worker said to him: "Who did I see you having lunch with? Your girlfriend? I thought you were married." My husband said: "That was my wife." The guy said, "Oh, I thought it was some college kid you picked up." I'm 37, so this story obviously made my day (though, admittedly, maybe I was dressed a little casual). But you don't put on a pair of [insert brand here] shorts and automatically become frumpy/dowdy. There are plenty of frumps wearing ballet flats, skinny jeans, and scarfs. If you find something that flatters you--regardless of whether it's at the Gap or Nordstrom, or whether it is trendy or not--by all means, buy it.

Exactly. Men do double-takes when they see me wearing these size 6 shorts: http://athleta.gap.com/browse/product.do?cid=86349&vid=1&pid=739408092

Suburban frumpy? How about sour grapes?

I don't get why it's "sour grapes" to say that something is suburban frumpy. My opinion is that Athleta is, generally speaking, suburban mom, which is generally the opposite of "in." It doesn't mean that some people don't think some of it is sexy mom or that you don't look hot in those shorts. What straight men don't like well-toned women in shorts? It doesn't mean that because you look hot in those shorts that Athleta is "in." Also stating my opinion that it is not in has nothing to do with how I look in Athleta or that I'm jealous of those that do look good in Athleta. The simple fact is that I think it says suburban mom. Is your look suburban mom? Your husband likes you in Athleta? Awesome, rock on with it.

What is it, exactly, about those shorts that says "suburban mom" to you? Do you feel bad about yourself because you can't afford DC?

Ah, the "you don't like it so you must not be able to afford it" defense. Got it. You win.

[Anonymous]

Didn't you or some other moron also say that Athleta is for women who are out of shape?