# Lululemon recalls pants for being see-through



## Halifax Tar (19 Mar 2013)

The end is near!  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/03/19/business-lululemon-recall.html


----------



## Robert0288 (19 Mar 2013)

Finally a good quote off the comments section of the CBC website:

"The material may not have changed, but something did - the clientelle. Sorry ladies, some of you just stretch the material too much."


----------



## BeyondTheNow (19 Mar 2013)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> Finally a good quote off the comments section of the CBC website:
> 
> "The material may not have changed, but something did - the clientelle. Sorry ladies, some of you just stretch the material too much."



So true. I love my Lululemons. I hate seeing what some people do to them!


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (19 Mar 2013)

Just like spandex, yoga pants are a privilege and not a right.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Mar 2013)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Just like spandex, yoga pants are a privilege and not a right.



Have you been to the West End Mall in Pembroke?  Ewwwww!   Those ladies (?) haven't heard those rules.


----------



## DnentonSg (19 Mar 2013)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Just like spandex, yoga pants are a privilege and not a right.



This is gold.


----------



## Tralax (19 Mar 2013)

Weren't they supposed to be see-through?


----------



## Journeyman (19 Mar 2013)

That's the best they could come up with for a picture? A half-mannequin? 

Yet one _more_ strike against CBC.  :not-again:


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Mar 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> That's the best they could come up with for a picture? A half-mannequin?



Quite sure those aren't the pants in question, either.     

When I heard it on the news this morning, they called them "yoga tights".  What's the difference?  Beats me.   :dunno:


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Mar 2013)

At least Holly will be ok. >


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Mar 2013)

We were having a similar discussion at work last week when I observed:

"The problem with sweat pants today is too much pant, too little sweat."


----------



## cupper (19 Mar 2013)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Just like spandex, yoga pants are a privilege and not a right.



We have restrictions on firearms, but they let ANYONE wear spandex or stretch pants. >


----------



## dimsum (19 Mar 2013)

Fittingly, this is on the CBC site as #1 Most Viewed.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Mar 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> At least Holly will be ok. >



She is well qualified to weat lululemons or whatever tight outfit she chooses to wear.


----------



## dimsum (19 Mar 2013)

And the puns have started:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2013/03/sheer-lululemon-pants-would-sell-say-cheeky-observers.html

And who is this "Holly"?  I feel like I'm missing out?


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (20 Mar 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Have you been to the West End Mall in Pembroke?  Ewwwww!   Those ladies (?) haven't heard those rules.


Believe me, around my neck of the woods there are many women who have also not heard the rules.  *full body shudder*

When black pants start to turn grey because they've been stretched too much, it's time to re-think the wardrobe.



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> We have restrictions on firearms, but they let ANYONE wear spandex or stretch pants. >


Fact!


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2013)

Clever way to drive up sales, tell people that they can't have something because it's too taboo for them.


----------



## Danjanou (20 Mar 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Have you been to the West End Mall in Pembroke?  Ewwwww!   Those ladies (?) haven't heard those rules.



Thank you George I just had images of Ormocto from the 1980's that I thought decades of therapy had expunged. :'(


----------



## Mr.Neville (21 Mar 2013)

Maybe people should buy the right size and then they wouldn't be see through... come on Lululemon! Stick up for yourself!


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Mar 2013)

I was just at Lululemons in Palm Springs. All the young ladies were....qualified to work there.  ;D


----------



## cupper (21 Mar 2013)

You don't want to meet the ones here in DC.  

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-27/local/35439741_1_yoga-store-brittany-norwood-jayna-murray

The details are gruesome to say the least. She must have really wanted those yoga pants.   :not-again:


----------



## dimsum (22 Mar 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I was just at Lululemons in Palm Springs. All the young ladies were....qualified to work there.  ;D



I'll report in on the Gold Coast QLD store shortly.  For research, of course.   :nod:


----------



## blackberet17 (22 Mar 2013)

Everybody know the People of Walmart youtube ads? Welcome to the Maritimes, where you're bound to find the same kind of thing, just in less square footage.


----------



## Nemo888 (22 Mar 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> "The problem with sweat pants today is too much pant, too little sweat."









It seems that they are engineered to stretch well beyond their stated size. The recall is unfounded IMO. They need a waist band that only stretches to a certain size to prevent unrealistic expectations.


----------



## cupper (22 Mar 2013)

Or a blow out panel.


----------



## my72jeep (22 Mar 2013)

Is it just me or is this whole thing being stretched out of proportion?


----------



## MJP (22 Mar 2013)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Is it just me or is this whole thing being stretched out of proportion?



I think every one is just wrapped too tight.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Mar 2013)

Is there even a picture of a good looking woman wearing these things, showing the offending condition?

Sheesh :


----------



## Mr.Neville (22 Mar 2013)

MJP said:
			
		

> I think every one is just wrapped too tight.



Lululemon is a great company, and I think people need to see through these kind of things.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Mar 2013)

VancouverIslandHunter said:
			
		

> Lululemon is a great company, and I think people need to see through these kind of things.



 I see what you did there :nod:


----------



## cupper (23 Mar 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Is there even a picture of a good looking woman wearing these things, showing the offending condition?
> 
> Sheesh :



When in doubt, go to the source:

http://shop.lululemon.com/products/category/women-pants?ppid=women-clp:r2-l1


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Mar 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> When in doubt, go to the source:
> 
> http://shop.lululemon.com/products/category/women-pants?ppid=women-clp:r2-l1



One or two minuscule camel toes, but no see through stuff that I could discern.


----------



## agc (23 Mar 2013)

http://youtu.be/guYcnGKg9Z8

Act now!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Mar 2013)

agc said:
			
		

> http://youtu.be/guYcnGKg9Z8
> 
> Act now!


----------



## pretentious (23 Mar 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Is there even a picture of a good looking woman wearing these things, showing the offending condition?
> 
> Sheesh :



Someone needs to teach you how to internet D:


----------



## NavyShooter (23 Mar 2013)

I figured I'd follow up on this thread this morning....





Here's a comparison photo:


----------



## NavyShooter (23 Mar 2013)

This is apparently another comparison:


----------



## NavyShooter (23 Mar 2013)

Note, the images posted are purely for the sake of comparison, and from what I'm able to gather, the photojournalists involved in the gathering of them probably had no ulterior motives...at all...when they were snatc...I mean snapping the photos.

The most interesting of them I think is the one with the red arrows photoshopped in, however, there's a couple of problems with it.  

First is the fact that the "see thru" one (the one with the greater "sheerness") is much closer to the camera than the other.  

Second is that we're not certain if the pants are, in fact, the lululemon pants in question.

Third is the consideration that neither of the covered surfaces are of the same exact dimensions, and that brings up the "sizing" effect....if excessively small (or excessively large) pants are worn, it will have a different impact on the sheerness observed.  

The true test of this situation would be to have one model for the test, with two pairs (or perhaps more) of the product pants in question (before and after the fabric change) with constant lighting, constant camera, (fitted to a tripod) and a consistent "bend at the hip" angle maintained for equal stretch testing, with equal/measured distance from the lens of the camera.

AS OF YET, my research has not turned up a scientifically done study such as this, however, if I'm able to turn up a series of such comparison photos that objectify the discussion and remove the variables so that a clear picture of the full scope of the issue can properly be examined, I will do so.

Until then, I'll be surfing the web on Saturday morning for yoga pant pictures...sound like fun?   ;D 

NS


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Mar 2013)

And to add some more to the debate, here is a link to a National Post Saturday staple - a week's diary entries by a newsmaker. This week features the musings of the Lululemon CEO on the yoga pants.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/22/dear-diary-we-sell-glorified-overpriced-butt-pants-to-people-who-havent-seen-a-yoga-mat-in-their-lives/


----------



## 57Chevy (23 Mar 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> yoga pants.



gargantuan butts stretch most fabrics to uselessness.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Mar 2013)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> This is apparently another comparison:



OK! Now that's what I 'm talking about right there'

Thanks NS 

Booyaa


----------



## cupper (23 Mar 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> One or two minuscule camel toes, but no see through stuff that I could discern.



Well, I could have posted this, but that would just be wrong. >


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Mar 2013)




----------



## PAdm (23 Mar 2013)

You know, I am trapped, I mean diligently sitting here on a Sat at home working on PERs.  I am losing the will to live and decided to take a break.  This thread made my day.  And yes, it became better with pics.  More clear evidence please.


----------



## Franko (23 Mar 2013)

The Chive is your friend. 

Regards


----------



## Thompson_JM (25 Mar 2013)

For those wishing to conduct more extensive... ahem... research, several individuals have established a website where this can be done (mostly work safe) at great length. 

www.girlsinyogapants.com 

Good luck in your research men  ;D  ;D  ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Mar 2013)

I dunno I see lululemon pants and all yoga pants a push bras for the bum... And I love big buts and I can not lie!


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Mar 2013)

Tommy said:
			
		

> For those wishing to conduct more extensive... ahem... research, several individuals have established a website where this can be done (mostly work safe) at great length.
> 
> www.girlsinyogapants.com
> 
> Good luck in your research men  ;D  ;D  ;D



Thank you. You have done a great service for mankind!  >


----------



## Thompson_JM (14 Apr 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Thank you. You have done a great service for mankind!  >



My only concern in this is Science.... Only after extensive research can any sort of thorough conclusions be reached....  ;D 

I swear.... lol.... 

But seriously, for you Jim, the world!


----------

