Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Lululemon Founder to Women: It's Your Fault Our Yoga Pants Have Problems

Posted by on Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Oh, Lululemon Athletica: When you're not hosting murders, you're pulling your $100 yoga pants from the marketplace because they were accidentally see-through. Now, the company's facing a new round of pant-related complaints. Meanwhile, the company founder took to BloombergTV to share his revolutionary thoughts on the importance of taking deep breaths, and to identify the true culprit in last year's yoga-pants scandal. From Yahoo News:

Less than nine months after Lululemon came under fire for the "sheerness" of its yoga pants, the company's founder says that woman's bodies may be to blame for problems with the luxury workout attire. "Frankly, some women's bodies just don't actually work [for the yoga pants]," Chip Wilson said Tuesday in an interview on Bloomberg TV's "Street Smart" program. "It's more really about the rubbing through the thighs, how much pressure is there over a period of time, how much they use it."

Between this guy and Rob Ford, Canada's reputation is taking a beating this week. Video of BloombergTV interview below. (Pants discussion starts around 1:50 mark.)

 

Comments (44) RSS

Newest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Captain Wiggette 44
I cannot fathom how this thread has so many comments and not one person has pointed out that YOGA is the fucking problem here.

Also, @43 ftw.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on November 10, 2013 at 9:01 PM · Report this
Horton 43
Rich people problems.
Posted by Horton on November 9, 2013 at 3:52 PM · Report this
42
Overpriced crap either way.
Posted by jimboo on November 9, 2013 at 12:24 PM · Report this
Lissa 41
@39: Um if the issue is that his brand of expensive yoga pants pill up and wear out at the thigh quickly, blaming the thighs of the women wearing them is disingenuous. As I've said I buy my yoga pants at Old Navy and they hold up quite well, despite my thighs. And I run in them, so that's quite a bit friction.
Posted by Lissa on November 8, 2013 at 9:14 AM · Report this
40
Why the hell can't people just wear shorts
Posted by Reader01 on November 8, 2013 at 1:08 AM · Report this
JF 39
@30 Well, technically, his pants are fine it is the people that are too big for them that are the problem. I mean, would you put on a pair of shoes 3 sizes too small and be all "Wut the hell? These shoes are hurting my feet! WTF shoe manufacturer?" or would you just find a shoe your size?

And those ever preying yoga pants! Just last week, as my wife left the studio a pair jumped up out of the alleyway and climbed right up on her. Can you believe that? And she was so content with sweats prior to the incident. Now? Those yoga pants are on her through no choice of her own.
Posted by JF on November 7, 2013 at 3:05 PM · Report this
Lissa 38
I get mine at Target and Old Navy. I'll spend a wad of cash on some things, but not work out wear. That's just me.
Posted by Lissa on November 7, 2013 at 2:23 PM · Report this
37
@14 what's wrong with Costco yoga pants? They work well at the gym and my ass looks amazing in them. Plus they only set me back $35 so I bought enough to wear most days. You have a higher probability of seeing a woman in yoga pants when they're affordable and decent quality, you know.
Posted by wxPDX on November 7, 2013 at 2:13 PM · Report this
36
Why are there so many people here upset at the idea of overweight people trying to find active wear that fits them so that they can go exercise?

It's like you assholes get mad at the overweight for existing, then you get mad at them for "not working hard enough" and finally you get mad at them for "trying to work".

Why don't you assholes just tell the truth and say that you're mad about people who don't sexually arouse you? That's the root cause of your anger, after all.
Posted by Solk512 on November 7, 2013 at 1:58 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 35
@19: perhaps they're not spending $100 just to get the brand on their pants, but because they're actually quality garments they consider useful? Outside of the see-your-underwear part.

And comparitively, they're not overpriced - particularly for women's clothes, where the margins are much higher than for men (because we plain refuse to pay that much). Go to REI and look at Prana's offerings. Or within U Village. there's a store with MORE expensive workout/yoga clothes within spitting distance of Lululemon.

I didn't say $100 was a minimum, I just said it isn't that much nowadays.
Posted by Max Solomon on November 7, 2013 at 1:22 PM · Report this
34
PSA--for other fatties like myself--Lands End and Junonia make excellent high-quality yoga pants for those of us who need them for exercise.

And for those of you who think fat people shouldn't wear yoga pants--do you want us wearing athletic shorts instead to exercise? Choose wisely.
Posted by Marrena on November 7, 2013 at 1:11 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 33
@32 brings up a good point--if you want overweight people to become less overweight, wouldn't we want them exercising? And wouldn't it make sense, given that, to offer affordable and appropriate clothing in which to do so?
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on November 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM · Report this
Megan 32
It never ceases to astonish me that so many activewear brands actively want to avoid getting larger people in their clothes. Funny thing, but if you're trying to lose weight you often want to exercise...Plus, if you succeed in losing weight, then you have to buy new sizes, which means MORE money for these companies.
Posted by Megan on November 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM · Report this
31
If this means fewer fat chicks wearing yoga pants, then GOOD
Posted by Reader01 on November 7, 2013 at 12:40 PM · Report this
MacCrocodile 30
@21 - Business is full of lies, large and small, to make people happy and give you money. Again, this guy can do whatever he wants, but I'm going to call him an idiot if, in a business that by design preys on women who are self-conscious about their bodies, he places blame on his customers' bodies.
Posted by MacCrocodile http://maccrocodile.com/ on November 7, 2013 at 12:10 PM · Report this
29
Yay! Manufactured outrage!

Come on, this even made my eyes roll.
Posted by Bloated Jesus is Bloated on November 7, 2013 at 12:10 PM · Report this
MacCrocodile 28
@21 - I don't care if he doesn't make pants for everyone. I don't even care if he literally shoots himself in the foot and bleeds everywhere. The guy can do whatever he wants with his business, even if he wants to go on tv and say "Nah, the pants are fine, it's the fatties who are the problem."
Posted by MacCrocodile http://maccrocodile.com/ on November 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM · Report this
27
So overweight feminists are angry about something?
Posted by Put down that snickers honey on November 7, 2013 at 11:48 AM · Report this
26
Where can I launch into outrage and indignation at the makers of men's polo shirts not making them long enough ? I keep finding they fit fine in the chest but somehow, when I sit down, so many of them feel like there's a draft on my lower back.

Posted by ChefJoe on November 7, 2013 at 11:40 AM · Report this
25
I think Chip Wilson is doing just fine avoiding the fatty population with his product:
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/66/7523.html
Posted by john cocktosin 33 on November 7, 2013 at 11:35 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 24
You can buy those in India for $4
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 7, 2013 at 11:35 AM · Report this
23
My rights!

What about our rights not to see fat women in yoga pants?
Posted by Try spanx instead on November 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM · Report this
22
Seriously Slog, jumping on the fat-acceptance-as-feminist-issue is not doing you any favors, and it has dangerous public health implications. Here, few-to-none men wear the type of pants that have this problem; but if they did, the CEO would be able to say "frankly some [people's] just don't actually work [for the yoga pants]." Because of the elasticity of the fabric Lululemon uses, any hamplanet (including Chris Christie) can squeeze into an XS. (which causes the transparency problems)
Posted by taintilist on November 7, 2013 at 11:32 AM · Report this
JF 21
@4 Sounds like you've found yourself a business opportunity. Now get off the keyboard and make yourself some money by creating yoga pants that fit everyone. That or stop complaining that ONE apparel company chooses to not make pants for every single type of person in this world.
Posted by JF on November 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM · Report this
keshmeshi 20
Lucy yoga pants don't have this problem. The real culprit is retailers that offer incredibly sheer fabric as a "fashion trend", when in reality they're just trying to save a few cents per unit. I want my real fabric back.
Posted by keshmeshi on November 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 19
@14: Well, not being privy to the production cost of the garment, I really can not say how much they should cost. I mean, in a business sense they should cost as much as people are willing to pay for them.

But I do know that anyone who spends $100 on a pair of pants because of the brand name on them got hosed in a big way. Nice classist dig there though. I mean, anyone who is not spending $100 on a pair of pants must be a fashionless loser, right? Not like you though. You're sharp in your $100 sweat pants.

But to answer your insult, I have never bought pants at Costco. Not sure if I have bought anything in a Costco, actually. Any other questions?

Posted by Theodore Gorath on November 7, 2013 at 11:19 AM · Report this
18
"So make the yoga pants so they can meet all body types. Simple."

Why, to give us nightmares because you think you have a right to wear this? Try losing some weight.
Posted by Put down the snickers bar first on November 7, 2013 at 11:17 AM · Report this
17

Spanx liners?

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on November 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM · Report this
16
Thigh gap
Posted by cliche on November 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM · Report this
15
Is this really controversial? Best I can tell...he's saying something that is probably true. That stretchy pants can become sheer when they are stretched too far.

How should he say this? Or do we just label him an asshole and be done with it?
Posted by Timothy http://www.moreperfect.org on November 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 14
@11: some of them are $100. not all.

as a man with a pair of lululemon cold-weather lounge/yoga pants, i fucking love them and they're a quality garment. I don't regret spending $89 + seattle sales tax (AKA $100) on them.

how much should they cost? have you purchased a pair of pants anywhere but costco lately?
Posted by Max Solomon on November 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM · Report this
13
Just a friendly reminder that this jackass of a CEO is also a huge fan of Ayn Rand. Most people give that shit up after puberty.
Posted by Solk512 on November 7, 2013 at 11:06 AM · Report this
12
Ask not what our yoga pants can do for you, ask what you can do for our yoga pants.
Posted by Catastrophe on November 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 11
Those things are $100?

Damn, the American consumer is a dumbass.

And Chip Wilson is a stupid asshole.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on November 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM · Report this
10
Fuck you #9, and the fucktard CEO you rode in on.
Posted by judybrowni on November 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM · Report this
blowdart 9
If I can accept that I, as a 40+ male, am too damned old and too chubby for skinny jeans then people should be able to accept that some fashions look bad on them, due to age, weight, shape or whatever the fuck without starting to wave a feminist banner.
Posted by blowdart on November 7, 2013 at 10:53 AM · Report this
8
Canada's reputation is taking a beating...? Between one major city's mayor and one CEO of a company?
Posted by mhulot on November 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM · Report this
7
I would say the red pants the CEO was wearing don't work for him.
Posted by WestSeven on November 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM · Report this
6
Translation: "Some of y'all fatties shouldn't wear our clothes."

So make the yoga pants so they can meet all body types. Simple.
Posted by Patricia Kayden on November 7, 2013 at 10:51 AM · Report this
5
...or maybe your brand gets undermined when fat women think they have the right to wear clothes for slim women?
Posted by Spandex is also a privilege not a right on November 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM · Report this
MacCrocodile 4
@2 - And some CEOs seem to feel entitled to a market of nothing but slim, athletic, attractive people, small enough to make their clothes look good, but large enough to sustain their brand. If America is overweight, and a good portion of your market is American, maybe it's not good business sense to alienate fat people.
Posted by MacCrocodile http://maccrocodile.com/ on November 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM · Report this
3
@1 those butts look like they were given a Photoshop treatment
Posted by screed on November 7, 2013 at 10:41 AM · Report this
2
Unfortunately a lot of American women are over weight and fail to understand that yoga pants are a privilege, not a right. Liberalism run amok again.
Posted by Sugartit on November 7, 2013 at 10:38 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 1
I have no complaints about yoga pants.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on November 7, 2013 at 10:25 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy