Maybe it is a "because we can" thing, for two different reasons. Firstly tutus were considered quite risque when first worn, so the extra ruffles and the slight droop to the skirt would provide some modesty. Of course, in the last 50 years attitudes have changed, and seeing the tops of a girls legs and even being able to see her knickers, is not particularly terrible as long as not portreyed in an overtly sexual manner - it is quite acceptable for Geri Halliwell (a british popstar, for those who don't get the reference) to prance around in pants and vest in her latest video. In addition, technology and fabrics have changed and it may be easier to get a sticky-out skirt without all the different layers underneath, and of course it is natural to want to try out whatever new techniques are available.<P>Of course ballet is such a traditional thing that I'm sure the traditional ways will remain - Gaynor Minden may exist but many people still prefer traditional paste shoes. I think it's the same with tutus - we should consider ourselves lucky to have a choice!<P>P.S. <P>It has just occurred to me that pants and vest doesn't mean underwear, in the US! Translation: panties and tank top I think. When I was at primary school, we wore pants and vest for indoor P.E. - I'm not sure that would even be legal now!
<p>[This message has been edited by hoxy (edited November 01, 2001).]