The new Superman costume (the Lee one, not the Rags' version) grates on me. He's invulnerable and they've got him wearing armor?
while that is somewhat of a conflicting issue... it sure as fuck makes more sense than wearing a body stocking.
Why? The main purpose of clothing (other than modesty) is protecting the vulnerable areas of the body (from injury, heat, cold, etc.). Superman doesn't need that protection. On other hand, a "body stocking" can be worn under his civilian clothes. As such it the tights make more sense for Superman. In fact, he might be the only superhero where tights makes the most sense.
"armor" makes more sense than spandex because of the default; spandex makes no sense. none of it makes sense, really. why would superman have a cape, for crying out loud. so, really, we're debating silly upon silly.
but, to me, something other than the comic book cliche of pajamas just makes more sense, even if the only justification is there's no reason for the alternative stretchy cloth so-skin-tight you can see sinew. if we're playing the "superman is invulnerable" card, then he should go the watchmen route and not wear anything. if you're asking for modesty as well as speed and convenience: he's superman. he could fly to kansas, get his overalls, and fly back to metropolis before braniac finishes his first punch. the practicality of wearing something beneath his work clothes just means he should wear a suit a few sizes larger - which, as clark kent, bumbling shit head, he should already do. none of which, of course, would help him explain why he's wearing a long-sleeved shirt every minute of every day. or his incredibly embarrassing compulsion to adjust "the boys" beneath 11 pairs of underwear.
to me, a shirt with a function beyond "hey, it's blue" makes 1% more sense - even if both concepts are silly. whether that's armor, or some slightly "padded" suit ("padded" not necessarily meaning "padding", just something more regular than spandex).
