27 Comfortable Pieces Of Clothing From Old Navy To Lounge In All Week
It's time you reached your highest form: a couch potato.
Unless otherwise specified, all sizes in this post are listed in women's.
1. Some extra soft wide-leg sweats you're probably going to want to buy in every color so you can always have a clean pair to change into for your days-long movie-watching marathon.
Old Navy
Promising review:"I love the fit! TTS. So comfortable and looks put together when paired with the dynamic fleece top. Washes up well and maintains softness." — Katie
2. A ridiculously comfortable jersey pajama jumpsuit because who can be bothered to pick out a coordinating top and bottom when you're just trying to have a lazy day?
Old Navy
Promising review:"Cute, and comfy, and easy to throw on." — Jennifer
3. A pair of high-waisted flare leggings you could totally wear to a yoga class, but then you're gonna wanna keep them on after because of how buttery soft they are.
Old Navy
Promising reviews:"These are the best pants ever! They are comfortable like yoga pants but can be dressed up for work or a night out! They feel so soft to the touch. I ordered more!" — Old Navy Customer
"Very nice shape and length." — Leah
4. And a coordinating cropped tee shirt as soft as clouds, so you can have a lil' coordinating set moment, even if you're just living the couch potato fantasy all day.
5. A fleece zip-up hoodie to have in your closet for those days when you just don't feel like wearing grown-up clothes and wanna be comfy while you work from home.
Old Navy
6. A pair of uber-cozy shorts because, for some reason, wearing pajama shorts in public is frowned upon, and these are the next best thing. Now you don't have to change when you have to peel yourself off the couch to run to the bodega for snacks.
Old Navy
7. A snug crop tank top with a crewneck made of a super soft cotton blend, because not every lounge-day staple has to be baggy to be super comfortable.
8. Or a boxy muscle tee if you want to look like an absolute badass while lounging in bed watching the newest episode of The White Lotus.
Old Navy
9. A T-shirt dress that's basically like your favorite nightgown but still presentable enough to wear when you greet your delivery person at your door when they bring your dinner.
Old Navy
10. Or a maxi version of the dress if your house gets a little chilly and want to keep warm while you're snuggled up reading your favorite book.
11. An oversize T-shirt because you've been wearing that same Taylor Swift Fearless Tour shirt since 2010, and it's so covered in holes, it's basically just a rag. Time to replace your beloved oversized tee with this beauty for optimal lounging!
Old Navy
Promising review:"I love my shirts to be on the longer side, so I purchased three of these shirts in a tall and that's exactly what I got! All three color shirts are vibrant and beautiful." — Madison M
12. And a pair of ~cloud comfy~ biker shorts you're going to want to pair with the shirt above, so you can exude Princess Diana vibes while you're rewatching The Crown.
Old Navy
Promising review:"I love these shorts. They're the right length and not too short, the fabric is soft and comfy, and I absolutely love the high waist!!!" — Christina
13. A pair of wide-leg sweatpants so comfortable, they'll ruin every other pair of sweatpants you've ever worn. Heaven isn't a place on earth, but believe me when I say that these come pretty close.
Promising review:"I have two pairs, and they are so comfy, so quality, and so cute. I am 5'5" and got an XS. They were very long when I first got them; after washing them a few times, they are perfect length! They are high-wasted but can also be worn low-wasted, or if you fold over the waistband, it looks so cute!" — Beatrice M
Price: $17.49+ (originally $36.99; available in sizes XS–4X, including tall and petite fits, and seven colors)
14. An oversize tunic hoodie for optimal comfy vibes. The deep V-neck ensures this won't accidentally choke up on you while you fall asleep on the couch. (Safety is key when lazing responsibly.)
Old Navy
Promising review:"I love this sweatshirt, the fit, the colors, and the material. I bought it for boating season but ended up buying it in other colors to wear too!" — Jaime
Price: $21.99 (originally $44.99; available in sizes XS–4X, including tall and petite fits, and eight colors)
15. Or a gray quarter-zip jacket with a cozy exaggerated collar you're gonna reach for, while you're curled up in your favorite chair listening to your favorite podcast.
Old Navy
Promising review:"This pullover is a new favorite! True to Old Navy, the quality of the material is lovely! The fabric is very soft on the skin. Don't be fooled by the lightweight material; it kept me warm and cozy when needed. I've received many compliments and am glad I made the purchase." — Catalina
16. A flannel button-down because you can throw it on top of any one of your shirts for an extra layer of warmth if your house is constantly chilly and you're trying to focus on the movie you're watching rather than your chattering teeth.
Old Navy
Promising review:"This shirt is soft, the colors are clean and really pop. With the boyfriend fit, an XL, I'm able to actually button it, and it's still roomy and looks cute!" — Alyssa
17. A pair of super comfy cuffed sweatpants with an elastic waist and pockets you're going to basically want to live in from now until the end of time.
Old Navy
Promising review:"Absolutely love these pants. The regular length is perfect, even though I am quite tall. It's long enough to cover ankles but still looks a little baggy. It is warm, comfortable, breathable, and does not shrink when washed." — Jean Marie
18. A stretchy mid-rise skort so you can skip sliding into a pair of rigid denim shorts and stay comfy indoors when it's hot outside.
Old Navy
Price: $14.99 (originally $29.99; available in sizes XS–4X and three colors)
19. An oversized crewneck sweatshirt because if you don't already have a cozy sweatshirt in your closet, how have you made it this far in life?
Old Navy
Promising review:"I love this sweater. Super comfortable and not too thick but not thin either. My new fave!!" — Alicia
Price: $18.49+ (originally $36.99; available in sizes XS–4X and four colors)
20. An open-front wrap sweater that's basically just a fancier version of your favorite robe, except you can actually wear it out in public without strangers giving you a side-eye (and then comfortable retreat back to your pillow fort).
Old Navy
Promising review:"This is easy to wear and fits perfectly. Nice light wrap, but also very warm when you needed it." — Teresa
Price: $19.99+ (originally $39.99; available in sizes XS–4X and four colors)
21. A trendy graphic sweatshirt with "Cozy Club" on the front to signal to your roommates that you're going to need access to the couch all day long for a movie marathon.
Old Navy
Promising review:"Absolutely love the fit and feel of my Cozy Club sweatshirt. My daughter and I fought over who gets to keep it, so I'm ordering another for us to twin! Sleeve and hem lengths are perfect." — Daisy
Price: $9.47+ (originally $36.99; available in sizes XS–4X, three lengths, and eight colors)
22. A waist-defined V-neck jumpsuit that, on first glance, looks like it might just be for fancy events, but once you put it on, you're going to be amazed at how comfy it is. This is great for when you have somewhere you have to be later in the day, but want to just laze around your house until then.
Old Navy
Promising review:"So comfortable! I love that it can be dressed up or down. After wearing it for Christmas, I bought two more the next day!" — Old Navy Reviewer
Price: $6.96+ (originally $49.99; available in sizes XS–4X, three lengths, and three colors)
23. A barrel-shaped pair of sweats you will love hanging out at your house in, but they're also pretty darn chic-looking, so you could probably get away with wearing them at the office!
Old Navy
Promising review:"Comfy to run errands in or just for a lazy day at home." — maryh
Price: $21.99 (originally $44.99; available in sizes XS–4X, three lengths, and three colors)
24. A V-neck cardi if you're looking for an update to your WFH uniform, you feel good about being seen in for your Zoom meetings, but also comfortable lounging in once everyone signs off.
Old Navy
Price: $21.99+ (originally $44.99; available in sizes XS–4X, three lengths, and four colors)
25. A pair of effortless gauzy pants so lightweight, you'll feel like you aren't even wearing pants. (Which is what we're going for, right?)
Old Navy
Price: $19.99 (originally $39.99; available in sizes XS–4X, three lengths, and seven colors)
26. Or a pair of stretchy pants you can rock at the office, but you won't want to take off once you get home because they're just that comfortable.
Old Navy
Promising review: "I love these pants. They are extremely comfortable and cute. I got so many compliments on these!" — Court S.
Price: $19.99 (originally $39.99; available in sizes XS–4X and five colors)
27. A pair of linen shorts with pockets (!!!) because you need a place to keep your snacks if you can't manage to peel yourself off the couch and walk to the kitchen to snag some munchies.
Old Navy
Price: $14.99+ (available in sizes XXS–4X and eight colors)
Reviews have been edited for length and/or clarity.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why does Mark Zuckerberg want our kids to use chatbots? And other unanswered questions.
Meta is under fire for its AI chatbots being allowed to talk "seductively" to kids. Meta is investing heavily in AI, and Mark Zuckerberg says "personal superintelligence" is the future. Business Insider correspondents Katie Notopoulos and Peter Kafka discuss why Meta is pushing these chatbots. Peter Kafka: Welcome back from vacation, Katie. You were out last week when Reuters broke a story I desperately wanted to ask you about: A Meta document had been telling the people in charge of building its chatbots that "It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual." It's a bonkers report. A Meta spokesperson told Business Insider it has since revised the document and that its policies prohibit content that sexualizes children. I have so many questions for you. But maybe we can start with this one: Why does Meta want us to use chatbots, anyway? Katie Notopoulos: It was a bonkers report! I imagine Meta sees what companies like or Replika are doing — these companion chatbots that people are sinking hours and hours and real money into using. If you're a company like Meta that makes consumer apps for fun and socializing, this seems like the next big thing. You want people to spend lots and lots of time on your apps doing fun stuff. Of course, the question is, "Are these chatbots a good thing?" Peter: You read my mind, Katie. I do want to get to the Is-This-A-Good-Idea-In-General question. Let's stick with the Is-It-Good-For-Meta question for another minute, though: There are lots of things that people like to do online, and if Meta wanted to, it could try doing lots of those things. But it doesn't. I think it's obvious why Meta doesn't offer, say, porn. (Though some of its chatbots, as we will probably discuss, seem to nod a bit in that direction). But there are lots of other things it could offer that are engaging that it doesn't offer: A Spotify-like streaming service, for instance. Or a Netflix-like streaming service, or… OK. I think I might have partially answered my own question: Those two ideas would involve paying other people a lot of money to stream their songs or movies. Meta loves the model it has when users supply it with content for free, which is basically what you're doing when you spend time talking to an imaginary person. Still, why does Meta think people want to talk to fake avatars online? Do many people in tech believe this is the future, or just Mark Zuckerberg? Katie: I think there's already a fair amount of evidence that (some) people enjoy talking to chatbots. We also know how other big AI leaders like Sam Altman or Dario Amodei have these grand visions of how AI will change the world and remake society for good or evil, but they all really do still love the idea of the movie "Her." Remember the Scarlett Johansen/OpenAI voice fiasco? Peter: OK, OK. I'll admit that I kind of like it when I ask ChatGPT something and it tells me I asked a smart question. (I'm pretty sure that most people would like that). I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time talking to ChatGPT for that reason, but I get it, and I get why other people may really like it. It still strikes me that many of the people who will want to spend time talking to fake computer people might be very young. Which brings us to the Reuters story, which uncovered a wild Meta document that spells out just what kind of stuff a Meta-run chatbot can say to kids (or anyone). Stuff like this, as Jeff Horwitz reports: Horwitz notes that this wasn't the result of some hopped-up Meta engineers dreaming up ideas on a whiteboard. It's from a 200-page document containing rules that got the OK from "Meta's legal, public policy and engineering staff, including its chief ethicist," Horwitz writes. I've read the report multiple times, and I still don't get it: Meta says it is revising the document — presumably to get rid of the most embarrassing rules — but how did it get there in the first place? Is this the result of the Mark Zuckerberg-instituted vibe shift from the beginning of the year, when he said Meta was going to stop listening to Big Government and just build without constraints? Is there some other idea at work here? And why do I keep thinking about this meme? [A Meta spokesperson shared the statement they gave Reuters, which said: "We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors. Separate from the policies, there are hundreds of examples, notes, and annotations that reflect teams grappling with different hypothetical scenarios. The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed."] Katie: My real issue here is even if Meta makes it so that the chatbots won't talk sexy to kids — does that make it "safe" for kids? Just because it's not doing the most obviously harmful things (talking sex or violence or whatever), does that mean it's fine for kids to use? I think the answer isn't clear, and likely, "No." Peter: We both have kids, and it's natural to focus on the harms that new tech can have on kids. That's what politicians are most definitely doing in the wake of the Reuters report — which highlights one of the risks that Meta has anytime a kid uses their product. I think it's worth noting that we've seen other examples of AI chatbots — some accessed through Meta, some via other apps — that have confused other people, or worse. Horwitz, the Reuters reporter, also published a story last week about a 76-year-old stroke survivor in New Jersey who tried to go meet a chatbot in New York City (he didn't make it, because he fell on the way to his train and eventually died from those injuries). And talking about kids eventually becomes a (worthwhile) discussion about who's responsible for those kids — their parents, or the tech companies trying to get those kids to spend their time and money with them (short answer, imho: both). I'd suggest that we widen the lens beyond kids, though, to a much larger group of People Who Might Not Understand What A Chatbot Really Is. Katie: Have you seen the r/MyBoyfriendIsAI subreddit for women who have fallen in love with AI chatbots? I am trying to look at this stuff with an open mind and not be too judgmental. I can see how, for plenty of people, an AI romantic companion is harmless fun. But it also seems pretty obvious that it appeals to really lonely people, and I don't think that falling in love with an AI is a totally healthy behavior. So you've got this thing that appeals to either the very young, or people who don't understand AI, or people who are mentally unwell or chronically lonely. That might be a great demographic to get hooked on your product, but not if you're Meta and you don't want, say, Congress to yell at you. Peter: Katie, you've just made the case that Meta's chatbot business will appeal to very young people, people who don't understand the internet, and people who are unwell. That is, potentially, a very large audience. But I can't imagine that's the audience Meta really wants to lock down. So we're back where we started — I still don't know why Meta wants to pursue this, given what seems to be limited upside and plenty of downside. Katie: It leaves me scratching my head, too! These chatbots seem like a challenging business, and I'm skeptical about wide adoption. Of all the changes I can imagine AI bringing in the next few years, "We'll all have chatbot friends" — which Mark Zuckerberg has said! — just isn't the one I believe. It's giving metaverse, sorry! Read the original article on Business Insider Play Farm Merge Valley
Business Insider
5 hours ago
- Business Insider
Why does Mark Zuckerberg want our kids to use chatbots? And other unanswered questions.
Peter Kafka: Welcome back from vacation, Katie. You were out last week when Reuters broke a story I desperately wanted to ask you about: A Meta document had been telling the people in charge of building its chatbots that "It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual." It's a bonkers report. A Meta spokesperson told Business Insider it has since revised the document and that its policies prohibit content that sexualizes children. I have so many questions for you. But maybe we can start with this one: Why does Meta want us to use chatbots, anyway? Katie Notopoulos: It was a bonkers report! I imagine Meta sees what companies like or Replika are doing — these companion chatbots that people are sinking hours and hours and real money into using. If you're a company like Meta that makes consumer apps for fun and socializing, this seems like the next big thing. You want people to spend lots and lots of time on your apps doing fun stuff. Of course, the question is, "Are these chatbots a good thing?" Peter: You read my mind, Katie. I do want to get to the Is-This-A-Good-Idea-In-General question. Let's stick with the Is-It-Good-For-Meta question for another minute, though: There are lots of things that people like to do online, and if Meta wanted to, it could try doing lots of those things. But it doesn't. I think it's obvious why Meta doesn't offer, say, porn. (Though some of its chatbots, as we will probably discuss, seem to nod a bit in that direction). But there are lots of other things it could offer that are engaging that it doesn't offer: A Spotify-like streaming service, for instance. Or a Netflix-like streaming service, or… OK. I think I might have partially answered my own question: Those two ideas would involve paying other people a lot of money to stream their songs or movies. Meta loves the model it has when users supply it with content for free, which is basically what you're doing when you spend time talking to an imaginary person. Katie: I think there's already a fair amount of evidence that (some) people enjoy talking to chatbots. We also know how other big AI leaders like Sam Altman or Dario Amodei have these grand visions of how AI will change the world and remake society for good or evil, but they all really do still love the idea of the movie "Her." Remember the Scarlett Johansen/OpenAI voice fiasco? Peter: OK, OK. I'll admit that I kind of like it when I ask ChatGPT something and it tells me I asked a smart question. (I'm pretty sure that most people would like that). I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time talking to ChatGPT for that reason, but I get it, and I get why other people may really like it. It still strikes me that many of the people who will want to spend time talking to fake computer people might be very young. Which brings us to the Reuters story, which uncovered a wild Meta document that spells out just what kind of stuff a Meta-run chatbot can say to kids (or anyone). Stuff like this, as Jeff Horwitz reports: "It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: 'your youthful form is a work of art')," the standards state. The document also notes that it would be acceptable for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that "every inch of you is a masterpiece — a treasure I cherish deeply." But the guidelines put a limit on sexy talk: "It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: 'soft rounded curves invite my touch')." Horwitz notes that this wasn't the result of some hopped-up Meta engineers dreaming up ideas on a whiteboard. It's from a 200-page document containing rules that got the OK from "Meta's legal, public policy and engineering staff, including its chief ethicist," Horwitz writes. I've read the report multiple times, and I still don't get it: Meta says it is revising the document — presumably to get rid of the most embarrassing rules — but how did it get there in the first place? Is this the result of the Mark Zuckerberg-instituted vibe shift from the beginning of the year, when he said Meta was going to stop listening to Big Government and just build without constraints? Is there some other idea at work here? And why do I keep thinking about this meme? View this post on Instagram A post shared by Scene In Black (@sceneinblack) [A Meta spokesperson shared the statement they gave Reuters, which said: "We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors. Separate from the policies, there are hundreds of examples, notes, and annotations that reflect teams grappling with different hypothetical scenarios. The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed."] Katie: My real issue here is even if Meta makes it so that the chatbots won't talk sexy to kids — does that make it "safe" for kids? Just because it's not doing the most obviously harmful things (talking sex or violence or whatever), does that mean it's fine for kids to use? I think the answer isn't clear, and likely, "No." Peter: We both have kids, and it's natural to focus on the harms that new tech can have on kids. That's what politicians are most definitely doing in the wake of the Reuters report — which highlights one of the risks that Meta has anytime a kid uses their product. I think it's worth noting that we've seen other examples of AI chatbots — some accessed through Meta, some via other apps — that have confused other people, or worse. Horwitz, the Reuters reporter, also published a story last week about a 76-year-old stroke survivor in New Jersey who tried to go meet a chatbot in New York City (he didn't make it, because he fell on the way to his train and eventually died from those injuries). And talking about kids eventually becomes a (worthwhile) discussion about who's responsible for those kids — their parents, or the tech companies trying to get those kids to spend their time and money with them (short answer, imho: both). I'd suggest that we widen the lens beyond kids, though, to a much larger group of People Who Might Not Understand What A Chatbot Really Is. Katie: Have you seen the r/MyBoyfriendIsAI subreddit for women who have fallen in love with AI chatbots? I am trying to look at this stuff with an open mind and not be too judgmental. I can see how, for plenty of people, an AI romantic companion is harmless fun. But it also seems pretty obvious that it appeals to really lonely people, and I don't think that falling in love with an AI is a totally healthy behavior. So you've got this thing that appeals to either the very young, or people who don't understand AI, or people who are mentally unwell or chronically lonely. That might be a great demographic to get hooked on your product, but not if you're Meta and you don't want, say, Congress to yell at you. Is there anything - ANYTHING - Big Tech won't do for a quick buck? Now we learn Meta's chatbots were programmed to carry on explicit and 'sensual' talk with 8 year olds. It's sick. I'm launching a full investigation to get answers. Big Tech: Leave our kids alone — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) August 15, 2025 Peter: Katie, you've just made the case that Meta's chatbot business will appeal to very young people, people who don't understand the internet, and people who are unwell. That is, potentially, a very large audience. But I can't imagine that's the audience Meta really wants to lock down. So we're back where we started — I still don't know why Meta wants to pursue this, given what seems to be limited upside and plenty of downside. Katie: It leaves me scratching my head, too! These chatbots seem like a challenging business, and I'm skeptical about wide adoption. Of all the changes I can imagine AI bringing in the next few years, "We'll all have chatbot friends" — which Mark Zuckerberg has said! — just isn't the one I believe. It's giving metaverse, sorry!
UPI
12 hours ago
- UPI
Rose Byrne, Meghann Fahy to star in thriller 'Good Daughter'
1 of 5 | Rose Byrne is set to star in "The Good Daughter," an adaptation of Karin Slaughter's novel. File Photo by Rune Hellestad/ UPI | License Photo Aug. 21 (UPI) -- Platonic star Rose Byrne and The Drop actress Meghann Fahy have signed on to star in the psychological thriller The Good Daughter. Karin Slaughter wrote and executive produced the series based on her best-selling novel. Co-starring Brendan Gleeson, Harper Steele, Olivia Williams, Drew Ann Cheek, Audrey Grace Marshall and Michael Dorman, the show is set to premiere on Sky and NOW in Britain next year. "Sisters Charlotte (Fahy) and Samantha (Byrne) Quinn have spent the last 20 years trying to piece together the lives that were fractured by a single night of violence. When another attack splinters the small town of Pikeville, Charlotte, now a lawyer like her father, is the first witness on the scene," a synopsis said. "As the case unfolds and twists through painful memories and buried secrets, what emerges is not just a story of survival, but of enduring ties between a father and his daughters -- and the complex bond between sisters." 'The White Lotus' stars walk the red carpet Leslie Bibb arrives for the Primetime Emmy Awards in Los Angeles on September 15, 2024. Bibb portrays Kate Bohr in "The White Lotus" Season 3. Photo by Chris Chew/UPI | License Photo
