skirtcafe.org

How odd. I recently received an email from a well-known high-street retailer offering 20% discount on ‘Women’s Tights’. They were not being sold simply on the basis of being ‘Tights’. Why the clear distinction? The implication is two-fold: first, there are ‘Men’s Tights’ too (which they don’t sell), or, secondly, that such Tights are meant for Women alone.

I found this observation to be mildly amusing.

jamodu wrote:The implication is two-fold: first, there are ‘Men’s Tights’ too (which they don’t sell), or, secondly, that such Tights are meant for Women alone.

Which implication, of course, we are entirely free to ignore.

Back in the day, there was talk on another board about market surveys indicating that the majority of those buying pantyhose and tights (US Definitions) were men. Which seemed borne out by the number of bare-legged ladies one saw. Those required to wear hosiery and skirts likely got out of the hosiery as soon as they got home.

Their loss....

Pantyhose is not cheap for quality hosiery and compared to US tights is not able to withstand the slings arrows nicks and pin pricks of office furniture
and whatever one comes in close proximity to ! Even putting the darn things on is task prone to trouble - must have surgical gloves to prevent the
delicate weave from laddering etc. and do not overstress the seaming. These stretch points are in the crotch - fine if covered with skirt kilt dress or
other unbifurcated clothing - but lookout when the whole shebang unravels making another shoe shining cloth or throw it into the tool kit to use as
an emergency fan belt - Yes these are valid uses for PH which has been tortured beyond normal use !
Frugal folks wait to bang up the other leg then salvage one good leg from each into a one complete PH.

Tights these can be worn without a cover clause i.e. skirt dress etc. because of their heavier density weave possibly still revealing the VPL and underlying
body pieces and parts more often with the light colors pastels and definitely white.

PH Pantyhose hosiery = USA PH Pantyhose hosiery = UK tights
Tights = USA tights not hosiery

PH Pantyhose hosiery worn to complement fashionable women's wear dresses skirts
Tights worn by both sexes usually for fashionable leg wear - athletic purposes and to ward off the weather on bare skin
Leggings and Jeggings (jean leggings) worn as bifurcated leg wear mostly by women -
but nothing prevents the male from wearing it if it looks good and fits well - plumbers crack not acceptable
Skinny Jeans - latest fashion for women - jeans with tight fitting legs

For those that wear kilts - what is worn is your own "secret weapon" !

YMMV

I've had no problems with the longevity of Sheer Energy and No Nonsense. That said, I use the "support hose" version with a good bit of spandex added. I can get weeks, sometimes months, out of a pair in normal use. Yes, it is usually the gusset area that gives way...keeping an eye on things can let you get in there with nail strengthener and "patch it." As a computer geek, I'm fairly sedentary, occasionally crawling under a desk to change out wiring. I even wear my normal "Smart Support" or "Sheer Energy" hose with a running skirt to the gym. 99.99% of the time, I'm the one running.

If your hands are rough, yes, you may need gloves...or a regularly applied pumice stone.

I've also used this product - Activskin. http://www.glieberman.com/

In My Experience - built like a battleship. Comparatively.

I've also been wearing since early 2007, and wearing publicly in shorts, may have eased the path towards wearing skirts and dresses in public. Experiment! Hose, tights and skirts/dresses go together like peanut butter and jelly, or ham and cheese, sandwiches.

r.m.anderson wrote:Pantyhose is not cheap for quality hosiery and compared to US tights is not able to withstand the slings arrows nicks and pin pricks of office furniture
and whatever one comes in close proximity to ! Even putting the darn things on is task prone to trouble - must have surgical gloves to prevent the
delicate weave from laddering etc. and do not overstress the seaming.

I find it amusing to some degree when I hear comments like those made by R.M. I have been wear Ph for longer than I care to remember and I have gotten to the point where doning a pair really does not take much thought for me. In fact I can really put on a pair in under 60 seconds usually. Most times when I have any trouble at all it is when on or both legs somehow get a twist in them which really causes a lot of stress on the fabric. Once you really get used to wearing them you can feel those twists and will not settle for the discomfort and you will work them until the twist is out and there is no real stress on the fabric. By caring for the fabric by making sure it is donned correctly will allow the garment to last a very long time and maintain its comfort. I have a few pairs that I have had for many years that are still very wearable. I even have a few pairs of L'eggs Sheer Energy that are in excess of a year old that I still can wear very comfortably.

The real key to donning them is practice, practice, practice. Over time it does get much easier to do and takes a lot less time to do so. Even the medical grade compression hosiery gets easier to put on after you have enough practice doing it.

I get emails promoting phamaceuticals, although I am not ill.

jamodu wrote:that such Tights are meant for Women alone

Generally there is enough stretch in any tights to accommodate all body shapes and extras.

jamodu wrote:How odd. I recently received an email from a well-known high-street retailer offering 20% discount on ‘Women’s Tights’. They were not being sold simply on the basis of being ‘Tights’. Why the clear distinction? The implication is two-fold: first, there are ‘Men’s Tights’ too (which they don’t sell), or, secondly, that such Tights are meant for Women alone.

I found this observation to be mildly amusing.

Often enough you will see also adverts for womens skirts as if skirts for men are common practice.

Hey! Taking a step back... Tights are generally considered womens clothing! They are just saying they are ladies sized tights, not girl sized tights! That's my view on it... Nothing more sexist than that...

Gusto10 wrote:

jamodu wrote:How odd. I recently received an email from a well-known high-street retailer offering 20% discount on ‘Women’s Tights’. They were not being sold simply on the basis of being ‘Tights’. Why the clear distinction? The implication is two-fold: first, there are ‘Men’s Tights’ too (which they don’t sell), or, secondly, that such Tights are meant for Women alone.

I found this observation to be mildly amusing.

Often enough you will see also adverts for womens skirts as if skirts for men are common practice.

Again... I think this is the difference between ladies and girls skirts!

Gusto10 wrote:

jamodu wrote:How odd. I recently received an email from a well-known high-street retailer offering 20% discount on ‘Women’s Tights’. They were not being sold simply on the basis of being ‘Tights’. Why the clear distinction? The implication is two-fold: first, there are ‘Men’s Tights’ too (which they don’t sell), or, secondly, that such Tights are meant for Women alone.

I found this observation to be mildly amusing.

Often enough you will see also adverts for womens skirts as if skirts for men are common practice.

Interesting perspective, I never thought of it that way...! But it's true, I've never seen a rack that just stated "SKIRTS", or "DRESSES", it was always "Womens skirts".

This gives me another comeback... "why do you wear women's skirts?"

"Because I can't find a store that sells men's skirts..."

Another interesting observation, at the Abingdon Walmart, the little sign overhead that designates the "WOMENS" clothing section has a trendy little icon of a dress under it. Interestingly most clothes in the women's section of Walmart are "women's trousers" and lacey decorative tops. [0]

I also noted the sign that designated the "MENS" clothing section just had an icon of a dress shirt. My first thought was that perhaps it's inappropriate for men to weary ANYTHING over their legs, skirts or trousers! Am I missing a trend here? When did it become fashionable for men to wander around with nothing on south of the waist line?

So you show up for work in your boxers.... but hey, you got an awesome collared shirt with tie so it's okay!

[0] Though women's trousers may be just slightly tighter versions of men's trousers, I can say honestly that the tops for sale at Walmart are VERY "country girl". Much of it not really my taste. For tops, I enjoy ones that are a little less puffy around the bust. I do enjoy tight fitting arms and the very short sleeves. I also like the low cut neck lines, but not much into puffiness, and it seems to be what's "in" these days...

My other thought along those lines is I don't see how those tops match with the bland bottoms that are available in the women's section of Walmart. Even their dresses and skirts (what few they have) are extremely boring and bland. I do pick up some nice stuff at the various GoodWills, but I have no Earthly clue where the garments originally sold from. It sure as hell wasn't a Walmart or K-Mart...!

I noticed Magic Mart in Norton VA had some very cute dresses that I just LOVED... but they were SO EXPENSIVE! Averaging a price of at least $50 each. Magic Mart is also an extremely traditional retailer (based in Bluefield VA), and though they've never hassled me over my dress, and even let me try stuff on, the staff is often stocked with older conservative/traditional women and men and generally put off a "you're not welcome here" vibe when I enter the store.... So when it comes to dresses and skirts for cheap, I normally stick with GoodWill. They're always friendly.

English_bloke wrote:Hey! Taking a step back... Tights are generally considered womens clothing! They are just saying they are ladies sized tights, not girl sized tights! That's my view on it... Nothing more sexist than that...

But lots of guys wear tights: runners, cyclists, gymnasts, acrobats, dancers, Batman...

Caultron wrote:

English_bloke wrote:Hey! Taking a step back... Tights are generally considered women's clothing! They are just saying they are ladies sized tights, not girl sized tights! That's my view on it... Nothing more sexist than that...

But lots of guys wear tights: runners, cyclists, gymnasts, acrobats, dancers, Batman...

I figure legs are legs. Pretty much serve the same functions, work the same way, have the same problems, etc.

I've never been able to figure out the "Operating System: Female" but the rest is pretty standard and even the differences aren't too hard to figure out.

So this strange resistance to men wearing skirts has to be something patched into their OS - intentionally or otherwise.

There are men's tights and pantyhose available, and marketed as such. Im the major difference with womens tights save those with a fly, is the price. Would that be due to the old expression that the difference between men and boys is the price and the size of their toy's?

@Moon, you mentioned that at Walmart seemingly men are not expected to wear things down south. Looking from the other side of the Atlantic at the pictures posted at "the people of Walmart" I gather that it's quit common for both men and women, or should I now say in this genderless society humans, to go almost or fully in paradise outfit or birthday costume. Or is it a ever continuing Haloween party?

Darryl wrote: I figure legs are legs. Pretty much serve the same functions, work the same way, have the same problems, etc.

Yes and no. Men's legs *on the average* tend to be meatier than women's legs I've found that usually when I get tights with a waist size big enough even for my beer belly, the leg tubes have trouble stretching enough to fit around my legs -- and I'm not particularly athletic.