Many of you remember Nylongene.com, the blog about “normal” men in pantyhose. Now don’t get me wrong, I love the webmaster Steve and even though it is was a corporate blog for Activskin (a nice collection of hose, if somewhat overpriced), I think his heart is in the right place.
As for his head being in the right place, I think Steve has some adjustments to make.
I always felt like the site was thumbing its nose at me.
It was this site, and others like it, that claim that normal guys wear pantyhose are wearing them strictly a fashion/health decision and has absolutely, positively nothing to do with an underlying fetish. They claim it is fashion, not a fetish, that drives their desire to wear.
This question is often asked when it comes to us men and wearing pantyhose. So which is it? Pantyhose… is it fashion or fetish?
Others have attempted to answer this question. None of them have gotten it right. However I, the Pantyhose King, have the true definitive answer.
When it comes to men and pantyhose, the correct answer is to the eternal question is:
That is right! No man alive, or dead for that matter, has ever slipped on a pair of pantyhose and found themselves coordinating an outfit before they discovered the joy of a pantyhose orgasm.
Some men disagree with me. They are wrong. But, more importantly, they seem to have a vendetta out against any fetishistic/sexual/feminine-identified pantyhose wearing men. Like Steve, they frown upon being associated with us “abnormal” wearers.
I do not have a problem with men who wear pantyhose for fashion purposes or even those male wearers who argue for fashion driving their wearing habits but I do have a problem with viewing comparisons to wearers like me as an affront to their very sense of morality. Translation: Being a fetishist is not normal and being compared to someone who is a fetishist is an insult.
As an example of this insidious and highly flawed logic, I have posted an article originally from NylonGene.com. The article is in bright pink. My responses are in light blue.
With all the buzz going on these days about the topic of men’s legwear, I thought my comments might be useful to repost here on The Nylon Gene. They may prove useful in helping those who read superficial treatments of the men’s legwear trend get past some of the misconceptions out there…
We generally fear, or mock, that which we don’t understand. So let’s take a look at what ‘mantyhose’ IS and what it’s NOT (generally speaking):
This is NOT what we mean by ‘mantyhose’ In general, it’s NOT what’s pictured on the guy standing in front of the Eiffel Tower, pictured at (below):
That’s definitely something that’s pretty far out there on the fringe of things. It doesn’t represent what the vast majority of guys who wear legwear want to wear. It’s also NOT a gay thing. From what I’ve read on a variety of blogs and forums, gay men for the most part feel about the same way about pantyhose as the stereotypical woman does. They don’t like them and don’t want to wear them.
Response: This look is not ‘out there. It is fashion. It is Paris. Nobody mistakes haute coutere for casuaul wear. As for coordination, below is an outfit worn by the author:
He’s wearing a light blue sweater, green shorts, bronze pantyhose and white sneakers with purple accents. How he considers himself capable of discussing what is and isn’t a properly coordinated outfit is beyond me. Also, it IS gay thing; it’s also a bisexual thing…and, occasionally, very rarely, it’s a heterosexual thing. Mostly it’s a bisexual thing. I know this because I have been with a lot of men (a lot) who wear pantyhose/want to wear pantyhose, including some online personas who tried to help push this ‘regular guys wearing pantyhose’ crap. The truth? Men wearing pantyhose starts as a fetish and evolve into men who a) repress the fetish and live silent, miserable lives b) try to normalize it by making the argument that never existed (Nylongene.com is littered with this example) or that they have a medical need for pantyhose (and love to take pictures of themselves wearing it for what reason again?)or c) embrace all aspects of it and have fun. Guess which one I identify with? The writer has so much cognitive dissonance going on it’s staggering. I was not surprised in the slightest when I later read his favorite book is The Bible.
It’s NOT an attempt to revert back to fashions of the 1700s. If it’s sometimes pointed out that men were the ones who wore the tights in the Middle Ages, it’s only to illustrate that they’re NOT exclusively a female garment.
Response: Reverting fashion? Who on earth sees a man in pantyhose and thinks “Oh no! They are trying to revert to the 1700’s!”. No one has ever thought this. Ever.
It’s NOT a secret desire to cross dress, either. Guys who are wearing the male hosiery on the market today (which does come with a fly, BTW) aren’t typically combining it with other female items to start dressing as a woman.
Response: It actually is. I know I prefer to wear mostly masculine wear with my pantyhose but I know way, way more men who dress up with women’s clothes. Also, all desires start out as secret. Nobody has ever heard of a public desire to cross dress. I might be getting hung up on the minutiae (IE bad writing). I am not sure. There are some people who are exhibitionists, though. I wonder if the writer ever thought he may have those tendencies himself?
It IS a recognition that men are as likely as women to have tired, achy legs due to poor circulation, and that support hosiery provides relief if worn consistently. Sometimes they’re worn under jeans or other pants–sometimes they’re worn with shorts. Sometimes they’re in virtually invisible colors that closely matches skintone–sometimes they’re worn in more visible colors like black or dark grey.
Response: Lazy writing and poorly cited. Also, I have not seen the writer of this article wear anything close to medical grade hosiery. Does the author realize Leggs is currently not working on their own medical supply brand?
It IS a way to attain added warmth beneath outer clothing without the added bulk of long johns or sweatpants. Some guys can live with long johns, others prefer the thin fabric that moves with them.
Response: Ok. This works.
It IS a way for athletes (especially runners and cyclists) to keep the chill off the legs when they first go outside–yet avoid overheating after their body temperature rises with exercise. It IS also a way for those athletes to enhance stamina somewhat with the moderate muscle compression provided by support styles of hosiery.
Response: Bullshit on the chilly legs/avoid overheating line. Who has ever heard of anyone complaining of chilly legs that become overheated too quickly? Grasping for straws. A little less weak is the enhanced stamina line, but since athletic tights are already out on the market, pantyhose just add a (sexy) base layer.
It IS a garment worn for fashion in some cases, in that guys are recognizing they can successfully add them to a masculine outfit if properly coordinated (i.e., not as shown in the photo above, by the Eiffel Tower).
He sure does have a thing for that Eiffel tower guy, right?
However, for the most part, it IS something generally worn for more functional purposes. For my part, I initially started wearing tights or sheer hose for leg support.
Again, sheer hose does not offer leg support. Medical support hose is never diaphanous.
But after a few years I recognized I didn’t want to give up wearing shorts for good, just because I needed to wear support-style hosiery to keep my legs from aching.
It took a few years for him to recognize this?
I’ve been wearing them openly among friends and colleagues for years now, and nobody questions my manhood because of it.
I do not question the author’s manhood, but I do question if knows how homo-repressed he truly is. His colleagues probably wonder the same thing. Additionally, since Steve is using “questions my manhood” as code for “homosexual”, as a homosexual I feel compelled to say: sit and spin, you middle American tool.
If you’re a basically masculine guy in the first place, wearing legwear doesn’t detract from it. Yet, if you’re an effeminate guy it doesn’t matter if you wear a Rambo outfit–you’ll STILL look like a girly-man. (anybody here old enough to remember Michael Dukakis wearing the tank commander helmet during the 1988 presidential campaign?)
Response: Here is the author in a pic, looking very much the pinnacle of masculinity.
The pointed-toe is a great touch, right? Nothing girly going on here.
As with most everything, there are no absolutes. The foregoing statements represent the bulk of men who wear legwear today. Yes, there will be a few who will wear ostentatious patterns and colors out in public with shorts. Yes, there are gay men who wear pantyhose and like them. Yes, there are certainly cross dressers who wear pantyhose with their outfits, too. But, by and large those are NOT representative of the majority of men wearing nylon legwear–and on behalf of them I hope to shed a bit of light on the subject. Hopefully, this will cause more writers to stop and take a more reasoned approach to the “mantyhose question”.
Response: No. There are no absolutes but there is common sense. Nothing written here represents the bulk of men who wear pantyhose..er…I mean “legwear”. The bulk of us are in it because they feel good and they turn us on. That is how we got hooked. Sadly the only light shed here was that some guys are willing to insult or distance themselves from fellow pantyhose wearers in a vain attempt to look “normal”. The real truth is that normal is having a fetish. What isn’t normal is to justify its existence in order to appease polite society. I might remind the author that we aren’t going back in time with fashion (despite his worries people think we are doing so) so let’s remember to not do the same thing with our thinking. Pantyhose are sexy, wearing them out is sexy and any man who wears them without shame or excuses is, in my opinion, the definition of a real man.
Now put down the Bible and go look at some men in pantyhose. You know you want to.