The man who will only date women in nylon

– Dear Doctors Nylon out there: what am I to do? It appears I will only ask out women who wear nylon. Recently I eschewed making an approach to a couple of quite attractive women. The reason? Their ungodly bare legs. And, as more and more women adopt the bare legs look, this obviously narrows the field for the kind of women I will go out with. Still, I persevere. Believe it or not, there are still a few women out there who coat their legs in sheer nylon. And I will continue – almost quixotic like – in my quest for them.

– May I assume that, in the best of all worlds, you would only date women who wore stockings? So, I am taking from your post that you will face reality and accept that such women are exceedingly rare these days. (I am told that these goddesses comprise about 2% to 5% of the general female population.) You, like so many of us, have decided that to have a love life at all you will choose to date women who wear “nylons” of any ilk, i.e. tights and avoid women who are bare-legged. There, now I think I’ve got your point. Right?

My comment is as follows; I think you have it backwards. Instead of looking at the legs to determine their covering or lack thereof prior to making a dating decision, look instead at the total package and then determine if there is a real attraction.

Suppose you found an exceptionally attractive (intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, physically) young lady who shared your general interests, tastes and pastimes. Suppose this woman was always barelegged. But, in all other respects, she was quite outstanding. Choosing not to date her simply because she was not nylonically enlightened would be cruel. Indeed, this woman is a potential convert. You have a mission my friend to spread the good news!

From my personal experience it may be easier than you think. I am currently dating a Russian woman who never wore stockings. She was barelegged the first time I saw her. She is now completely enlightened and a strong advocate of our mutual fetish. She wears stockings every day. I have had similar experiences with several ladies. But, I have found that it is far easier to persuade foreign women to wear stockings than the domestic variety, at least here in the USA.

But, avoid a woman who will wear stockings only as a favour to you. This may seem like kindness and love on her part at first but it will soon become bartering. She will soon try to “trade” wearing stockings for some other consideration or concession on your part. And, you will soon find that the price of having her in stockings is quite high, maybe too high. Avoid these women. They keep score. You can never win. Besides, there are more than enough women out there who, once used to the joys of stockings, truly want to wear them for themselves. These are the best kind.

By the way, breaking up with a woman you have introduced to stockings is one of the worst break-ups of all. You lose a confirmed stockings wearer, a great little lovemaker, an accomplished flirt and you just know that some other man is going to enjoy her nyloned charms without having earned it. You also know how much easier it will be for her to attract a man once he sees that stockinged leg and bit of thigh. No woman teases like a woman in stockings. It changes her entire outlook. She reeks of self-confidence.

– My god, you could not make more sense!

– I don’t know… honestly, I’ve never had any trouble with getting the woman in my life to wear stockings and a garterbelt. All I’ve ever had to do is ask them and/or buy them some beautiful items… and voila!

For everyday, no… some of the women I’ve been involved with had jobs where it wasn’t practical but for the most part, no problem really.

– Thanks for your replies. To clarify, I am referring to nylons generally, not just stockings (in that case I’d pretty well never find anyone!). I agree that this is certainly an alternative approach: convert the barelegged woman to wearing stockings (or pantyhose). And it is something I have considered. I’m not quite sure why I’m so resistant to it. Maybe I think that a woman who is not wearing them somehow “in her being” lacks the kind of femininity and style I am looking for, and that if I have to “convert” someone it will be something of a battle, no matter how subtle. I’d rather approach someone who is “sufficiently feminine” in this respect, who dresses a certain way because she “loves” dressing that way – that it is “integrated into her soul” and who indeed dresses this way “for herself” – and therefore does not have to be converted, engendering possible interpersonal grievances for being somehow “made to change”. As I say, I’ve “got it” pretty bad – which I humorously call a malaise – hence my light-hearted appeal to “Doctors Nylon” on this site. But, hey, anything is possible.

Yes, trying to convert a woman is always a possibility, and perhaps I shy too much from doing it (though lord knows I’ve gone out with enough women in the past who were nylonless) but I find many women are resistant to “being converted” (so-called feminism and all – “I’m my own woman”, “nobody is going to tell me how to dress”). Therefore, I’d like to approach women who don’t need “to see the light”. I also find women who already dress this way sexier because they’ve “integrated” this style of dress as part of their core natures, as the people they truly are.

Dreaming of stockings

– I am having a tremendous phenomenon occur. Every few nights I dream about stockings and suspenders. This has been going on for several months. Does this happen to anyone else?

– It is odd that you mention this, because just last night I had a stocking-sighting dream in which I was part of some tour group, and somehow caught a sighting of the tour guide revealing a stocking top and garter straps. And all I could think of was how I just *had* to report this stocking sighting to the Stockings HQ discussion list! Alas, I can’t really remember any other details from the dream. It got a bit surreal (as most dreams do).

– I envy you those dreams! If you are the same woman who, a few days, wrote that you had been wearing stockings and suspenders for six months, thanks to the encouragement of a man in your life, I’d suggest your dreams are of awakening to full womanly sensuality. But I could be quite wrong! Anyway, keep dreaming of them!

– It looks like you might be right. Yes, I’ve been wearing them for only six months. There’s an interesting range of themes:

Exposure – I’m falling off things exposing my stockings and suspenders.

Intimacy – I’m in black corsetry with black stockings and kissing three different men.

Loss without them – I’m trying to get to events and cannot find my stockings.

And probably the best and most hilarious was a very simple dream where a pair of pantyhose on clothes pegs hovered beside my bed and then were suddenly sucked underneath to disappear forever into the darkness.

In any case, I am very appreciative to have been exposed to them.

The appeal of reinforced toes

– I have always loved reinforced toes – and it’s even better if they’re with reinforced heels – particularly poking through open toed shoes or sandals. As you know, many so-called contemporary fashion experts tell women these days to buy ‘nude-toe’ stockings because reinforced toes, they say, are ugly or tacky. In fact, CNN did a consumer segment on nylons about a year ago, and, among other things poked fun at reinforecd toes (ie. “aye, my toes are a different colour from the rest of my feet”!). They also evaluated the new form of “no toes” stockings to wear with sandals, so it looks like the woman is not wearing stockings at all because her toes are uncovered. Shriek! Of course you and I know reinforced toes are the sexiest part!

– I cannot believe I’m not alone! I have been told this fetish for large reinforced toes is one of a kind! I have collected nylons and pantyhose for years and am always looking for huge reinforced toes that are very dark and contrast with the leg. In the mid to late ’80s I sourced a brand of pantyhose called Albert’s and the style was “control top plus”. The “plus” was a very large heavier reinforced toe. Well once I saw these I purchased many pairs (about 350 pairs) and am now down to about 150 pairs and starting to hunt for a replacement. I have also noticed a move in the fashion world to eliminate the so called ugly or tacky reinforced toe. If we go back to the ’50s, women wore open toed mules with RHTs for all to see and it was not considered ugly.

– I love those reinforced toes (even when they’re not enormous). Too bad the trend seems to be away from them. It wasn’t enough to make “sandal toe” hose, now they’re coming out with a new pantyhose which has the toe section cut out altogether… probably the result of the preoccupation with feet that is rampant in the media today in America. They think it is sexier to expose the toes, but I feel just the opposite, and I’m sure you would agree…

There is a preoccupation in magazines about showing actresses with exposed feet. What’s with that? Is this a new form of foot fetish? But of course, of course, none of these women are ever shown in stockinged feet. Although at one time – perhaps as recently as five years ago – some would have been so depicted. I think this unfortunately is because current fashion trends consider it gauche to show exposed feet in nylons.

Suspenders and garters: a matter of language

– I’m intrigued by the different effect on me of the word ‘suspender’ and the transatlantic ‘garter’. If I read, or especially hear from the woman, the word suspender or suspender belt, I get a strong erotic charge, just from the sound. I don’t, however, get the same feeling from garter or garter belt – even though they are the same thing. I guess the sound and the meaning become woven together early on in life. What do others think?

– Same here! I know just what you mean. For some reason the word ‘garters’ or ‘garter belt’ just don’t do anything for me, even though I know exactly what they mean. On the other hand, the words ‘suspenders’, ‘sussies’ or ‘suspender belt’, whether in print or spoken (particularly by a woman) cause me instant and intense arousal. I’m glad you’ve brought this point up, because I thought I was the only one. Any more comments on this theme, anyone?

– I agree with both of you. Mention of suspenders, suspender belts and sussies quickly turns me on, but garters and garter belts only produce mild “excitement”. I also agree that it is even more of a turn on when the various references to suspenders are spoken by women, or written by women in postings here or in the chat zone.

I think the phrase which has me feeling erotic in an instant is “my stockings are very heavily suspendered”. Thoughts of stocking tops stretched heavily by extremely taut suspenders immediately invade my imagination. Funny that “my stockings are very heavily gartered” don’t have the same effect!

– To me, I’d always heard the term garter belt. I had never heard the term suspenders until a British lady working in a lingerie shop in Phoenix introduced me to the term. I thought wow, that’s different and I guess appropriate. But I like the term garter and garter belt best.

– Can you imagine being “turned on” when a women tells you she’s wearing braces? Probably not. But, here in the USA, suspenders are what you call braces in the UK.

We in the USA recognise the term for the article of lingerie which holds up a woman’s stockings as a garterbelt. On the other hand, we recognise the term for the accessory which holds up a man’s pants as “suspenders.”

“Sussies” is a uniquely British term and it seems to me only natural that hearing it (especially from a woman) would stimulate the imagination (and some other of the nether regions) of an Englishman. However, to my American ear, a beautiful woman telling me that she is wearing suspenders only brings to mind a somewhat masculine image of a woman wearing what you call braces. Decidedly unerotic wouldn’t you agree?

I know that when I have read British erotica and have encountered the term “suspenders” it has had a somewhat cooling effect. Not the effect I was hoping for. I imagine it must be the same for my counterpart on your side of the pond when you read American erotica and in the middle of an especially heated passage find the term “garterbelt”

Someone once observed that the English and the Americans were two great peoples separated by a common language. I don’t even want to tell you of my problems with “knickers” and “waspies!”

– I’m a Canadian with a British lover. Always I have heard the term ‘garterbelt’. But since my lover is practically in love with stockings and suspenders, I’ve probably heard this term far more times in the last year and a half than I’ve heard ‘garterbelt’ over all the years prior.

I now find that I often use the word suspender when I’m in Canada and end up constantly having to translate myself! I will admit I love the sound of the word ‘stockings’. It feels a bit like saying the word cabernet or syrah. With these one can almost taste the word. With stockings one can almost feel them. I have to bail on ‘sussies’ though. It seems a pet name to which this foreigner is not entitled.

– For me, a garter suggests the old-style elastic around a leg, and so that reduces the erotic effect of the word. As for the US dislike of ‘knickers’, I would point out that for us ‘underpants’ is extremely non-erotic, since over here it means a man’s underwear. Here we could compromise on ‘panties’, I suggest. But I part company with my fellow Brits in disliking the word ‘sussies’. Too flimsy a word, making me picture a bit of elastic round the waist with thin, ribbony straps. A woman can’t be ‘heavily’ or ‘tautly’ suspendered (a turn-on, I quite agree) when she’s wearing sussies!

– Like some of the other US-based posters, the term garterbelt was all I heard when growing up. There was something illicit in saying the word, let alone thinking about it. I am too young to recall when they were the norm, so therefore they were a racy item. Since I have been posting here, I have gotten used to the term suspender belt, but find it a little off-putting.

As for knickers, they are what little boys used to wear before being old enough for long pants. A shortening of the word “knickerbocker”. Also a long lost term for residents of New York, if I remember my early American history. They were also a horrid fashion fad for women in the early ’80s. Ugh. Now, I think of tap pants when I think of knickers.

And maybe I’m a bit prudish here, kids, but I can’t stand the word ‘panties’! Just saying it makes me feel a little fruity! I’ll stick with underwear, or undies, for short.

– You are quite right about the American sense of the word “knickers”. I would remind readers here in the USA that the most common use of the word these days is as the name of an American basketball team, the New York Knicks (short, as pointed out, for knickerbockers ie new yorkers).

My problem with the term “knickers” is that, when I read or hear it, somewhere in my consciousness I am plagued with mental images of seven foot tall African-American males taking layup shots while wearing panties! This is, at least for me, a disturbing rather than erotic image.

I have no problem with the word “panties”. From my earliest memories I can recall the mystery and excitement, the forbidden image of panties. Lace, satin, sheer, white, cream-coloured, baby blue, open crotch, tied at the side with satin bows, black and bewitching, red and slightly dangerous, panties were the holy grail. When I saw them on an attractive girl by accident the stimulation was powerful and immediate. When I was shown them by an attractive lady on purpose softly nestling against her treasures I was in heaven. In my mind panties and stockings go together like cigars and cognac, wine and roses or Mercedes and Benz.

“Undies” is the term my grandmother used for her laundry. “Underwear” is too masculine for me to use when referring to women’s lingerie. It conjures either my mother telling me to “pick up your underwear” or the men’s sections of countless retailers. Ah, but “lingerie” now there’s a word that starts the blood racing: lingerie. How it flows from the tongue… lingerie. Probably France’s greatest contribution to our culture since the can-can. I could wax poetic about women in fine lingerie.

Its clearly a matter of conditioning, probably dating from our early childhood, with a clear and marked transatlantic divide. When I hear or read Americans referring to women’s ‘underpants’ the effect is ghastly, as I am sure all British and Australian contributors will wholeheartedly agree. ‘Panties’ is acceptable, but, without doubt, to my ears ‘knickers’ is far, far more erotic. In England, ‘knickers’ is far and away the most frequent expression. I have never once heard a woman refer to her underwear as anything other than her knickers. The question is, ladies, what do you call yours?

Bare legs are sexy? Dream on…

– I would like to comment on the disturbing phenomenon of a lack of hosiery on women (particularly in the US where it has reached epidemic proportions) and offer a possible reason for it.

Forget for a moment about stockings – here we are concerned with pantyhose (tights). For men old enough to remember, consider how we felt when pantyhose became dominant over gartered stockings: perhaps the biggest objection from males was that pantyhose prevented “access”. It was so much easier to, shall we say, “pet”, when a female was not covered to the waist by a fabric that was not easily removable. With stockings, only the panties (knickers) stood in our way, and they could be gotten around. Not so with pantyhose.

So, a few generations of women grew up never wearing stockings, only pantyhose. In recent years, these young ladies have seen their sexy movie and TV stars wearing “no pantyhose”. Have they perhaps perceived that this is very sexy, because these media stars are suggesting “easy access”? And might not the stars have intended to convey this very message? I think this may be a partial explanation of what we are seeing. Since stockings have generally been much less available that pantyhose, the younger generation, not considering the alternative of wearing stockings, might very well conclude that “no-pantyhose is sexy” which, to them, equals “bare legs are sexy”.

Hopefully, newer generations will become more aware of stockings (how that will happen is another area of discussion) and realise that they are even more sexy than no hosiery. What do you think?

– I think that it is slowly changing thanks to the recent movie Moulin Rouge… at least short term. My fiance works for a major lingerie store found in most malls, and she said that she had about eight girls come in on her last day of work, and six on the day before that asking for… this is the funny part… “Moulin Rouge pantyhose” LOL! They didn’t know that they were called stay ups or stockings. None of the sales were individual… seems like friends are getting together and getting curious… then heading to Victoria’s to buy a pair. We’ll see what happens… and if it lasts.

According to her guesstimates… all were ages 17 to 20, with the oldest not possibly being older than 22.

– I would consider this a brief phenomenon, based on the Christina Aguilera influence. For those of us old enough to remember, this smacks of the whole bustier thing that happened in the 80s after Madonna hit the scene. It fizzled too.

– I’m not sure what the bare legs phenomenon is all about. It may be a combo of things – certainly the current fashion ‘style’, mixed with easy casual wear and the decline in ‘formal’ femininity. This has really been where the present generation of young women diverts from previous ones. In past generations women always seemed to spend much more time on looking good and dressing well – and ‘wanted’ to. Not so today. (Yet many young women still consider themselves feminine). In addition, a great many women have come to hate nylon hosiery of any kind. They find it restrictive and don’t necessarily equate femininity with having to wear it. I find bare legs tacky, just as I find so much of current fashion, esp among young women (low-rise pants and flares, bulbous and thick-soled boots, chunky 70s-era platform shoes) tasteless. But it may be only a trend. My fear is that a generation-and-a-half of young women are growing up not even wearing pantyhose let alone stockings…

However, if a campaign about stockings (not pantyhose) was directed at them – demonstrating how sexy, chic (esp with patterns) and non-restrictive (compared to p’hose) they are, it may turn some corner… As for Moulin Rouge my hunch is also that it will be a flash in the pan. The movie isn’t that popular, there’s little ‘buzz’ around it (except the Aguilera video, which seems to be denounced as ‘tarty’) and I don’t think it will have lasting effect. In fact on the Vogue web site, when asked if the movie would have influence on trends the few replies were directed towards foundation garments – bustiers and corsets. Not one mention about good ol’ stockings.

– While cultural influences such as movies and celebrities may influence fads as has been suggested, the real influence on fashion is values.

Correspondents here often point to the decline of elegance in America to the influence of “Libbers”. They are right in my opinion. I think the socio-political climate associated with “respect” is the real issue.

Where in America are you most likely to see elegantly dressed ladies that are dressed in gartered stockings? The opera and the Kentucky Derby are examples where large numbers of women plan their elegance for weeks in advance.

US society moves at such a fast pace that men and women view elegance as unaffordable from a time perspective. It’s in US locations where the pace is slower that elegance is most often displayed.

This subject has promoted much personal thought the past few weeks. A celebrity won’t influence the return of elegance. A movie won’t influence the return of elegance. Only significant social change related to respect for others will bring about this change, Slowly, but surely, we are moving away from elegance.

I conclude that we can only influence the change within ourselves, and influence change among those we “touch” every day with a positive, gracious example of how to express class and project elegance.

I’m wearing a business suit, white shirt, and silk tie to work today. I’m going to greet everyone I meet today with a smile, and treat each individual with respect and dignity.

– I also tend to agree that Moulin Rouge will have a relatively short and perhaps spectacular shelf life. Whilst confessing to be a bit of a “movie buff” I cannot exactly justify the reason, except that it will never join the musical evergreens such as Singing in the Rain, or the original Can Can.

The fashions will probably encourage some of the more enquiring minds to ask about the portrayed leg fashions, but it will be above the intelligence of the hordes of 18+ olds with flared pants and shapeless chunks for shoes. Society is what has to change in order to encourage even a little more class in the way ladies present themselves.

– I am in complete agreement. I was astonished by an article in the paper here last week about young ladies getting dressed up for the prom. Apparently, in addition to the whole stockings issue, this self-same generation has never worn a pair of proper high heeled shoes! When being assisted with their dresses, they had to have lessons in how to walk properly in heels, instead of clunking around flat-footed like horses. Now, isn’t that sad? It’s a telling thing that young girls have no proper mother figure to teach them posture, grace, hell even proper manners!

Could we be in need for the return of finishing schools? And while we’re on the subject, there should be the same thing for young boys – to learn how to eat properly, stand when a lady enters the room, etc. The only young boys I see of late who are polite (but still boisterous) go to Catholic boys school near my office.

– I hate to agree with everybody here, but there does seem to be a lack of knowledge on how to dress. Every weekend I get at least two or three girls in the shop who do not know the difference between stockings, hold-ups and tights. I have to point out on my body where they come to and double check at the counter (my apologies to any ladies who have bought stockings from me as I have got a few strange looks and ‘yes I know they are stockings’).

I am now changing my packaging: blue with an illustration of a girl in tights for tights and pink with an illustration of a girl in stockings for stockings and hold-ups. Perhaps it would be easier if I just changed the name to ‘Moulin Rouge Tights’.

Ladders: attractive or not?

– Here’s an issue I’d love to test the forum’s opinions on: are ladders (runs) in stockings sexy? I’m not talking the obviously ripped nylon of the punk era, just small runs, caused accidentally through normal wear and tear.

To me they hint at both the magical sheer nature of the nylon and at a certain vulnerability that I find most alluring. Am I alone? Does anyone else have any laddered stockings anecdotes to share?

– I wholeheartedly agree. I have always found them alluring. And I don’t think that women don’t notice. A story: I had invited a female friend (admittedly a tease) over one time. She was kneeling on the floor going through my record collection (yes, it was in those days when women actually wore nylons). Her back was towards me and the soles of her shoeless tan-coloured stocking feet were showing. She quickly looked down at a long run starting from the end of one foot’s reinforced toe and running up the sole of her foot and past her calf under her trouser leg. “Oh, ” she said, looking at me and gauging my reaction, “I have a run in my stocking.” Runs are quite sexy. And, I agree, NOT when they’re deliberately done by those of the spiky-haired punk class as some sort of bohemian hard-edge ‘fashion’ statement.

– I absolutely agree. I have vivid memories of a school trip to Switzerland many years ago and me (as an impressionable schoolboy) being transfixed by the laddered black stocking of one of the (bit tarty) older girls in the party.

I think they are definitely sexier on black/dark tights. In fact I have been known to draw attention to one so that my colleague went and changed them. I was then able to nip into the ladies and grab her discarded and laddered tights from the bin. Am I kinky or is this not as uncommon as I think? But yes you’re dead right – ladders are sexy.

– Sorry guys, I must disagree. Runs are something to be avoided at all costs. They really are unsightly. But since you bring it up, what is it about them that turns you on? Is this a universal male thing or only for you who love nylons?

– Absolutely not! Let’s keep a good standard here.

– I absolutely think that a run in a stockings is the sexiest thing a woman could flaunt, second only to RHT stockings.

I think it’s kinda slutty and provocative. A few years ago I went to a Halloween party and this one girl was dressed up as a stewardess. She had tons of makeup on and her blouse was half open and she had tons of runs in her nylons (she was wearing pantyhose not stockings). I asked her what she was supposed to be and she said a “sky slut”. It goes to prove, ladders are enticing!

– Runs (ladders) in stockings are something to be taken care of. My wife keeps spare stockings in her purse when we go out as well as in the car glove compartment. She also has spares at work. That’s the “efficiency” of stockings vs. pantyhose – with two pairs you actually get three sets!

Having previously agreed that they are attractive, perhaps my view needs a little clarification. Most of us would, I am certain, find our gaze attracted to stockings which contain a ladder. I am still of the opinion that, once you’ve noticed it, a ladder can look very sexy. It depends perhaps on where and how bad a ladder it is. I would agree with the various correspondents who feel that unladdered stockings are better but that doesn’t stop a ladder from looking sexy. I’m going to beg to differ from most of you.

New product ideas: cool cotton and other issues

– Here’s one to get you thinking – as a product of the fact that I am currently sweltering in an office, genuinely wearing fully-fashioned stockings (lifts leg up to the monitor to prove it to everyone) and it has to be said I am not particularly comfortable. Far too hot.

Anyway, I am sure a few years ago I saw tights advertised with something along the lines of a “cool cotton” mix for just this kind of weather. The theory, I think, is that rather than making you all hot they actually help to cool you down. (I didn’t buy them because they were tights. I wasn’t *that* curious!)

Anyway that set me thinking: what products should we encourage the hosiery companies to make to encourage the wearing of stockings in all weathers. The cool cotton idea (mixed with nylon, naturally!) would be a good one, assuming I haven’t made it up. Any other ideas? What about other products generally? FF nylons with a hint of Lycra to make them a bit more stretchy? I think we have a great opportunity to provide market research data and ideas to the manufacturers and we rather therefore owe it to ourselves 🙂

– I think that the purists among us wouldn’t be too impressed with the idea of a Lycra additive to FFs but it would help with the fit for those with legs that don’t exactly fit the standard sizes.

– Some manufacturers do market ‘summer’ season tights as cooler to wear and some don’t have a cotton mix either. The manufacturers should market stockings in similar vein. Why they do not is open to conjecture.

The modern FF manufacturers are perhaps too reactionary in their thinking to offer FFs with a Lycra content. They sell them as identical copies of the classic 1950s nylons. Perhaps we are all guilty of wanting things exactly as the way they were, but today’s modern ladies want hosiery that fits well and looks good. The FFs with Lycra would seem the way forward. I know I’ll get shot down by the traditionalists but we do want ladies to wear stockings and this may be one way to increase the number of fully fashioned nylon clad ladies.

I agree – let’s have stretch FFs! And they WERE manufactured in the old days (although they were apparently in the minority), so it shouldn’t offend the traditionalists!

Too young for stockings?

– Many of the ladies posting here have recorded memories of wearing stockings as young girls. It was the style then. It’s not now. Sexless pantyhose have taken over. But an interesting event of this morning prompts me to ask the group’s opinion on an unusual matter.

I told you in an earlier post about a disco fund raiser my wife had hosted. I also told you that some of the women attending had told her that they would be calling her to ask about stockings suppliers. One of the women called today and casually mentioned that she was going to need stockings and good garterbelts for herself and her two daughters. The daughters are 14 and 16. They attend a private school that requires skirts and sheer hosiery for its girls. Their mother has decided that pantyhose are out. Her daughters will from now on wear gartered stockings. (I’m sure they will become quite popular amongst the young men… and a few older ones too!)

I had already given my wife information about suppliers and she relayed it to the caller. But, I must confess, I think that 14 and 16 are too young these days to be wearing stockings at all – much less on a regular basis. Maybe it’s just me but I think stockings have a strong sexual connotation and power. Pantyhose do not. Just the thought of these two pretty young girls in stockings and garterbelts everyday makes me a little uneasy. I get very conflicted feelings. If they were 18 and older fine. But 14 and 16?

My wife of course disagrees. But is there an age these days that is too young to wear stockings? Or, said another way, at what age should young girls be allowed to wear stockings?

– It’s sad in this day and age that something as innocent as a pair of stockings has darker connotations. I tend to agree with you which annoys me as stockings are actually a lot healthier for women to wear than tights.

I started wearing stockings at 16 and never had any problems, but then again I was never one to flash my stocking tops. If these girls wear their stockings in the same fashion very few people will know, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Definitely one to think about.

– I feel it should be the choice of these young girls to wear stockings – not their mother’s choice. The mother needs to be reminded of how she would feel if someone forced this issue on her. Remember too that the many of the young teenage boys of today are not raised with the values young teenage boys had in yesteryear. Meaning they are not always as kind and considerate, and these girls could easily encounter a lot of teasing and ridicule from classmates. It’s hard enough to be a teenager, but then to stand out by wearing an unusual form of hosiery, they will be made targets. They may also strongly rebel against what their mom wants them too do.

I am all for the promotion of stockings but I agree they are too young for this sort of thing. Unless they themselves have expressed an interest in the stockings, but still I think they are too young. After age 18 fine. Forgive me if I sound a bit old fashioned, but those are my feelings.

– What’s the problem. Stockings are a part of underwear. It is a little bit unusual when such young women (girls) wear them. But who is wrong? Those who think it is normal (or will we say nice or pretty) or those who say it is only for sexual doings?

– The comment that if these girls do not flash their stockings very few people will know reminded me of my own junior and senior high school days. We did have a few “flashers” but my biggest thrill came from catching a glimpse up the skirts of a girl who wasn’t flashing.

This was in the early 1960s. Pantyhose were practically unheard of and every red-blooded young American male I knew was hormonally challenged. We lived to see a bit of thigh above the stocking, a dark band of welt, a gartertab or, if we were particularly blessed, the Holy Grail itself, a panty sighting!

Ah, those were the days! These formative years introduced me to the joys of women wearing stockings and fine lingerie. Slips and petti-pants were popular and most girls wore white, pink or blue nylon or satin panties. It seemed to me that the less attractive girls always wore cotton panties and to this day they are a huge turn-off for me. My high school girlfriends wore lots of lace under their dresses and it has marked me for life.

I don’t know if these two girls will flash or not but they won’t have to. I promise you most, if not all, of the young men will soon know that these two young ladies are “different”. And, vive la difference!

– When my daughter entered high school with similar uniform and decorum requirements, my wife and I had this discussion. After lots of talk, the decision was stockings.

Ultimately, we had this discussion with our daughter to get her feedback. We discussed the social and sexual issues. Our daughter made it very clear the age of innocence relative to teasing and come ons was much younger than when we attended high school. She told us we were naive.

She made it clear she had been deflecting unwanted attention since sixth grade. Because she was 6’1″ tall in 9th grade, she said any comments about a flash would be easy to deal with after teasings about her height.

Our daughter saw stockings as a way to make a fashion statement while wearing what she felt was a drab uniform. My wife was careful to make sure the stockings were very long to reduce potential garter exposure.

This was ten years ago. To fast forward to today, I saw an article in the Atlanta Journal this weekend on back-to-school clothes battles between 9-12-year-old girls, and their parents in suburban Atlanta.

“Tweens”, as the AJC called the young misses, are being lured by the fashion industry into wearing hip-hugging pants and belly-button-baring tops that expose six-inches of skin. The AJC said Britney and Christina influence them, and parents go along with it.

Parents of a fifth-grade girl sued to allow their daughter the right to wear one of the new short mini’s that is shorter than the school’s modesty test permits. Suggestive dress on 9s and 10s makes any discussion of potential sexual concerns of stockings on a 14-year old look old fashioned. I think the real issue is how parents reared their daughters, and how much discussion takes place on moral issues at home.

– I suggest that if girls are old enough to wear any form of sheer hosiery then they should be given the choice to wear what they are most comfortable with. However, stockings do have some practical advantages over p/h and things like this should not be overlooked.

– Because of the almost unavoidable sexual connotations, I don’t think 14 and 16 old girls should be wearing garter belts. Boys just aren’t raised like they used to be. These innocent girls could, at the very least, be in an uncomfortable position or, even worse, be in danger. At the risk of sounding old fashioned I think they shouldn’t wear them.

– I’m not sure about this one. On one level it is nice to hear about a school that insists upon skirts and sheer hosiery rather than pandering to the trouser scourge but I am not sure that S&S are really right for a school environment.

When I was at school it was quite unusual for girls to be allowed to wear adult hosiery, as many schools would only allow their girls to wear white knee length socks (in fact believe it or not I think that my local school still has a knee socks only policy). I guess the idea was that the socks were by definition a “childish” garment and subsequently meant that the young lady didn’t get too hung up on her appearance at too young an age. I am not sure that the theory worked, as white socks in themselves are now considered a bit of a fetish item and with hindsight it was a bit harsh to make the girls wear them right through the winter.

– This is a real poser. I think I’m a pretty modern guy, but when I talk to my daughters, who are nearly 17 and 15, they tell me I’m so fuddy-duddy it’s not true! My eldest daughter especially is a really great looking girl, with legs right up to her armpits, and wears skirts which should really be called belts, as they cover her ass and no more. Now there’s no point in me telling her to wear longer skirts as she would tell me where to get off, and remind me that this is 2001 and not the ‘old days’ as she calls them. She wears tights only very occasionally-she doesn’t like hosiery, saying it restricts her and she doesn’t like the feel of it. But the point is this: kids today are a lot more street-wise than they were years ago, and – in my case anyway, and if I or their mother were to suggest that they wore S&S, they would think we’re not wise, or perverts or both! It’s a sad fact, but there it is.

– As a school counsellor in training, I last night visited the new Junior High School where I will do my practicum at and I was reminded of just how short the girls like to wear their skirts these days.

– Girls under sixteen wearing stockings – DEFINITELY a ‘no-no’:

Teenage girls will admittedly wear short skirts and even my eye has tended to ‘wander’ in the direction of them, sheer hosiery is natural such as tights, but stockings, no!

This world is to progressive: look at modern day role models for teenage girls who give the wrong image, ie Britney Spears, female rap artists, soap stars and even children’s television presenters.

– The only way that a young lady should wear traditional stockings to school is to have a skirt of the proper length. Maybe this will be a good thing as I cannot for the life of me understand how a parent would let their daughter go to school wearing some of the outfits I see them wearing. Stockings or not the potential for “a view” is pretty risky and parents need to be responsible.

With respect to stockings as opposed to tights. Yes times have changed and the decision needs to be made by individual parents and their daughters. Young girls need to dress and behave as young ladies, which they rarely do these days.

I went to parochial schools through high school and the girls were required (under threat of suspension or expulsion) to have skirts at a specified length which precluded any opportunity for flashing.

Public schools in the USA are unfortunately another story. From what I have seen on the street and in the stores, the choice of hosiery is the least of our concerns.

Stockings in and of themselves do not have to be construed improperly and when the woman wearing them is discreet then others are none the wiser.

I’m 73 years old, and attended parochial school. When entering seventh grade, that is, at about age 12, the young ladies were required to wear sheer stockings with their blue and white uniforms. Bobby socks were allowed with the stockings. The advent of sheer stockings was a “right of passage” for most girls of the era. My twin sisters four years older usually came to breakfast with their stockings rolled into their bobby socks, and then pulled them up and fastened the four garters as they left the house for school. I well remember my mother supervising the operation to insure that the seams were straight and there were no wrinkles in the stockings. On many occasions, my sisters had to adjust the garters several times before getting my mother’s approval. I was an interested, but unnoticed, observer.

An unseamly appearance at a funeral?

– My wife returned yesterday from attending a large funeral. As many of you know she wears stockings every day. When she left for the funeral she took several pairs of black stockings with her. All were FFs, so all had seams.

I told her that I did not think it appropriate to wear seams at a funeral these days since they were sure to attract the attention of some of the mourners. I felt that the deceased and the deceased’s family should be the centre of attention. My wife agreed that her seams always attracted some attention but that this funeral would be so large that it would not matter.

Again, I disagreed. There would be media coverage and the usual group of paparazzi snapping away and an attractive woman in seamed stockings would be a natural subject for some of these photographers.

She disagreed with me. Her point was that this is the way she dresses and so what if her picture was taken it would only advance the cause of stockings wearing.

You all know that I am 100% in favour of stockings but this was a funeral! The actuaries tell me that my wife will probably outlive me by 10 to 20 years so it is reasonable to assume she’ll be at my funeral. I certainly hope she wears seamed stockings at my funeral. That’s what I have always loved her to wear. But, this was a funeral for someone else and I think that all the attention should go to that person and their family.

Well, she wore her seams. Pictures were taken of just about everybody and everything. (We don’t know if she was in any of the pictures. We’ll know in a few days as our company employs a clipping service. ) She said she got the usual attention at a reception held for family and close friends after the funeral. The “usual attention” means generally approving looks from some of the men and stares from some of the women.

But, in my mind the question still remains. Generally speaking, should seamed stockings be worn at a funeral? I am interested in your opinion.

– I don’t think there should be any problem with this. They’re black after all. In fact they might even strike a more formally elegant note, showing more respect for the deceased. If other people don’t particularly like it then I guess that’s their problem. Frankly I’m more offended by the wide variation in the way people dress at funerals these days — windbreakers, light-coloured clothing, men without ties, women with any old get-up on. No one seems to say anything about these.

– I have to side with your wife on this one. If I were the one going I would have chosen FFs as well. What I was curious to know, though, were they all black stockings or were they flesh tone with a black foot and heel? It sounds as if they were all black; meaning it would be hard to see the seams unless you were looking for them.

– A few years ago it was most likely that many women wore black seamed stockings at funerals. They only draw attention these days because they are such a rarity (unfortunately). I am sure your wife looks very elegant in seams, and I see nothing wrong in that in any place or situation.

– It just shows how society’s views on clothing change over the years. The Queen wore black fully fashioned nylons to Winston Churchill’s funeral in the mid sixties. I suppose nothing at all was said about this at the time. Now it is a matter of some debate as to what hosiery is suitable for such occasions. I would say real nylons should be worn without any problems at these ceremonies.

– I have questions about the question. I acknowledge my reaction would be very much like the original contributor if my wife informed me she was wearing FF stockings to a funeral. I’d see it as a potential – and unwanted – distraction.

However, is that because FF hosiery is seen so rarely today that it is mostly associated with sex? Or, is it just my thinking about the FF sexual connection that leads me to believe others would be distracted by FF seams?

This is a true domestic tranquillity issue!

– I believe your answer is right on the money. I believe people associate FF nylons with sex. Right or wrong. After all perception is greater than reality in most cases. I must admit, I would probably glance (not stare) at her seams, even if it was at a funeral, just because I rarely see them.

I feel that there is no problem with wearing seams/FF nylons to a funeral, as long as they were the proper black. If they were fleshtoned with black seam/heel, that might be considered a faux pas, but not all black.

Stockings under trousers: sexy or not?

– A question. In response to some of my posts a few people have indicated that they find stockings under trousers to be very sexy. To me it all seems a bit pointless – I don’t really see why it is worth bothering to put on a pair of stockings if you are going to wrap them away in trousers anyway. For me stockings should be an all or nothing thing and that has to mean wearing a skirt. But as we live in a democracy let’s put it to a vote. Are stockings sexy under trousers?

– Well personally it depends on how long the trousers are going to be on and under what circumstances they are going to be removed and the reason then becoming apparent as to why a female is wearing stockings. Not forgetting in which hotel room she is going to spend the night!

Then again I agree with you, trousers are not always the most glamorous garment on a lady unless she has the right figure and the garment is well tailored. But if she is going to wear hosiery, it must compliment and be pleasing to the eye in those few inches between the hem and the shoes.

Mind you, at least hosiery is a pleasing site on a woman in trousers as it is all to common too go without. It is obscene to see a man dressed in trousers and shoes with no socks, so why do women go without hose?

– My wife rarely wears slacks/trousers. When she does she almost always wears stockings with them. The alternative “pop-socks” are ugly, bare feet are rarely an option as she does not like the look or the feel

– A reason some people may not mind stockings under trousers is because they simply admire stockinged “feet”. Like me, they have a stocking foot fetish. So it really doesn’t matter a great deal if the woman is wearing a dress or pants. I do prefer women in dresses or skirts – since it creates an overall more feminine, stylish, alluring and sexy look – but it’s not so bad if they wear trousers so long as they wear nylons. But trousers without nylons (i. e. cotton socks or bare) … just isn’t on!

– I have one memorable memory of stockings being worn under trousers. This was the mother of one of my sister’s school friends in the mid 1970s.

A farmer’s wife, she was wearing tightish trousers, similar in colour, texture and appearance to jodphurs, and heavy duty lace-up shoes. It was when she bent forward that I noticed the outline of a heavy panty girdle with suspenders and an inspection of the gap between her trouser cuffs and her shoes revealed the heels of 30denier+ FF stockings. I remember being overwhelmed and curiously excited by the “heavy duty” nature of this outfit compared with the skirt and more feminine shoes she might otherwise have worn.

– Following on the “look” you described, check out the 1977 movie “September 30, 1955″ starring Richard Thomas for some absolutely stunning shots of the character’s shapely mother, wearing very tight jeans that end at her calves (almost like capris), and FF nylons with high-heeled sandals. Now that’s a look!

– I remember seeing a girl in her early twenties in 1988 at Wimbledon railway station wearing black trousers, high heels and FF hose, although I never knew if they were stockings. Sexy all the same!

– I have always loved the idea of stockings, suspenders and delicate panties under jeans. I think that it is the mix of the roughness of the denim covering up the sensual softness of the lingerie.

I went out with a girl many years ago who – when I danced with her at a party and put my hand on her trousered bottom – gave me the nicest surprise of a feel of a suspender strap! She smiled at me then and said that she was wearing them just for me as she knew I loved stockings and she had been trying to get my attention for a long time. My hand stayed on her bottom for most of the night!

– When I was a boy in the late ’50s, women often wore stockings under their slacks, especially when going to church functions on the weekend. I remember having fun looking for suspender bumps when the girls leant over, say at a picnic or a carwash.

– A nicely tailored pair of trousers that reveal about 2-3” of ankle, with the appropriate shoes does have appeal, and it is practical in some circumstances. Socks and runners are OK with jeans for casual wear, but I always used to wear tights under trousers. Now, stockings have replaced the tights, they are just as comfortable and practical. I would wear trousers a couple of times during the week, and casual ones on the weekend, and always with stockings.

Even the sight or glimpse of hosiery worn with jeans and pumps is a turn-on for me, but it must be sheer! Definitely a bare ankle or cladded in socks is a no-no!