The Problems With Pantyhose

Silent Porn Star (who now has a spiffy new URL, www.silent-porn-star.com) sent me these scans from Tip Top magazine (August, September, October, 1970), a retro nylon & stockings fetish publication. The scans are pages from a feature by Orrin Vaughn called The Pantyhose Jungle, “Why Millions Of Women Are Turning Against Pantyhose”.

1970 Pantyhose Jungle Article in Tip Top Magazine
Retro Pantyhose Article
The feature discusses how women who wear pantyhose — and the men who wish to admire them — are both being gyped by pantyhose.

Here’s a quote (though you can — and are encourage to — click the images to read the larger scans):

What some reporters are calling the panty-hose scandal has arisen from the difficulty of a woman getting the proper size and fit if she happens not to be the slim, short type. Women, after all, not only have feet and legs of different sizes and lengths but also hips, waists and behinds of widely varying measurements. This was what led manufactures not long ago to promote the “one-size-fits-all” pantyhose. The theory was that the elasticity of the fibers used in the making of the hose would stretch to fit any size or length of leg — in much the same way that stretch bikini panties are designed to fit anybody, regardless of measurements.

But a spokesman for one pantyhose manufacturer recently took issue with this idea in an article in a trade journal. He called it putting “Two Pounds of Meat in a One-Pound Bag.” It would be, he said, like trying to stuff a Polish salami into a skin designed for a hot dog; you could do it, but the skin would soon lose its elasticity from being stretched beyond capacity, and would become loose and baggy. This is precisely what has been happening when some of the taller, hippier, heftier-legged chicks in the crowd pack their gams into the same size pantyhose as the short, slim sprouts, whom it fits perfectly.

The article continues to tell of women aged 30-50, who complain the loudest — not just because of their “bigger, riper” figures but because these women are those who remember gartered stockings “that were always drumskin-tight, with nary a wrinkle or a trace of sag!”

According to the article, many of these women were returning to stockings and garter belts — even with mini-skirts, where they risked showing the skin above the tops of their nylons.

“The hell with the ‘gap’ between my stocking tops and underwear,” commented one working wife. “I’ll continue to wear short skirts. What’s the big deal about a little bare skin showing, anyway? They’re running around in the nude in movies and on Broadway.”

But there are additional issues besides bagging, sagging and drooping…

Italian Starlet Virna Lisi in Mini-Wedding Dress and Spangled Hose
The article warns:

The next time you come across a dame with her hands up under her own skirt, heaving her hips around, don’t jump to false conclusions. She could be trying to relieve an itch, she could be hiking her sagging pantyhose up on her hips — or she could be trying to work her hiked-up minislip down. There’s a friction problem that occurs when a girl wears a short slip over pantyhose. The slip keeps working up toward the waist, and the problem is compounded when she wears the miniscule lace bikini briefs that most women wear nowadays. In no time flat, her minislip gets bunched up around her waist by the friction action of the pantyhose and nylon lace bikinis. Slips never did this when worn next to regular satin panties and bare upper legs — another reason why many women are reverting back to simple “old-style” panties and extra-length nylons, which provide a smooth, slippery surface for the slip to glide over as the wearer walks, sits, kneels, bends over, etc.

Is it getting hot in here, or is it just me?

It’s only going to get hotter though as the author moves on from the mechanics of pantyhose and the horrors women have wearing them to male reactions.

Now, what about the women-watchers who feel they are the victims of another kind of put-on? We’re talking about the men who think there is nothing in this world (or beyond it) as mentally, physically and spiritually inspiring as a beautiful pair of female legs, improved by the addition of sheer, skintight hose. These men — loyal, upstanding Americans every one — have spent their whole adult lives admiring the legs of American girls and bringing them the worldwide recognition they deserve. And for these men, nothing did it like nylons that ended halfway to two-thirds of the way up the thigh, supported by taut garter straps. There was no reason, in their view, for women to change this fashion. Perfection had been reached — with the possible exception of slightly shorter skirts to enhance the tease.

He says more about this, but whew! Men should actually say things like this to us… I’m dizzy with this guy’s desire, so imagine what my hubby could do if he spoke thus?

Vintage Playboy Bunnies Photo and photo of Carol Wayne with Timothy Scott in The Party
Now here’s the smack on the tush for women — and I don’t disagree with a darn word of it.

But the women weren’t listening to the men — they were listening to the fashion writers, the profit-hungry stocking manufacturers, and the queers of the European fashion houses, who can’t stand to see a woman turn-on a real he-man by showing him how marvelous she looks in sheer nylons, a black satin garter belt and tight silk panties. So up went the miniskirt, and on went the pantyhose. It’s pathetic, really, the way women will ditch something that has males gasping for breath in favor of a fashion that brings only a “ho-hum.” It’s crazy that women will ignore the endless assurances of men that they look ravishingly beautiful in garters and regulation-length sheer hose, and deliberately cover their legs in opaque colored stockings because some nut they’ve never even met tells them that their bare thighs are uglier than Frankenstein’s monster.

Oh, it’s true, of course, that if a chick has good legs, she still looks pretty damned good in a hiked miniskirt and sheer pantyhose that keeps on going around the curve of her rear end.

Finally, if further proof of the efficacy of nylons ‘n’ garters in bringing our a man’s loving instincts were needed, it was provided recently by no less an authority on love than Cosmopolitan magazine. Among the young, virile males interviewed on the subject of what turns men on and what turns them off was one who listed “garter belts — preferably black, with little rosettes” as a sure-fire turn-on. And among his list of turn-offs was pantyhose… “Very bad for seduction,” he said. And any male who has ever tried to wrestle a willing broad out of her pantyhose at a moment of high emotional fervor will know exactly what he means…

That’s worth thinking about — isn’t it, girls?

Well, OK, I can’t (100%) agree with the queer designers “who can’t stand to see a woman turn-on a real he-man.” And as a feminist (forgiving some of the uh, less-than-equality-recognizing terms for women, slang for the male audience of the mag at the time — I can do that, ya know) I don’t think women should dress for men; we should dress for ourselves.

But that includes saying, “No!” to designers & fashion looks which serve no purpose other than to line their pockets with my money.

I love looking sexy; I love my husband (and any other man near) to think I’m sexy. But I like feeling sexy best of all — and a bit of bare thigh will do that every time. That’s my prerogative. And why I wear stockings — most of the time.

If men spoke about their preference with such passion to their partners, I bet men would find their partners getting all hot & bothered and willing to wear them too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>