Why I love pantyhose

Why do I (we?) love pantyhose so much? I've often heard that women find it slightly baffling  fact that some men find pantyhose sexy. To most women, they are functional garments, and stockings are considered sexy, especially stockings worn with a garter belt. Now, lots of men agree, but not all, and I think, in a straw poll of the internet there are far more fetish sites devoted to pantyhose than stockings, although it's hard to be accurate about such things.

So, why? For me, there are lots of reasons, although none are completely satisfying, and even all together they don't seem to add up to a real answer.

Zoe Alexander, looking rather pleased with her legs.

The main reason, I think, is that you  grow to like what you see, and for anyone born after 1965 or so, most women wore pantyhose. They became widely available, popular and affordable only in the late sixties and grew in popularity, exceeding sales of stockings in the 1970s. If you're from that generation, your earliest memories of seeing legs and thinking they're sexy, were probably legs in pantyhose.

But, stockings seem inherently sexier. They show a delightful sliver of bare flesh above the stocking top. They make panties more visible, and in combination with garters, they reveal a delicious tension of strap and fabric, like a little bondage party  going on underneath a skirt or dress. So, heck yes, stockings are sexy, but nevertheless, given the choice, it's pantyhose for me every time.
Is it the clinging effect? The snug nylon wrapped around the panty area? Is it the sheer panty part simultaneously revealing and hiding the panty beneath? Maybe, and they're good reasons. Perhaps it's just that usually pantyhose is seen, or suggested, with a very short skirt. Stockings can't sensibly be worn with a miniskirt, and usually they're not, and seeing the top of a nylon-clad thigh, just beneath a very high hemline, is the most delicious sight of all. I can't really explain it, there's just something about pantyhose.

I frequent onlytease.com's forums occasionally, and the pantyhose vs. stocking debate is a perennial favorite  Onlytease caters for the lovers of both in equal measure, although no-one is ever completely happy. And, of course, there are other arguments. Patterned or plain? Opaque or sheer? Footless? Leggings? Seamed? Everyone has an opinion on such weighty subjects, and I am no exception, except that my preferences are reasoned, and formed from a basis in fact.

Patterned tights are an abomination. The devil envied God's beautiful pantyhose, and tried to ruin them  with patterns and ribbing. They are cursed forever.  That said, I like some patterned hose. It has to be a delicate, lacy pattern though, not some hideous ribbing, and a pattern, must be on the panty only, not the legs, like on Sunny Leone's example from playtime pantyhose.

Sunny Leone, panty in the pantyhose.

Opaque? Sheer? As far as I'm concerned, I'd swap any sheer pair for an opaque, but it has to be nylon, not cotton or a mix. The shinier the better in my book, and often opaque can mean some sort of matt, woolly fabric that  wastes a good pantyhose opportunity. I like sheer too, but just not as much. Coloured? Well, some colours. Black is best, always. Then a nice brown, ideally the colour of dairy milk chocolate. White is okay, especially if opaque. All shades of charcoal greys that tend toward the dark too. Blue? Green? Yellow? Red? Euugh. Primary colours are for sweets, not for pantyhose. Why? Oh why? Oh why? etc.

Footless? Well, that's not pantyhose is it? They're leggings, or I'm a monkey's uncle. Now, I've nothing against leggings. Tight, clinging, shiny leggings, yes. But we've wandered off topic here, right? We're talking about God's gift to legs, pantyhose, and they go over the foot.

Daisy Watts and India Reynolds, leggings, and pantyhose.

Seamed? See above. I don't think I've ever seen a real woman wear seamed pantyhose, and I've never much seen the point. This is faking a design necessity from a different garment - stockings - from fifty years ago onto a garment - pantyhose - that never needed it in the first place. Seams don't ruin it for me, but, well, why bother? If you want seams, wear stockings.
Sheer to waist? Well, it depends. Yes, usually, but a visibly darker panty isn't a turn-off. Now, thick, visible gussets, especially cotton ones are a turn-off, as are those weird oblong reinforced panels you sometimes see  around the gusset. I mean, seriously? The point here is curves, right? And then stick a big angular block of colour over the crotch? What are you? A deviant?
Sorry, I was getting a bit worked up there.

I'm not such an obsessive that I know lots of brands and have favourites. Well, apart from Wolford of course - especially their high lycra, black opaques. However, I find the models that they use on their packaging and promotional material are way, way too thin. These garments are supposed to be accentuating beautiful legs, not the strange stick-like appendages that fashion photographers obsess over. See these Wolfords modelled by the unsurpassable Erica Rose Campbell.

Erica Campbell, white Wolfords.

I have had comments from readers who decry my endless mentioning of pantyhose and ask me to include scenes with stockings. Well, the answer to that is that search-and-replace is usually under ctrl-H. Do it yourself, if you must, you weirdo.