Talk:Pantyhose for men

sexual stimulation/fetish *the most common* reason for men to wear pantyhose
Essentially the same is true to latex trousers. The article is written in ignorance of this, not even mentioning sexual reasons, as if trying to hide shame. Very biased viewpoint, not wikipedia worthy. 109.91.39.181 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: medical use
Bear00035,

thanks for your contribution. I pasted your text here to save your work. The subject - medical reasons - seems to be interesting enough to put into the article, but needs more to work on it.

Please view the recommendations how to write for Wikipedia:

- Verifiability - No original research - neutral point of view

or just scroll down this page and read our communication with cmh.

And the text: "To add to this some Men also wear Pantyhose out of Neccesity Mainly due to Medical reasons rather than as a choice or fetish, Today Surgeons , Doctors and even Lawyers and Sales people wear them as they are on their legs all day some even reccomend them though a really taboo subject which seems to be changing due to health reasons."

Please verify these statements with reliable sources first.

Best,

harisnya

Re: Iraq, Army
Yes, there were some news items about it back in 2003 - I don't know if it was/is a widespread thing or not. Here is one article: Pantyhose are a defensive weapon in Iraq. This issue did not seem significant and as I could not find more, independent sources I did not put into the Wikipedia article. If you find more info about please let me know.

Best,

harisnya

Iraq, Army
I heard a lot of soldiers in iraq are using panythoses...true/false? would be interesting, wrist watches were considered a female item until men started using them in world war I...

re: vandalising early december 2006
Danny, thanks for removing the spam - I could not watch this page for a week or so.

Regarding removing verification and other data: they were carefully collected by the guidance of cmh during the fall, in accordance with neutral point of view and verification rules. References were also picked up by paying high attention to Wikipedia standards.

If you want to add some information or think that some data are useless I am happy to discuss with you.

Best,

harisnya

re: Cleanup Nov6
As the cleanup tag was added by an anonymous user I consider it as vandalism. This article has been cleaned up already. If you think it needs more than use your username when adding a cleanup tag. You might contact cmh for this issue.

Harisnya

Not verified
I have added the not verified tag to this article. This is because it has does not cite the assertions it makes with reliable sources. This badly needs to be addressed. Also, the article reads like an advertisement, and this needs to be addressed too. -- cmhTC 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: not verified
Cmh, Thanks for your notices! It's my first article and I need some help to create a fine entry. So I have added references. Please let me know if you think it's fine now. Cheers, Harisnya.


 * Hi there, thanks for getting back to me. Welcome to Wikipedia. I will give you some specific suggestions below, but first I think the most important thing is for you to read Verifiability (one of the three main wikipedia content policies, the others are here and here).


 * In general things that are statements of fact are things that need citations. Here at Wikipedia we can only print what reliable sources have already said. So if you write: "Men who wear pantyhose do it to improve athletic performance" or "thanks to the internet, it became apparent that many men wear pantyhose" then these statements need to be backed up by a reliable source. There should be a citation right there to prove it, not just at the end of the article. Check out Citing sources for more on the formats you can choose from.


 * (By the way, to make links in the article look right just put 2 square brackets around the page name. So pantyhose creates a link like pantyhose. -- cmhTC 01:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I am reading through the policies now.


 * So hopefully I understood how a Wikipedia article should be built up. I corrected the references and put citations into the article body. I will add more verifications during the coming days to some statements. Please let me know if it's better now (or not), and what shall I improve. Thanks again for your help - Harisnya

Advertisement?
I have been asked by Harisnya to help him with this article, though up till now my involvement has been mainly in applying the odd improvement in the English department.

I would like to clarify what is mean by 'reads like an advertisement'. Are you saying that the problem is with links to commercial sites? It would be very hard to treat the subject of pantyhose for men without mentioning the pioneering work of Steve Katz and comfilon.com. I understand that links to commercial sites can be included if they are integral to the subject matter. I would say, that is the case here.

Or is the problem that you think that the article reads like an advertisement for the idea that men can or should wear pantyhose? There is no doubt that Harisnya and I (in our different ways) promote the acceptance of this idea. But surely it is true to some extent that articles are written by enthusiasts? Harisnya is trying to present an informative article on a subject he has knowledge of. If the admins can let us know where the problems lie, we will attempt to address them.

Geraden 19:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Geraden


 * Wikipedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view. Advocates of a position must struggle against this tendency in the article and strive for a balanced perspective. Surely it isn't all good news about men and pantyhose.


 * Encyclopedia articles aren't a place for convincing people, they are for laying out facts and letting others draw their own conclusions. A good start might be to consider what is academically interesting about this topic. Is there a history, references to literature about social norms, controvery over pantyhose as sexual rather than casual clothing item. That kind of thing. Just an article that says 'more and more men are wearing pantyhose' is not enclopedic.


 * This is the largest problem with this article at this time, and it may well be deleted by others, or merged into Pantyhose if it can't be addressed... not all topics are encyclopedic! -- cmhTC 21:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You made me think again :) Why I created this article is the point that most men who wear pantyhose are not any more 'fetishists' or 'crossdressers', AND that pantyhose for men is an individual type of pantyhose just like stockings or leggings that may be separated from pantyhose.


 * As pantyhose used to be a female garment for a long time, it seems to be an important/interesting piece of information. Strictly from an academic point of view the topic is inside 'gender studies', which is part of sociology. Since there is an explicit manifestation - the pantyhose that manufacturers produce for men - it seems to worth it to start with that, from the 'fashion' or, simply, 'practical' end.


 * So my idea is to illustrate/explain/dig into a bit more to this point - why and how this specific female garment becomes male. What do you think? Harisnya

I think the article is coming along. I think your plans are good. I'd suggest that any article on pantyhose for men should include BOTH information on the fetishism (which should not be cast as negative... it's a legitimate choice after all) AND the non-fetish related uses. That would truly take the neutral point of view. -- cmhTC 23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that! I will go on with this direction. Harisnya

Uses in Vietnam
I've read that during the Vietnam War, the members of the Green Berets and Navy SEALs that went on regular ops out in swampy ares of 'Nam (especially the Delta area) often wore pantyhose as it prevent attachment of leeches, as well as "jungle rot" in their "sensitive" areas. The G.I.-issued cotton underwear just did not hack it too well in the very humid and wet conditions that existed. Rwboa22 14:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I'm merging this back into Pantyhose. Much of this is OR, cites questionable sources, and is a synthesis of material, and it reads like an advertisement for male pantyhose. The fact that a niche pantyhose market for men exists could be summed up in a few sentences, and Pantyhose fetishism (and Transvestic Fetishism) already covers the fetishistic aspects. Krimpet 03:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Merge
This article is citing reliable sources in accordance with Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view. Please check the sources and indicate if you find any of them questionable.

This article is definitely not about a niche market neither about fetishistic aspects of a clothing item - and this is the point why it is here. It is not originating from the article Pantyhose therefore it's no point to merge into it.

On the other hand it's very important to know if the article still sounds like and advertisement for male pantyhose. Therefore I jump back to an earlier version that was more carefully balanced with the guidance of cmh.

Harisnya 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Removing AfDs
Please stop vandalising the Pantyhose for men article. You are actually reverting it to a vandalised version each time. Please read and follow the steps described as "Before nominating an AfD" on the Articles for Deletion page as there are many more do before simply merging it to another article without any discussion.

You are still warmly welcome to discuss or improve the article - but it hasn't happened at all.

Also check Wikipedia deletion policy explains valid grounds for deletion and the usual process.

Harisnya 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: delete nomination
This article does meet the relevant content criteria defined in WP:DP. If you feel that is not, however, you are warmly welcome to discuss it here, at the discussion page.

Merge and/or deletion this article
This article was nominated for deletion and/or merge with the article Pantyhose; and was subject of a five-day period discussion during the 3rd week of March 2007, according to Wikipedia rules of deletion. See the discussion here. At the end Wikipedia administrators decided to keep this article and not to merge with another one.

I am trying to improve the quality of the article further in order to avoid such problems in the future. One of the main complains are that it still sounds like an advertisement for male pantyhose - which I want to avoid "at any price". I am also looking for other sources available more recently.

Harisnya 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: men in skirts
Man in a skirt, I removed the link to men in skirts as I believe that the article should not go any deeper to any gender related issues. It was also one of the complains when it was nominated for deletion. My approach is that pantyhose for men is only related to pantyhose from the clothings category, and nothing else. You are warmly welcome to this discussion if you feel it's the place for the link indeed.

Harisnya 12:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Harisnya, I agree that the article should not go any deeper into gender-related issues, but I didn't actually add anything to the article text, I merely added a link in a See Also section. Skirt-wearing by men is clearly an associated topic and I think readers of this article might want to be aware of an article about this related topic. Man in a skirt 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Change title to 'Men in pantyhose'?
Would 'Men in pantyhose' be a better title for this article? This would address the concerns of those that supported a call for its deletion recently. The title 'Pantyhose for men' does indeed suggest that it is an unnecessary fork of the 'Pantyhose' article, whereas 'Men in pantyhose' would suggest that it is an article about the phenomenum of men wearing pantyhose, detailed discussion of which would be clearly out of place in the 'Pantyhose' article. Man in a skirt 21:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Men in Skirts, thanks for your thoughts! I would answer both of your submissions in one. You are absolutely right that the article could be seen as an unnecessary fork of the pantyhose article; this is an existing danger and we should work on the article to improve it. However, my point is that this article is centered around the clothing item - pantyhose; and not the men who wear it. It's less about the men who wear it, and it's less about the phenomena - though, of course, it touches these topics. But - and here comes my point - it would be really hard to write (and, as our history shows, keep) an article about men wearing pantyhose as Wikipedia needs sheer and clear facts, it doesn't allow original research etc. I have no exact statistics about men wearing pantyhose; I cannot state and prove much of their habits, neither provide enough reasonable and neutral external links. If you go through it you see that it's mostly about the history, production, fetish/no issues.


 * In a word - to simplify -, it's 'pantyhose worn by men'. But not men in pantyhose.


 * So it's definitely a different point of view. The 'men in skirt' article would be 'male skirt' according to this approach. And, I think in this case the wiki link would be just fine in the article.


 * Best,


 * Harisnya 19:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Harisnya, as you state, the article is about pantyhouse worn by men. But that is the main reason why the article was nominated for deletion. Why have a separate article about pantyhose for men? It's an unnecessary fork. However, the issue about men wearing pantyhose is sufficiently different from the article about the garment to warrant a separate article. Man in a skirt 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Men in Skirts, thanks for your thoughts again! Well I believe that the main reason was not the question if it was a fork/not, as it was a rather complex, hmm, thing. You might track it back easily and see all the details. But the article was kept, and it was kept in its present form; now even the admins agree that it's not a fork. So a good test ride would be to create an other article with the title you suggest. What do you think about it?


 * Harisnya 21:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tone is too informal
I tagged the article with a template because it reads more like a story and/or an ad than a business-like encyclopedia article. I did edit the introduction, at least; it sounds a little better now in my opinion. I welcome any feedback on it. The rest of the article needs a lot of cleanup regarding tone.


 * Nonarelli, thanks for your fine edit! Please educate me a bit more about tone, and how would you think it would be better - I don't really know how to make it more neutral.

Harisnya 23:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sexystore link and about commercial and/or erotic links
I have removed sexystore link. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise any businesses. First, as there are plenty of shops selling pantyhose for men, therefore only the most relevant - that is Comfilon - should be kept. Second, it is a shop selling erotic items, which shouldn't mix with this article.

It would have been removed anyway by administrators in a few days. Samsam92, I suggest you to read carefully the relevant Wikipedia rules. This article was built up carefully, please don't destroy the work of many of us. Thank you.

Harisnya 14:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Harisnya

picture
Did we really need the exhibitionist gaping crotch shot? Anyone got a better one? Flapdragon (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. --Dpr71.111.194.50 (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

re: picture
I uploaded one from my own inventory. Let me know if you see a better one at e-MANcipate (all images are done by me there). Harisnya (talk)] —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

Extremely Biased
Well, it is. This reads like someone who sells or manufactures male pantyhose wrote it. You cant deny it by hiding behind all that wikipedia rules garbage. And that picture is awesomely hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.15.208 (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

New pictures update
Hello, I wanted to upload new pictures to the topic. The pictures are mine, however they were removed by an admin, who advised I should seek approval on this page. Let me know if you think the following pictures will be ok for the page and can be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopk1231 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopk1231 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the images were reverted because they were duplicates, and as such offered no improvement to the article as it stands. I personally would have no objection to one of the images being reinstated, but I do not think they are good enough for both to be used - the "guy in pantyhose" seems -- to me anyway -- to be the better of the two, as it focuses more on the subject of the article -- pantyhose -- rather than the model himself.  This is covered by Grayfell correctly in that there is a suggestion of narcissistic spamming when adding multiple images of the uploader themself.
 * PS: I donot think Grayfell is an admin, at least according to the list here they (just like you and I) are regular editors -- but their point is valid.  Curved Space (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I am new to editing, therefore the issues with editing you mention. I will upload the picture you mention. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopk1231 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Curved Space is correct, I am not an admin.
 * I do not think having this image in both articles is appropriate. I also do not think either image is particularly good for Wikipedia's purposes. Regardless of the artistic quality of the images, they do not provide very much accurate information, since both are more focused on the "model" then the pantyhose. That this is a mirror selfie makes this especially obvious. The image was taken from a eye-level with a wide-angle phone camera lens. This introduces distortion at the edges of the picture, but the edges are where the relevant content is located. The image may or may not be flattering, but it's a bad illustration of the topic.
 * Spamming multiple images of yourself to different articles is not appropriate behavior, because it is incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. Please make sure you are here to build an encyclopedia, instead of being here to promote yourself. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

While I got involved into the talk page, as I try to follow the rules being new to editing pages, it would appear that you have solely taken the lead in deciding on matters regarding both articles. I see nothing, but aspiration to enforce your opinions on others. I can understand why you may not agree with posting of the pictures, however it remains uncertain why your feedback was not provided on time when I first posted them? And why should you be the sole person to make the decision whether the pictures should stay or not? In the topic another wiki member was involved saying that he/she does not mind if the pictures stay. So at the moment the only person objecting them is you. Taking them down solely based on your subjective interpreting is nothing but censorship which does not comply with wikipedia's slogan "free encyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopk1231 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:CONSENSUS. This is not censorship. My interpretation is based on past experience and an understanding of Wikipedia's policies. Since you are, undeniably and understandably, not impartial to these images, you should hold off on adding them yourself until there is consensus. Can you address the issues I raised? Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Reason for / improvement of article
I'm curious about how this article could be improved, or if it's even particularly necessary. I understand it was marked for deletion and not removed, but I will say I agree with its reasons for deletion.

This is certainly a topic worth discussing on Wikipedia, but splitting it into an entire page seems like a counterintuitive content fork. There could just as easily be a heading on the page for 'pantyhose' that 'pantyhose for men' directs to, providing just as much information without warranting an entire page.

Dedicating an entire page to 'pantyhose for men' makes it look like an advertisement for the few companies actually producing male pantyhose. The page barely discusses any of the specifics of men wearing pantyhose that could warrant an article, zero commentary on societal stigma... It even has a drawn out bullet point list for padding. The "men's skirts" article at least discusses men's skirts historically along with the cultural resistance toward men wearing skirts... but this page does not. On that point, we do not have a 'makeup for men' or 'men wearing makeup' page on Wikipedia despite male makeup models being extraordinarily popular and influential nowadays. We don't have a 'guyliner' article because of the few makeup brands in the world producing eyeliner for men. How is this page justified?

I am not saying men can't wear pantyhose for non-fetishistic reasons, but the tone of the page feels very dishonest, largely ignoring fetishistic practice in lieu of promoting individual companies and not much else. It is certainly not neutral.

It is also probably worth noting that 'guylons' and 'brosiery' are barely colloquial slang and seem to have only emerged from a single WWD article - promoting Emilio Cavallini! - which is not even cited here.

Any suggestions on how to clean up the page or even if it should stick around?

Purradiselost (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)