Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    regular (opaque) tights are warm and keep people from keeling over
    when they see my ever_so_hairy legs.
    
    Tan hoisery is icky (gotta shave).
    
    Sheer black hoisery over nice tights makes for a neat effect --
    black over bright red tights sort of shimmers...
    
    lee

    
    I detest pantyhose.  I can never get them to fit me correctly;
    either there's too much stretch and they're baggy, or they're too short
    in the length and the crotch is halfway down to my knees ("webbed
    legs"?).  And I ALWAYS think that they're too warm and sticky feeling.
    So, I've opted for a garter belt and hose.  Actually I find this
    much more comfortable and especially cooler.
    
    Anna

    I like pantyhose. I think that they look much better with dresses
    and skirts than socks or bare legs.
    Bonnie Jeanne

	I like pantyhose.  I find that they provide some measure of
	warmth in the winter (I sometimes wear them under pants on
	very cold days).  I wear semi-support hose which I feel might
	help keep me from getting vericose veins (is this a myth?).
	In summer, they keep my legs from sticking together.
	And I think I look better with them when wearing dresses.

	...Karen

    
    Looks...of course!  My legs are more attractive in hose than
    without as I'm light complected.  Plus, I feel it ads to a
    woman's appearence when wearing dresses, skirts.  I just 
    don't feel "dressed" without them.  I can't imagine wearing
    a dressy (cocktail or evening dress) without hose!  
    
    	Myra

    <--(.2)
    
    Anna, where in heaven's name do you find them?  I'm positively with
    you in detesting pantyhose and mourned the passing of "regular"
    hosen.
    
    As to why I would wear either pantyhose or hosen:  because it helps
    defract (refract? something like that anyhow) light and my legs
    don't look quite the bony, knobby appendages that they actually
    are.  And on those few occasions in life where I actually put some
    effort into "dressing up", the effect is a good one.
    
    						=maggie

    I don't wear skirts or dresses often.  I think that although they
    look nice, they are uncomfortable and a bother and a hindrance and
    expensive.  Thus I don't like pantyhose much either.  I wear lycra
    stockings when I do aerobics, mostly because my legs are not only
    leg-shaped (which in my case doesn't exactly jibe with those "Hanes"
    commercials) but they are leg-colored (true leg color in mid-winter
    without a tanning salon membership is sometimes best described as
    kind of pale, mottled flesh).  
    
    Yes, hosen make me "feel" sexier, but pantyhose often fit better
    (they seem to come in a wider variety of sizes).  I think the entirely
    stupidest part about the whole thing is that it is so easy to get
    runs in them, and then they are ruined and you have to get a new
    pair.  It's all just so much planned obsolescence.  Also, pantyhose
    'n such generally means high heels, which hurt and hobble me.
    
    -Jody
    

    I buy relatively inexpensive hose - No Nonsense at $3.79 or so -
    but I run through them pretty fast. (pun intended)
    
    Seems to me these hosiery companies are making some BIG bucks off
    us consumers!!
                                                           
    I've seen a few women go hoseless with hairy legs - not very appealing.
    (would be even scarier if it was me!)
    
    theresa.

    I hate nylons!  That is the main reason I seldom wear dresses or
    skirts, except to folk dancing, where I wear socks.  Stockings are
    fragile, not very warm (especially since you are probably wearing
    them with a skirt), and don't breathe, so you sweat from waist to
    toes - at least, I do.  Ychh.  At least they now make pantyhose
    that actually fit women of my height, so I can wear the things without
    the crotch coming down to my knees (as someone has mentionned already)
    when protocol requires them.   I have a bone spur on one heel, so the
    high-heeled shoes are a real trial for me, too - of course, if you
    look around, you notice that most people do the same thing as I
    do when I have to wear them and kick them off at the first opportunity
    anyhow - makes me wonder if they are much more comfortable for people
    who NOT have a bone spur!
    
    I wonder if silk stockings (from our grandmothers' era) were less
    fragile and more comfortable, being made of a natural fiber which
    is both warm and breathable - anyone know?  I don't know if they
    are even made anymore - probably would cost a fortune if so, since
    anything else made of silk seems to.
                                

    Two places in the Maynard area that I know of that sell stockings
    and garter belts are The Colonial Store on Main Street in downtown
    Concord and Victoria's Secret in the Burlington Mall.  I think
    Victoria's Secret also has all silk stockings. 
    
    I'm not sure on the prices.
    
    cin
    

    I really resent spending money on them.  I wear them out in the
    feet after one or two wearings even though I regularly beat on my
    feet with pumice stones.
    
    They look ok and feel neutral to me at this point, but I think it's
    a culturally acquired habit to think we need them to look dressed.
    I would much rather be able to wear a durable garment like tights
    in the winter with a business suit and go barelegged all summer.
    
    Holly

    Can we have some translation here ?
    	Pantyhose = tights, I've worked that ought but hosen ? The same
    as stockings ?
    
    I've worn stockings and a suspender belt since I started having
    problems with thrush, and one thing I've found is they don't seem
    to ladder like tights. Also you only have to throw out one leg !
    
    The only problem is that I sometimes get caught out in the evening
    when I've got quite a few short skirts, there's nothing worse than
    going out and realising you're revealing 2" of thigh everytime you
    bend over or sit down ! I guess I'll learn to remember eventually.
    

    re .9
    
    Beg to differ with you: I think bare, hairy legs are verrry attractive,
    particularly if the woman has a _lot_ of hair.  There's a Topic
    on shaving (and its attractiveness, non-attractiveness) somewhere
    around here.
    
    In any case, I fully admit to being outside the norm in my preferences.
    Also admit to be someone who hates to shave/wax/depilitate.  *Still*...
    
    lt

    And tights in the US are heavier than UK tights(panythose), often come
    in many colors, are not sheer at all, and will stand up to numerous
    washings.  Little girls often wear them regularly in the winter. 
    
    What do you call *those* in the UK?

    Re .9, .14, I think hairy legs can be very attractive, too - on
    men :-).
    
    As far as garter belts and stockings go, I haven't worn them since
    pantyhose were invented.  I thought garter belts and stockings felt
    really yucky to have on and thought that pantyhose was one of the
    greatest inventions of all time!  In my opinion, the only way women
    can look good in dresses without stockings is if they have a dark
    tan and shave their legs.  
    
    Lorna
    

Re:  .14

>    Beg to differ with you: I think bare, hairy legs are verrry attractive,
>    particularly if the woman has a _lot_ of hair.

As a male of the species I can't resist agreeing with Lee here.  From what
I've read, leg hair evolved as a means of sexual attraction--I guess the
hairs acted as wicks for pheromones or some such.  Whatever the reason I've
always found hair on women's legs to be quite attractive; it's frustrating
that so many people (of both sexes) seem to disagree so violently.  In any
case I've always found that nylons make women's legs look very unleglike.

Oh, well.  Tough to fight fashion.

					--Q (Dick Wagman)

    re .15 (I think it was)
    
    Tights are tights too ! I suppose I would make the distinction by
    referring to them as woolly tights.

    Winter Silks has also at one time or maybe now carried silk stockings
    and silk panty hose.
    
    The very nicest department stores sometimes also have a hosiery
    counter, where there is a clerk who will show you those flat little
    boxes of stockings.
    
    I used to wear more skirts, but the purchase of my own car ended
    this--I never knew when I was going to have to wade through snow
    or fix something, and I also found them restrictive if I suddenly
    got wanderlust.  Then, I shaved my legs, and wore expensive panty
    hose that still bagged at the ankles.  I diminished into wearing
    colored semi-opaque tights as I also gave up the hated razor.
    
    As an aside: do you know why women don't go swimming at the beach?
    It's not those ridiculous bits of cloth that's holding them back,
    it's the sure knowledge of agonizing, burning pain over 50 % of
    their body surface when the salt water hits all those little 
    invisible nicks!  :-)

    If the wearing of hosiery has always intrgued you, this might give
    you a chuckle...
    
    A friend who was a young woman during WWII told me about "surviving"
    the lack of this commodity during the war.  Initially it was
    unpatriotic to by seen in a pair w/out "runs". Finally when the
    stockings were run so badly that they could not be worn, it was
    poplular to put leg makeup on and because at that time stockings
    had seams in the back, one would take an eyeliner pencil and draw
    the seam up the "seam" on.  I guess that puts the wearing of hosiery
    in the fashion dept.
    
    nak
    

    Re .20, this was done by one of the characters in the movie, "Hope
    & Glory" that was out earlier this year.  The teenage daughter was
    going to a dance and had her little brother draw black lines up
    the backs of her legs.  (The movie is about civilian life in London
    during WWII and is very good.)
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .21
    
    Lorna, I guess this was not a too-uncommon-practice during WWII,
    even in America.
    
    Woody Allen's "Radio Days" also had a scene similar to the one you've
    described.
    
      Alan

    re: .0 --
    
    If I may offer a slight historical correction here:  tights were
    originally a garment of MALE clothing.  A tunic plus tights was
    the standard male garment from the time knitting was invented,
    somewhere in the 800-900 A.D. time frame, to the 1600's.  In the
    late 1400's we're talking about very tight, though not transparent,
    tights, and a tunic that ended at the hips, often including a garment
    called a codpiece, to cover the --
    
    Er, anyway, starting in the 1600's pantaloons came into style, but men
    still wore what were essentialy tights with them until long pants
    became the norm in the early 1800's.  At about the same time, women
    began wearing stockings under their dresses.  Originally only
    prostitutes and loose women wore them.  They were mostly cotton
    or wool.  Silk stockings came into vogue because they looked prettier
    with the shorter skirts of the late 1800's (short being a VERY relative
    term here) and silk, with its glossy shimmer, is much more attractive
    than cotton.  It also bags less.  
    
    A friend of my brother's used to be in the Coast Guard on Lake
    Michigan.  His sister used to buy pantyhose by the carton for him
    and his friends to wear under their uniforms when out on the lake
    in bad weather -- they claimed it really helped cut the cold.
    
    --bonnie

yeah.... bring back the codpiece...

			Nigel

    And another note -- you know the traditional crime, "carrying a
    concealed weapon"?  The codpiece was the original place of concealment.
    Seems it was okay to hide a knife in your sleeve, or your boot, or some
    such normal place, but if you pulled one from your codpiece . . . 

    Some of Shakespeare's raunchiest jokes are about pompous men padding
    their codpieces with handkercheifs or coins or something to make
    them seem fuller than they were.  
    
    --bonnie    

re: .23:

    often including a garment
    called a codpiece, to cover the --

Actually, a codpiece covers the ===
The thing that covers the -- is called a 'cot.'

Martin.

    re: .27
    
    You're right, of course, Martin.  I allowed my discretion to
    get the better of my accuracy.  
    
    --bonnie