Dudes Can’t Wait To Get Their Legs In Mantyhose!
Posted by: Erin Flaherty
Filed in:
style
8:00AM, Thursday September 24th 2009
“This winter the city’s most stylish men will have a secret weapon hidden in their trousers.”
No, no, no, get your mind out of the gutter, kids! That’s David Walker-Smith, the director of menswear and beauty of the famous London department store Selfridges, commenting on the fact that the huge (ha) new craze amongst British men is to wear tights (over their knickers and under their trousers) to keep their legs feeling warm and looking trim. In fact, demand for mantyhose has skyrocketed to the point where they’ve developed a line of them by lingerie brand Unconditional that are strong enough for a man at “a tough 120 denier thickness,” whatever the hell that means. And now dudes will get a taste of how expensive ladies’ “accessories” can be, as each pair costs a whopping $114. (REALLY!?) Hey, supply and demand folks, supply and demand. Those dudes must be seriously wanting to get their tights on. [Daily Mail]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
I Go To 11
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 07:14 am: [report]
Eww! This is wrong on so many levels. Unless he’s a professional ballet dancer, no man should wear “mantyhose”.
Morwen
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 07:26 am: [report]
I think that photo just broke my brain.
impoddity
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 07:50 am: [report]
If men want to wear tights let them. Now they’ll understand how uncomfortable they can be. But if men get thicker tights, I want some too! Tights may be cute to wear with a skirt, but the insulation is for s**t.
_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 07:53 am: [report]
OK, sure, that man could hardly have been dressed in a less compelling manner. And the animal print is too far out there.
But the idea isn’t such a bad thing. Of course, there are always thermal underwear or, I suppose, runner’s pants to wear under regular pants. But something like tights, in the winter, would in many ways be better than both. Not as a fashion accessory, but as a clothing option.
But not for $114.
_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:01 am: [report]
@impoddity: They’re presumably not great insulators, but under pants, they might just add enough to help in the cold but not cause overheating inside. I dunno. At $20? I’d try. Maybe at $40. At $114? No.
bumbler
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:12 am: [report]
I hope any man who considers buying these is a briefs man because pantyhose keeps everything snug.
k_roja
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 08:29 am: [report]
Hopefully the so called “mantyhose” (ugh, makes me shudder to even say it), at $114, are priced NOT to sell.
impoddity
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 09:00 am: [report]
@_jsw_: I don’t know why hose can’t come at a reasonable price. I get mine at Target. Forget brand names as long as they look good and don’t get runs easily.
bethlynn00
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:31 am: [report]
$114 for some “mantyhose”? Are they crazy? You can get like 10 pairs of long johns for that, if it’s just to stay warm, and not look as silly as the guy in the picture.