Nylon Gene readers will be interested to read the following article in Philadelphia Magazine, Mantyhose: In Defense of Men in Tights, by Victor Fiorillo. It's a great article that includes the author revealing that he had purchased a pair of tights at CVS to wear under his suit to work this winter. He goes on to tell how he was vindicated to his co-workers by consultations with a couple of reknowned fashion experts.
He goes on to share several suggestions for those 'daring' men who decide to try out tights to fend off winter's chill, or otherwise energize their legs. These include a recommendation and weblink for Emilo Cavallini's new unisex line (which cost $27), or for a cheaper alternative, visit a local drugstore and buy a pair of women's tights.
Two of my own additions: First off, unless they've recently changed this, the Emilio Cavallini tights are not available in the U.S. direct from the maker. You'll need to find a reseller from whom to purchase them.
Secondly, there's definitely a middle alternative that the author must not have been aware of, and that of course is ACTIVSKIN's male tights. These can be had for $14 to $20 a pair, for opaque styles. If looking for a lower insulation factor beneath one's trousers, the sheer styles can be had for $9.99 and up. Visit the website and check out the catalogue.
Related Article:
Here's another one, (Men In Tights, Loving It [Hose]) which quotes and links to the aforementioned Philly Mag article. The predisposition is basically favorable toward men's hosiery, or 'mantyhose'. However, one misconception appears in need of clarification.
The author concludes by stating that the 'fingertip rule' should apply to tops men might wear with their tights. The fingertip rule is used for women's tops and skirts, and says that they should be long enough to extend to the tips of your fingers when you extend your arms down your side. Like so many who are newly acquainted with the men's legwear trend, she supposes that we're going to be wearing tights with no other lower body garment (i.e., either shorts or long pants). Those of us in the know understand that this is a non-issue. Very few, if any, men would ever venture out in tights without wearing pants over them.
Otherwise, these are two good articles that should further advance the acceptance of men's legwear by society as a whole.
He goes on to share several suggestions for those 'daring' men who decide to try out tights to fend off winter's chill, or otherwise energize their legs. These include a recommendation and weblink for Emilo Cavallini's new unisex line (which cost $27), or for a cheaper alternative, visit a local drugstore and buy a pair of women's tights.
Two of my own additions: First off, unless they've recently changed this, the Emilio Cavallini tights are not available in the U.S. direct from the maker. You'll need to find a reseller from whom to purchase them.
Secondly, there's definitely a middle alternative that the author must not have been aware of, and that of course is ACTIVSKIN's male tights. These can be had for $14 to $20 a pair, for opaque styles. If looking for a lower insulation factor beneath one's trousers, the sheer styles can be had for $9.99 and up. Visit the website and check out the catalogue.
Related Article:
Here's another one, (Men In Tights, Loving It [Hose]) which quotes and links to the aforementioned Philly Mag article. The predisposition is basically favorable toward men's hosiery, or 'mantyhose'. However, one misconception appears in need of clarification.The author concludes by stating that the 'fingertip rule' should apply to tops men might wear with their tights. The fingertip rule is used for women's tops and skirts, and says that they should be long enough to extend to the tips of your fingers when you extend your arms down your side. Like so many who are newly acquainted with the men's legwear trend, she supposes that we're going to be wearing tights with no other lower body garment (i.e., either shorts or long pants). Those of us in the know understand that this is a non-issue. Very few, if any, men would ever venture out in tights without wearing pants over them.
Otherwise, these are two good articles that should further advance the acceptance of men's legwear by society as a whole.
View Steve Newman's profile
[Include "Nylon Gene" in any invitations to connect.]
Posts
This was a very interesting article. Even though he had some of this facts twisted around, he was on the side of men wearing tights in the colder weather.
ReplyDeleteLike you, the article is positive.
Dave Neeper(Daven63)
Mr Newman Where are you? We miss you.
ReplyDeleteL4M write A839 A849 A857 Winter tights? What is your recommend?
http://tights-for-men.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=30
sorry I haven't replied to any comments for awhile. My new Internet Security Suite was preventing me from using the comments field here.
ReplyDeleteMy recommendation for winter tights?: I like the A866, which weren't one of the ones you asked about. That's because I like the full support styles much better. If I had to choose one from the list you gave, I'd probably go with the A857, since they're full support, with a ribbed pattern.
Not that there's anything wrong with the others, either. I've worn the A849 light support tights, too, and they are very comfortable as well.
Basically, I only wear opaque tights during those few months of the year when it's REALLY cold. Otherwise, I'd rather wear the sheer styles... or the new A560, which is a semi-sheer, full support. Those are a real crowd pleaser, too.
I just wanted to update you that you can now buy Emilio Cavalini tights from their website and have the direct ship to the US.
ReplyDeleteThey are comfortable and are warm but do not have much support.
Thanks for the update, Joe. I figured it wouldn't be long before they made it here, one way or another. From the looks of them in the photos, I didn't take them for having much support to them.
ReplyDelete