I have a serious question about hosiery

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

hello,

i bought my wonderful girlfriend a pair of 'hold-up' stocking type things for valentine's day (among other presents, i hastily add), but when she put them on, her legs were too think for the 'hold ups' to, er, hold up.

now, i bought a size 'medium' because she has long legs - do the sizes refer to the 'width' of the leg at all? if i get a size small, would these more likely fit?

ladies, what i'm asking is, How Does Hosiery Sizing Work?

― i am not a nugget (stevie), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:07 (nineteen years ago)

HER LEGS WERE TOO THINK, NOT TOO 'THINK', BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE

― i am not a nugget (stevie), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:09 (nineteen years ago)

That 'k' really wants to be in your sentence!

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:24 (nineteen years ago)

Hah I read "think" as "thick" instead of "thin" and thought *that* made no sense :)

― The Vintner's Lipogram (OleM), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:32 (nineteen years ago)

I don't know the answer to your question though. Sizes on tights are usually determined according to some combination of height/hip size, and it can be a bit of a lottery whether you match one of the sizes. It's a little strange that the hold-ups would be too big round the tops, as the whole point of them being elasticated is that they stretch to fit bigger thighs if need be, no? Either your gf has VERY thin thighs or your brand of hold-up is weird.

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:38 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.virtualstapler.com/images/red-stapler.jpg

― StanM (StanM), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:43 (nineteen years ago)

Alternatively, buy her the stockings n suspenders combo which is nicer than hold-ups anyway.

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:52 (nineteen years ago)

I have never bought those 'hold-up' stockings, because I don't trust them to stay holding-up. I have nightmarish visions of running for a bus and them falling down, ending in a mass of wrinkles around my ankles like I'm some kind of Nora Batty character.

― C J (C J), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:53 (nineteen years ago)

I wore them (first and only time) for my wedding and they were fine - if anything I had the opposite problem of them holding my thighs in a painful vicelike grip.

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:56 (nineteen years ago)

she has *very thin legs (i almost typed think again! what is wrong with me???)

Alternatively, buy her the stockings n suspenders combo which is nicer than hold-ups anyway.

i think that is what i shall plump for... thanks everyone.

― i am not a nugget (stevie), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:59 (nineteen years ago)

But surely you just bought them so you could have sex with her wearing them, yes?

― Merryweather (scarlet), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:59 (nineteen years ago)

But surely you just bought them so you could have sex with her, wearing them.

― C J (C J), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 12:02 (nineteen years ago)

Those hold-ups never stay up, they're a joke. Yes, go for suspenders.

― Cathy (Cathy), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 12:34 (nineteen years ago)

But surely you just bought them so you could have sex with her wearing them, yes?

well, that was obviously part of the plan, the success of which rather depends on the stockings fitting.

― i am not a nugget (stevie), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 12:35 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, but IIRC (and unless I'm going mad), undies don't feature in the stockings 'n' suspenders combo anyway, do they? So no problem.

― Surfer_Stone_Rosalita (Surfer_Stone_Rosalita), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 12:51 (nineteen years ago)

exactly! [i was confused by scarlet's caveat also]

― i am not a nugget (stevie), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 12:54 (nineteen years ago)

I've never had a problem with Victoria's Secret hold-ups staying up at all. I HAVE had problems with suspender+hose combos not staying up properly?!? It's a total crap shoot.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 15:28 (nineteen years ago)

I hate HATE stay-ups -- without fail I am too fleshy and they roll over at the tops and then proceed to inflict deep-tissue bruises while also cutting off circulation to my lower extremities. I've never tried a real garter belt but I think it's the only way. Ally, we are accessory opposites!

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 15:32 (nineteen years ago)

Thigh highs (as they're called here) tend to do what Laurel described for me. However I'm still likely to wear them in work situations where I must wear hose. Garters and stuff (though I wore them nearly everyday in my rockabilly kitten youth) are too much hassle for day to day and pantyhose blows.

For sexing and the like, defintely you should go with the garters.

― Miss Misery xox (MissMiseryTX), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 15:36 (nineteen years ago)

I wear hold ups most of the time and haven't really had any problems, go for small if she has superthin legs, because the length will stretch (unless she also has superlong legs, in which case I am superjealous). But, yeah, for sexy stuff go for suspenders and garters etc.

― Anna (Anna), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 15:42 (nineteen years ago)

I've never had a problem with VS thigh highs either, but have yet to find another brand that doesn't need a garter belt.

― luna (luna.c), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 16:54 (nineteen years ago)

M&S do nice ones in Britain.

― Anna (Anna), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

Hold-ups stay up on me, but make me look like a string of sausages.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:24 (nineteen years ago)

I vote in favor of this thread continuing.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:34 (nineteen years ago)

With pictures, blatently.

(Someone had to say it)

― tissp! (the impossible shortest specia), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

So yeah, to sort of answer the original question about sizing: stockings, like most knits, stretch in both directions (ie, across and up & down), but by a finite amount, since there's only so much thread and so much ease in the knit, and a greater stretch in one direction will limit the stretch in the other. (This is why the size charts on the backs of the packages are sort of sliding scales of height vs. weight.) But in dealing with thigh-highs/stay-ups there's also the issue of the circumfrence of the upper, elasticated part and the amount of stretch (or ease) it offers. For me, that ease is never enough; for your GF, it was too much. Try another brand or go with garters!

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:43 (nineteen years ago)

some thigh-highs, like the ones from this site, are made from 100% nylon, which doesn't cling or stretch much - and they're not meant to be worn by themselves

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:48 (nineteen years ago)

By "not meant to be worn by themselves" do you mean they require a garter belt? Or that you must wear the stockings as a pair at all times?

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:50 (nineteen years ago)

stockings = need garters.

hold-ups/thigh-highs = nothing else

― Miss Misery xox (MissMiseryTX), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:53 (nineteen years ago)

i meant they should probably be worn with clothes in order to avert a cataclysm of 15 denier sexiness

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:55 (nineteen years ago)

xpost - ah i see, i am referring to "stockings"

has anyone ever worn silk stockings? i was readin somewhere that once upon a time that's what all stockings were made from, and so were affordable only by the very rich, hence the built-in, pent-up immediate popularity of cheap "nylons" that would achieve the same effect

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:57 (nineteen years ago)

Yes I used to have some. They were nice, but very prone to catching.

― Miss Misery xox (MissMiseryTX), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:58 (nineteen years ago)

in order to avert a cataclysm of 15 denier sexiness

That's adorable. No, have never worn silk ones because I've never gotten married/received lingerie as a gift/gone to a ball in the court of the Sun King.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:00 (nineteen years ago)

Unrelated hosiery question. Fence net: too porny?

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:02 (nineteen years ago)

Nope. Love 'em.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:03 (nineteen years ago)

Eh, I just don't like the holes so big. I usually wear fishnet with boots and feel there isn't enough leg to show to justify it!

xpost

― Miss Misery xox (MissMiseryTX), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:03 (nineteen years ago)

Ooh, I forgot to say: preferable with close-toed shoes, though, because the holes are too wide to trap anything and your toes always stick out in between. Well, probably not yours, personally.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:06 (nineteen years ago)

haha, yeah.

― Miss Misery xox (MissMiseryTX), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:12 (nineteen years ago)

I really wish more companies would make fishnets with closed up or tighter-knit toes. I had a pair once that did that and it was fantastic, no cut-off-circulation issues at all.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:14 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, that would be handy--some of my fishnets and patterned tights have those, though unfortunately not the cheaper or more fence-knit ones. One pair has solid toes and soles of feet and heels, which is so much more comfortable.

― sgs (sgs), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:19 (nineteen years ago)

Absolutely yes! Net stockings with solid toes and torso are the best thing since the industrial revolution.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:32 (nineteen years ago)

i am so unsexy. i had no idea what holds-up were until 3/4 of the way through this thread.

― POOP BITCH (Mandee), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:34 (nineteen years ago)

another pressing question. is the classic image of a ladee with stockings and garters yet no panties an impracticable myth?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:35 (nineteen years ago)

woops did i say that out loud?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:44 (nineteen years ago)

Yes. Yes you did.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

I'm a little confused by why you would need to ask...is the real question as simple as "do girls go commando"?

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:53 (nineteen years ago)

I am more confused by the idea of it being a "classic" image...? It's really not how you generally see this item of clothing depicted. The answer is yes, it can be done, comfort level depends on person and type of garter and etc.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:55 (nineteen years ago)

There are logistical arguments in favor of that arrangement.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:58 (nineteen years ago)

There are also some against it, too. If you boys want my take, the obvious answer is buy your girlfriend inexpensive closely-matching underpants to wear under the garter and carry around a pocket knife for crying out loud. Think differently.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 19:00 (nineteen years ago)

Ally, I think it depends whether or not you're actually, umm, going anyplace.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 19:03 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 19 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

No probs, Anna -- I was thinking about the nudity more than the toys as it seemed a bit more...detailed...than the US equivalent. Will have a look later.

Ally, EVERYbody is made "weird". It's troo, there's no such thing as "normal"! But try a larger size if it makes you feel better.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:11 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I went to that site, saw a boobie and had to leave immediately (even though I would have liked to browse.)

Laurel OTM - everyone is made weird. I'm pretty small, all things considered, but as I write this, there is a healthy blob of flab pooching over the top of my pants. Oh well.

― The Milkmaid (of human kindness) (The Milkmaid), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:16 (nineteen years ago)

That is a beautiful, beautiful website. rrrrowr.

― Je4nn3 Æ’urÂ¥ (Je4nne Fury), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:21 (nineteen years ago)

I feel so European now. Bring me wine and my mistress. Oh God, I need to go to bed.

― Anna (Anna), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:27 (nineteen years ago)

I find it oddly comforting that someone at 110 lbs might get a roll of fat from a waistband. Not in a "fuck you" way at all . . .just that sometimes I feel so fucking sensitive about the waistband rolls & to learn that (while I have some fat) it might not be entirely me!!

― R. Kelsey (kelstarry), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:32 (nineteen years ago)

Hrm. If those things can give a lean, trim person a fat roll, I can imagine what would happen on XL size me. Not a happy picture. But, they seem to have a liberal return policy, so maybe I'll give a bra a spin.

― Jaq (Jaq), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:39 (nineteen years ago)

OY. This is why pajamas are GENIUS. Elastic waistband & wide legs = no rolls, no pinching, no stuffing self into tube of fabric. And shift housedresses, I love those, too.

(People worry about waist rolls? Jeez O pete, I'd never worry about anything ELSE.)

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:40 (nineteen years ago)

There is really obviously some kind of massive, massive flaw in pantyhose design. I have some microfiber hipster tights for work and dead-of-winter but otherwise I go with the thigh highs/hold ups and I'm trying to work back in suspenders. It just looks toooooo gross, the regular pantyhose I mean. I honestly can't bear to take off my skirt before taking off hose if I'm wearing it, because I don't want to have to look at the weird indented waist, I swear to god.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:44 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, and the way pantyhose squeezes my butt into a square can go to hell right along with the fat rolls.

One time I had a pair of tights whose crotch was SO LONG that I could pull it up over my boobs and make it like a strapless unitard. Who has a torso that long and legs this short?

― The Milkmaid (of human kindness) (The Milkmaid), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:47 (nineteen years ago)

I've been thinking about going to suspenders for a while, just not made a proper shopping/comparison effort yet. Although this option is very, very tempting.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:53 (nineteen years ago)

Wait, what's the diff between hold-ups and suspenders?

― The Milkmaid (of human kindness) (The Milkmaid), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:55 (nineteen years ago)

And garters?

― The Milkmaid (of human kindness) (The Milkmaid), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:55 (nineteen years ago)

Nevermind, I think I get it.

― The Milkmaid (of human kindness) (The Milkmaid), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 22:58 (nineteen years ago)

Suspenders = garters, and are worn with stockings. Hold-ups = stay-ups = thigh highs, and are worn w/o accoutrement.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 23:02 (nineteen years ago)

Oh fucking hell, my anchor link didn't work: http://stockingirl.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=sg1044&Category_Code=LGB&Store_Code=miccina

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 23:03 (nineteen years ago)

haha, I have about 45948 pairs of tights and hate 2/3 of them b/c they are either too high in the waist (haha, yes, pulling up to breast-height hilarity!), fall down, pinch and create rolls where rolls decidely should not be, etc. I love low-rise tights though and thank the inventors. Hm, that Spank site... Power Panties? hrm. I think if you're going to wear something with "control" you might as well go all the way and wear one of those spandex girdle things (which I'm actually not against b/c sometimes, with some clothes, even if you're thin, a "soft girdle" or whatever they're called will make the outfit look better. I'm sure Oprah wears them all the time. And also, see: all fashion prior to the mid-60s... On the other hand: girdle, ew! and bleah.)

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 23:07 (nineteen years ago)

oooh, i would totally wear that, Laurel! cute.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 23:08 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, uh, it looks more comfortable than most garter belts and leaves a clean line.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 23:10 (nineteen years ago)

looking at that coco de mere site, and maybe im just a fag, but the whole thing looks horribly silly or horribly uncomfortable...can someone explain the appeal

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 23:38 (nineteen years ago)

petal bra = fancy schmancy nursing bra?

― tokyo nursery school: afternoon session (rosemary), Thursday, 16 February 2006 04:28 (nineteen years ago)

the butterfly merkin made me laugh

― tokyo nursery school: afternoon session (rosemary), Thursday, 16 February 2006 04:31 (nineteen years ago)

Leg fetishists of the world: unite and take over...

― Jimmy Mod (I myself am lethal at 100 -110dB) (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Thursday, 16 February 2006 05:30 (nineteen years ago)

Laurel I really like that one!!! I might get that myself.

OK with the Spanx thing, I should clarify why I purchased such a thing. I need it to wear under my wedding dress which is bias cut and v clingy, so I'm trying to eliminate VPL, right. BUT the back is very, very low--so I can't just wear a whole body slip slimmer type thing. It's causing some problems but hopefully the half slip will solve it...

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 16 February 2006 16:07 (nineteen years ago)

Laurel this one has kind of got the same thing as the suspender you posted:

http://www.agentprovocateur.com/cardini.php

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 16 February 2006 16:19 (nineteen years ago)

And is actually a brief! Which could be good or bad, I suppose, depending on one's aims. I DO like the nautical styling, regardless.

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 16 February 2006 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

Those really wide-set demibra straps, though, are going to spend every minute of the day falling off my shoulders. :(

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 16 February 2006 16:25 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah I was worried about that, they shift around on me a little occasionally too :(

Debating buying things off my AP wishlist...grrr I should stop and think for a day before spending spree

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 16 February 2006 16:30 (nineteen years ago)

Waiting period = good idea. I say this as someone who would have placed a stocking order YESTERDAY if I knew my rent check wouldn't bounce!

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 16 February 2006 16:40 (nineteen years ago)

I'm just not sure if $400 on underwear is justifiable in these troubled times...like I'm not just going to go ahead and purchase all this shit tomorrow anyway.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 16 February 2006 16:41 (nineteen years ago)

Don't you have a wedding to save for, young lady?

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 16 February 2006 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

A proper dowry is more like it

― Jimmy Mod (I myself am lethal at 100 -110dB) (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Thursday, 16 February 2006 16:45 (nineteen years ago)

You're both no fun anymore.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 16 February 2006 17:03 (nineteen years ago)

We're not the ones entering into a whole new life as a contributing member of a family unit. There's "fun" for you.

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 16 February 2006 17:06 (nineteen years ago)

I contribute nothing!! I am only around to cook food and look hot!!

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 16 February 2006 17:09 (nineteen years ago)

That's a contradiction

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 16 February 2006 17:17 (nineteen years ago)

To the orig. question, I did some ahem research on the subject and I found it fascinating that prior to stretchy tights/etc., it was all made with 100% nylon which doesn't stretch, so women had to buy tights in a very specific size, like buying a pair of shoes but even more complicated - i.e. shoe size, height and weight all had to be taken into account.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 16 February 2006 17:45 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah I was wondering about that with silk or nylon stockings, it seems like it'd be difficult to size because of that issue. I mean hose is already notoriously difficult to size (see above), how did they even manage back in the day?

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:07 (nineteen years ago)

I wonder if such issues were the genesis of womens' famed loyalty to their brand of HOSEREE.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:09 (nineteen years ago)

I'm old enough to remember when L'Eggs came out (1972?) - the commercials were all about how they never sagged or bagged at the ankles and how they would fit you perfectly. I wonder if they were the first to use lycra.

― Jaq (Jaq), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:12 (nineteen years ago)

My ass they don't sag or bag.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:12 (nineteen years ago)

Whenever I see the word "L'Eggs" I start singing "Friends" by Whodini, but with the word "L'Eggs" instead of "friends." I entertain myself like this for minutes at a time.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:15 (nineteen years ago)

There's a little bit of stretch inherent in the knitting stitch, not the fiber. Socks & hose were TRULY unstretchy before knitting was invented (because I think it's commonly agreed that weaving came first, and woven things aren't stretchy at all unless the fiber is stretchy in and of itself). Imagine a knitted sweater, for instance, which stretches and is pulled over the head, regardless of what kind of yard your Aunt Kathy used to make it (obv some yarns are stretchier than others but you take my point, surely).

So knitted stockings stretch SOME amount even when they're made of silk or nylon or cotton string or whatever. They don't retain shape as well as modern synthetic elastics, and they snag & run more easily, and the toes and heels would have to be fully fashioned, ie the foot shape would be done by increasing/decreasing the stitches, rather than relying on the fabric to stretch around all the curves of foot & ankle. Which is where the cuban & pyramid heel designs come from.

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:15 (nineteen years ago)

You'd think maybe it'd remind you of ZZ Top, instead.

xpost

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:16 (nineteen years ago)

Ask me another one, my head is full of this useless crap.

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:17 (nineteen years ago)

I learned something today on ilx! :)

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:20 (nineteen years ago)

But basically because of the foot thing, you'd have to buy them not only for weight and height (and probably a more specific weight and height than today, correct?), but also for shoe size? God I'd never bother.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:23 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, it's a pain. I actually have a pair of cuban-heeled stockings with back seams (full-length ones, not stockings stockings), but I have small feet and the heel is positioned too long for me -- it comes to, like, a third of the way up my calf which is just WRONG.

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:27 (nineteen years ago)

Oh dear. You'd think in this day and age with the stretchiness factor they could make that not occur. I actually haven't even tried on my cuban-heels that I bought off...I dunno, Fredericks or AP or somewhere like that. I should see if it does anything weird on me and report back. I have very large feet, perhaps the heel will just disappear on me.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:31 (nineteen years ago)

I did a search on eBay for vintage hosiery - there's lots of it out there. Looks like most were sized with the shoe size, then S M L for the height/weight.

― Jaq (Jaq), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:33 (nineteen years ago)

Vintage hosiery! I can't even keep mine for 6 months!! That's impressive.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:42 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.