Talk:Pantyhose for men

message: 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)
thread_title:  sexual stimulation/fetish *the most common* reason for men to wear pantyhose 

message: 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)
thread_title: Not verified

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uses in Vietnam 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: This article is citing reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Re: Merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  re: Removing AfDs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge and/or deletion this article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Re: men in skirts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tone is too informal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of sexystore link and about commercial and/or erotic links 

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

message: 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). [[[User:Harisnya|Harisnya]] (talk)]  —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Extremely Biased 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reason for / improvement of article