Guys: what's YOUR take on the VPL (visible panty line)?

There’s in article in Friday’s Washington Post re footless pantyhose, and now pantyhose cut off just below the knee. It says in part “The wearer supposedly looks slimmer, more toned, and without an unsightly panty line.” (I’d put in a link but don’t know how - why isn’t that in FAQ?)

Now, putting aside the issue of footless and lower legless pantyhose (which I can’t imagine wearing no matter what), my question concerns the VPL (visible panty line). I’ve seen references before about the VPL and how undesirable it is, but I never worried about mine because I figured that men, in general, LIKE a VPL because it’s, well, hmmmm, subtly suggestive of what’s NOT showing. I have a theory that this is yet another marketing device - convincing women that their “look” will be ruined if they have a visible panty line. So guys, what do you say - like the VPL or not?

For me it depends on the woman…if she’s slim and has a good figure with a slim attractive rear, I find it quite erotic. If she’s not, then ugh.

It’s good if it’s a thong (In my opinion anyhow). What’s even better is a pair of drawstring pants with a little bit of the thong showing…wife isn’t a huge thong fan so we go one step up by her not wearing panties.

Uh,a thong doesn’t have a VPL. The VPL refers to the elastic of the legs of the panty, not the waist.

Well I’m not exactly up on womans underwear. The kind that’s about 2 inches wide on the back and not much larger in the front…

Visible Panty Line: Brought to you by Big Advertising. “Manufacturing your insecurities since 1948.”

Ugh. These are the same people who have spent the last thirty years convincing women that men lust after flat chested, hipless androgynes. Meanwhile, an entirely different set of advertisers have been convincing men to fetishize comically mal-apportioned women like Pamela “My breasts are so big they affect the tides” Anderson. Well, I suppose this is one way of fighting over-population.

Re-reading this in Preview, it sure sounds like I just got a new thesaurus, doesn’t it?

BTW, mark me down as one guy who think VPL is kinda sexy.

Ditto on the sexy.

They’re a part of my everyday life. Not a day goes by that I don’t check out somebody’s VPL.

I even wanted to start a website dedicated to them, but it’s not really the same in still images as it is in real life, so I didn’t.

Another good thing is when a woman is crouching down, exposing the top of the back of her panties peeking over her jeans. :slight_smile:

(It occurs to me that I may not get invited to a Dopefest now that I’ve admitted this…)

As a woman, I think it looks sloppy.
That’s why I don’t wear panties.

I’ve found them to be interesting and amusing… anything that draws the eye to a nice butt can’t be all bad. Especially since a VPL usually indicates tight pants, to begin with.

However, I must admit that it’s much more erotic to expect to see a VPL, and then NOT see one.

VPL is OK if your clothes aren’t so tight, and your body fighting them enough, that there are fat rolls on either side. Just seeing panties isn’t a problem, only when the skin seems to be pinched.

I don’t like VPL, myself. If the pants are so tight that I can see all but the pattern of the panties, it’s time to wear a thong or go commando. If it’s pants or a skirt that show no lines except for when bending over or squatting down, that’s a different story.

Same with guys with tucked in shirts. If your shirt hem can be seen through the pants, wear an “outside” shirt, or get bigger pants.

I think it’s just not a big deal for many women and most men, and that it is more of a marketing ploy than anything else. But others here are right about “it depends…” On the size and shape of the woman. BTW, mayberrydan, I think you’re taking “visible” literally. I’m referring to the impression (the “line”) the elastic in the leg holes makes on clothes that are tight or clingy.

VPL = yum

Does anyone besides me remember the commercial for Underalls pantyhose? It showed the magical Underalls flying about, and lighting upon the asses of various women, thus making them free of the dreaded panty line. The big catch phrase was "C’mon, America, show us YOUR Underalls!)

That irked the daylights out of me, implying that it was the patriotic duty of every American woman to present an ass in tight clothing, wrinkle free and free of any visible panty line.

I STILL haven’t bought any of the damned things.

— Lib
(who REALLY knows how to hold a grudge)

The “dreaded” VPL is more like a frame in my mind. It shows off what we all know is there anyway. :slight_smile:

Yes, I do remember that commercial - that may have been the first time I was made aware that VPL was a “problem” for women. Well, not for me.

Good question. Truth be told, if the VPL is showing a slimmer set of panties, I’m all for it. If it’s showing some large set (not a weight issue, but a spread per ratio of behind) of “purely functional” panties, then I’m not getting anything out of it. I don’t sit there and mock the person, but I’m not getting interested in seeing big ole cotton “I wear them because they’re comfortable, not to please men” underwear advertised. Which mainly seems to be the VPL’s you see.

I will agree that the jean/underwear peek described above is a good thing.

Finally, there’s someone who shares my fetish. :smiley:
I absolutely love that, too! Is there a group for guys like us?

VPL can be a good thing, when the panties in question are on the right woman. Entirely subjective, I know. And I have to add I LOVE to see a thong on a woman. I have to disagree with someone above: a thong can TOO have VPL’s. The pants or skirt covering it have to be tight enough and/or light/transparent enough. But it happens, and it is GOOD. :slight_smile:

Personally, I’m way more turned on by a visible intellect than I am by a VPL.