Talk:Going commando/Archive 1

Going Bareback?
Could someone verify where this term came from? I have heard the term referred to not using condoms, but never for not wearing underwear.Rookie Rover 21:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Rookie Rover
 * Going bareback definitely relates to sexual use without a condom, not the use of underwear. Jonemerson 08:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Request
I strongly ask that those who have recently been removing parts of this article to modify or add content, but not just blatantly remove things that you do not personally like. If the relevance of topics, such as physical health of those that go commando, or the reports of people who do not wear underwear, appear to be irrelevant to the topic of the article, please discuss it. But DO NOT just erase it because you don't like it. The concept of why people go commando for health benefits is a very important argument for the article to contain, yet it was deleted. This is a perfect example of careless editting and wreckless admin work. Please be more careful. (Sjohnsonaz 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

Among celebrities
Jonemerson needs to stop reverting all edits. No decision seems to have been made here, and I vote that verified celebrity occurances are certainly of merit. Londo 01:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this list really encyclopedic? Is it verifiable by means available to Wikipedia editors? My guess would be "no" to both questions. Any other input? -Willmcw July 5, 2005 00:40 (UTC)


 * Well, whether they've admitted in interviews to going commando is probably verifiable. Whether that fact is encyclopedically significant...  —Michael Z. 2005-07-5 03:51 Z 


 * Since there are no sources listed it'd be awfully tough to verify. Willmcw July 5, 2005 05:20 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go ahead and remove the list of celebritities. Anyone who has verifiable sources is welcome to add the names of notable people who "go commando".

Good move getting rid of the list. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not People Magazine. --RoySmith 15:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hahaha I just called it People Magazine in my deletion of the Celebrities section :). I didn't even read your comment :). Jonemerson 08:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The part about Tori Spelling's vagina being exposed on Jay Leno is rubbish - do a google search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.13.241.91 (talk • contribs)

To say that Lindsay Lohan "accidentally" flashed is unverifiable - we can verify that she did so from photographs, but whether this was an accident or a publicity stunt we can't know unless she tells us. I have therefore deleted this word. Rodparkes 03:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the citation errors have been corrected.(Sjohnsonaz 04:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Celebrity gossip does not belong on Wikipedia. I have deleted the gossip and protected the page until this dispute can be resolved here. I believe that if this gossip is to exist anywhere on Wikipedia, it should exist on the individual celebrity's Wikipedia pages, where there fans would be more interested. This article should instead be about educating people about what "Going commando" is. Jonemerson 08:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sjohnsonaz has readded the celebrity gossip in violation of 3RR. Jonemerson 09:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that gossip does not belong, however, verifiable facts about celebrities (or anyone notable, for that matter) going commando should be included in this page in my opinion. I imagine a wiki user interested in finding examples of notable personalities 'going commando', this would be the article they'd come to, and if Sjohnsonaz is willing to put in the research to make such a list, why, that's just wonderful. Dept of Alchemy 09:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If there's a celebrity that claims to go commando (and, most importantly, there is a cited source of said claim), I don't see why we shouldn't keep it; while List of celebrities who go commando isn't encyclopedic, a section in this article is relevant. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish I knew WP policy a bit better, but content like the Celebrities section would not appear in a published encyclopedia, so I don't think it should appear on Wikipedia. However, dictionaries do use published works to decide what to publish, and often use quotes from those works in their usage examples. So perhaps a compromise I could live with is to only keep those sections where the word "Going commando" was used -- however, the editor is choosing to add any reference to a celebrity not wearing underwear. My preferred solution is still to have the section removed, because 10 years from now it will be completely outdated, and I don't think the talk of the day should be in an encyclopedia (Unless there was a Talk of The Day December 6th, 2006 article :)). Jonemerson 20:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got to agree with the individuals who have said that a section (or worse, an article) on this topic would not be encyclopedic. Further, a list of people who have – at least once in their lives – gone without underwear would be utterly unmanageably long, even if it were possible to source.  This is indeed an encyclopedia, and not People magazine.  I remind everyone that 'verifiable' does not automatically mean 'encyclopedic', and that not all trivia associated with a noteworthy individual are automatically noteworthy by that association. Wikipedia is not a repository for useless celebrity trivia.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you meant "disagree", given the rest of your response. Could be wrong.
 * I'm not suggesting that we list every single person who has ever gone commando; that would indeed by horribly long, and would count as listcruft. However, citing some individuals who regularly go commando would be in line with the article. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've corrected my comment by adding the bolded text; your reading of the sense of it was correct. Citing 'some' individuals just doesn't happen here&mdash;there will be editors who insist on listing every minor celebrity with an article who has ever reported that they go commando.  It will be a nuisance and source of pointless edit wars.  It will be the worst sort of listcruft, in that it will continually attract conflict.  Course, I could be wrong. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've remained silent on this topic for far too long. The list of celebrities, while understandably controvercial, is relevant. The statistics on the amount of people who actual don't wear underwear are few and far between. If one does even a simple search, you will see that there is only moderate discussion on the internet about the practice, beyond simple blogging. The practice is discussed mainly with reference to celebrities, and therefore this deserves note in any encyclopedic article. Therefore, in order to back up this finding, ample citations and discussion need to be provided. I have therefore created a compromise. Since the celebrity page was causing controversy, I have created a subpage where they can be seen, but do not detract from the article as a whole. The article remains intact in its "encyclopedic" status, while the other topics are only referenced, but still remain accessible, since considerable research went into them. Please understand my reasoning, and try to look at the changes with a reasonable eye. Thank you. (Sjohnsonaz 21:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC))
 * I posted a merge article tag for going commando and list of celebrities going commando. The latter is not significant enough to deserve its own article, therefore (pokes Sjohnsonaz), the articles should be merged in my opinion. Dept of Alchemy 23:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to note that we don't have statistics on the number of people who don't wear underwear. (Note that trying to create such statistics here would be original research.) The fact that isolated cases exist is undisputed.  That there is limited discussion beyond blogging suggests that reliable sources for a list of celebrities will be few and far between.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Upskirts
I created a link to Upskirts a while back, which I thought would end the whole debate about inserting celebrity material here. If there is evidence of a celebrity going commando, that's an upskirt.

Having said that, this is NOT an invitation to insert that material in Upskirt - at least not without reading the article first.

By the way, that article needs additions to it's legislation portion. I have URLs to sources, if anyone is interested. NinaEliza 03:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal experiences
In my experience, this term was in use in the mid-'80s by member of Canadian highland infantry battalions in much the same way: denoting wearing no underwear beneath the kilt. The usage in diverse contexts is interesting; I wonder how far back it can be traced. &mdash;Michael Z. 07:25, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)


 * Can confirm from personal experience mid-70s among college students and Vietnam vets. Anyone remember anything earlier? --Pmeisel 16:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe when Highland soldiers do it they call it "going Regimental." -- Sig Pig  |SEND - OVER 07:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm chilean, and the phrase "andar a lo gringo" has been in use for the practice from at least 20 years ago. I guess it's founded in the rather silly ancient belief that Americans and europeans don't use underwear. Unfortunately, I doub't there's a quotable source. --201.246.226.253 03:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

BDSM
This section was mistakenly removed because the reference was supposed to be a mirror of Wikipedia. In fact, the article was copied from a notable web site, Informed Consent (website), under GFDL. The article there is stated to be copied from Wipipedia. However, Informed Consent is not a Wipipedia mirror. Before the article was added, it would have had an expert peer review by the editors of Informed Consent.--Whipmaster (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

VFD
This article was proposed for deletion January 2005. The discussion is archived at Votes for deletion/Going Commando. Joyous 19:01, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Phrase " Go Commando" is a Royal Marine Commando expression and originated from them the reason it was used was that your under pants would have been drying after being unsigned comment added by 86.129.252.228 (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm Costa Rican, and I've never in my life heard anyone refer to anything as "andar strike". I asked my friends and my family (older ones, in case it's an outdated term) and they didn't know either. Can I propose eliminating that phrase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.198.122.206 (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

POV Bias
This article cites the "benefits" of "going commando" but not the negative effects. Also, the point of the article (if any) should be to explain the history of this slang term. Discussions of whether there are benefits or negative effects should be discussed, if at all, in an article on underwear.184.77.11.217 (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The image
The image File:Going Commando.jpg does not in any way demonstrate going commando, it's not even verifiable that the guy in the image is even going commando. I think that "... demontrat[ing] how a person going commando is still wearing clothes" does not need to be illustrated by an image. OSbornarfcontribs. 04:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Underwear?
Underwear? Aren't bras considered underwear? Should it be undershorts or underpants? 175.156.59.135 (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Image again
What is the point of having any image on this article? The underlying idea of "going commando" is that nobody knows if you have underwear or not because they can't see under your clothes. The joke is that you have to announce in some way, "I'm going commando". If you didn't tell everyone, it would be your secret. Illustrations are nice but only if they convey some actual information. Please don't add any images here unless you have an image that lets the reader know something they wouldn't have known without that image. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again, nobody is complaining about pornography. The problem with the photo is, first, that nobody knows if the subjects are wearing underwear or not, if they are prostitutes or not, if they are female or trans, or anything. It's all guesswork, original research. Second, the photo doesn't add any meaningful information to the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The photo in this version doesn't illustrate anything. The person could or couldn't be wearing underwear. We can't see. The point of going commando is that we can't see, and don't know. The citations are not independent third party sources, they are original research. They show the same model without underwear one minute later. Did she spend the intervening minute removing her underwear? We don't know. Even if we had a third party source attesting that in the first photo the person is going commando, what exactly is the illustration showing us? I don't think it's possible to illustrate going commando. The concept rests on what is not seen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Inshallah, I chose that particular photo because you can't tell whether the woman is wearing anything under her skirt or not. However, there are other photos on Commons proving that she is indeed going commando (see citation in caption). If I were to use one of those, somebody would complain that's NSFW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 14 May 2015‎
 * First, Wikipedia is not censored. NSFW is no reason to exclude anything. If a nude photo were appropriate, then we should have it.Second, going commando is not exhibitionism, nor is it upskirt photography. So a nude photo would not be acceptable here.Third, I already explained why the other photo you found doesn't prove anythingFourth, even it if did prove anything, what is the photo illustrating? A non-exhibitionist wearing no underwear looks exactly like one who is wearing underwear. You could have a photo showing a fully dressed person and the caption could say, "This person may or may not be wearing underwear." What is the point of that?Last, why do you guys only put photos of women on this article? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Complaints of NSFW are of no merit, as this is not a bulletin board or similar - indeed wikipedia has a policy covering this very issue: WP:CENSOR  I've replaced the pointless fully clothed and ambiguous image with one where it can be seen that she is not wearing underwear.
 * I disagree very slightly with Dennis, in that the point of "going Commando" is not to keep it a secret, it's simply the act of not wearing any underwear. Reading the article makes this point clear - there is no suggestion that such an act is done without others knowledge - indeed it makes mention that others knowing the fact can be part of the appeal.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, your photo confuses going commando with exhibitionism or upskirt photos. You could just as readily illustrate wearing underwear with upskirt porn. The only way you know if someone is going without underwear is if they deliberately show you, as in the photo, or if you invasivly try to sneak a look up their skirt, if that's what they're wearing. Neither is a consequence of going commando. Those things are caused by something else. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Plus, the photo is the fifth in a series of 11. It's unlikely that the woman would take of her panties for the first four exhibitionist photos, put them back on for the fifth standing photo, and take them off again for the remainder of the shoot. It's irrelevant where the photos were taken: indoors or outside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 14 May 2015‎
 * Unlikely? But you really don't know, do you? Do you know if the time stamps on the photos are accurate? You're drawing conclusions from primary sources. Primary sources can only be used for facts that are obvious and don't require any special knowledge or inside information. Why not put up a photo of a fully dressed man with a caption that says, "We do not normally know whether or not someone is going commando unless they tell us"? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The point of having an image is to show the context of "going commando" ie that somebody is wearing outer clothes, but not underwear. The file here 05 - not 0707.jpg - shows that the lady is wearing outer clothes, but not underwear.  Does this image not meet the criteria for "going commando" as described in the lede:  "Going commando, or free-balling for males and free-buffing for females, is the practice of not wearing underwear"?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For the second time, the image is taken one minute later. How do you know she didn't take her underwear off during the minute that passed between photos? And using photo evidence this way is original research. If you can't see it in the image, then it's a fact based on a Wikipedia editor's own deductions and opinions, not a reliable source.Did you notice that all the parts of the article that support the idea that going commando includes internationally attracting attention or showing off have no footnotes? "Some people find not wearing underwear to be sexually exciting, and some people regard knowing that their sex partner is not wearing underwear to be erotic. Not wearing underwear is widely considered to be immodest and socially unacceptable if the crotch area becomes exposed, but can be a part of some sex fantasies and of some pornographic films." That is all original research and should be deleted too. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * (Insert)
 * It doesn't matter whether the image was take later by a minute or an hour, or a day. The image is meant to illustrate a point - and that point is that there is a woman wearing no underwear, which as I've now also said for the second time, is the definition of "going commando":
 * It is not Original research at all. We are using a single image to illustrate a point, not a sequence of images.  We are only concerned with image 05, which shows her lack of underwear.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You're going to have to do better than that Dennis. By definition going commando is not wearing any underwear.  The means by which such a fact is established is something else - and may (as you point out) be via exhibitionism, voyeurism, or the wind blowing a skirt about, however such methods of revelation do not detract from the act of going commando, whether such a revelation was intended or not.
 * This article concerns itself with the act of not wearing any underwear, nothing else. The act of going commando is exemplified by the image you object to.
 * Can you please clarify why a woman can go without underwear and be considered to be going commando, but as soon as a picture is taken of it from a sneaky shoe-mountued camera, she no longer is considered to be going commando?
 * If a scotsman wears a kilt, and is traditionally going commando, does he also cease to be going commando if he climbs a ladder? Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is spelled out clearly in WP:GRATUITOUS. This is why File:Erika Heaven at AVN Adult Entertainment Expo 2008 (11).jpg is not used to illustrate Panties. It's gratuitous. It's obviously intended to make the article titillating. The exclusive use of female photos here is evidence of that. Why don't we use, say, File:Black watch kilt.JPG with a caption that says, "Scottish kilts are traditionally worn without underwear"? It meets your criteria of illustrating the content of the article. Showing a camera angle looking up a man's klit would be gratuitous. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Now you're being pointy. That kilt image clearly doesn't meet the criteria of going commando for exactly the same reasons you removed the first image - there is no evidence that underwear is (or is not) being worn.  Where exactly do I say that such an image is adequate for the article?  I have clearly stated that such an image is unacceptable for the article, as it doesn't meet the criteria of going commando.  Which brings me to the next argument - an image needs to show the act of not wearing underwear.  This is not gratuitious, it is the exemplification of the article. Gratuitious is not an applicable argument here for several reasons - not least that it is your opinion only that it is intended to make the article "titilating".  I wish to include the image because it encapsulates the concept of "going commando".  You would do well to assume good faith amongst other editors, if you please.


 * Answer this question: Why does an image of a lady going commando - as defined by the article itself - not qualify for the article itself?


 * PS: I'd spellcheck a little more if I were you - "Showing a camera angle looking up a man's klit would be gratuitous" not only would it indeed be gratuitious, but biologically impossible...    Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe no illustration is possible or necessary for this article. The subject of the article is something unseen. It's nice when you can decorate an article with a photo, but there's no compelling reason to put a photo in gratuitous, sexualized image simply because somebody feels like the have to. We don't have to put in an inappropriate or off-topic photo here.Why not to to upskirt or exhibitionism and add a section on going commando in those contexts? Then the illustration would be appropriate and informative. For this article, I don't think any photo is possible except one that conveys no relevant information.An additional problem with the proposed photos is that they are in a studio context: they show a model doing nude photography for artistic/pornographic purposes. Going commando is defined as going out in public without underwear, where strangers are not expected to have any idea what you're not wearing. Not wearing underwear in a dressing room, bedroom, photo studio, doctor's office, or other such context is not going commando. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Going commando" is defined in the article as not wearing any underwear, simple as. The article - which is what we're talking about - makes no mention or clarification that the act of going commando has to be secretive, unknown, unseen, outdoors, indoors, etc.  Anything else is OR.  The article states that Going Commando "is the practice of not wearing underwear."  There is no clarification of the circumstances surrounding such an act, so we cannot make any assumptions about it either.  With regard to an image, we should find one that supports the definition of the article, and that can only be done by showing an image of somebody wearing outer clothes, but not any underwear.  This means that to be relevant, the image must show nudity, as this is implicit to the definition.  Anything else is not accurate to the article.
 * If you wish to apply your specific interpretations of "Going Commando", please find sources to support them, rather than the broad context that is currently described and sourced. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're giving too much credit to the original research and poor writing that past Wikipedia editors have put into this article. What do you expect with such a childish topic? If you go and read the actual sources, it's clear that this term is used to mean other people do not know what you are or aren't wearing. The term would be used either when an individual is oversharing, being intentionally crude, or else gossiping about somebody else's undergarments. There is normally nothing to see. Read the sources.It's an interesting idea: what do you use for illustration when there is nothing to see? Invisibility has a diagram of a theoretical invisibility device, and an illustration from Das Rheingold.It seems to me all instances of being able to see if someone is going commando are either contrived comedy, deliberate exhibitionism, or creepers peeping, such as all the celebrity photos of women exiting cars. So under normal circumstances you just don't know.Another interesting question is whether that pair of photos is original research. We could put aside the main question and go to WP:NOR/N and see if the photo is original research. WP:OI isn't very specific. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Two examples showing that in real life, going commando is invisible and secret: . --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Pierced_blonde_in_studio_05.jpg'm getting completely sick of this. We're not talking about multiple images, just this one.  How on earth can you say that this single image of a woman not wearing any underwear is original research?  We are only discussing this image, and this image alone - not any others that may be in a possible series or set.  We have chosen this image because it represents the subject of the article, and we are not including any others, because they don't.  And wp:oi is  entirely specific:  "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" - this image does not fall into the second criteria, because it matches the sourced claims within the article.  Here are a couple of additional sources  that do not insist on the definition being secretive.  The second one is particularly interesting, because it references the act of going commando overnight while asleep, which is not something covered in the article at all, afaics.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You need high-quality sources which clearly say that "going commando" means you will see a nude crotch shot. WP:GRATUITOUS says it this way: "Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." Is it impossible to communicate to readers what going without underpants is, without showing them a beaver shot? If it's not, then the nudity is gratuitous. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Look closely at the original image, and you see the outline of a piercing to the left of the button on the front of the skirt. It would be less visible if she was wearing panties. On the same premise, a woman's nipples are more visible if she went braless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 2 June 2015‎
 * Do you have a source that says what always is and always isn't visible when you're wearing underwear? Do we have any sources which use illustrations of this type to illustrate going commando? We'd have little to discuss here if we had sources to back up the proposed additions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Both of you step back. You both have the same problem in that you are discussing  a series of images and we are not concerned with a series.  We are only discussing a single image - the one which shows the woman not wearing any underwear - the one showing her going commando.  It doesn't matter what the other iamges show, because they are not being considered for the page - because they are unsuitable.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I raise this over at No original research/Noticeboard, since I think we need better guidance on what sort of conclusions we can draw from photos. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Senfeld
That Seinfeld episode doesn't use the phrase "going commando" or even imply it. There's no evidence the writers were even familiar with the phrase. Merely having a character wearing no underwear seems like a pretty loose criteria for inclusion. I propose it be removed. --221.249.13.34 02:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It was included at the specific request of somebody during the VfD. You're right that they don't use the phrase, but they were talking about the same concept. --RoySmith 04:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The Seinfeld episode specifically omits the expression. However, the Friends episode was instrumental in popularizing the expression in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.158.119 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Can be healthy?
"going commando can be healthy for a woman's vagina" apparently more needs to be told about health benefits for man's vagina.
 * Fair point - fixed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)