Talk:Underwear/Archive 1

Boxer Shorts Pic
Anyone notice the guy in the boxer shorts pic has an erection? --69.138.61.168 00:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

History
I added a lot of information on the history and development of underwear today. However, I was unable to find any information on this history for non-Western cultures. Anyone who has such information is urged to add to the article!

I tried to maintain as much of the original article as possible, albeit revised greatly and shuffled around. I ended up cutting the bit about President Clinton since I didn't think it was pertinent to a broad overview such as this. Anyone who feels otherwise is free to reinsert it, but I don't know where it would fit best. BrianSmithson 05:32 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, yeah -- I was also unable to find out when modern women's panties became available. My guess is that they came in about the same time as men's briefs, but I couldn't find any information on this. (Search Google and see what you get for "history of panties" or "history of panty." :) 207.254.220.138 16:06 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Bustle
We should be careful about saying the bustle "went out of fashion for good" as, as improbable as it seems today, we never know that in the more or less distant future there might be a resurgence. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Many problems with this article
I'm sorry to have to be critical, but this article is just RIFE with error, plus it's extremely ethnocentric. There are other folks in the world besides Westerners. It might also be better organized, with male and female sections better identified.

I corrected a few errors and then had to stop, due to lack of time. I will come back and work on this later, and also see if I can recruit user Katherine Shaw, who is much more knowledgeable than I am.

Knowing about underwear comes from hanging out with fantasy writers, SCAdians, and costumers, all of whom are interested in historically correct underwear. In fact, I may get stuck and have to go ask them for help! Zora 06:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PS. I just checked. I was wrong re cotton. According to this link it has been known for a long time, but because it required extremely time-intensive seed-removal, it was expensive and scarce. It wasn't common till after the cotton gin. THAT is what I was remembering. I knew there was a reason that European underclothing was made out of linen. Zora 06:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is an error that no one else has addressed. The reference to the Jews wearing Tallit Katan and tzit-tzit is a factual error. Tzit-tzit are tassles or long fringes attached to the Tallit Katan (small Tallit that resembles a serape) and a Tallit Gadol(large prayer shawl). The tzit-tzit are attached to the 4 corners of both. Tzit-tzit are not even a garment, much less an undergarment. A Tallit Katan can be worn on the outside, though it usually isn't when worn in public among non-Jews. Tzit-tzit are meant to be seen by the person wearing them and by other Jews to remind them of the Torah Cammandments. User-Nlangster, 9 July, 2006

Double-seat briefs
A new user named JasonB has been adding all sorts of material re "double-seat briefs" to this article. He inserted a picture. He added the garment to the list of briefs, but at the top, not under brief. He then added a para about how wonderful these briefs are.

I can't figure out if he's a publicist for the double-seat brief industry, or if he just has a double-seat brief fetish. It's REALLY over the top! I removed the picture, removed the para, and edited and filed the listing under briefs. Zora 29 June 2005 23:55 (UTC)

Chastity belts
One editor recently changed the section re chastity belts to say that chastity belts were used, just not much. However, no evidence was cited for the change. Every history of costume source I've read says that it's an urban legend -- possibly derived from fevered and fetishistic imaginings. But of course if there's a reputable source, I'll restore the change. Zora 20:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Said editor was moi, evidence...blah
 * From wikipedia Chastity belt:
 * In 1889, a leather-and-iron belt was found by A. M. Pachinger—a German collector of antiquities—in Linz, Austria in a grave on a skeleton of a young woman. The woman was purportedly buried sometime in the 16th century. Pachinger, however, could not find any record of the woman's burial in the town archives. The belt itself, along with most of the rest of Pachinger's collection, has been lost.
 * From others:
 * The first written evidence of a chastity belt was recorded by Keyser von Eichstad, a retired solider who compiled a manuscript in 1405 about the art of war and military equipment.  In his book "Bellifortis" he included a drawing of a chastity belt (picture below), with the inscription "Est florentinarum hoc bracile dominarum ferreum et durum ab antea sit reseratum"  ("breeches of hard Florentine iron that are closed at the front").


 * If it's in a list of military equipment, couldn't it be an early athletic supporter/protector? Zora 22:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This instrument dates back to 1400, when it appears in Italy under Francesco II from Carrara. It was mostly used in Italy, but it suddenly spread all over France as well. There have always been three different interpretations about its possible use. Some historians even state that the chastity belt was not an instrument aimed at inflicting suffering but on the contrary a particular device to prevent women (for example when their partner was away for a long time) from the possible risk of being raped. As chastity belts were mostly made of precious materials (inlaid silver with engravings), some historians assert they were given to women as a present from their husbands or lovers in order to encourage them to be faithful.


 * This material is not now in the Chastity belt article, which suggests that it has been deleted as unsourced. Zora 22:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If we use medieval poetry as a reliable source, we discover that the use of chastity belts was often in consensus between both parties.


 * What poetry? Zora 22:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Now we come to a more controversial topic. Did medieval wives really wear chastity belts? They are, indeed, mentioned in many medieval poems and were supposed to be invented by the Italians. However, two British historians argue that they're nothing more than Victorian myths, and an example of a medieval chastity belt has been removed from the British Museum.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. There are a tonne of sources indicating they were factual, and a tonne of sources (mostly referencing the same two recent 'historians')(No offence meant on quote marks, just that it's not an entirely technical term that offers any real validity) that indicate the opposite. It seems wise to mention that they were not as widespread as popularily believed, but foolish to indicate that the theories of two historians are "fact" when there's quite a bit of evidence supporting the theory they *did* exist


 * Sorry, that is NOT a tonne of sources. That is one source, and it's not clear to me that it's sufficient to establish the "chastity belt" as an item of feminine wearing apparel. After looking at your argument, and the Chastity belt article, I'm willing to believe that if current-day folks get off on chastity belts, this might also have been true in the past, and that some older "BSDM-play" items might have survived -- much like the antique dildos featured in some collections of erotica. But it seems that costume historians themselves don't accept the supposed older chastity belts as anything other than later creations that have been backdated.


 * There's a similar problem in discussing the history of corsets, and tightlacing. Some costume historians used controversies carried on in the letter columns of newspapers and periodicals re tightlacing as examples of Victorian attitudes. Then a few wise souls pointed out that a lot of the letters seemed to have come from fetishists with strong imaginations who were thrilled to discuss their fetishes in public. The letters came from MEN. They didn't match what women were recording in their diaries and letters re corset use.


 * Perhaps we should change the chastity belt reference so that it says that there's a controversy, only, and refer readers to the chastity belt article. Zora 22:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Works for me, though I'd like to point out there *are* a tonne of sources, and what you say isn't in the Wikipedia article on chastity belts, still is...I just checked ;) (And no, I didn't edit anything :P) Sherurcij 02:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Briefs and sperm count
I hear from friends that wearing briefs lowers sperm count because the briefs keep the testes too close to the body and hence too hot for spermatogenesis. I also read somewhere on the internet that it doesn't really matter because all the sperm of a man is completely replaced every two years. Is there any medical doctor here who can confirm or invalidate these claims? Maybe a little something should be written about this issue under the briefs section.

I vote to merge
Crzrussian 00:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with what?--Patrick 10:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Underwearing
This entire section is ridiculous and unencyclopedic. This is not a term that is in common use and was probably dreamed up by the author. The only real references I can find on Google are copies from Wikipedia. --Tysto 03:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I suggest that the section be removed. I guess I'll be bold and go for it: if anyone objects they should be sure to comment here. 65.96.221.107 14:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dessous
There is a picture in the article captioned "model in dessous" but the term is a redlink and there is no other use of the word in the article. I would try to fix it but I have absolutely no idea what that term means and Google did not help me much. It's clearly underwear related but that's all I got. Any ideas?  + + Lar: t/c 02:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Both Babelfish & Google language translate "dessous" from french as "below", I changed it to "camisole, garters and stockings". -RJFerret 15:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman?
Well, I don't know if you want to mention this, but Superman wears his underwear over his pants :).
 * It's already mentioned, as a gimec of various 'superheroes', but in the specific article Briefs Fastifex 16:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve Bell's popular cartoons of British Prime Minister John Major also depicted him wearing his Y-fronts over his trousers - though with the iumplication that he was somewhat less than super!Rodparkes 03:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Braies
Reverted someone's removal of link markup on braies, which they said they took off because there was "no suitable article". Failure to grasp the concept. Ortolan88 20:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously they mean no link to braies as undergarment, in effect a crypto-red link Fastifex 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to post a picture of their underwear
Hey people, do anyone want to upload a picture of underwear so we can make fun of it on a daily basis, because we could use it as a new promo to advertise all the shows on the broadcast networks.--67.34.212.4 00:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Pictures of Guys
We need a couple of these photos to be replaced with pictures of women wearing underwear. Thank you.

Knightskye 06:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Added a late Elizabethan lady in her corset and petticoat. Will scout for additional suitable images. - PKM 21:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And added some more. -PKM 23:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Henry VIII
If someone doens't cite a source for the bit on Henry VIII I am going to delete it. Sounds bogus to me. I am also looking for a really good image of a padddeed and beribboned codpiece. - PKM 23:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Pictures??
Stepping aside form the conversation about re: Mormon temple garments, several peopole have said that there are "too many pictures" in this article. What does everyone mean by that? To my mind, there are too many contemporary photographs that don't adequately illustrate the features of the garments worn (as opposed to other garments) and not enough images of historical styles (no union suits, for example). Would it be better to move some of the images into galleries with smaller pictures, perhaps one for "contemporary underwear"? Thoughts? - PKM 18:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with that - whether or not you decide to keep the temple garments - there are too many pictures in this article - it is not aesthetically pleasing. -- Trödel 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say that a gallery is probably not the answer here, I'd prefer to see the pictures pared down. Many are redundant. pschemp | talk 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree on gallery - I have arranged the pics a little and think they look more aesthetically pleasing - I used 1024x768 and 1280x1024 resolutions to test the visual appearance. -- Trödel 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This change to move the picture to the left and change sizes hurts the visual appeal because it pushes section headings to the middle of the screen and throws of the bulleted list of underwear styles. -- Trödel 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

VPL
At the end of the article it says a VPL is when ladies undies show above their trousers, but I always thought it was when the seams of pants formed ridges that were visible through the fabric of trousers etc.

I agree - in fact seamless panties are specifically marketed as avoiding VPL. This should be changed.Rodparkes 03:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious underwear
Would anyone mind me adding a piece about the Chassidic underwear called, Gatkes. Massive boxer shorts. 88.153.48.226 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Going bareback?
The section on going without underwear treats this phrase as synonymous with going commando and the link leads there. However, it can also be slang for having sexual intercourse without a condom, so this link could be misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodparkes (talk • contribs) 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

boxer-short picture
Why does he have an erection and why is he called a 'boy'. doesn't seem very academic to me. Bawdekin

I reverted it. Some clown thinks that 19 year olds are "boys". Lord Patrick 06:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant text
''This phenomenon has been likened to Adam of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. Where once they where naked, but oblivious to their own nudity, it wasn't until they possessed knowledge of their nudity that they became modest. So to men have historically been unashamed of exposing their body, up until society began to portray them as sexual objects, in which case a new modesty and discomfort with exposure lead to underwear and swimmwear becoming more conservative in the 1990's as a statement against objectification of the male form. Which for so long had been considered sexually neutral.''

''As for the future of men's underwear, future styles will be determined by how comfortable or uncomfortable men will be with their role as sexual objects. Since in the modern sense, underwear has more to do with sexuality than utility. It is also interesting to note that the emergence and acceptance of homosexuality in western society has also directly correlated with a sudden need for modesty in mens underwear styles. The growing awareness of homosexuality has also seen socialized nudity in the school shower and gymnasium to become less acceptable (in the United States and other similar cultures)because of the fear of being perceived to be "gay." Nudity and exposure has taken on sexual overtones in modern day society that didn't exist generations before. This is also one of the reasons men's underwear styles ceased to become more and more revealing. Man men suddenly felt that it was "gay" to expose the body in such a fashion. Particularly in a social context with other men.''

In schools in Great Britain and the United States Of America some boys may be bullied for wearing Y-Fronts which are also known as "Ballies", "Tighty Whiteies" and "Ball Stranglers".

Why is this text even in an article on undergarments? Does anyone object to its deletion? lone_twin 12:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No objection here. Are these "facts" verified anywhere? Bytebear 17:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)