Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 June 15

= June 15 =

Why do we wear under garments...
Like briefs and boxers?

I mean, today I've been going commando with loose shorts and it feels great. My genitals feel much less sweaty and way more aired out.

Which got me thinking, why do we all wear those pesky under garments. Is it a cultural thing or what. Are there any negative consequences of not wearing under garments? As I guy I can't see any reason to worry. I mean the Scottish were onto something with kilts. If you're a women who has heavy menstrual blood a lot, I can see the potential for a problem but don't tampons solve that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.150.42.28 (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article titled Undergarment which has an entire section titled "function". That should answer any factual questions you have.  Also, if you follow this simple google search you can find lots of resources, some reliable, some discussion forums, which answer your question.  -- Jayron 32 13:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * But it raises the interesting point that, since the basic function is to protect the outer garments from bodily emanations such as blood, faeces, urine, semen, sweat and the odour of the aforementioned - which means they're virtually supposed to get dirty and smelly, to save the outer garments from such a fate - how come underwear has become a fashion item? I mean, would anyone take glossy pics of their used tampons or used toilet paper and have them featured in overpriced fashion magazines?  Or even the pristine versions thereof, before they got used?  There was a reason these garments used to be called "unmentionables".  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Improvements in hygiene (toilet paper, bidets, washing them more often in a machine rather than waiting until spring when the river thaws) means they aren't as filthy as they used to be (as long as you don't use the diet aid Orlistat). And anything "hidden" seems to take on a forbidden appeal, much as women's ankles once did, when they were always hidden.  Breasts, on the other hand, seem to lose their sexual appeal in cultures where everyone goes topless.  StuRat (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's another thing. It may be unlawful to expose one's breasts in public, but a woman can certainly get away with wearing clothing that leaves passersby in absolutely no doubt as to the size and shape of her breasts, including her nipples in a state of excitement.  So how come it's not OK for a man to wear clothing that performs a similar service for his genitalia?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, there is a Speedo "banana hammock". Apparently we have you Aussies to thank for that fashion choice.  StuRat (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. But that's only suitable for the beach.  Try wearing it at the supermarket or in church or at the cinema or the doctor's surgery or lawyer's office and see how far you get.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A few years ago at my church in London, an eccentric parishioner would sometimes arrive dressed fairly normally above the waist but wearing tight leather swimming trunks below. Attempting to be good Christians, no comment was ever made by the rest of the congregation, at least in his presence. Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But if it is cold, you don't want them to freeze solid. Count Iblis (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Another of the functions of underwear is that one can hide bribe money in it, as Jack B. Johnson advised Leslie Johnson to do. It would have worked well, in terms of avoiding the finding of the money, if there hadn't been a wiretap.  As it was, it resulted in a strip search, not normally done with white-collar criminals.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you're wearing pants with a loose fly (or holes), underwear can save you from exposing yourself to children. To everybody, really, but the law tends to frown harder when you accidentally flash kids. Being on a sex offender list is no fun, and many people don't consider how you got there before writing you off as a pervert. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Not talking from experience, I hope. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yea, you get caught one time in a women's shoe store pretending to be a salesman and sniffing all the women's feet and all of a sudden you are labelled a pervert ! StuRat (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Plenty of experience with wardrobe malfunctions, less but enough involving full-scale visual contamination. It's only been the public's benevolence and understanding that's kept me off the list. Still a risky gambit, especially if you live in a prudish hood. I think it really helps if you don't have an erection.
 * On the flip side, even if nobody's offended, they may be amused. Commando circulation inherently means more air. When that air's cool, funny things happen. The typical man would rather intentionally show off his sausage than accidentally show off his acorn. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And this applies ten-fold to loose shorts. Tain't a problem when your pants merely come unzipped. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

problems with signature wikicode
Pancho507  (talk) I want the >507< to be red, i tried with #ff0000, i tried whith the word red, but it still does nothing.
 * I'm having problems whith the wikicode.
 * Here i send you the code


 * Please help me User:Pancho507User talk:Pancho507

I don't want a simple signature because, one error, and everything looks bad, and if my accont is compromised, the hacker will use a different signature, or will copy partially the code for x reason (a hacker will do everything to get a block)

I'm not an admin, just in case :)

Thanks

I wait a response

If you can't see the code, click edit and you will see the code (again, just in case:))


 * It appears red to me now :-)--Aspro (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * How do you reckon a more elaborate signature will protect you from . . . whatever it is? —Tamfang (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It may have been more useful to this editor to provide the Template:User committed identity link so he can use this template to prove his account status -should it be cracked.--Aspro (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * '507' looks red to me too, using 'red' or the hex code. Perhaps there's some problem with your browser? Try a few different browsers and see if they all show the sig in the same way. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Relax SemanticMantis. It looks red 'now' because I substituted the OP's original   Pancho507   (talk)  , With:   Pancho507   (talk)   so that the OP could see the wikicode syntax that he needed.  in fact the, color:ff0000; is superfluous too.--Aspro (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)