Admittedly, G-strings and thongs don't ever really seem to do anything apart from cheesewire your ass but the thought of NO PANTIES at all is just a little too.. um.. *makes strange face*The Anti-Panti is a circular piece of fabric that has adhesive on one side. When you're after a bit of a breeze in your trousers, you remove the backing and stick it on. It means that there's no chance of unsightly pants creeping up over your jeans, and because of the patch you don't have to watch your trousers each time you go commando. Plus, they also comes in a variety of patterns and colours!
Still wrong.
Posts
Right on ... or "off" in the sense of doing away with excess layers & ways to trap moisture & germs (looking for a nice warm, wet place to set up a new home & housekeeping inside YOU).
ReplyDeleteYOU - as in your vagina & related areas ... just right, warm & inviting for germs & whatever to move in & set up housekeeping, so to speak!
DeleteFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DeleteThe term chemise or shift can refer to the classic smock, or else can refer to certain modern types of women's undergarments and dresses. In the classical use it is a simple garment worn next to the skin to protect clothing from sweat and body oils, the precursor to the modern shirts commonly worn in Western nations.
Chemise is a French term (which today simply means shirt). This is a cognate of the Italian word camicia, and the Spanish / Portuguese language word camisa (subsequently borrowed as kameez by Hindi / Urdu / Hindustani), all deriving ultimately from the Latin camisia, itself coming from Celtic. (The Romans avidly imported cloth and clothes from the Celts.)[1] The English called the same shirt a smock.
A modern-day chemise
In modern usage, a chemise is generally a woman's garment that vaguely resembles the older shirts but is typically more delicate, and usually more revealing. Most commonly the term refers to a loose-fitting, sleeveless undergarment or type of lingerie which is unfitted at the waist. It can also refer to a short, sleeveless dress that hangs straight from the shoulders and fits loosely at the waist. A chemise typically does not have any buttons or other fasteners and is put on by either dropping it over the head or stepping into it and lifting it up.
As lingerie, a chemise is similar to a babydoll, which is also a short, loose-fitting, sleeveless garment. Typically, though, babydolls are looser fitting at the hips.
This chemise or shift of the 1830s has elbow-length sleeves and is worn under a corset and petticoats.
The chemise seems to have developed from the Roman tunica and first became popular in Europe in the Middle Ages. Women wore a shift or chemise under their gown or robe; while men wore a chemise with their trousers or braies, and covered the chemises with garments such as doublets, robes, etc.
Until the late 18th century, a chemise referred to an undergarment. It was the only underwear worn until the end of Regency period in the 1820s,[2] and was usually the only piece of clothing that was washed regularly.
In the 1810s, the term came also to be applied to an outergarment.[3] In Western countries, the chemise as an undergarment fell out of fashion in the early 20th century, and was generally replaced by a brassiere, girdle, and full slip, and panties first came to be worn.
Men's chemises may be said to have survived as the common T-shirt, which still serves as an undergarment. The chemise also morphed into the smock-frock, a garment worn by English laborers until the early 20th century. Its loose cut and wide sleeves were well adapted to heavy labor. The name smock is nowadays still used for military combat jackets in the UK, whereas in the Belgian army the term has been corrupted to smoke-vest.[citation needed]
A chemise, shift, or smock was usually sewn at home, by the women of a household. It was assembled from rectangles and triangles cut from one piece of cloth so as to leave no waste. The poor would wear skimpy chemises pieced from a narrow piece of rough cloth; while the rich might have voluminous chemises pieced from thin, smooth fine linen.
See also[edit]
Camisole
Kirtle
Shalwar kameez
Slip (clothing)
Smock
Regarding "Love Anal" Reference Try GOOGLE on
Delete"I am about to put a butt plug in your arse. You're going to wear this gadget for the next 24 hours. By then, your anus will be just that bit expanded so that you can take"
see on VPL's
DeleteWhat Judith didn't pack
By Laura Roberts and Liz Thomas, Daily Mail
Last updated at 12:13 25 June 2008
Judith Chalmers on location on beach
Holiday Chalmer: Judith on sunsoaked location
Scroll down to add a comment
IN more than 30 years travelling the world for wish You Were Here? she proudly packed light.
But only now is presenter Judith Chalmers admitting exactly how light.
Yesterday she explained that she never wore underwear in three decades of foreign assignments for the ITV travel show.
The 72-year-old presenter said she 'went commando' because she didn't want the outline of her knickers showing through her holiday outfits.
She told ITV chat show Loose Women how interviewer Graham Norton was the man who had unlocked her secret when he once asked her how many pairs of knickers she took on holiday abroad.
'Graham said "Do you take one pair and wash them, two pairs and wash them or one for every day of the week?".
'So I said "I don't take them" and he said "You what?".' Miss Chalmers said she decided to leave her knickers at home after being warned that the cameras could pick up on the sartorial no-no of 'visible panty line'.
'I was told by the wardrobe mistress that I shouldn't have a VPL - visible panty line.
'So I'm sorry to reveal that after 30 years of Wish You Were Here, I was pantless all the time!' Despite her extensive travels the mother-of-two admitted she still cannot pack a sensible holiday wardrobe.
'I don't know that I am a very good packer, I still think that I take too much,' she said.
'I follow the golden rule of sticking your shoes in the bottom, and your pants on the top - that's if you take them.'
Miss Chalmers, who has always boasted a year-round tan, launched Wish You Were Here? in 1973 and stayed with the show for 30 years.
She made no mention of whether her co-presenters John Carter and Anna Walker shared her views on underwear.
The show, which had 19million viewers at its peak, is back on ITV with Miss Chalmers's son, Mark Durden-Smith, presenting alongside Sarah Heaney.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-609794/What-Judith-didnt-pack.html#ixzz3q4JBojUn
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
According2the Museum of Men-struation, women'™s underwear as we know it today (close fitting briefs), didn'™t exist until the 1930s. Of course there was the pair in the Austrian floorboards, but it is safe to assume that, tucked away as they were, they did not influence 20th century fashions. The 1st mention of "œbriefs" (so brief! Barely pantaloons at all!) the museum could find was in the Sears Roebuck catalog of 1935, where special mention was made that they were "œevery day" briefs. This harkens back2the nuanced world of menstruation containment. Before women wore fitted underpants every day, they wore them only monthly, 2 keep pads in place. Some historians believe the menstrual brief was designed based on diapers, which in turn inspired the prototype of all modern women'™s underwear.
DeleteAccording2theMuseum of Menstruation, women's underwear as we know it today (close fitting briefs), didn't exist until the 1930s. Of course there was the pair in the Austrian floorboards but it is safe to assume that tucked away as they were they did not influence 20th century fashions. The 1st mention of "briefs" (so brief! Barely pantaloons at all!) the Museum could find was in the Sears Roebuck catalog of 1935 where special mention was made that they were "every day" briefs. This harkens back2the nuanced world of menstruation containment. Before women wore fitted underpants every day, they wore them only monthly 2 keep pads in place. Some historians believe the menstrual brief was designed based on diapers, which in turn inspired the prototype of all modern women's underwear.
DeleteMORE PEOPLE GO COMMANDO THAN YOU MIGHT THINK, ACCORDING TO A NEW POLL IN VANITY FAIR 03/10/2014 03:02 PM ET | UPDATED MAR 10, 2014 JAMIE FELD-MAN ASSOCIATE STYLE EDITOR, THE HUFF-INGTON POST
DeleteHERE’S ONE WAY TO SAVE MONEY ON LAUNDRY — STOP WEARING UNDERWEAR.
VANITY FAIR TEAMED UP WITH 60 MINUTES TO CONDUCT A FASHION-BASED POLL, ASKING AMERICANS EVERYTHING FROM WHAT THEIR BIGGEST FASHION NIGHTMARE WOULD BE, TO IDENTIFYING BIG INDUSTRY NAMES TO... HOW OFTEN THEY GO COMMANDO. ACCORDING TO THE RESULTS, MORE PEOPLE DO IT THAN YOU MIGHT THINK.
25 PERCENT OF THOSE POLLED ADMITTED THEY GO SANS UNDERWEAR AT LEAST SOMETIMES. OF THAT 25 PERCENT, 13 PERCENT SAID THEY DO IT “OCCASIONALLY,” 5 PERCENT CONFESSED THEY DITCH THEIR UNDERWEAR “ONCE A WEEK” AND 7 PERCENT SAID THEY WENT WITHOUT UNDER-GARMENTS “ALL THE TIME.”
OF COURSE, THERE ARE PLENTY OF REASONS TO LEAVE THE HOUSE WITHOUT YOUR UNDIES EVERY SO OFTEN. IT CAN BE PRETTY LIBERATING, FOR ONE. PLUS THERE’S THAT WHOLE THING ABOUT SHAPEWEAR BEING DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR HEALTH.
STILL, WE CAN’T IMAGINE DITCHING OUR BELOVED UNDIE COLLECTION PERMANENTLY. WHAT ABOUT YOU? WOULD YOU GO COMMANDO FOR GOOD? SOUND OFF BELOW!
SEE HISTORY OF FASHION
DeleteDid Native Americans wear undergarments before contact with Europeans?
Kathleen Kelley
Sugarland, Texas
Not really—but then, neither did Europeans wear underwear before contact with Native Americans. American Indian men and women wore loin- or breechcloths, which might be considered undergarments or outer garments, depending on climate and tribal lifestyle. But what we deem “going commando” today was more the norm until the 18th century—among native peoples and Europeans.
Adrienne Smith (Cherokee/Muscogee Nations of Oklahoma)
Manager, ImagiNATIONS Activity Center, National Museum of the American Indian
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/the-history-of-going-commando-and-more-questions-from-our-readers-74338606/#7dvrFQ5TkuyrUUOQ.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Try the following on GOOGLE for more on pantiless (the Good Olde Fashioned way to dress or not dress before panties were "invented"/ "imposed" upon women)
Delete"WHY I DON'T WEAR UNDERWEAR"
including "HIGH CARB HANNAH"
I think this pretty well settles the matter that people, women in particular, weren't created or designed to wear clothing in the first place & the less layers (& less germs) the better!
DeletePlease see:
Search Results
No Panties, No Problems: 11 Reasons Why Women Should Go ...
elitedaily.com/women/why-women-go-commando/937626/
Feb 17, 2015 - No Panties, No Problems: 11 Reasons Why Women Should Go Commando ... mainly because you don't really have to tell a single person you're doing it. ... I can't wear full-coverage underwear with so many of my jeans; the
Indeed, please GOOGLE on "Why I Don't Wear Underwear" to see that pantiless (hardly any kind of "new" standard) is not only popular (to admit/announce/admire/advertise/accept/adopt); it's really the Good Olde Time Honored "old" standard from ever since women (and also men)have put on skirts ... to let in clean, fresh oxygen as well as "squat and pee" et cetera.
DeleteAs indicated, "panties" thongs and such trap moisture (and a lot of other undesirable things best left to the imagination, i.e. bugs, smells, sweat, goo, waste etc.) in dark, hard to clean, hard to keep clean places. Rather than put back on a worn, soiled, unwashed pair in the laundry, better to give up owning/ ever wearing them in the first place & enjoy freedom & fresh air, among other pleasures out of doors & in.
Delete2 commando or not 2 commando? That is the question Shakespeare should have asked, 4 it would have
Deletesaved women’s magazines years upon years of anguish&debate over whether or not we should suffocate our lady bits in strangling contraptions better known as “underwear” or if we should just let them B.
There are common misconceptions about going commando. Some see it as bad 4 your sexual health. Some see it as an indication you’re promiscuous&others see it as a weird publicity stunt 2 gasp at (see: Britney Spears, circa 2010).
But, at the end of the day, going commando is not nearly as big of a deal as we all think it is, mainly because U don’t really have 2 tell a single person you’re doing it. In fact, more women should embrace it.
Here’s why. 1. It’s comfortable. - The number one reason U should go commando is that it’s, honestly, really comfortable. It’s just you, your vagina&your pants getting 2 know each other better, hanging out like old friends, sipping glasses of wine.
2. There are no links between going commando&contracting infections. It might feel like your bare vagina rubbing right up against the inside of your pants would create a perfect breeding ground 4 bacteria, but that idea has long been debunked. Dr. Gillian Dean, Planned Parenthood New York City’s associate medical director of clinical research&training, told The Village Voice there’s no scientific research suggesting a direct correlation between going commando &contracting infections like bacterial vaginosis or yeast infections.
3. Going commando can actually help prevent infections. If U have lots of itching&irritation down there, gynecologists
actually recommend U skip wearing underwear. On her blog, gynecologist “Dr. Kate” has found doing so really will
decrease those feelings of discomfort. If U can’t find it in U 2 ditch underwear during the day, try doing it at night.
Vaginas are already moist&hairy, so adding a layer of suffocation (in the form of underwear) can actually make things worse. Dr. Alyssa Dweck, M.D., told Shape magazine if your vagina is constantly covered, more moisture collects down there, which cultivates an ideal environment 4 yeast growth. And since the risk of yeast infections among humans has actually been increasing, it might B a good idea 2 start going commando ASAP.
4. No VPL -- We’ve all seen the phenomenon: A woman in tight, light-colored pants who forgets her purple granny panties are visible through her ass — in color, shape&outline — 2 the whole world. Could someone really b that unaware? There’s nothing more embarrassing than that dreaded VPL (Visible Panty Line), but when U go commando, you’ll never, ever have 2 worry about it. Exercise caution, though: U aren’t safe from camel toes.
5. No wedgies -- Ever find yourself digging out a wedgie deeper than you’d dig 4 gold? Going commando means never again having 2 sneak away from a social situation 2 claw around inside your butt. If that right there isn’t enough of a reason, I don’t know what is.()
SEE:
DeleteGoing Commando: Is It Healthier?
TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2012 AT 4:25 P.M.
Village Voice
FROM THE INTERNET - STANDING OVATION
Delete"From what my wife tells me, it's actually better for you to not wear panties, especially in summer. She's read that it helps to prevent yeast infections. I just like the idea because it's sexy. I remember the first time years ago when we were out at dinner that she wasn't wearing panties. It had an interesting impact on the old boy.
"HOWEVER, you do have to (as one person put it) watch out for those stairs in malls and such that have no walls just railings....could provide and interesting show for the crowd on the first level. I remember a woman telling me years back that she used to go commando and flash people when she was out with hubby because hubby found it quite the turn on to see the reaction of other men.
"Another story......a friend told us once that she was at a wedding reception and some woman slipped on somthing on the dance floor, went ass over teacups with legs in the air and was not wearing panties. She got a standing ovation from everybody and I'm thinking that some of the men in the audience had something else standing as well."
SES ALSO "Why I Don't Wear Underwear" on the Internet
SEE/GOOGLE ON
DeleteMore People Go Commando Than You Might Think, According To A
FROM THE INTERNET:CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF:
Delete"The women who say the key to good health is NOT wearing knickers:
It sounds extraordinary but the evidence may surprise you
Vanessa Fernandez, 35, from Edgware, stopped wearing knickers 2 years ago after suffering an 'embarrassing' vaginal infection
Gemma Cromwell, 29, from Dunstable, spent years wearing thongs to avoid a VPL until she became pregnant- now only wears them on her period
Growing numbers of women are giving up on knickers for health reasons"
FROM THE INTERNET CRYSTAL COLLINs - WHY I DON'T WEAR UNDERWEAR
Delete"Hi Crystal,
"I really enjoyed your article. My husband raised an eyebrow or two when he found out that I don’t wear underwear to the gym. Lol. I’m not stinky up my good panties. Then, he really freaked out when he found out that I don’t wear panties outside of the gym. Lol. It feels better.
"I like your sense of humor and bravery. I know my mom would gasp if she found out that I’m often panty-free. I’m going to forward this article to her and wait for my phone to blow up. Lol.
"Thanks again,
Tee from CA"
Look up your fashion history ... there's a large void as far as any history of panties ... just didn't have or need them until somebody decided to force them on womanhood instead of fresh, clean air versus moist, dark places to grow germs & worse "down there" whereyour legs meet!
History Lesson: "In her book 'Knickers, An Intimate Appraisal', Rosemary Hawthorne records that before 1789 and the French Revolution, long skirts, a petticoat or two, a corset and linen chemise was all the underwear a woman thought desirable or necessary."
DeleteHooray ... down with VPL's (visible panty lines ... & wedgies/also known as cheesewire).
ReplyDeleteSuggest u look up "Pantiless in New York City" for an informative article on getting rid (permanently) of yeast infections, especially after taking anti-biotics, which kill off the bacteria that keep the yeasty beasties from taking over!
ReplyDeleteDefinitely better & healthier "sans" (without) panties. Look up history books on under-garments/unmentionables & see how women were hobbled &restricted, as in sports. Best to have a panty burning party &get rid of them permanently. Studies on bras have similar findings.
DeleteDitto: hobbled, restricted & excluded from employment ... as in independence & ability to be self-supporting & in control of one's life/
Deletedestiny.
It's better than foot binding but certainly "panties" "thongs" "g-strings" ought to be completely optional ... it seems that once u get used to the freedom "down there" that's "down with panties" permanently & completely ... spend your money on outerwear & Ditch Your Panties for good!
DeleteHISTORY LESSON101:The Evolution of Underwear\Peter the Great, visiting Paris in 1717, was riding down a crowded street when a woman slipped and fell in front of his horse. The czar, intently watching the pretty Parisienne scissor and squirm out of danger, observed with some delight: "The gates of Paradise are open."\What's interesting is not that that particular French woman didn't wear any underwear, but that almost no French women at the time wore any underwear that would have blocked the czar's view. Or any English women. Or any German women. Or any American women.\It amazes us (or at least me) to learn that women for the first five thousand years of Western civilization wore nothing between their legs beyond their natural chinchilla. "Until the late 18th century, [women's] underwear consisted only of smocks or shifts, stays [i.e., corsets] and the highly important petticoats of all kinds," harrumphs The History of Underclothes by Willet and Cunnington. But nothing between the legs.\It seems fairly mind-boggling to consider millions of women for thousands of years with no garment snugly covering their Delta. Sure, they generally wore very long dresses, but why not any close-fitting underwear?\Yeast infections and crab lice, among other reasons, argue authors Janet and Peter Phillips in their masterful article, History From Below: Women's Underwear and the Rise of Women's Sports. "Pre-20th century women had to do without knickers and the like because of the perpetual threat of thrush [i.e., yeast infection]," state the British authors. "Since the vagina is naturally warm and moist, any covering increasing the temperature will put out a welcome mat to thrush," they contend, pointing out that yesteryear's lower standards of personal hygiene, due to lack of indoor running water, would have greatly promoted thrush and lice.\Near Eastern women who did bathe more frequently than their European sisters did wear trousers or "harem pants," sometimes under skirts. And it's speculated that during the Renaissance, these garments were imported into Europe and gradually adapted into drawers, i.e., loose-fitting under-trousers, with ribbons to "draw" them tight at the waist and the legs. But these imported strange items (considered masculine and somehow perverse) never caught on with working-class women, who could still squat and pee in an alleyway.\In fact, almost the only French women in the 1700s who wore drawers did so by law. A ballerina in 1727 got her skirt caught on a piece of stage scenery. Her exposure led to the passage of a police regulation in Paris that "no actress or dancer should appear on stage without drawers."
ReplyDelete"To commando or not to commando?
DeleteThat is the question Shakespeare should have asked, 4 it would have saved women’s magazines years upon years of anguish&debate over whether or not we should suffocate our lady bits in strangling contraptions better known as “underwear” or if we should just let them be.
There are common misconceptions about going commando. Some see it as bad 4 your sexual health.
Some see it as an indication you’re promiscuous&others see it as a weird publicity stunt to gasp at (see: Britney Spears, circa 2010).
But, at the end of the day, going commando is not nearly as big of a deal as we all think it is, mainly because U don’t really have to tell a single person you’re doing it. In fact, more women should embrace it.
Here’s why.
1. It’s comfortable.
The number one reason U should go commando is that it’s, honestly, really comfortable.
It’s just you, your vagina&your pants getting to know each other better, hanging out like old friends, sipping glasses of wine.
________________________________________
2. There are no links between going commando&contracting infections.
It might feel like your bare vagina rubbing right up against the inside of your pants would create a perfect breeding ground 4 bacteria, but that idea has long been debunked.
Dr. Gillian Dean, Planned Parenthood New York City’s associate medical director of clinical research&training, told The Village Voice there’s no scientific research suggesting a direct correlation between going commando&contracting infections like bacterial vaginosis or yeast infections.
________________________________________
3. Going commando can actually help prevent infections.
If U have lots of itching&irritation down there, gynecologists actually recommend U skip wearing underwear.
On her blog, gynecologist “Dr. Kate” has found doing so really will decrease those feelings of discomfort. If U can’t find it in U to ditch underwear during the day, try doing it at night.
Vaginas are already moist&hairy, so adding a layer of suffocation (in the form of underwear) can actually make things worse.
Dr. Alyssa Dweck, M.D., told Shape magazine if your vagina is constantly covered, more moisture collects down there, which cultivates an ideal environment 4 yeast growth.
And since the risk of yeast infections among humans has actually been increasing, it might be a good idea to start going commando ASAP.
________________________________________
4. No VPL
We’ve all seen the phenomenon: A woman in tight, light-colored pants who forgets her purple granny panties are visible through her ass — in color, shape&outline — to the whole world.
Could someone really be that unaware? There’s nothing more embarrassing than that dreaded VPL (Visible Panty Line), but when U go commando, you’ll never, ever have to worry about it.
Exercise caution, though: U aren’t safe from camel toes.
________________________________________
5. No wedgies
Ever find yourself digging out a wedgie deeper than you’d dig 4 gold? Going commando means never again having to sneak away from a social situation to claw around inside your butt.
If that right there isn’t enough of a reason, I don’t know what is.
________________________________________
MORE
"6. When U actually need to go commando, you’ll already be used to it.
DeleteIn your life, U might wear something to require U to go commando,&there’s no better way to prepare 4 that moment than going commando all the time.
Take a look at some of these celebrities whose dresses with impractical cut-outs forced them to forgo underwear 4 a fancy event.
For those women who’d previously been uninitiated into the commando lifestyle, I’m sure having to do so was intimidating. But 4 those who were used to it, it was probably just another day.
Back in high school, I wore a clingy, white, floor-length dress 4 senior prom that, if I wasn’t 17 at the time, I probably would have gone commando in.
If U asked me to wear that same dress now, U can bet your ass I would not wear any underwear. I’d just get a really good bikini wax instead.
________________________________________
7. You’ll feel sexier.
Sure, some girls feel sexy in a matching lace lingerie set, but what’s sexier&more risqué than being fully naked under those jeans?
And that little secret U have with yourself will totally up your confidence when U talk to coworkers, professors, friends&the guy U have a crush on.
________________________________________
8. Your man will definitely find it sexy.
Maybe your relationship needs a little excitement in the sexual department, or, hey, maybe you&your boyfriend already f*ck like wild animals&you just want to make things even more interesting.
Let your boyfriend know you’re not wearing any underwear&watch his lust 4 U skyrocket.
You can up the ante by whispering it in his ear in a public place where he can’t do anything about it just yet, like at a party.
You will officially become the only thing on his mind all night.
________________________________________
9. Your pants will fit better
Are there certain pairs of underwear U can’t wear with certain pairs of pants because they make your pants fit differently?
I can’t wear full-coverage underwear with so many of my jeans; the underwear adds just enough extra thickness, making my jeans too tight.
I feel much better in my jeans when I wear a thong or, better yet, when I go commando.
If U went commando more often, you’d never have to worry about what kind of underwear U have to wear 4 specific pants.
And U probably could afford to buy jeans in smaller sizes, which obviously would feel awesome.
________________________________________
10. You’ll feel random bursts of pleasure throughout the day.
Having the seam of your pants run right along your vagina can create some interesting sensations throughout the day.
This will especially happen if you’re wearing jeans, where the stitching is so thick, fidgeting around in a chair can rub U the wrong — or, ahem, right — way to make U feel a little unexpected warmth down there.
When this happens, smile subtly to yourself&embrace it. It’s a day-maker 4 sure.
________________________________________
11. Sometimes, it’s just necessary
If you’ve run out of clean underwear&you’re too lazy to do a wash, do not even think about going back in your dirty hamper&fetching a used pair. Instead, just go commando.
There’s no better time to start than right now."
on VPL's
DeleteWhat Judith didn't pack
By Laura Roberts and Liz Thomas, Daily Mail
Last updated at 12:13 25 June 2008
Judith Chalmers on location on beach
Holiday Chalmer: Judith on sunsoaked location
Scroll down to add a comment
IN more than 30 years travelling the world for wish You Were Here? she proudly packed light.
But only now is presenter Judith Chalmers admitting exactly how light.
Yesterday she explained that she never wore underwear in three decades of foreign assignments for the ITV travel show.
The 72-year-old presenter said she 'went commando' because she didn't want the outline of her knickers showing through her holiday outfits.
She told ITV chat show Loose Women how interviewer Graham Norton was the man who had unlocked her secret when he once asked her how many pairs of knickers she took on holiday abroad.
'Graham said "Do you take one pair and wash them, two pairs and wash them or one for every day of the week?".
'So I said "I don't take them" and he said "You what?".' Miss Chalmers said she decided to leave her knickers at home after being warned that the cameras could pick up on the sartorial no-no of 'visible panty line'.
'I was told by the wardrobe mistress that I shouldn't have a VPL - visible panty line.
'So I'm sorry to reveal that after 30 years of Wish You Were Here, I was pantless all the time!' Despite her extensive travels the mother-of-two admitted she still cannot pack a sensible holiday wardrobe.
'I don't know that I am a very good packer, I still think that I take too much,' she said.
'I follow the golden rule of sticking your shoes in the bottom, and your pants on the top - that's if you take them.'
Miss Chalmers, who has always boasted a year-round tan, launched Wish You Were Here? in 1973 and stayed with the show for 30 years.
She made no mention of whether her co-presenters John Carter and Anna Walker shared her views on underwear.
The show, which had 19million viewers at its peak, is back on ITV with Miss Chalmers's son, Mark Durden-Smith, presenting alongside Sarah Heaney.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-609794/What-Judith-didnt-pack.html#ixzz3q4JBojUn
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
From: TREY SALM The Only Way to Live
Deletequote
"That truth being I don’t wear underwear and nothing will make me go back. Nothing.?
"It all started a few years ago, I was beginning to date a young woman and as one might imagine, I became acquainted with what her personal choice of under things tended to be; that choice being a whole lot of nothing. Being the curious man I am, I inquired about her constant lack of underwear when the time seemed right. She informed me that yes, indeed, she had not been wearing underwear for a few years and that she was never going back. ?
“WHAT? HOW?” I asked her, “I could never do such a thing. What about cleanliness? Won’t I sweat more? And what about support, won’t I miss the gentle “cradle of cotton” provided for me since birth?” Well, she knew little about this gentle cradling of jewels that went on inside men’s pants but she said that it’s much more comfortable, that things fit a little better, and this way she can save on buying lingerie or replacing underwear. I marveled at her rejection of modern society. I mean, I had always grown up knowing that men similar to me (such as Jay-Z) always prefer their women in “no panties and jeans, that’s so necessary,” but I hadn’t really encountered any who had taken Jigga Man’s gospel to heart. ? ""
It's pretty clear that women were not meant or ever intended to wear panties ... not designed with panties in mind. "Sans" --- natural --- "commando" is best.
ReplyDeleteBESTEST--CLEANEST HEALTY-EST & MOST COMFORTABLE
DeleteFROM THE INTERNET - STANDING OVATION
Delete"From what my wife tells me, it's actually better for you to not wear panties, especially in summer. She's read that it helps to prevent yeast infections. I just like the idea because it's sexy. I remember the first time years ago when we were out at dinner that she wasn't wearing panties. It had an interesting impact on the old boy.
"HOWEVER, you do have to (as one person put it) watch out for those stairs in malls and such that have no walls just railings....could provide and interesting show for the crowd on the first level. I remember a woman telling me years back that she used to go commando and flash people when she was out with hubby because hubby found it quite the turn on to see the reaction of other men.
"Another story......a friend told us once that she was at a wedding reception and some woman slipped on somthing on the dance floor, went ass over teacups with legs in the air and was not wearing panties. She got a standing ovation from everybody and I'm thinking that some of the men in the audience had something else standing as well."
SES ALSO "Why I Don't Wear Underwear" on the Internet
ELITE DAILY:
DeleteNews
Entertainment
Dating
Life
Videos
Topics
No Panties, No Problems: 11 Reasons Why Women Should Go Commando
Related
Trending
Latest
Crafted
dating
dating
Dylan and Sara
No Panties, No Problems: 11 Reasons Why Women Should Go Commando
115k
Shares
Alexia LaFataAlexia LaFata
in Women
Feb 17, 2015
1:34pm
Like Us On Facebook
To commando or not to commando?
That is the question Shakespeare should have asked, for it would have saved women’s magazines years upon years of anguish and debate over whether or not we should suffocate our lady bits in strangling contraptions better known as “underwear” or if we should just let them be.
There are common misconceptions about going commando. Some see it as bad for your sexual health.
Some see it as an indication you’re promiscuous. And others see it as a weird publicity stunt to gasp at (see: Britney Spears, circa 2010).
But, at the end of the day, going commando is not nearly as big of a deal as we all think it is, mainly because you don’t really have to tell a single person you’re doing it. In fact, more women should embrace it.
Here’s why.
1. It’s comfortable.
The number one reason you should go commando is that it’s, honestly, really comfortable.
It’s just you, your vagina and your pants getting to know each other better, hanging out like old friends, sipping glasses of wine.
2. There are no links between going commando and contracting infections.
It might feel like your bare vagina rubbing right up against the inside of your pants would create a perfect breeding ground for bacteria, but that idea has long been debunked.
Dr. Gillian Dean, Planned Parenthood New York City’s associate medical director of clinical research and training, told The Village Voice there’s no scientific research suggesting a direct correlation between going commando and contracting infections like bacterial vaginosis or yeast infections.
3. Going commando can actually help prevent infections.
If you have lots of itching and irritation down there, gynecologists actually recommend you skip wearing underwear.
On her blog, gynecologist “Dr. Kate” has found doing so really will decrease those feelings of discomfort. If you can’t find it in you to ditch underwear during the day, try doing it at night.
Vaginas are already moist and hairy, so adding a layer of suffocation (in the form of underwear) can actually make things worse.
Dr. Alyssa Dweck, M.D., told Shape magazine if your vagina is constantly covered, more moisture collects down there, which cultivates an ideal environment for yeast growth.
And since the risk of yeast infections among humans has actually been increasing, it might be a good idea to start going commando ASAP....
Suggest u Google DITCH PANTIES (Cosmopolitan) ... makes u wonder who (obviously NOT women) invented panties in the first place.
ReplyDelete"I am about to put a butt plug in your arse. You're going to wear this gadget for the next 24 hours. By then, your anus will be just that bit expanded so that you can take"
DeleteCheck GOOGLE on ANAL with
"The women who say the key to good health is NOT wearing knickers: It sounds extraordinary but the evidence may surprise you
DeleteVanessa Fernandez, 35, from Edgware, stopped wearing knickers two years ago after suffering an'embarrassing' vaginal infection
Gemma Cromwell, 29, from Dunstable, spent years wearing thongs to avoid a VPL until she became pregnant and now only wears them on her period
Growing numbers of women are giving up on knickers for health reasons"
READ THE REST OF THE TALE ON GOOGLE
Delete"I don’t wear underwear. In fact, I hate underwear. I always have! Ever since I was a little girl, if I can get away with not wearing them, I will. I don’t like the feel. I don’t like twisted bunches of fabric. They get hot and sweaty. I have always had a disproportionate-sized booty. Whether large or small—the panties always ended up in no man’s land, anyway. Then, there’s the all-tacky panty lines. Ugh! I know many could argue not wearing panties in general is tacky. Touché my friend, touché. Rest assured, if there is a chance of the sun shining where it never should, I do have on panties. So we will just squash that curiosity right there. Next time you see me at the ballpark in a sundress, there is no need to push me into the sandbox for giggles. I will have on panties."
Too bad she doesn't want sunshine where it kills germ best!
Also suggest reading Lissa Rankin's What's Up Down There also Paniless in NYC
ReplyDeletePlease Google/Read DITCH YOUR PANTIES for further information.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDec 8 at 2:01 PM
Assuming you haven't ditches your panties entirely:
Three women walking down the street are stopped by a man doing a survey. He asks, "Ladies, would you mind telling me how you know if you've had a good night out?" The first replies, "I come home, get into bed and if I lay there and tingle all over, I know that I had a good night." The second one replies, "I come home, have a shower and a glass of wine, get into bed, and if I tingle all over, I know it was a good night." The third one turns around and says, "If I get home, rip off me knickers, throw them against the wall, and they stick, then I know it was a good night!"
PAGE1:the subject of underwear still gives rise to smirks and
ReplyDeletetitters, but there is a serious side to the study of underwear
— especially women’s underwear. It sheds light on women’s
long battle for freedom&social equality. Throughout history
women’s clothing, especially their foundation garments, have
had a huge impact on their lives&how they were perceived
and treated by other people. Even the English language has been
influenced by undergarments. Several popular expressions make
reference to underwear: the term ‘loose woman’ comes from
the connotations associated with uncorseted or loosely corseted
women. A similar example is the expression ‘shiftless’: a shift was
an 18th-century support-providing undergarment&the term
was meant to characterise someone ‘without support’.
The history of underwear is difficult to trace — we have a painting
here, a sculpture there that gives us a tantalising glimpse of what
people were wearing under their togas or robes, but it is difficult to
determine when clothes designed to be worn under other clothes
as underwear came into being. From ancient paintings, sculptures
and mosaics we know, for example, that in 2000 BC in Minoan Crete
both men&women had extremely small waists, presumably from
wearing constricting belts or girdles from childhood. Even the corset
may be a more ancient invention that we imagine. A statue of a
snake goddess in the Ashmolean Museum Collection shows what
appears to be an early version of a corset. Although the bra as we
know it was not invented until the 20th century, women in ancient
Greece strapped or bound their breasts with lengths of cloth or
PAGE2:leather&young female dancers&athletes are shown wearing
ReplyDeletewhat can best be described as a bikini!
Of all the various forms of female underwear, the corset in its
various guises has probably played the largest role in keeping
women immobilised over the centuries. Corsets restrict movement
and make breathing shallow&difficult (reducing lung capacity
by almost 60 per cent) thus giving women the reputation of being
‘delicate flowers’ who could not exert themselves without fainting.
Corsets were also used as a metaphor for virtue, despite the fact
that courtesans were as tightly laced as any other woman. It was
thought that an ungirdled woman might be wanton or ‘loose’.
Corsets have been worn for several hundred years&were
considered a practical necessity if you wanted a fashionable figure.
Queen Elizabeth I of England reputedly had corsets made of both
oak&iron — the iron one was nicknamed the ‘iron maiden’. Over
the years corsets have been made from various materials including
oak, iron, leather, satin&silk. The stays inside the corset which
create the rigid containment of the body have been made from
whalebone, steel, reed or double-stitched cording. The first elastic
inserts to ease the pain did not appear until around 1885. We have
seen short corsets, long corsets&the infamous ‘S’ bend corset
which threw the wearer’s chest forward&bottom out to create
the ‘S’ shaped silhouette so favoured by the Edwardians.
Over the years, women have worn crinoline cages, farthingales,
panniers, bustles, hobbles&numerous other devices that changed
the shape of their bodies&restricted movement. During the 19th
PAGE3:century girls as young as four years old were laced into corsets on
ReplyDeletethe theory that it improved posture&modified behaviour. This is
not quite as severe as it first sounds as the girls would have worn
a non-boned version of the corset known as a liberty bodice, but it
certainly would have reduced childish high spirits!
The National Museum of Australia has a wide
and interesting textile collection but some
items don’t get an opportunity to come out
so often on public display. On a recent Friends
tour in honour of Women’s History Month, I
was lucky enough to spend some time showing
visitors items from our underwear collection and
waxing lyrically on one of my favourite subjects
— unmentionables…
By the First World War women started to reject corsets. With so
many men away fighting women needed to perform a variety of
jobs, from working in factories to driving buses. This new liberation
led to a desire&a need for less constricting undergarments and
a new image for women emerged. This was reflected in the raised
hemlines, dropped waists&boyish silhouette we associate with
the 1920s. Unfortunately for the curvy women this meant wearing
another form of corset which flattened the breasts&hips.
Shorter skirts&easy-to-iron fabrics coupled with a stronger
awareness&participation in sport&exercise, increased the
demand for more comfortable underwear which allowed great
freedom of movement. Pastel colours for underwear put in their
SHOOL DAYS DAZE-INTERESTING QUESTION FROM INTENET:
Delete"Did her cooter get in the yearbook? | The Demon's Den
"www.dreamindemon.com › "Forums › Reality Bites! › Weird News
"May 15, 2009 - it's been awhile since i was in high school, but do schoolgirls nowadays really routinely go pantie-less with a skirt like that? i wouldn't be"
IT SEEMS "AS YOU LIKE IT" IS HERE & HERE TO STAY - PANTIES OPTIONAL FOREVER!!!
PAGE4:first appearance at this time&the first patented bra was
ReplyDeleteinvented by American debutant Mary Phelps Jacobs in 1914. She
eventually turned over the rights to her invention to the Warner
Corset Company for $1500.
The 1930s saw the return of femininity, but at the same time
promoted the notorious image of the child-bearing, homely,
motherly woman. The ideal female figure was once again wellproportioned,
but slimmer around the hips. Essential components
of an underwear set were the new, rounded&bust-emphasising
brassiere, the elastic suspender belt&the figure-moulding
corset. The 1930s fashion of figure-emphasising, calf-length
dresses required underwear of minimum bulk, which fitted like a
second skin. Since it had become possible in the 1930s to produce
long threads of elastic, the corset experienced a renaissance:
it did not constrict, but was nevertheless skin-tight. The girdle,
which also functioned as a suspender belt, was essential until the
invention of tights.
The Second World War brought with it shortages&a
corresponding spirit of resourcefulness. Home-knitted underwear,
though not very attractive, overcame the shortages&kept
people warm. Garments were made out of any material people
could get their hands on, from made-over garments of previous
generations to parachute silk. You could only get underwear, and
very little of it at that, on ration cards.
In 1947, Dior created his ‘New Look’ which echoed the nipped-in
waists&full skirts of the Victorian period. After the privations
PAGE5:of the war women embraced this return to femininity with gusto.
ReplyDeleteSpecial bras to lift the breasts&elasticised or lightly boned
corselets called ‘waspies’ were worn to hold in the waist. Some
of Dior’s skirts contained 25 yards of material which required
petticoats&hip&stomach pads to fill them out to form
ßthe fashionable silhouette.
The 1960s saw the invention of the wonder-fibre Lycra which
led to the creation of tights, followed closely by the miniskirt. It
was also the time of student revolts&the rise of the Women’s
Movement of which public bra-burnings were a well publicised
part. Sales of brassieres decreased worldwide as they were seen as
an overt symbol of women’s suppression. The manufacturers were
certainly inventive&produced more lightweight brassieres and
knickers in comfortable fabrics&interesting colours to entice
young women to return to the fold.
Underwear historians of the future will be able to cast more
light in retrospect on the question of whether women in the
first decade of the 21st century wanted to appear more or less
feminine. At the moment we have a range available of sexy
alluring undergarments&sporty, fairly masculine, garments
— the choice is yours. In the past, undergarments were often
designed for their ‘body-shaping’ features, but these days, thanks
to the increase in exercise&athleticism among women the body
has become its own ‘foundation’&women no longer need to
rely on cloth&whalebone for this purpose. On the downside the
agonies of the gym have replaced the agonies of the corset.
To end this peek into the underwear closet I thought I would
mention one documented case of ‘death by bra’. In 1994, 23-yearold
Berbel Zumner was killed while walking through a park in
Vienna during a thunderstorm. Berbel was rather ‘well endowed’
and wore a bra with metal underwire to support her ample frame.
As we all know, metal&lightning just don’t mix&poor Berbel
was zapped&killed. We might have progressed a long way from
the constricting underwear of our ancestors but our underwear
can still be the death of us!
Maria Ramsden\Assistant Registrar, Collection Operation
It's prettuy clear that womens underwear, bras as well as panties/girdles/corests & other instruments of torture, were designed -- like foot binding -- to restrict women's freedom of movement/employment & participation in society!
ReplyDeleteemily sans says
Delete"the people in our earlier message boards have heard this story. i was finishing lunch in an outdoor cafe and i saw a really cute guy up at the register picking up a take out order. really cute and nice guy. the kind you see and wonder, hmm, is he good with kids? he likes women? lol! i'd seen him before a couple times.
he glanced around as he waited. i was wearing a mid thigh black rayon skirt, so i thought maybe he'll look at my legs. he did, so without thinking i turned in my chair to grab my purse and did a slow sharon stone move. yes, i flashed him and made it look accidental. lol, it caught his attention. i glanced up and made eye contact as i closed my legs. i smiled the way you smile at a cute guy. he smiled, looking a little nervous. he took his order and left. i got up and paid my bill, and walked out trying to see where he went. there he was, at the bus stop. i thought, i don't really have to get back to my office right away, i could go on a bus ride. so i waited at the bus stop too, we made eye contact, and i said, they make great sandwiches there, to break the ice. yes, he's a regular, too. we chatted, got on the bus and sat next to each other and chatted some more. i introduced myself, he introduced himself, and i never let on that i knew i flashed him. finally i got him to ask me out so i gave him my phone number. and by then i had to get back to the office.
emily"
Ditto women's being "chained" to the role of bearing children instead of birth control & other reproductive freedoms of choice -- both at home & on the job ... as in self-supporting rather than relying on others in the home & work place!!
ReplyDelete"It amazes us (or at least me) to learn that women for the first five thousand years of Western civilization wore nothing between their legs beyond their natural chinchilla. "Until the late 18th century, [women's] underwear consisted only of smocks or shifts, stays [i.e., corsets] and the highly important petticoats of all kinds," harrumphs The History of Underclothes by Willet and Cunnington. But nothing between the legs.
ReplyDeleteIt seems fairly mind-boggling to consider millions of women for thousands of years with no garment snugly covering their Delta. Sure, they generally wore very long dresses, but why not any close-fitting underwear?
Yeast infections and crab lice, among other reasons, argue authors Janet and Peter Phillips in their masterful article, History From Below: Women's Underwear and the Rise of Women's Sports. "Pre-20th century women had to do without knickers and the like because of the perpetual threat of thrush [i.e., yeast infection]," state the British authors. "Since the vagina is naturally warm and moist, any covering increasing the temperature will put out a welcome mat to thrush," they contend, pointing out that yesteryear's lower standards of personal hygiene, due to lack of indoor running water, would have greatly promoted thrush and lice.
Near Eastern women who did bathe more frequently than their European sisters did wear trousers or "harem pants," sometimes under skirts. And it's speculated that during the Renaissance, these garments were imported into Europe and gradually adapted into drawers, i.e., loose-fitting under-trousers, with ribbons to "draw" them tight at the waist and the legs. But these imported strange items (considered masculine and somehow perverse) never caught on with working-class women, who could still squat and pee in an alleyway.
In fact, almost the only French women in the 1700s who wore drawers did so by law. A ballerina in 1727 got her skirt caught on a piece of stage scenery. Her exposure led to the passage of a police regulation in Paris that "no actress or dancer should appear on stage without drawers."
Finally, mid-1800s fashion began to change.'
The way "knickers" panties thongs et cetera are getting smaller & more transparent (a friend called such things "postage stamps' on strings some years ago) plus getting more & more expensive, it shouldn't take long before people decide to eliminate them (practically disapperaing already) entirely from both their wardrobes & their budgets!
ReplyDeleteRight ON, or OFF to be more precise ... "Go commando [panty free] any time you can"[which is any time you like] is good advice ... good health & healthy advice. Read History from Below: Women's Underwear and the Rise of Women's Sport-Janet&Peter Phillips-Article first published online: 5 MAR 2004 also Journal of Popular Culture 1993
ReplyDeleteThat's History from Below: Women's Underwear and the Rise of Women's Sports" Janet & Peter Phillips-Journal of Popular Culture 1993.
ReplyDeletefrom emily sans
Delete"the people in our earlier message boards have heard this story. i was finishing lunch in an outdoor cafe and i saw a really cute guy up at the register picking up a take out order. really cute and nice guy. the kind you see and wonder, hmm, is he good with kids? he likes women? lol! i'd seen him before a couple times.
"he glanced around as he waited. i was wearing a mid thigh black rayon skirt, so i thought maybe he'll look at my legs. he did, so without thinking i turned in my chair to grab my purse and did a slow sharon stone move. yes, i flashed him and made it look accidental. lol, it caught his attention. i glanced up and made eye contact as i closed my legs. i smiled the way you smile at a cute guy. he smiled, looking a little nervous. he took his order and left. i got up and paid my bill, and walked out trying to see where he went. there he was, at the bus stop. i thought, i don't really have to get back to my office right away, i could go on a bus ride. so i waited at the bus stop too, we made eye contact, and i said, they make great sandwiches there, to break the ice. yes, he's a regular, too. we chatted, got on the bus and sat next to each other and chatted some more. i introduced myself, he introduced himself, and i never let on that i knew i flashed him. finally i got him to ask me out so i gave him my phone number. and by then i had to get back to the office.
"emily"
But could your undies be causing you serious health problems? And is there a real case for eschewing them altogether?
DeleteSurprising as it may seem, growing numbers of women say they are quietly giving up on knickers for health reasons.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3573984/Women-say-key-good-health-NOT-wearing-knickers-sounds-extraordinary-evidence-surprising.html#ixzz4B17yLU00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The verdict seems pretty clear than "panties" are a relatively recent addition to fashion & serve little or no purpose, except to keep gynecologists treating veast infections fully employed, their retirement pensions fully funded. Get rid of panties & get healthy!
ReplyDeletequote The Only Way to Live
DeleteThat truth being I don’t wear underwear and nothing will make me go back. Nothing.?
It all started a few years ago, I was beginning to date a young woman and as one might imagine, I became acquainted with what her personal choice of under things tended to be; that choice being a whole lot of nothing. Being the curious man I am, I inquired about her constant lack of underwear when the time seemed right. She informed me that yes, indeed, she had not been wearing underwear for a few years and that she was never going back. ?
“WHAT? HOW?” I asked her, “I could never do such a thing. What about cleanliness? Won’t I sweat more? And what about support, won’t I miss the gentle “cradle of cotton” provided for me since birth?” Well, she knew little about this gentle cradling of jewels that went on inside men’s pants but she said that it’s much more comfortable, that things fit a little better, and this way she can save on buying lingerie or replacing underwear. I marveled at her rejection of modern society. I mean, I had always grown up knowing that men similar to me (such as Jay-Z) always prefer their women in “no panties and jeans, that’s so necessary,” but I hadn’t really encountered any who had taken Jigga Man’s gospel to heart. ?
That's YEAST INFECTIONS not veast - the Internet is full of typo's but at least the dangers of panties/ G-strings/ thongs are becoming better known!!! Pls see:
DeleteBut could your undies be causing you serious health problems? And is there a real case for eschewing them altogether?
Surprising as it may seem, growing numbers of women say they are quietly giving up on knickers for health reasons.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3573984/Women-say-key-good-health-NOT-wearing-knickers-sounds-extraordinary-evidence-surprising.html#ixzz4B17yLU00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
That's YEAST not VEAST butt either way Ditch Your Panties is a great article on how we are victims of fashion (& over-medication)
DeleteBut could your undies be causing you serious health problems? And is there a real case for eschewing them altogether?
Surprising as it may seem, growing numbers of women say they are quietly giving up on knickers for health reasons.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3573984/Women-say-key-good-health-NOT-wearing-knickers-sounds-extraordinary-evidence-surprising.html#ixzz4B17yLU00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
DITCH YOUR PANTIES---PERMANENTLY---FOR GOOD---NEVER WEAR THEM AGAIN --- crotch yeasties flourish in non-cotton, tight, or dirty clothes that trap heat and moisture. No doubt Xena, Warrior Princess, gets infections all the time from that leather underwear. Your absolutely best bet is to wear a skirt with no underwear or tights, and definitely avoid pantyhose. If you've ever had an urge to go for that sexy thigh-high stocking look but have been too shy, here's the excuse you've been looking for. And if you do wear underwear, your safest bet is unbleached, undyed cotton underwear and breathable clothes. It's a good idea to change your underpants regularly, like maybe once a day. If at all possible, don't sleep in underwear; if you do, put on clean stuff. Yeast can live in your underwear, so be sure to wash it well, particularly during and after a yeast infection.
ReplyDeletethe people in our earlier message boards have heard this story. i was finishing lunch in an outdoor cafe and i saw a really cute guy up at the register picking up a take out order. really cute and nice guy. the kind you see and wonder, hmm, is he good with kids? he likes women? lol! i'd seen him before a couple times.
ReplyDeletehe glanced around as he waited. i was wearing a mid thigh black rayon skirt, so i thought maybe he'll look at my legs. he did, so without thinking i turned in my chair to grab my purse and did a slow sharon stone move. yes, i flashed him and made it look accidental. lol, it caught his attention. i glanced up and made eye contact as i closed my legs. i smiled the way you smile at a cute guy. he smiled, looking a little nervous. he took his order and left. i got up and paid my bill, and walked out trying to see where he went. there he was, at the bus stop. i thought, i don't really have to get back to my office right away, i could go on a bus ride. so i waited at the bus stop too, we made eye contact, and i said, they make great sandwiches there, to break the ice. yes, he's a regular, too. we chatted, got on the bus and sat next to each other and chatted some more. i introduced myself, he introduced himself, and i never let on that i knew i flashed him. finally i got him to ask me out so i gave him my phone number. and by then i had to get back to the office.
emily
world's best cure/prevention for visible panty lines (VPL) & yeast infections (also allows plenty of freedom of movement & comfort, fresh air, airing out moisture, etc.) is pantiless. one wonders whoever invented panties in the 1st place ... they came on the scene thousands of years after skirts!
ReplyDeleteHISTORICAL NOTE: DON'T WEAR PANTIES
ReplyDeleteAugust 18, 2008
Underwear in the 18th Century
Posted by Alex Beecroft under Alex Beecroft, Georgian, history
[29] Comments
Underwear in the 18th Century.
As The Costumer’s Manifesto say:
Many authors of modern historical Romances have a way of meticulously costuming their 18th Century heroines for their activities in the ballroom and drawing rooms, but conveniently forgetting the awkwardness of such attire in the bedroom. In order to live up their racy titles and covers, Romantic fiction portrays 18th Century passion as occurring as rapidly as if every dress seam was merely closed with Velcro, and corsets were fastened with zippers.
This is obviously not a good thing, so here is a short run down of what 18th Century ladies and gentlemen would be wearing underneath their gorgeous outer clothes, and what that means in terms of bedroom activity.
Ladies first, naturally:
The basic undergarment is a shift (aka a ‘chemise’ if you’re French, or a ‘sark’ if you’re Scottish.) A woman in her shift is ‘undressed’ for the purposes of the 18th Century. Though covered, she would no more walk about in it than a modern woman would walk to town in bra and pants.
The shift comes to somewhere just below the knee – short enough so that it does not show under any of the petticoats. Nothing is worn underneath except for stockings. Knickers did begin to come in towards the end of the century, but were regarded as being for prostitutes and women of loose morals only.
August 18, 2008
ReplyDeleteUnderwear in the 18th Century
Posted by Alex Beecroft under Alex Beecroft, Georgian, history
[29] Comments
Underwear in the 18th Century.
As The Costumer’s Manifesto say:
........ CONTINUED .........
The basic undergarment is a shift (aka a ‘chemise’ if you’re French, or a ‘sark’ if you’re Scottish.) A woman in her shift is ‘undressed’ for the purposes of the 18th Century. Though covered, she would no more walk about in it than a modern woman would walk to town in bra and pants.
The shift comes to somewhere just below the knee – short enough so that it does not show under any of the petticoats. Nothing is worn underneath except for stockings. Knickers did begin to come in towards the end of the century, but were regarded as being for prostitutes and women of loose morals only.
Stockings are not the sheer, lacy-topped things we are accustomed to in the 21st Century. They are knitted like hiker’s socks. In the best cases, however, when they are knitted of fine silk, they can be fine as a thick pair of modern tights. They are put on like modern stockings, but there is no suspender belt to keep them up. Instead, garters are tied around the leg just below the knee, and the top of the stockings can be folded down to sit comfortably on top of it. This means that in practice ladies’ stockings look like knee-socks.
Once she’s got her stockings on, the next thing a lady would put on would be her shoes. It’s much easier to do it at this point, while she can still bend in the middle!
Next comes the first of her petticoats (pleated skirts)
Then on top of the first petticoat comes the stays (corset)
(These stays by http://www.TheStaymaker.co.uk).
These are laced up the back, ideally by someone else. If the laces are long enough, you can put the stays over your head while loosely laced and then tighten them up yourself, but it’s much harder to make sure the lacing is evenly tight throughout. An upper class woman will have a lady’s maid to do this for her, a lower class woman will either have to do it herself or have a mother/sister/daughter do it for her.
A woman wearing a single petticoat and stays over her shift is regarded as being dressed. That is, a working class woman who had no outer garments would not be chastised for being indecently dressed if that was all she wore. It would be a mark of extreme poverty, though, not to have at least one outer layer.
If the lady is upper class, she may now put on hoops or panniers, to give her that fashionable galleon in full sail look:
If she wears panniers, she’ll tie her pockets underneath them. If not, the pockets tie on directly over the stays. The pockets are little bags tied onto a ribbon which ties around the waist. The lady will be able to reach them through slits made in the sides of her upper petticoat.
They are very capacious. She could easily carry a little dagger in one of them without disturbing the line of her dress at all.
On top of that goes a second petticoat, with the slits lined up above the slits in the pockets.
On top of that goes a fichu – a large square neckerchief folded into a triangle with the point down the back, which protects the gown above it from the unwashed skin beneath. It also conceals the cleavage, for modesty, and protects the lady’s assets from the vulgar tanning effect of the sun.
On top of that goes either a gown or a short jacket
In this case the gown is being worn on top of a petticoat made of the same material as the gown. The ruffles are sewn onto the sleeves of the gown and are not part of the underclothes.
The gown will be pinned shut, possibly over an embroidered stomacher
The whole dressing process takes at least three quarters of an hour – more, if the lady is wearing higher status clothes. So it goes without saying that she will not be willing to undress lightly.
13 Reasons You Definitely Shouldn’t Wear Underwear This Summer
DeleteFriday, June 24, 2016 by Aliee Chan
One of my best friends recently encouraged me to stop wearing underwear – and I immediately knew I had to share the info with you guys. She had just become a spin instructor, and I was complaining about how uncomfortable it is for your vagina to spin… or to work out, in general. She’s a trainer, so she works with all sorts of sweaty bodies doing all sorts of sweat-inducing things all day. Girl knows what’s up! So when she suggested that I stop wearing underwear when I exercise, I listened… and lo and behold, it has changed the game. And I’m not just talking about in terms of exercise – I’ve started going commando a lot more in my life, and it’s been awesome. Especially with summer coming, you’re going to be thankful you made the move to the panties-free life (at least for some occasions).
Summer has many of the same trappings of exercise: it makes your vagina sweaty and you have to lounge around in your icky clothes for longer than you’d like, leading to an increased risk for vaginal infection and irritation. Not okay. Summer is all about being carefree, having fun with your friends, and carving out some time to relax. How are you going to do that and manage a weird ass yeast infection from your yoga pants? Stop wearing yoga pants? Yeah right. I know we’re taught from when we’re very little that underwear is super important and that it keeps your body healthy, which is true to an extent. When you have your period or are wearing a short dress or skirt (think risk of bare vag on public transit), it’s probably best to wear a layer there, but even then, that’s only if you feel like it.
We all know that bras are weird and restrictive, so can we all be real about how awkward your underwear can be sometimes? If you’ve never gone for a run wearing underwear, then let me tell you: it’s very uncomfortable. Summer is about to make your vagina go through some weird stuff, so it’s in your best interest to protect it by just letting it do it’s thing. It’s totally safe and not weird at all, I promise. Here are 13 reasons you shouldn’t wear underwear this summer.
1) Moisture wicking activewear dries faster than cotton undies.
Think about it: that fabric is designed to wick sweat away from the rest of your body when you work out. The fabric of most underwear takes longer to get rid of sweat than the rest of your activewear, and lingering sweat can easily lead to an infection. Remove the underwear, and let your athleisure do its job. Are you thinking about trying it this summer? What about when you work out? Let us know how it goes in the comments!
You can follow the author, Aliee Chan, on Twitter.
Read more: http://www.gurl.com/2016/06/24/reasons-you-shouldnt-wear-underwear-this-summer/#ixzz4Cic6BYJK
13 reasons not to wear underwear especially "panties"
Delete2) Chronic swamp ass evaporates in an instant without underwear.
BYE, SWEATY BUTT. See ya never! We all hate that feeling and it’s your underwear’s fault for holding that sweat so close to your body for entirely too long.
3) It keeps you cool.
That uncomfortably hot feeling? Not sexy. It’s like you have gym-vag constantly.
4) There’s less bacteria.
Hot, moist environments are perfect spots for yeast and bacteria to start growing and multiplying. If there’s no underwear, it’s harder to get that spot (unless you have no underwear on while wearing jeans and you start sweating).
5) You should let it breathe.
Easy, breezy, beautiful. Keeping everything well ventilated is going to be key in the summer.
6) You’ll smell less.
A vagina will always smell (and taste) like vagina, but there’s no denying that going commando decreases the um… pungency. The extra air allows your vag to breathe, cuts down on bacteria, and then cuts down on the smell.
7) NO VISIBLE PANTY LINES.
PRAISE. Imagine wearing a tight skirt or pants and not worrying about whether or not your thong is going to stick out the top or your bikini style is totally obvious. Glorious.
8) No more weird wedgies.
Picking thongs out of your butt crack, underwear bunching up in your butt – god forbid your underwear start riding up in the front. If you’re not wearing underwear, you don’t need to worry about any of that!
9) There’s no underwear sticking out of your pants.
Bane of my existence.
10) It saves money.
You’re supposed to replace underwear quite often if you wear it all the time. But if you get less wear out of it, it lasts longer. This means you can keep it longer, and cut down on your underwear shopping. Excellent!
11) It makes public peeing so much easier.
We’ve all popped a squat from time to time. Don’t pretend that most of those times aren’t in the summer. If it hasn’t happened to you already, it’s about to. Sometimes a girl just needs to squat down and pee when she’s out and can’t find a proper bathroom. One less layer, right?
12) It’s a fun secret.
Tee hee, no one knows you’re not wearing any underwear.
13) You are no longer prisoner to laundry day.
Oh, the eternal hell of having no underwear and having to wash all of your clothes because of it. Um, how about not? It’s the summer, who’s got time for that? Not you.
Would you ever go commando? Are you thinking about trying it this summer? What about when you work out? Let us know how it goes in the comments!
You can follow the author, Aliee Chan, on Twitter.
Read more: http://www.gurl.com/2016/06/24/reasons-you-shouldnt-wear-underwear-this-summer/#ixzz4Cic6BYJK
you will get rid of panty-lines forever if you have a "panty burning" party & eliminate panties, thongs, G-strings & other
Delete"instruments of torture" & disease, discomfort, etc. from your wardrobe ( & budget) ... as may have said, panties are a billion dollar "racket" to make women feel they have to buy & bear a useless ... un-natural, even harmful product. They should be labeled "Warning this product is hazardous to your health" not to mention uncomfortable ... painful (cheese-wire thongs)& totally useless
from V&A Museum
ReplyDeleteShift (with Stays)
Dublin Core
Title
Shift (with Stays)
Subject
Women's undergarments
Description
"Women’s underwear served two purposes in the 18th century. The first function, carried out by the shift or smock, was to protect the clothing from the body, in an age when daily bathing was not customary. Made of very fine linen, the shift was the first garment put on when dressing. Over the shift went the linen stays, heavily reinforced with strips of whalebone. Their purpose was to mould the torso to the fashionable shape and provide a rigid form on which the gown could be arranged and fastened. The hoops were also made of linen and stiffened with whalebone or cane. They shaped the petticoat of the gown to the appropriate silhouette. At various times in the 18th century this profile varied from round, to square and flat, to fan-shaped." (from VAM)
Panties or knickers, of course, wouldn't be invented (along with elastic&a lot of other stuff to hobble&restrict&exclude women) for more than a few hundred years!
DeleteWhen Going Commando Is a Good Idea
ReplyDeletePrinter-friendly version
By Laura Tedesco
When Going Commando Is a Good Idea
Getty Images
Gynecologists often recommend slipping off your panties while you sleep, as a way to let your vulva breathe (and potentially reduce your risk of infections). Yet only 18 percent of women actually follow this advice, according to a new Brazilian study. “I often tell my patients to sleep without underwear, and some of them look at me like I have three heads,” says Alyssa Dweck, M.D., co-author of V is for Vagina. “They’re concerned about vaginal discharge—that you’re supposed to have a barrier. Wearing no underwear might seem kind of gross to them.”
But it’s actually a smart idea to ditch your undies at night, since your lady parts are naturally moist, dark, and hairy. “If [the area] is constantly covered—especially by a fabric that’s not moisture-wicking or absorbent—moisture collects,” says Dweck. “That’s a perfect breeding ground for bacteria or yeast.” That’s why she recommends going commando at least some of the time, especially if you’re frequently plagued by infections below the belt.
RELATED: 7 Underwear Facts That Might Surprise You
Can’t imagine sleeping sans panties? Choose a loose-fitting cotton pair (no spandex or Lycra!), or borrow a pair of comfy boxers from your guy. “If there’s ever a time to break out the granny panties, this would be the time,” says Dweck.
You can air things out during the day too—without necessarily going commando: If you constantly wear pantyliners (you never know when your period might show up!), give those a rest, since the material isn’t very breathable. And consider cutting the crotch out of your pantyhose to make them less restricting to your lady parts, Dweck suggests. (Really—it works!)
See: The Unofficial Underwear Issue - Creative Loafing Charlotte
ReplyDeleteWHERE DID THE IDEA OF PANTIES OR KNICKERS EVER COME FRM IN THE FIRST PLACE? FROM THE INTERNET:"Prior to the French Revolution, women simply wore heavy skirts with petticoats under their dresses. It was only in the Regency era when pantaloons were invented, that a need to cover up and keep warm was instigated. Early forms of underwear were very long and similar in style to ankle-length men’s trousers. As time went on and fashions changed, so knickers and underwear developed until by the 1970’s ‘no leg’ knickers were born and have continued to be adapted into smaller and smaller versions ever since."
DeleteThe way "knickers" r getting smaller and smaller, it won't b much of a surprise when women figure it out that they should eliminated completely for everyday wear ... and better yet completely and permanently passé!
DeleteWhoever first thought of putting on "panties" or "drawers" -- apparently somewhere in Paris after an on-stage accident caused a "stir" -- was imposed by some male lawyers or whatever. The sooner we make panty-burning-parties the norm & get rid of them (including thongs & g-strings & whatever covers things up for growing yeast "Down There") the better. Such "things" have always been optional (off stage) & the sooner the requirement is eliminated the better!
ReplyDeleteLikewise, hooray for tampons, getting rid of any necessity to "cover up" what's natural (& quite beautiful courtesy of Mother Nature).
Click for more pictures - Pin to your Collection
ReplyDeleteaAfkjfp01fo1i-5922/loc1012/38927_BS101007Candids002_123_1012lo.jpg
From the Internet-A VERY HISTORY OF PANTIES (there really isn't any because there weren't any)
ReplyDeleteEarly Panties
Roman women sometimes wore panties called subligaculum. However after the fall of Rome women did not usually wear panties until the end of the 18th century. Their only underwear was a long linen garment called a shift, which they wore under their dress. In modern times women panties were invented again at the very end of the 18th century. (At first they were called drawers). In the 19th century panties came to below the knee.
Today we still say a pair of panties. That is because in the early 19th century women's underwear consisted to two separate legs joined at the waist. They really were a 'pair'. At first panties were usually very plain but in the late 19th century they were sometimes decorated with lace and bands. In the 1860s some women began to wear colored drawers although white remained very common. In the 19th century panties were usually made of cotton though some women wore wool in the winter. In the 19th century panties were sometimes called bloomers. A woman named Elizabeth Miller invented loose trousers to be worn by women. After 1849 Amelia Bloomer promoted the idea and they became known as bloomers after her. In time underwear became known as bloomers. The word lingerie is derived from the French word for linen, lin. However in the early 20th century lingerie came to mean pretty underwear.
Modern Panties
From the early 20th century women's underwear began to be called panties rather than drawers. (The word panties is derived from pants. It was first recorded in 1908). In Britain and Australia panties are usually called knickers. Our word lingerie is derived from the French word for linen, lin. Lingerie were things made of linen. In the 19th century panties were usually open between the legs but in the early 20th century closed panties replaced them. In 1910 panties were made of rayon for the first time. From the mid 20th century panties were also made of nylon. In the 19th century panties came down to the knee. In the 1920s they became shorter, down to the mid-calf. By the 1940s and 1950s panties had become shorter still.
Meanwhile in 1949 an American tennis player named Gertrude Moran or Gussie Moran (1923-) caused a sensation when she appeared at Wimbledon wearing frilly panties. She was known as Gorgeous Gussie and it was very daring in 1949! In the late 20th century panties grew smaller. In the 1990s thongs became popular. At the beginning of the 21st century boy shorts became popular. Meanwhile pantyhose was invented in 1959.
A timeline of bras and panties
A brief history of women's clothes
A brief history of cosmetics
A brief history of bras
A VERY BRIEF HISTORY - THERE ISN'T ANY "PANTY" OR "KINCKERS" HISTORY BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY!
ReplyDeleteEarly Panties
Roman women sometimes wore panties called subligaculum. However after the fall of Rome women did not usually wear panties until the end of the 18th century. Their only underwear was a long linen garment called a shift, which they wore under their dress. In modern times women panties were invented again at the very end of the 18th century. (At first they were called drawers). In the 19th century panties came to below the knee.
Today we still say a pair of panties. That is because in the early 19th century women's underwear consisted to two separate legs joined at the waist. They really were a 'pair'. At first panties were usually very plain but in the late 19th century they were sometimes decorated with lace and bands. In the 1860s some women began to wear colored drawers although white remained very common. In the 19th century panties were usually made of cotton though some women wore wool in the winter. In the 19th century panties were sometimes called bloomers. A woman named Elizabeth Miller invented loose trousers to be worn by women. After 1849 Amelia Bloomer promoted the idea and they became known as bloomers after her. In time underwear became known as bloomers. The word lingerie is derived from the French word for linen, lin. However in the early 20th century lingerie came to mean pretty underwear.
Modern Panties
From the early 20th century women's underwear began to be called panties rather than drawers. (The word panties is derived from pants. It was first recorded in 1908). In Britain and Australia panties are usually called knickers. Our word lingerie is derived from the French word for linen, lin. Lingerie were things made of linen. In the 19th century panties were usually open between the legs but in the early 20th century closed panties replaced them. In 1910 panties were made of rayon for the first time. From the mid 20th century panties were also made of nylon. In the 19th century panties came down to the knee. In the 1920s they became shorter, down to the mid-calf. By the 1940s and 1950s panties had become shorter still.
Meanwhile in 1949 an American tennis player named Gertrude Moran or Gussie Moran (1923-) caused a sensation when she appeared at Wimbledon wearing frilly panties. She was known as Gorgeous Gussie and it was very daring in 1949! In the late 20th century panties grew smaller. In the 1990s thongs became popular. At the beginning of the 21st century boy shorts became popular. Meanwhile pantyhose was invented in 1959.
A timeline of bras and panties
A brief history of women's clothes
A brief history of cosmetics
A brief history of bras
"The whole idea of a skirt is to be bare underneath; to feel the air'
ReplyDelete"The whole idea of a skirt is to be bare underneath; to feel the air"
ReplyDeleteDid anybody see/catch the latest "Depends" ad on TV, showing everybody's "Doing It" ... running around in their underwear ... The "message" buried in all of this appears to be that it's time to get rid of wash&wear underwear/ panties/ jockey shorts of whatever/or/wet-ever in favor of disposable underwear ... wear & toss ... the Klenex approach to what you wear underneath everything else! Sure saves washing! Panties will be "gone, gone, gone" permanently with this approach!!
ReplyDeleteSure saves soap & water & washing ... but what about the solid waste situation? ...... maybe soon we'll be recycling the Depends?? ... I guess all ofmiy "It Depends" on getting rid of panties permanently!
ReplyDeleteIndeed, no panties has definitely caught on in fashion ... in the "olden days" women wore a chemise ... plenty of petticoats & layers over it but nothing under it to keep out sunshine, fresh/clean air or keep/trap moisture & germs in! Our ancestors were pretty smart!!!
ReplyDeleteWhere did we go wrong? ... it was just a matter of fashion slavery/follow the leader over the cliff/bandwagon appeal/ everybody's (supposedly) doing "it" ... or so it would appear .....
ReplyDeleteNow, on the other hand, it's time for panties to dis-appear & go back to no-nonsense/ no nothing (& all the healthier --- See Pantiless in NYC about the CURE rather than the TREATMENT for yeast & other infections/conditions) "down there."
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Museum of Menstruation, women’s underwear as we know it today (close fitting briefs), didn’t exist until the 1930s. Of course there was the pair in the Austrian floorboards, but it is safe to assume that, tucked away as they were, they did not influence 20th century fashions. The first mention of “briefs” (so brief! Barely pantaloons at all!) the museum could find was in the Sears Roebuck catalog of 1935, where special mention was made that they were “every day” briefs. This harkens back to the nuanced world of menstruation containment. Before women wore fitted underpants every day, they wore them only monthly, to keep pads in place. Some historians believe the menstrual brief was designed based on diapers, which in turn inspired the prototype of all modern women’s underwear.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Museum of Menstruation, women’s underwear as we know it today (close fitting briefs), didn’t exist until the 1930s. Of course there was the pair in the Austrian floorboards, but it is safe to assume that, tucked away as they were, they did not influence 20th century fashions. The first mention of “briefs” (so brief! Barely pantaloons at all!) the museum could find was in the Sears Roebuck catalog of 1935, where special mention was made that they were “every day” briefs. This harkens back to the nuanced world of menstruation containment. Before women wore fitted underpants every day, they wore them only monthly, to keep pads in place. Some historians believe the menstrual brief was designed based on diapers, ..... which in turn inspired the prototype of all modern women’s underwear.
ReplyDeleteJust Google
ReplyDeleteThe Chemise, Shift or Smock
The Chemise, Shift or Smock
ReplyDeleteSTYLES - FABRICS - DECORATION
The chemise, shift or smock was the innermost layer of the medieval lady's dresses, much like a petticoat or slip of our grandmother's day. It was worn next to the skin to absorb bodily odors and keep the outer layers smelling fresher for longer. Great robes, houppelandes and kirtles could be heavily embellished with embroidery and semiprecious stones, so it was wise to keep the laundering of the outer robes to a minimum.
In 1313, Anicia atte Hegge, a widow from Hampshire, made a will on the surrendering of her holding to her son which included the stipulation that she would be provided with various items of clothing including a chemise worth 8d each year.
Styles
There appear to be three distinctly different styles of chemise or smock. Contemporary illustrations usually show men and women naked in the bedchamber, but occasionally show women modestly in their underclothes. From these images, and from existing garments we can deduce what was worn under the outer clothing.
There appear to be three distinctly different styles of chemise or smock. Contemporary illustrations usually show men and women naked in the bedchamber, but occasionally show women modestly in their underclothes. From these images, and from existing garments we can deduce what was worn under the outer clothing.
ReplyDeleteThe first style seems to be made of an opaque fabric, probably linen, constructed with fitted sleeves and not overly shaped through the body. It can be seen at right in the detail from the early 1400's illumination Dionysus I humiliates the women of Locri. The woman are in the process of removing their outer clothing and the chemise shown appears to be a reasonable thickness, probably linen.
The second type of chemise appears to be a strapless or shoe-string strap type of petticoat-like dress which could vary in length from knee to shin length. The detail at left is taken from the Wenceslas Bible, dated around 1390-1400. It shows two women in their underclothes tending to a man in a bath.
ReplyDeleteThere are also quite a few bathing images from 14th century Bohemian manuscripts where women are shown with a wooden bucket and wearing a chemise. Some of these are semi-opaque but others, like the detail shown at right, are quite sheer. Almost all of these are of a similar style- a garment with thin shoulder straps and no sleeves.
The third style of chemise seems to have persisted from through to the renaissance where it was clearly visible through slashed clothing and at necklines. It is a more voluminous style, has puffed sleeves and appears to be made of a finer type of fabric than the opaque linens previously worn by women. It seems unlikely that this particular style would have been favoured by ladies who preferred the more form-fitting kirtles, and was possibly the choice of those who preferred the more voluminous houppelandes of the 15th century.
ReplyDeleteFabrics
It would appear that the most common fabric used for the chemise or smock are linens of varying qualities according to the social position of the wearer and the finances available. According to Francoise Piponnier and Perrine Mane in their book, Dress In The Middle Ages, peasants and the less affluent would have worn hemp underclothes which were less expensive than linen. The detail at right from the 1330-40 painting Scenes From The Life Of St John The Baptist appears to show a fabric of reasonable weight and stiffness suggesting linen.
Fabrics
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that the most common fabric used for the chemise or smock are linens of varying qualities according to the social position of the wearer and the finances available. According to Francoise Piponnier and Perrine Mane in their book, Dress In The Middle Ages, peasants and the less affluent would have worn hemp underclothes which were less expensive than linen. The detail at right from the 1330-40 painting Scenes From The Life Of St John The Baptist appears to show a fabric of reasonable weight and stiffness suggesting linen.
In several instances we hear of noblewomen who become nuns and renounce their silken underthings. According to one written reference, a noble lady took up a hair shirt to replace her underclothes of silk as part of her penitence. This suggests that ladies of high society may have enjoyed luxurious silken chemises.
Decoration
Generally, the chemise during the medieval period is depicted as plain and white. Later in the Renaissance, many had blackwork embroidered at the neckline and sleeves. It does appear, however, that the chemise during the medieval period may have been decorated at least sometimes.
In the 13th century, we read a poem by an unknown author who laments the Sumptuary Laws and the restrictions on her clothing and in particular, her chemise. She says that she can no longer wear her white chemise which is richly embroidered with silk in bright colours and gold and silver. She bemoans:
Alas, I dare not wear it!
indicating not only that in her time period at least, the chemise could be richly embroidered with silk and precious metal thread and also that the Sumptuary Laws which were often largely ignored, were partially effective at times. It also indicates that her chemise may have been seen and was not entirely concealed by her outer clothing. Shown at right is a detail from 1484 Master Of The Housebook's The Uncourtly Lovers which shows a chemise decorated with gold and pearls.
In 1298 the Consol of Narbonne passed a law against laced outer dresses which allowed the pleated and embroidered under-chemise to show. This tells us that at that period, at least, the chemise could also be pleated and embroidered. For a law to passed, it stands to reason that it must be an occurance common enough for it to be a concern.
Spencer Jacket:
ReplyDeleteThe Spencer Jacket was an item peculiar to the Regency period which went well with the empire waist gown. It was very fitted, had either a standing or flat collar and could have short or long sleeves. The bottom of the jacket conformed level with the high waist of the gown. Spencer Jackets were often made of linen though wool or silk could be used.
Stockings:
Stockings were often silk or cotton and came up to thigh level.
Shoes:
Low shoes similar to modern lace-up ballet slippers were used as were leather, lace-up shoes with a heel.
Hats and Bonnets:
The poke bonnet was the very popular, signature headwear for ladies of the period. It was long and scoop shaped, sometimes compared unfavorably to a coal scuttle in appearance. Critics of the era’s fashions (often older folks who longed for the “good old days” of the 18th century) represented women in both satire and cartoon as running about in their underwear (lightweight, diaphanous gowns) with comically long headwear (poke bonnets) for hiding their faces in!
Straw “cartwheel” hats, often plumed, were very popular both before and into the 1790s and would have a resurgence in popularity in future decades as well. Turbans and ostrich feathers were quite in vogue for a time, particularly for formal occasions, as were diadems.
Hair:
Ladies’ hair was quite fashionable when piled high on the head in a classically inspired style with hanging wisps, curly bangs and ringlets about the face.
Accessories:
Small purses which shut by means of a drawstring were popular. Jewelry was worn but for most women tended to be less ostentatious than that of their 18th century counterparts. For example, a small gold, silver or pewter cross on a short, simple chain worn around the neck was considered very tasteful and was the height of fashion during the first two decades of the 19th century. In fact, Jane Austen herself wore just such an item. Hand painted miniatures, (cameos with portraits painted on them) were popular as well.
© 2001-2006 Please Note: This article and webpage are the copyrighted property of the author and may not be copied or reproduced in part or in whole without express written consent.
We Make History Main Page
Email to Lord Scott
We Make History
Presents
An Introduction to
Ladies' Fashions
of the Regency Era
by
Lord Scott
We Make History
ReplyDeletePresents
An Introduction to
Ladies' Fashions
of the Regency Era
by
Lord Scott
The era spanning from the 1790s to the 1820s saw an emphasis on elegance and simplicity which was motivated by the democratic ideals of the French Republic but which looked back to classical Greece and Rome for its fashion inspiration. Waists were high, the directional emphasis was vertical, and lightweight white fabrics were at the height of fashions which were so simple that the lady of the time often wore only three garments; a chemise, a corset and a gown! This was an incredible contrast to the clothing of preceding and succeeding periods with their horizontal emphases, multiple layers and often heavy fabrics.
We Make History
ReplyDeletePresents
An Introduction to
Ladies' Fashions
of the Regency Era
by
Lord Scott
ONLY THREE GARMENTS
The era spanning from the 1790s to the 1820s saw an emphasis on elegance and simplicity which was motivated by the democratic ideals of the French Republic but which looked back to classical Greece and Rome for its fashion inspiration. Waists were high, the directional emphasis was vertical, and lightweight white fabrics were at the height of fashions which were so simple that the lady of the time often wore only three garments; a chemise, a corset and a gown! This was an incredible contrast to the clothing of preceding and succeeding periods with their horizontal emphases, multiple layers and often heavy fabrics.
FYI on Smthsonian
ReplyDeleteAs the saying goes: History of Panties? There Isn't Any!!! -- A very, very recent addition/ imposition on women's fashion ... & judging from yeast infections, caused by panties, something long overdue to be discarded in favor of women's freedom from fashion slavery -- See also The Cost of Owning a Vagina (& Maintaining It).
Did Native Americans wear undergarments before contact with Europeans?
Kathleen Kelley
Sugarland, Texas
Not really—but then, neither did Europeans wear underwear before contact with Native Americans. American Indian men and women wore loin- or breechcloths, which might be considered undergarments or outer garments, depending on climate and tribal lifestyle. But what we deem “going commando” today was more the norm until the 18th century—among native peoples and Europeans.
Adrienne Smith (Cherokee/Muscogee Nations of Oklahoma)
Manager, ImagiNATIONS Activity Center, National Museum of the American Indian
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/the-history-of-going-commando-and-more-questions-from-our-readers-74338606/#ilWIgrwpL40UYCJo.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
For Reference
DeleteQuote
"the people in our earlier message boards have heard this story. i was finishing lunch in an outdoor cafe and i saw a really cute guy up at the register picking up a take out order. really cute and nice guy. the kind you see and wonder, hmm, is he good with kids? he likes women? lol! i'd seen him before a couple times.
"he glanced around as he waited. i was wearing a mid thigh black rayon skirt, so i thought maybe he'll look at my legs. he did, so without thinking i turned in my chair to grab my purse and did a slow sharon stone move. yes, i flashed him and made it look accidental. lol, it caught his attention. i glanced up and made eye contact as i closed my legs. i smiled the way you smile at a cute guy. he smiled, looking a little nervous. he took his order and left. i got up and paid my bill, and walked out trying to see where he went. there he was, at the bus stop. i thought, i don't really have to get back to my office right away, i could go on a bus ride. so i waited at the bus stop too, we made eye contact, and i said, they make great sandwiches there, to break the ice. yes, he's a regular, too. we chatted, got on the bus and sat next to each other and chatted some more. i introduced myself, he introduced himself, and i never let on that i knew i flashed him. finally i got him to ask me out so i gave him my phone number. and by then i had to get back to the office. emily
Panties? Un-necessary, un-healthy & a needless burden to keep clean versus bathing & good hygiene. Perhaps useful when sanitary napkins or menstrual rags were "popular" but for most rural folks, squat & pee (or whatever) requires LES not more covering up What's Up Down There.
ReplyDeleteThe way knickers, panties, G-strings, thongs or dental floss coverings are going, smaller & unfortunately tighter & more uncomfortable every time a new style reveals itself ... there won't be anything left to remove (except fur or muff) & panties will be a matter of putting them on or off on display at museums of popular/ quaint/ curious items of history & so called culture.
In short, with decent heating & sanitation, getting rid of panties is going back to the way things were historically --- chemise only --- no drawers, no nothing to constrain one's self ... the sooner & the less covering a woman's whatever-you-call-it, the better!
Whatever you call it? How about "freedom" of fashion / freedom from fashion slavery? Just keep your knees together & your eyes down & it's nobody's business but your own what's going on down there!
ReplyDeleteUsed to be, if a young man was caught "peeking up" a woman's skirts (thus the custom of double stairways leading up to the front door), he was expected to ask her to marry him ... or become a social outcast. Chances are the young lady's (& her family's) response to such a proposal would be "Thanks for offering her nothing worth having," but that's how hoop skirts worked in the old days!
bestest without panties
ReplyDeleteFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ReplyDeleteThe term chemise or shift can refer to the classic smock, or else can refer to certain modern types of women's undergarments and dresses. In the classical use it is a simple garment worn next to the skin to protect clothing from sweat and body oils, the precursor to the modern shirts commonly worn in Western nations.
Chemise is a French term (which today simply means shirt). This is a cognate of the Italian word camicia, and the Spanish / Portuguese language word camisa (subsequently borrowed as kameez by Hindi / Urdu / Hindustani), all deriving ultimately from the Latin camisia, itself coming from Celtic. (The Romans avidly imported cloth and clothes from the Celts.)[1] The English called the same shirt a smock.
A modern-day chemise
In modern usage, a chemise is generally a woman's garment that vaguely resembles the older shirts but is typically more delicate, and usually more revealing. Most commonly the term refers to a loose-fitting, sleeveless undergarment or type of lingerie which is unfitted at the waist. It can also refer to a short, sleeveless dress that hangs straight from the shoulders and fits loosely at the waist. A chemise typically does not have any buttons or other fasteners and is put on by either dropping it over the head or stepping into it and lifting it up.
As lingerie, a chemise is similar to a babydoll, which is also a short, loose-fitting, sleeveless garment. Typically, though, babydolls are looser fitting at the hips.
This chemise or shift of the 1830s has elbow-length sleeves and is worn under a corset and petticoats.
The chemise seems to have developed from the Roman tunica and first became popular in Europe in the Middle Ages. Women wore a shift or chemise under their gown or robe; while men wore a chemise with their trousers or braies, and covered the chemises with garments such as doublets, robes, etc.
Until the late 18th century, a chemise referred to an undergarment. It was the only underwear worn until the end of Regency period in the 1820s,[2] and was usually the only piece of clothing that was washed regularly.
In the 1810s, the term came also to be applied to an outergarment.[3] In Western countries, the chemise as an undergarment fell out of fashion in the early 20th century, and was generally replaced by a brassiere, girdle, and full slip, and panties first came to be worn.
Men's chemises may be said to have survived as the common T-shirt, which still serves as an undergarment. The chemise also morphed into the smock-frock, a garment worn by English laborers until the early 20th century. Its loose cut and wide sleeves were well adapted to heavy labor. The name smock is nowadays still used for military combat jackets in the UK, whereas in the Belgian army the term has been corrupted to smoke-vest.[citation needed]
A chemise, shift, or smock was usually sewn at home, by the women of a household. It was assembled from rectangles and triangles cut from one piece of cloth so as to leave no waste. The poor would wear skimpy chemises pieced from a narrow piece of rough cloth; while the rich might have voluminous chemises pieced from thin, smooth fine linen.
See also[edit]
Camisole
Kirtle
Shalwar kameez
Slip (clothing)
Smock
BathingSuit1920s.jpgFashion portal
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Barber, Elizabeth Wayland (1994). Women's Work: The first 20,000 Years. Norton & Company, New York. p.137. ISBN 0-393-31348-4.
2.Jump up ^ An Introduction to Ladies' Fashions of the Regency Era
3.Jump up ^ Chemise dress
Cut My Cote, by Dorothy Burnham, Royal Ontario Museum, 1973. ISBN 978-0-88854-046-1. A survey of shirt patterns over the ages, with diagrams.
"A Plain Linen Shift: Plain Sewing Makes the Most of Your Fabric", by Kathleen R. Smith, Threads Magazine, Feb/Mar 1987.
External links[edit]
Look up chemise in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
How to make an 18th century chemise
Women's smocks in the 13th-15th centuries
18th century women's shifts
GOING COMMANDO
DeleteQUOTE
That truth being I don’t wear underwear and nothing will make me go back. Nothing.?
It all started a few years ago, I was beginning to date a young woman and as one might imagine, I became acquainted with what her personal choice of under things tended to be; that choice being a whole lot of nothing. Being the curious man I am, I inquired about her constant lack of underwear when the time seemed right. She informed me that yes, indeed, she had not been wearing underwear for a few years and that she was never going back. ?
“WHAT? HOW?” I asked her, “I could never do such a thing. What about cleanliness? Won’t I sweat more? And what about support, won’t I miss the gentle “cradle of cotton” provided for me since birth?” Well, she knew little about this gentle cradling of jewels that went on inside men’s pants but she said that it’s much more comfortable, that things fit a little better, and this way she can save on buying lingerie or replacing underwear. I marveled at her rejection of modern society. I mean, I had always grown up knowing that men similar to me (such as Jay-Z) always prefer their women in “no panties and jeans, that’s so necessary,” but I hadn’t really encountered any who had taken Jigga Man’s gospel to heart. ?
The era spanning from the 1790s to the 1820s saw an emphasis on elegance and simplicity which was motivated by the democratic ideals of the French Republic but which looked back to classical Greece and Rome for its fashion inspiration. Waists were high, the directional emphasis was vertical, and lightweight white fabrics were at the height of fashions which were so simple that the lady of the time often wore only three garments; a chemise, a corset and a gown! This was an incredible contrast to the clothing of preceding and succeeding periods with their horizontal emphases, multiple layers and often heavy fabrics.
ReplyDeleteChemise:
The chemise was the only ladies' undergarment used during the era. (Panties would not be developed until the 20th century and pantalets were not in vogue until Victorian times.) The chemise was simply constructed of linen or cotton. In modern terms its appearance was similar to a long blouse or short nightgown.
Stockings:
Stockings were often silk or cotton and came up to thigh level.
© 2001-2006 Please Note: This article and webpage are the copyrighted property of the author and may not be copied or reproduced in part or in whole without express written consent.
We Make History Main Page
Email to Lord Scott
We Make History
Presents
An Introduction to
The era spanning from the 1790s to the 1820s saw an emphasis on elegance and simplicity which was motivated by the democratic ideals of the French Republic but which looked back to classical Greece and Rome for its fashion inspiration. Waists were high, the directional emphasis was vertical, and lightweight white fabrics were at the height of fashions which were so simple that the lady of the time often wore only three garments; a chemise, a corset and a gown! This was an incredible contrast to the clothing of preceding and succeeding periods with their horizontal emphases, multiple layers and often heavy fabrics.
DeleteChemise:
The chemise was the only ladies' undergarment used during the era. (Panties would not be developed until the 20th century and pantalets were not in vogue until Victorian times.) The chemise was simply constructed of linen or cotton. In modern terms its appearance was similar to a long blouse or short nightgown.
Gown or Dress:
The gown was at least ankle length and had a very high “empire” waist. Some bodices scooped quite low in front and/or back while others were more moderate. Some had trains in the rear which were pinned up while dancing. The sleeves could be short or wrist length as each style was popular at different times. Even a few sleeveless gowns were seen early in the period. The fabric was usually light in color with solid white being the favorite of the era. Small patterns and vertical stripes were also used. Good fabric choices would be lightweight such as cotton batiste, lightweight cotton muslin or a silk such as charmeuse that isn’t too stiff but has a good “drape” to it. Sometimes a very light semi-transparent overdress was worn on top of the main article. White cotton voile or silk chiffon might be good fabrics for such an option. Trim could be in the form of piping, metallic braid or ribbon.
Spencer Jacket:
The Spencer Jacket was an item peculiar to the Regency period which went well with the empire waist gown. It was very fitted, had either a standing or flat collar and could have short or long sleeves. The bottom of the jacket conformed level with the high waist of the gown. Spencer Jackets were often made of linen though wool or silk could be used.
Stockings:
Stockings were often silk or cotton and came up to thigh level.
Shoes:
Low shoes similar to modern lace-up ballet slippers were used as were leather, lace-up shoes with a heel.
Hats and Bonnets:
The poke bonnet was the very popular, signature headwear for ladies of the period. It was long and scoop shaped, sometimes compared unfavorably to a coal scuttle in appearance. Critics of the era’s fashions (often older folks who longed for the “good old days” of the 18th century) represented women in both satire and cartoon as running about in their underwear (lightweight, diaphanous gowns) with comically long headwear (poke bonnets) for hiding their faces in!
Straw “cartwheel” hats, often plumed, were very popular both before and into the 1790s and would have a resurgence in popularity in future decades as well. Turbans and ostrich feathers were quite in vogue for a time, particularly for formal occasions, as were diadems.
© 2001-2006 Please Note: This article and webpage are the copyrighted property of the author and may not be copied or reproduced in part or in whole without express written consent.
We Make History Main Page
Email to Lord Scott
We Make History
Presents
An Introduction to
From the Internet "You will be surprised to know how many people prefer not to wear underwear on the daily basis. Some think it is gross while others believe it is quite normal to go without anything down there to almost any place, including office. People have different opinions, but what do doctors say about it? Let’s discuss pros and cons of not wearing underwear.
Deletegirl-without-underwear
Pros Of Not Wearing Underwear
•Skipping your underwear has a few practical advantages. First of all when you don’t wear anything under your dress, skirt or pants, you eliminate visible panty lines (But you can avoid those by wearing a G-string, for example.), which is especially important if you choose to don a very revealing dress (Remember Anya Rubik’s gown at the 2012 Met Gala?).
•You get better air circulation when you don’t wear underwear. Underwear tends to trap heat and moisture and hold it against your skin. This can result in jock itch in men and vaginal yeast infections in women. (But if you wear cotton underwear this is unlikely to happen.)
•We know it sounds ridiculous (but for some it can be a big problem!) but if you don’t wear panties you’ll never run out of clean underwear.
•Many people consider it sexy to appear in public without underwear. Some even compare it with wearing stockings – no one knows about it but everyone supposes it can be true. (Besides, if your man suddenly gets to know you’re pantyless he’ll start burning with desire!)...." more on Internet
see:Lifestyle
ReplyDelete11 Reasons to Go Pantiless
By Julia Berman | July 28, 2014
panty free = yeast & lifestyle free
ReplyDeleteSome facts about European underwear, 1700 - 1900, and its
ReplyDeleterelationship to what women used for menstruation
(Part 2, Part 3)
In brief - how's that for a pun! - here's what I think:
In some societies today, women use no special "device" to absorb or catch menstrual flow - they simply bleed into their clothing, even if they must stay in a special place during their period (for example, among a group in India; I have heard stories about others).
Apparently many women in certain parts of Europe from 1700 to about 1900 also used nothing special - not rags, not pads, not sponges or anything else - during menstruation, but bled into their clothing. And, because most early American settlers came from Europe, this suggests that some (most? all?) Americans, and probably Canadians, also bled into their clothing at some point in their nations' histories.
Read my grande finale conclusion, with proof.
(All of the pictures and most of the following information come from the terrific catalog of the exhibit of the history of underclothing at the Historical Museum of the City of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, in 1988: authors, Almut Junker und Eva Stille [Almut is a woman's name], Zur Geschichte der Unterwäsche 1700-1960. 1988. Historisches Museum Frankfurt )
In 1700 (and long before) women and men in Germany and France, and probably other European countries and America, wore a long shirt from shoulders to calves, a chemise or vest (Hemd, in German; see the two bottom illustrations on this page), next to their skin, day and night, not underpants and other items common today. The rich and upper classes wore fancy versions, the rest simple ones.
Only men wore pants as outer clothing, a symbol of their authority (in English we still say "so-and-so wears the pants in the family," as do the Germans in their language) although women would sometimes wear versions of them next to their body when riding or when the weather was cold. Later, with the French Revolution and afterwards, women started to wear long-legged underpants to shield themselves under diaphanous dresses, but it took decades for such pants-like underwear to gain wide acceptance among the upper classes and even longer among the common people. They continued to wear only the chemise under their clothing for most of the 19th century. Women who wore traditional regional costume in Germany (and I bet elsewhere) sometimes wore no underpants until the 1950s.
In 1757 a German doctor gave another reason why women shouldn't wear pants or closed underwear: her genitals needed air to allow moisture to evaporate, which could otherwise cause them to decay (German, "vermodern") and "stink." But he conceded that women could wear them in cold weather and to protect against insects. (Christian T. E. Reinhard, in his Satyrische Abhandlung von denen Krankheiten der Frauenspersonen . . . Teil 2, Berlin/Leipzig, 1757, quoted in Zur Geschichte der Unterwäsche 1700-1960.)
An 18th-century woman (this one is from the upper classes) wore no underpants, just a chemise (long shirt) under her outer clothing (you can see it run horizontally right under her breasts), like the common people, as this engraving shows. She sits on a toilet (Abtritt) while a man peeps at her through the window.
(Copper engraving from the second half of the 18th century, from Volume 2 of Bilderlexikon, published by the Institut für Sexualforschung Wien, 1928-31, and reproduced in Junker und Stille's "Zur Geschichte der Unterwäsche 1700-1960," 1988, Historisches Museum Frankfurt)
Back to natural is best.
ReplyDeleteSaves money in the budget for outerwear!
ReplyDeleteIt seems that nylons/stockings are also a very recent imposition on women's fashion .... along with panties. See recent Smithsonian magazine on the subject as well as the following:
ReplyDelete"DuPont’s initial sales success in Wilmington was just the beginning of the nylon stocking craze. On May 16, 1940, officially known as “Nylon Day,” four million pairs of brown nylons landed on department store shelves throughout the United States at about $1.15 per pair. They sold out within two days. Silk stockings—which didn’t stretch, were challenging to clean, and ripped easily, but had been standard—were quickly supplanted.
That is, until the war came around. As quickly as nylon stockings found their way into department stores and boutiques, providing women with inexpensive, longer-lasting hosiery options, they disappeared. After Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7, 1941, and the United States entered World War II, the material that had its beginnings briefly as toothbrush bristles (prior to entering the women’s hosiery market) was severely rationed and channeled into war efforts. Nylon was permitted only in the manufacturing of parachutes, tire cords, ropes, aircraft fuel tanks, shoe laces, mosquito netting and hammocks, aiding in the U.S.’s national defense. Because American women had seen the future and it had them wearing nylons, they had to be inventive to meet their leg-beautifying needs (Paint-on stockings, anyone? More on that soon.) or turn to the black market (a “diverted” nylon shipment earned one sly entrepreneur $100,000)."
Neither panties nor nylons are part of women's fashion history before very recent times ... back to nature is best ... pantiless -- clear, free & unobstructed has withstood the test of time!
"I have met another health professional who conceeded that female anatomy was 'healthier if left uncovered' but"
ReplyDeleteIt seems that pantiless in terms of history has been around almost forever while trapping moisture, heat, germs, et-cetera inside one's female places is almost entirely a product of "fashion slavery" in very recent times
ReplyDeleteFOR&ONTHERECORD:
ReplyDeleteRe: Wearing no knickers
Quote
Postby teresh » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:20 pm
I think the chat has strayed a long way from the original post, and from the various reasons why some women don't wear knickers. One of the intial comments mentioned health reasons, and that is my view entirely. I had suffered for years with various female 'problems', and it was a doctor who finaly suggested I should try not wearing knickers. There is never going to be a groundbreaking public health anouncement stating such a radical idea as that would be politically out of the question, but I have no doubt it can make a significant difference to health. Most women will take off a pair of knickers and throw them in the wash without giving it a second thought, but just look at the typical discharge stuck to the inside after even just a few hours, and ask yourself the question, Is having this moist discharge trapped against your skin healthy? That for me was the critical question. I wear knickers just during my period, and my health has never been better. My only wish is I had made the change earlier. Chose sensible length skirts, and wear pure cotton underskirts (half slips). Change your underskirt everyday like you would knickers. Since I made my change, I have met another health professional who conceeded that female anatomy was 'healthier if left uncovered' but who also suggested that no doctor could ever make such a view public.
Brit women go to work knickerless!
DeleteANI, London | Updated: Aug 21, 2009 10:47 IST
Almost twenty percent of British women have gone to work without wearing their knickers, says a new book.
The book titled 8 Out Of 10 Brits by Charlie Croker has revealed that women own 22 pairs of knickers on average – and nearly 1in 5 has gone to work knickerless.
They also spend three hours a day on housework on average, reports The Sun. Coming on to the blokes, the book revealed that around 8 per cent of them never brush their teeth in the morning. And when it comes household work, men clock up one hour and forty minutes.
Forty two per cent of the people have admitted to having sex in the cars - 52 per cent of men and 34 per cent of women. While 11 per cent of don''t wash hands after using the toilet, 36 per cent said they do not take a bath or shower every day.
Women spend 27.5 minutes in the bathroom, compared to 20.7 by men. Sixty-four per cent of women have said that they find clothes shopping "depressing" and ten per cent have cried in a changing room.
Thirty-nine per cent Brits read on the loo, 21 per cent text and 21 per cent talk either on phone or to family member.
COPY: TO B SURE:
ReplyDeleteRe: Wearing no knickers
Quote
Postby teresh » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:20 pm
I think the chat has strayed a long way from the original post, and from the various reasons why some women don't wear knickers. One of the intial comments mentioned health reasons, and that is my view entirely. I had suffered for years with various female 'problems', and it was a doctor who finaly suggested I should try not wearing knickers. There is never going to be a groundbreaking public health anouncement stating such a radical idea as that would be politically out of the question, but I have no doubt it can make a significant difference to health. Most women will take off a pair of knickers and throw them in the wash without giving it a second thought, but just look at the typical discharge stuck to the inside after even just a few hours, and ask yourself the question, Is having this moist discharge trapped against your skin healthy? That for me was the critical question. I wear knickers just during my period, and my health has never been better. My only wish is I had made the change earlier. Chose sensible length skirts, and wear pure cotton underskirts (half slips). Change your underskirt everyday like you would knickers. Since I made my change, I have met another health professional who conceeded that female anatomy was 'healthier if left uncovered' but who also suggested that no doctor could ever make such a view public.
GOOGLE on
ReplyDelete"Peter the Great, visiting Paris in 1717, was riding down a crowded street"
for a good lesson in history & freedom from panty prison.
WHY SO MANY WOMEN ARE DITCHING THEIR KNICKERS-INTERNET:
DeleteIn 2015, I of course turned to the Internet and Google to round out my research. A number of articles touted the health benefits of commando life. An article at Elite Daily listed things like comfort and feeling sexy as reasons for turning your body into a no-underwear zone.
I didn’t need an article to point out potential economic benefits. Some brands are pricey. Swearing off underwear could pad my wallet, though not lift my butt.
QUOTE
ReplyDeleteExtensive research needs to be done on why a society needs underwear.
Certainly it’s not to shore up the fortunes of the cotton industry. To be specific, do women need to walk around wearing any ngotha?
A ngothaless damsel is not one in distress as one told me: “The feeling is breathtaking,” stretching her arms wide as she lets off a sigh. “You know,” she continued, “This is how our fore mothers did it. They didn’t have panties. And that was life. ‘Downstairs’ was aerated, in constant inter phase with air.”
We posed this question to Dr Dorothy Gwajima, the assistant director of curative services, Ministry of Health in Tanzania. She composes herself and offered: “That’s hard to answer. No research has been done on it. But hygiene comes automatically – depending on many factors.”
She argued, a woman who works in the office and one who works at home may need different ways of keeping hygiene. The same would apply to one who works in a busy environment that demands lots of energy.
“It is possible to walk around without underwear and nothing dramatic will happen. So far, there is no scientific research that has found this kind of lifestyle dangerous to a woman’s health. But, I would take it that it is better having one than walking around with none.”
The tricky part of this ngothaless business is during menstruation.
“There is no debate on that. Panties at menstruation hold tampons and pads. They keep a woman comfortable through meetings and through work. It would be difficult to work in a busy environment with nothing underneath,” she said.
Ultimately, offers Gwajima, dressing is all about choice.
And while certain situations may demand for certain ways, at the end, preference and beliefs mater.
Just be sure that your choice will keep you happy... and you won’t be ashamed of anything in case you trip and your dress is not enough.
UNQUOTE
PostScript: Anybody ever heard of any problem ever in keeping tampons in place with panties/ thongs/ or anything else (except super glue)??? Seems the manufacturers designed their "product" to prevent just such a thing ever happening???
On the subject of underwear---It seems that what research there is on the usefulness of brassieres (bras) points to their creating (Cooper's)droop & atrophy "up there" rather than adding anything to women's health & well being.
ReplyDeleteExtensive research needs to be done on why a society needs underwear.
ReplyDeleteCertainly it’s not to shore up the fortunes of the cotton industry. To be specific, do women need to walk around wearing any ngotha?
A ngothaless damsel is not one in distress as one told me: “The feeling is breathtaking,” stretching her arms wide as she lets off a sigh. “You know,” she continued, “This is how our fore mothers did it. They didn’t have panties. And that was life. ‘Downstairs’ was aerated, in constant inter phase with air.”
We posed this question to Dr Dorothy Gwajima, the assistant director of curative services, Ministry of Health in Tanzania. She composes herself and offered: “That’s hard to answer. No research has been done on it. But hygiene comes automatically – depending on many factors.”
She argued, a woman who works in the office and one who works at home may need different ways of keeping hygiene. The same would apply to one who works in a busy environment that demands lots of energy.
“It is possible to walk around without underwear and nothing dramatic will happen. So far, there is no scientific research that has found this kind of lifestyle dangerous to a woman’s health. But, I would take it that it is better having one than walking around with none.”
The tricky part of this ngothaless business is during menstruation.
“There is no debate on that. Panties at menstruation hold tampons and pads. They keep a woman comfortable through meetings and through work. It would be difficult to work in a busy environment with nothing underneath,” she said.
Ultimately, offers Gwajima, dressing is all about choice.
And while certain situations may demand for certain ways, at the end, preference and beliefs mater.
Just be sure that your choice will keep you happy... and you won’t be ashamed of anything in case you trip and your dress is not enough.
I once heard that Tampax shortened the strings when the miniskirt really came into fashion, but I think that was just somebody's idea of a joke.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, if a woman needs to keep a tampon from dropping/falling out when in use, she needs to consult a gynecologist, not a fashion expert.
PS:I believe tampons r being re-designed to be even less likely to "come loose" or let fluids pass thru.
“My favorite rule of thumb when it comes to vaginal health is ‘less is more.’ The vagina is amazing. It cleanses itself and is remarkable in elasticity and function.”
ReplyDeleteThat's unless the vagina is locked up in warm, moist, dark dungeons of panty-prison ... complete with waste & sweat & worse.
Deleteand in-conveniently placed right next to what has euphemistically been "dubbed" the manure chute!
DeleteTo commando or not to commando?
ReplyDeleteThat is the question Shakespeare should have asked, for it would have saved women’s magazines years upon years of anguish&debate over whether or not we should suffocate our lady bits in strangling contraptions better known as “underwear” or if we should just let them be.
There are common misconceptions about going commando. Some see it as bad for your sexual health.
Some see it as an indication you’re promiscuous.&others see it as a weird publicity stunt to gasp at (see: Britney Spears, circa 2010).
But, at the end of the day, going commando is not nearly as big of a deal as we all think it is, mainly because you don’t really have to tell a single person you’re doing it. In fact, more women should embrace it.
Here’s why.
1. It’s comfortable.
The number one reason you should go commando is that it’s, honestly, really comfortable.
It’s just you, your vagina&your pants getting to know each other better, hanging out like old friends, sipping glasses of wine.
________________________________________
2. There are no links between going commando&contracting infections.
It might feel like your bare vagina rubbing right up against the inside of your pants would create a perfect breeding ground for bacteria, but that idea has long been debunked.
Dr. Gillian Dean, Planned Parenthood New York City’s associate medical director of clinical research&training, told The Village Voice there’s no scientific research suggesting a direct correlation between going commando&contracting infections like bacterial vaginosis or yeast infections.
________________________________________
3. Going commando can actually help prevent infections.
If you have lots of itching&irritation down there, gynecologists actually recommend you skip wearing underwear.
On her blog, gynecologist “Dr. Kate” has found doing so really will decrease those feelings of discomfort. If you can’t find it in you to ditch underwear during the day, try doing it at night.
Vaginas are already moist&hairy, so adding a layer of suffocation (in the form of underwear) can actually make things worse.
Dr. Alyssa Dweck, M.D., told Shape magazine if your vagina is constantly covered, more moisture collects down there, which cultivates an ideal environment for yeast growth.
And since the risk of yeast infections among humans has actually been increasing, it might be a good idea to start going commando ASAP.
________________________________________
4. No VPL
We’ve all seen the phenomenon: A woman in tight, light-colored pants who forgets her purple granny panties are visible through her ass — in color, shape&outline — to the whole world.
Could someone really be that unaware? There’s nothing more embarrassing than that dreaded VPL (Visible Panty Line), but when you go commando, you’ll never, ever have to worry about it.
Exercise caution, though: You aren’t safe from camel toes.
________________________________________
5. No wedgies
Ever find yourself digging out a wedgie deeper than you’d dig for gold? Going commando means never again having to sneak away from a social situation to claw around inside your butt.
If that right there isn’t enough of a reason, I don’t know what is.
________________________________________
FROM ASK HISTORIANS Look up Jeremy Bentham, he's the father of utilitarianism and also had some very strange ideas about how we should treat our corpses after death (he had himself stuffed and he's on display at UCL), but putting that aside he's possibly the first person (that was famous enough that we know about) to ever insist on wearing underwear everyday. Considered to be well ahead of his time in regards to undergarments, his were knitted, and they were a source of great amusement to his peers and to historians/students after his death.
Deletecontinued
ReplyDelete6. When you actually need to go commando, you’ll already be used to it.
In your life, you might wear something to require you to go commando,&there’s no better way to prepare for that moment than going commando all the time.
Take a look at some of these celebrities whose dresses with impractical cut-outs forced them to forgo underwear for a fancy event.
For those women who’d previously been uninitiated into the commando lifestyle, I’m sure having to do so was intimidating. But for those who were used to it, it was probably just another day.
Back in high school, I wore a clingy, white, floor-length dress for senior prom that, if I wasn’t 17 at the time, I probably would have gone commando in.
If you asked me to wear that same dress now, you can bet your ass I would not wear any underwear. I’d just get a really good bikini wax instead.
________________________________________
7. You’ll feel sexier.
Sure, some girls feel sexy in a matching lace lingerie set, but what’s sexier&more risqué than being fully naked under those jeans?
And that little secret you have with yourself will totally up your confidence when you talk to coworkers, professors, friends&the guy you have a crush on.
________________________________________
8. Your man will definitely find it sexy.
Maybe your relationship needs a little excitement in the sexual department, or, hey, maybe you&your boyfriend already f*ck like wild animals&you just want to make things even more interesting.
Let your boyfriend know you’re not wearing any underwear&watch his lust for you skyrocket.
You can up the ante by whispering it in his ear in a public place where he can’t do anything about it just yet, like at a party.
You will officially become the only thing on his mind all night.
________________________________________
9. Your pants will fit better
Are there certain pairs of underwear you can’t wear with certain pairs of pants because they make your pants fit differently?
I can’t wear full-coverage underwear with so many of my jeans; the underwear adds just enough extra thickness, making my jeans too tight.
I feel much better in my jeans when I wear a thong or, better yet, when I go commando.
If you went commando more often, you’d never have to worry about what kind of underwear you have to wear for specific pants.
And you probably could afford to buy jeans in smaller sizes, which obviously would feel awesome.
________________________________________
10. You’ll feel random bursts of pleasure throughout the day.
Having the seam of your pants run right along your vagina can create some interesting sensations throughout the day.
This will especially happen if you’re wearing jeans, where the stitching is so thick, fidgeting around in a chair can rub you the wrong — or, ahem, right — way to make you feel a little unexpected warmth down there.
When this happens, smile subtly to yourself&embrace it. It’s a day-maker for sure.
________________________________________
11. Sometimes, it’s just necessary
If you’ve run out of clean underwear&you’re too lazy to do a wash, do not even think about going back in your dirty hamper&fetching a used pair. Instead, just go commando.
There’s no better time to start than right now.
ANAL Ref:
ReplyDelete"I am about to put a butt plug in your arse. You're going to wear this gadget for the next 24 hours. By then, your anus will be just that bit expanded so that you can take"
FYI:"Some countries have higher rates-a variety of research suggests Brazil might be the anal sex capital of the world, with possibly half of adults regularly doing it. In Central America, the complete sexual experience is known as los tres platos, or "the three dishes": oral, vaginal, and anal.
ReplyDelete"While it doesn't rank up there with peritonitis, another risk of heterosexual anal sex is partner disgruntlement. Clearly some women like anal sex, but in a 1994 University of Chicago national survey only 5 percent of women rated it as "somewhat appealing" or "very appealing."
"A Redbook poll of 26,000 women found 40 percent had done it but only 12 percent liked it. In Puerto Rico-and Latin America as a region seems to be highly butt-sex-friendly-80 percent of female college students surveyed said anal sex was always or almost always the guy's idea.
"Of course, the taboo aspect of anal sex may lead to underreporting among those elements of society that don't write in to the newspapers asking about it. In one study of 1,000 women, researchers found many wouldn't admit to doing it until the second or third interview. Having made allowances for such things, several large-scale studies estimate that maybe 9 or 10 percent of sexually active American women regularly practice anal sex.
"One thing to be careful about during anal sex is accessories. Straight Dope readers will recall my lengthy list of foreign bodies removed from the rectums of ER patients. A 2004 paper (illustrated, natch) indicates I need to make some additions, including a can of Playboy brand aerosol deodorant and a Primus camping stove. When will you people learn?"
FYI:"Some countries have higher rates-a variety of research suggests Brazil might be the anal sex capital of the world, with possibly half of adults regularly doing it. In Central America, the complete sexual experience is known as los tres platos, or "the three dishes": oral, vaginal, and anal.
ReplyDelete"While it doesn't rank up there with peritonitis, another risk of heterosexual anal sex is partner disgruntlement. Clearly some women like anal sex, but in a 1994 University of Chicago national survey only 5 percent of women rated it as "somewhat appealing" or "very appealing."
"A Redbook poll of 26,000 women found 40 percent had done it but only 12 percent liked it. In Puerto Rico-and Latin America as a region seems to be highly butt-sex-friendly-80 percent of female college students surveyed said anal sex was always or almost always the guy's idea.
"Of course, the taboo aspect of anal sex may lead to underreporting among those elements of society that don't write in to the newspapers asking about it. In one study of 1,000 women, researchers found many wouldn't admit to doing it until the second or third interview. Having made allowances for such things, several large-scale studies estimate that maybe 9 or 10 percent of sexually active American women regularly practice anal sex.
"One thing to be careful about during anal sex is accessories. Straight Dope readers will recall my lengthy list of foreign bodies removed from the rectums of ER patients. A 2004 paper (illustrated, natch) indicates I need to make some additions, including a can of Playboy brand aerosol deodorant and a Primus camping stove. When will you people learn?"
F/Y/I & EDIFICATION:FROM THE INTERNET, QUOTE
ReplyDelete"Of Panties and Thongs
"The loincloth has been used by men (and in some cultures women as well) since at least the Neolithic period. In warmer climates, the loincloth was usually the only garment worn. In Asia, the loincloth was used as either the only garment or, in areas with colder temperatures, it was used as an undergarment. In many ancient cultures, it was the only undergarment existent.
"Trivia I. King Tutankhamun was buried with 145 loincloths.
"The rest of this is about the west...don’t know the east well enough to answer.
"By the Late Middle Ages, women were wearing a form-fitting undergarment, the chemise, which evolved into the corset. With it they wore crotchless underwear that reached below the knee, in cold weather, leg wrappings were added.
"The rationale for this was that a woman’s genitals needed air to allow moisture to dry: moisture caused a woman’s genital to “decay.” (Reinhard, Satyrische) A second issue was that crotchless underwear made urination an defecation easier (though that begs the question of cleansing one’s self).
"The prevalence of crotchless underwear also informed how menstruation was handled. Washing and changing underwear was seen unwise as doing so could either produce a heavier flow or, if the flow was blocked, to cause major illness. (Zur Geschichte der Unterwasche, Junker and Stille)
"Trivia II. Actresses wore either close-fitting pads or “theatrical tampons” which were made from sponges or moss.
"Apparently many women in certain parts of Europe from 1700 to about 1900 also used nothing special - not rags, not pads, not sponges or anything else - during menstruation, but bled into their clothing. In some cultures the bloodstains were considered to be signs of fertility. In other cultures, they were seen as signs of a woman’s failure. As late as 1900, in England, cotton mills often had straw put on the floor to absorb menstrual fluids. Most of the workers were young and unwed. When pads were made available, their mothers argued against their use saying that by using pads, their daughters would not find husbands as it was “the smell and flow which attracted men.” (Liddington)
"However, as skirts got shorter, long drawers called pantaloons were created to keep the legs covered. Most of these had closed crotches. Over time, as the Jazz Age hit, loose pantaloons were replaced by step-ins, a baggy version of modern panties. To mark the difference between the baggy step-ins and the more modern underwear, the makers of modern underwear shortened the name pantaloons to panties.
"Women and thongs. Thongs reached the west in the 1980s. By 2003, thongs were one the top selling types of underwear for women. One advantage of thongs is there is no panty line. The drawback is that one has to be extra careful with personal hygiene to avoid skid marks."
Read more: http://whooshorg.proboards.com/thread/3667/why?page=2#ixzz3qGybz0AQ
from the internet:"Look up Jeremy Bentham, he's the father of utilitarianism and also had some very strange ideas about how we should treat our corpses after death (he had himself stuffed and he's on display at UCL), but putting that aside he's possibly the first person (that was famous enough that we know about) to ever insist on wearing underwear everyday. Considered to be well ahead of his time in regards to undergarments, his were knitted, and they were a source of great amusement to his peers and to historians/students after his death."
ReplyDeleteWhat's Wrong With Panties - Cost of Fashion Is Already Too High -- see below
ReplyDelete"What your vagina costs nnually, in upkeep and maintenanceAPR. 6, 2012 With all the talk about birth control coverage lately, Jezebel thought it would be wise to break down the annual cost of owning a vagina. Hint: it ain't cheap, literally or figuratively.
According to their calculations, it costs about $2,663 a year to maintain your vagina. That is, if you're on birth control and don't have insurance to cover it. Which, if legislators have anything to say about it, might totally happen.
If you don't have insurance, a pack of pills runs about $130, which adds up to about $1500 a year. And even if you do have insurance, you always pay usually around $10 a month in co-pay fees. (Not to be outdone, I usually let boyfriends pay for dinner at least once a month to make up for it.) Jezebel breaks it down:
"Because they are taken daily like vitamins and not simply whenever a woman has sex like Viagra, a woman goes through a pill pack every 28 days. So this is actually what Sandra Fluke meant when she testified that it would set back law students $3000 over the course of law school if insurance didn't help defray the cost of birth control."
Also expensive without health insurance? Your annual exam. Even at Planned Parenthood, it'll run you $175. If you go elsewhere without insurance, you can expect to pay over $500. And then there's that other annoying vaginal maintenance cost: tampons. Those average about $7 a pack, and Jezebel conservatively estimates we use about nine boxes a year. Not to mention another $7 a bottle for that Midol crap.
"About 70 percent of American women use tampons. And on average, a woman will, in her lifetime, use more than 11,000 tampons or pads. That's a lot of disposable cotton. And it's a necessity. Could you imagine if we just free-flowed? The entire world would look like a murder scene."
And if you don't happen to be bleeding, or paying for yeast infection or UTI remedies, and are actually in the mood to have sex? Chances are, that will cost you too.
"Recent studies indicate that most women, aged 18 – 39, engage in pubic hair removal — whether partial or total — through various methods (waxing, shaving, laser removal). A 2009 survey released by the American Laser Centers claimed that the average woman shaves 12 times a month, spending about $15.95. Women who are committed to waxing do so every 6 weeks."
And last but not least, we ladies even have to buy more toilet paper. (By the way, did anyone else freak out when they found out guys don't wipe after peeing?)
"Because women use toilet paper every time they go to the bathroom—for urination and defecation—they use at least twice the amount of toilet paper than men, if not significantly more. So if one man uses an average of one roll of toilet paper per year, it can be safely assumed that a woman would go through at least two rolls per week."
That's about $150 bucks a year you spend simply wiping your nether regions. Let's hope Jezebel doesn't calculate what we spend on our hair, makeup and clothes next, because this is pretty depressing. Then again, I guess we should have known vaginas are expensive. Good equipment never comes cheap. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be insured."
Save money on your vagina --- give it plenty of fresh air going commando
ReplyDeletePANTILESS? KNICKERLESS? LESS IS BEST .. TH VERY BEST
DeletePantless? Going Commando? This is very VERY definitely nothing new!!
"the people in our earlier message boards have heard this story. i was finishing lunch in an outdoor cafe and i saw a really cute guy up at the register picking up a take out order. really cute and nice guy. the kind you see and wonder, hmm, is he good with kids? he likes women? lol! i'd seen him before a couple times.
"he glanced around as he waited. i was wearing a mid thigh black rayon skirt, so i thought maybe he'll look at my legs. he did, so without thinking i turned in my chair to grab my purse and did a slow sharon stone move. yes, i flashed him and made it look accidental. lol, it caught his attention. i glanced up and made eye contact as i closed my legs. i smiled the way you smile at a cute guy. he smiled, looking a little nervous. he took his order and left. i got up and paid my bill, and walked out trying to see where he went. there he was, at the bus stop. i thought, i don't really have to get back to my office right away, i could go on a bus ride. so i waited at the bus stop too, we made eye contact, and i said, they make great sandwiches there, to break the ice. yes, he's a regular, too. we chatted, got on the bus and sat next to each other and chatted some more. i introduced myself, he introduced himself, and i never let on that i knew i flashed him. finally i got him to ask me out so i gave him my phone number. and by then i had to get back to the office.
"Emily"
Medieval underwear points to racy history=November 14, 2012=By TORU TAMAKAWA/ Correspondent
ReplyDeleteINNSBRUCK, Austria--Underwear dating from medieval times that was found under flooring of an Austrian castle is hardly racy by the standards of today.
But the discovery does suggest that women in 15th-century Europe took pride in their appearance, and perhaps not just the privileged classes.
The University of Innsbruck announced this summer that "the world's oldest brassieres" had been found at Longberg Castle in Tyrol, western Austria.
The cotton garments were decorated, much like today, with lace and embroidery. It might not be a stretch to suggest that such underwear was designed for those "special occasions," scholars say.
At the heart of Tyrol, an area lined with precipitous alpine peaks, is the city of Innsbruck. The items were found during renovations of the castle in summer 2008. The castle lies to the south of the city.
Four brassieres were found amid a heap of cotton material, clothing and leather footwear under the third floor.
Carbon dating by the university's archaeological research team dated the garments to between 1440 and 1485, making them the oldest in existence.* * *
MORE2FOLLOW
MEDIEVAL UNDERWEAR POINTS TO RACY HISTORY-November 14, 2012-By TORU TAMAKAWA/Correspondent
ReplyDeleteINNSBRUCK, Austria-Underwear dating from medieval times that was found under flooring of an Austrian castle is hardly racy by the standards of today./ But the discovery does suggest that women in 15th-century Europe took pride in their appearance&perhaps not just the privileged classes./The University of Innsbruck announced this summer that "the world's oldest brassieres" had been found at Longberg Castle in Tyrol, western Austria./ The cotton garments were decorated, much like today, with lace& embroidery. It might not be a stretch to suggest that such underwear was designed for those "special occasions," scholars say./At the heart of Tyrol, an area lined with precipitous alpine peaks, is the city of Innsbruck. The items were found during renovations of the castle in summer 2008. The castle lies to the south of the city./4brassieres were found amid a heap of cotton material, clothing&leather footwear under the 3d floor./Carbon dating by the university's archaeological research team dated the garments to between 1440&1485, making them the oldest in existence.///There are many theories for the origins of the brassiere.Some say it was invented in late 18th century France, while others assert it originated from a patent obtained by an American woman in the1910s./However, texts from the 14th&15th centuries refer to "a shirt with pouches to hold the breasts." These writings alone do not offer a clear picture of what medieval undergarments were like.Corsets came into widespread use much later on./Regina Karner, 56, a member of the Board of Trustees at the Vienna Museum&expert on the history of women's undergarments, says: "I am astounded that they found an actual sample. This may rewrite the history of underwear."/The researchers were stunned by the resemblance of the ancient garments to modern-day lingerie. 2of the4bras had cups sewn into the chest area of a shirt to contain the bosom./The other2have shoulder straps&are very similar to today's bikini tops. Their size is equivalent to a modern C-cup/The shoulder straps&cups are painstakingly decorated with lace& embroidery. /The fact that the wearer dressed in outer garments suggests it was not an article of clothing for everyone to see./Beatrix Nutz45 a researcher at the university, says "women of that time may have indulged in for their secret male lovers&for private delight."/There are also knots on the back&braided material on the sides to adjust the size. Although the brassieres presumably were used to emphasize cleavage, it was considered "bad taste" for women in those days to flagrantly show off their attributes./Writing on contemporary women's bosoms, a 14th-century French poet penned a lamenting ode: "(They put their breasts) in2pouches&press them tight with rope. Ah, what a pity."/Nutz says, "The bras may have been used to make the breasts look small."/So, what sort of women wore brassieres all those centuries ago?/In the 15th century, a clergyman handed a local aristocrat stewardship of the castle. Records from the time document the addition of a third floor. The discovery of brassieres with a pile of cotton material between the second floor ceiling&3rd-story flooring suggests the clothing had been thrown out to be used as a form of insulation, scholars say./The dry, sealed conditions helped to preserve the items./The Tyrol region was under the rule of the Habsburg in those days. The region amassed great wealth from mining silver, copper&salt.&although the local aristocrats likely profited mightily, the bras were not made from expensive silk, but rather easily available linen. This is why Nutz speculates that the underwear may not have belonged to the castle lord's wife./"
MORE
CONTINUED ./The Tyrol region was under the rule of the Habsburg in those days. The region amassed great wealth from mining silver, copper&salt.&although the local aristocrats likely profited mightily, the bras were not made from expensive silk, but rather easily available linen. This is why Nutz speculates that the underwear may not have belonged to the castle lord's wife./"The items may have been handmade&worn by a noblewoman of moderate status or a lady-in-waiting," Nutz says./The discovery of the world's "oldest bra" was an overnight global sensation. /Immediately after making the announcement, the University of Innsbruck was inundated with requests from the US, Australia,Germany&elsewhere for permission to copy the items.\Most of the requests came from individuals, many of them history buffs who yearn to experience a medieval lifestyle &culture./The university is considering making replicas of the bras. If it does, the plan is to display them alongside the originals in a museum near the castle./The inhabitants of Bad Cannstatt, a district in the southwestern German city of Stuttgart, were concerned by all the fuss. Since a corset factory there began turning out the world's first mass-produced brassieres in 1914, the area has touted itself as the "birthplace of the bra." A local museum has been holding a "brassiere exhibition" since February./And just when Bad Cannstatt was trying to build up interest in the run-up to the 100th anniversary in 2014, the world's "oldest bra" appeared./Manfred Schmid, the curator of the local museum, is not backing down from the area's claim to fame./"Occasionally someone finds an unusual old undergarment that hasn't been eaten by bugs, but that's it. There's no way regular people back then wore the same kind of bras." /MEN'S UNDERWEAR IN SAME CASTLE /Along with the brassieres, an item of men's underwear, apparently from the 15th century, was also found under the castle's floor./The wearer would tie a thin string at the sides, sort of like modern-day bikini briefs./According to an expert, men who wore underpants in those days tended to emphasize the groin area./AS FOR LADIES' UNDERPANTS, NONE WERE FOUND. IT IS THOUGHT THAT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PROSTITUTES, EUROPEAN WOMEN DID NOT WEAR UNDERGARMENTS IN THE MIDDLE AGES….
ReplyDeleteTO GOOGLE ON--BEST CURE/ELIMINATION FOR V.P.L.'S:"Yesterday she explained that she never wore underwear in three decades of foreign assignments for the ITV travel show
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-609794/What-Judith-didnt-pack.html#ixzz3sG4Ln6Th
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook"
ELIMINATE V.P.L.'S, TRAVEL LIGHT & BE FREE FROM YEAST INFECTIONS & THE LIKE:GOOGLE ON
ReplyDelete"Yesterday she explained that she never wore underwear in three decades of foreign assignments for the ITV travel show
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-609794/What-Judith-didnt-pack.html#ixzz3sG4Ln6Th
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook"
In the news "
ReplyDeleteWritten by Jaggedone
Rating:
Share/Bookmark
Send to a friend Print this
Topics: Riot, Courtney Love, Nirvana
Thursday, 25 June 2015
image for Knickerless, Courtney Love Cobain, caught up in Paris protests!
Thank heavens she wasn't caught in the Parisian riots, they would have stormed the Bastille!
Widow of Kurt Cobain, Courtney Love (Who?) has made headlines by being in the wrong place at the right time!
Parisian taxi drivers are protesting and blocking off all roads to French major airports because an American company is muscling in on their business (So what's new?).
Chaos around the airports rules, burning, overturned cars and other typical things lay in the roads because when the French protest, they really protest and this time there was no time for Je Suis Charlie.
However Courtney (who?) stuck in the middle of the riots did what only she knows best. She opened the taxi door, opened her fading thighs, revealed her 'knickerless' bum and flashed her pussy at taxi drivers who stopped rioting for a second mesmerised by an ageing pussy being flashed in their direction!
Then two horny, young male motorcyclists passing by, braked and offered Courtney a ride on their motorbike and out of the blockade, she agreed.
Her luggage and spare knickers were sent later via UPS back to the States and she just managed to catch her plane thanks to the boys who promised never to clean their back seat again because Courtney, rather excited at the whole thing, left a moist stain on it!
The bike is now being auctioned for 5 million bucks to Nirvana fans who want to be close to a place where Kurt frequented when he wasn't stoned out of his brains!"
What Judith didn't pack
ReplyDeleteBy Laura Roberts and Liz Thomas, Daily Mail
Last updated at 12:13 25 June 2008
Judith Chalmers on location on beach
Holiday Chalmer: Judith on sunsoaked location
Scroll down to add a comment
IN more than 30 years travelling the world for wish You Were Here? she proudly packed light.
But only now is presenter Judith Chalmers admitting exactly how light.
Yesterday she explained that she never wore underwear in three decades of foreign assignments for the ITV travel show.
The 72-year-old presenter said she 'went commando' because she didn't want the outline of her knickers showing through her holiday outfits.
She told ITV chat show Loose Women how interviewer Graham Norton was the man who had unlocked her secret when he once asked her how many pairs of knickers she took on holiday abroad.
'Graham said "Do you take one pair and wash them, two pairs and wash them or one for every day of the week?".
'So I said "I don't take them" and he said "You what?".' Miss Chalmers said she decided to leave her knickers at home after being warned that the cameras could pick up on the sartorial no-no of 'visible panty line'.
'I was told by the wardrobe mistress that I shouldn't have a VPL - visible panty line.
'So I'm sorry to reveal that after 30 years of Wish You Were Here, I was pantless all the time!' Despite her extensive travels the mother-of-two admitted she still cannot pack a sensible holiday wardrobe.
'I don't know that I am a very good packer, I still think that I take too much,' she said.
'I follow the golden rule of sticking your shoes in the bottom, and your pants on the top - that's if you take them.'
Miss Chalmers, who has always boasted a year-round tan, launched Wish You Were Here? in 1973 and stayed with the show for 30 years.
She made no mention of whether her co-presenters John Carter and Anna Walker shared her views on underwear.
The show, which had 19million viewers at its peak, is back on ITV with Miss Chalmers's son, Mark Durden-Smith, presenting alongside Sarah Heaney.
More...
Brits among top tourists
Luggage trollies to cost £1
Click here for TravelMail's video stories
His mother, who was awarded an OBE in 2004, is not the only celebrity to admit to leaving their knickers in their underwear drawer.
Nigella Lawson, 48, made a similar confession last year. 'I don't need to (wear them) because I wear a long skirt,' she said.
LK Today presenter Lorraine Kelly, 48, has also admitted not wearing knickers while broadcasting.
And Dame Helen Mirren, 62, was knickerless when she picked up her best actress Oscar for The Queen last year in a Christian Lacroix gown.
These respectable ladies, however, are not in the most respectable company.
Others who have made a habit of going knickerless - and who have the photos to prove it - include Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton.
DID YOU KNOW?
The phrase 'going commando' dates from the Vietnam War when U.S. Commando officers revealed they preferred not to wear underwear while fighting.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-609794/What-Judith-didnt-pack.html#ixzz3tjxN5QfT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Going Commando also prevents/fights jungle rot & the likes!!!! ((An all tooooo common problem in the tropix or other situations where sanitation can be a problem))
ReplyDeletehey girlfriend! i was a pantyless and braless bride, and i recommend it! my two favorite all-time pantyless times are when i married my husband and when i met him.emily
ReplyDeleteTell us more.
How did you meet your husband and what were you wearing?
Tina V
the people in our earlier message boards have heard this story. i was finishing lunch in an outdoor cafe and i saw a really cute guy up at the register picking up a take out order. really cute and nice guy. the kind you see and wonder, hmm, is he good with kids? he likes women? lol! i'd seen him before a couple times.
he glanced around as he waited. i was wearing a mid thigh black rayon skirt, so i thought maybe he'll look at my legs. he did, so without thinking i turned in my chair to grab my purse and did a slow sharon stone move. yes, i flashed him and made it look accidental. lol, it caught his attention. i glanced up and made eye contact as i closed my legs. i smiled the way you smile at a cute guy. he smiled, looking a little nervous. he took his order and left. i got up and paid my bill, and walked out trying to see where he went. there he was, at the bus stop. i thought, i don't really have to get back to my office right away, i could go on a bus ride. so i waited at the bus stop too, we made eye contact, and i said, they make great sandwiches there, to break the ice. yes, he's a regular, too. we chatted, got on the bus and sat next to each other and chatted some more. i introduced myself, he introduced himself, and i never let on that i knew i flashed him. finally i got him to ask me out so i gave him my phone number. and by then i had to get back to the office.
emily
i was a pantyless and braless bride, and i recommend it! my two favorite all-time pantyless times are when i married my husband and when i met him.emily
ReplyDeleteTell us more.
How did you meet your husband and what were you wearing?
Tina V
the people in our earlier message boards have heard this story. i was finishing lunch in an outdoor cafe and i saw a really cute guy up at the register picking up a take out order. really cute and nice guy. the kind you see and wonder, hmm, is he good with kids? he likes women? lol! i'd seen him before a couple times.
he glanced around as he waited. i was wearing a mid thigh black rayon skirt, so i thought maybe he'll look at my legs. he did, so without thinking i turned in my chair to grab my purse and did a slow sharon stone move. yes, i flashed him and made it look accidental. lol, it caught his attention. i glanced up and made eye contact as i closed my legs. i smiled the way you smile at a cute guy. he smiled, looking a little nervous. he took his order and left. i got up and paid my bill, and walked out trying to see where he went. there he was, at the bus stop. i thought, i don't really have to get back to my office right away, i could go on a bus ride. so i waited at the bus stop too, we made eye contact, and i said, they make great sandwiches there, to break the ice. yes, he's a regular, too. we chatted, got on the bus and sat next to each other and chatted some more. i introduced myself, he introduced himself, and i never let on that i knew i flashed him. finally i got him to ask me out so i gave him my phone number. and by then i had to get back to the office.
emily
Pantiless is good for you - from the Internet - Quote "My coworker’s daughter recently had a brief stay at the hospital. She shared that her 4 year old daughter was adamant about wanting a different type of hospital gown because it was showing her panties. My cowoker also shared that her daughter was adamant about her packing extra panties to bring to the hospital.
ReplyDeleteWe laughed&then reminisced about our own panty problems.&by problems, I mean everything from always packing more than needed for vacations (2 pairs per day), stashing an extra pair in the clutch for those “late nights”,&of course the infamous pantylines.
What we didn’t talk about was pantyless problems.&by pantyless I mean no panties – the oh so brave going “commando.”
Every now&then, it doesn’t hurt to vent the vajayjay,¬ just at night between your sheets. You can&(should) get some air down there between your 9-to-5 if you’ll be sitting down all day. It’s actually good for you.
Let’s think about it. If you go commando you…
Don’t have to worry about panty lines. I know some people will recommend wearing thong underwear to avoid panty lines, but sometimes these create bulges around the waste&lower abdominal area. However, no panties means no nothing — lines or bulge.
Allow for air flow which helps decrease risk for yeast infections.
Decrease in sweatiness which helps decrease odor
Increase that sexy feeling, even for you shy Bauces. It’s that knowing that you’re doing something you’re “not supposed to do” that can make you feel a little bolder than usual. A bold Bauce is a sexy Bauce.
However, if you go commando you should also know…
Going pantyless with pants can increase chaffing as the skin in our nether region is particularly sensitive&thinner than most of the skin that covers much of our bodies.
Just shaving&going commando is also no-go. Again, the skin is sensitive&needs protection from heavier fabrics such as denim or wool.
It’s easier to contract pubic lice — yes, those nasty things called crabs. Although the lice are most often transmitted during sex, it can live on other surfaces. If you wear a skirt while going commando&sit on an infected surface, you could easily contract crabs.
Commando with a tampon is a negative. According to several gynecologist, when using a tampon, our vaginal opening is more exposed, allowing bacteria to enter&trigger bacterial vaginosis or a urinary tract infection.
Lastly, if you want to make that bold move,&leave your undies in the drawer, please keep in mind…
Hem lengths. Avoid wearing dresses&skirts that rise as you sit, or rise as you dance, or rise as you walk from your office to the elevator.
If you even think it’s about that time of the month, don’t even think about not wearing underwear. Especially given that as stated above if you prefer to wear tampons your vaginal opening is more exposed&can increase your contraction of various venereal diseases.
The importance of keeping it clean.&well, let’s be honest even with panties, you should be keeping it clean.
Avoid going commando in light or sheer fabric clothes, for what I’m hoping are obvious reasons. But if they aren’t, sheer&light fabrics will give all access passes to your privates to people (like everyone you see from the subway stop to the line in Starbucks) who don’t need (or want) it.
Go ahead&change it up. Be a little naughty while looking nice. Embrace your bold Bauce&just do it."
" Re: Wearing no knickers
ReplyDeleteQuote
"Postby teresh » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:20 pm
"I think the chat has strayed a long way from the original post, and from the various reasons why some women don't wear knickers. One of the intial comments mentioned health reasons, and that is my view entirely. I had suffered for years with various female 'problems', and it was a doctor who finaly suggested I should try not wearing knickers. There is never going to be a groundbreaking public health anouncement stating such a radical idea as that would be politically out of the question, but I have no doubt it can make a significant difference to health. Most women will take off a pair of knickers and throw them in the wash without giving it a second thought, but just look at the typical discharge stuck to the inside after even just a few hours, and ask yourself the question, Is having this moist discharge trapped against your skin healthy? That for me was the critical question. I wear knickers just during my period, and my health has never been better. My only wish is I had made the change earlier. Chose sensible length skirts, and wear pure cotton underskirts (half slips). Change your underskirt everyday like you would knickers. Since I made my change, I have met another health professional who conceeded that female anatomy was 'healthier if left uncovered' but who also suggested that no doctor could ever make such a view public."
The same is for going without bras as well to keep from getting Cooper's droop ... best without either bras or panties ... Mother Nature knows best!!!
ReplyDeleteMore People Go Commando Than You Might Think, According To A New Poll In Vanity Fair
ReplyDelete03/10/2014 03:02 pm ET | Updated Mar 10, 2014 Jamie Feldman Associate Style Editor, The Huffington Post
Here’s one way to save money on laundry — stop wearing underwear.
Vanity Fair teamed up with 60 Minutes to conduct a fashion-based poll, asking Americans everything from what their biggest fashion nightmare would be, to identifying big industry names to... how often they go commando. According to the results, more people do it than you might think.
25 percent of those polled admitted they go sans underwear at least sometimes. Of that 25 percent, 13 percent said they do it “occasionally,” 5 percent confessed they ditch their underwear “once a week” and 7 percent said they went without under-garments “all the time.”
Of course, there are plenty of reasons to leave the house without your undies every so often. It can be pretty liberating, for one. Plus there’s that whole thing about shapewear being detrimental to your health.
Still, we can’t imagine ditching our beloved undie collection permanently. What about you? Would you go commando for good? Sound off below!
GOOGLE on the following for health advice & growing trend in pantiless/knickerless health
ReplyDelete"There's nothing worse than seeing your elegant dress ruined by an unsightly visible panty line, or struggling to eat at a dinner because your hold-me-in knickers are too tight.
"But could your undies be causing you serious health problems? And is there a real case for eschewing them altogether?
"Surprising as it may seem, growing numbers of women say they are quietly giving up on knickers for health reasons."
As indicated knickers/thongs/panties r a very recent & unhealthy imposition of fashion upon modern women
comparable to foot binding!
quote:
ReplyDelete"It’s advice that Vanessa Fernandez, 35, a beauty therapist, wishes she’d adhered to.
‘I stopped wearing knickers around two years ago, after I began suffering from an embarrassing infection. I was mortified. It wasn’t painful, but I kept needing to go to the loo,’ says Vanessa, a single mother who lives in Edgware, Middlesex, with her three children aged 16, 15 and 13.
‘I saw my GP and was diagnosed with bacterial vaginosis - a common vaginal infection that is not sexually transmitted but caused by an overgrowth of bacteria. It took two courses of antibiotics before I was cured.
‘It was a huge relief, but I was terrified it could come back. Then a friend suggested going without knickers. She told me she never wore them as she believed it was the best way to avoid “ladies’ problems”.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3573984/Women-say-key-good-health-NOT-wearing-knickers-sounds-extraordinary-evidence-surprising.html#ixzz48f5K40Bw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3573984/Women-say-key-good-health-NOT-wearing-knickers-sounds-extraordinary-evidence-surprising.html#ixzz4B5ya8kj6
ReplyDeleteFollow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
pantiless is best read
ReplyDeletemore:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3573984/Women-say-key-good-health-NOT-wearing-knickers-sounds-extraordinary-evidence-surprising.html#ixzz4B5ya8kj6
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
from the Internet
ReplyDelete"I have never worn knickers... And I am in my 50's. They are unhygienic, uncomfortable, ruin the line of clothes and totally unnecessary. This is not news. It's common sense."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3573984/Women-say-key-good-health-NOT-wearing-knickers-sounds-extraordinary-evidence-surprising.html#ixzz4BBcHov4d
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I have never worn knickers... And I am in my 50's. They are unhygienic, uncomfortable, ruin the line of clothes and totally unnecessary. This is not news. It's common sense.
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3573984/Women-say-key-good-health-NOT-wearing-knickers-sounds-extraordinary-evidence-surprising.html#ixzz4BBcHov4d
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - FROM THE INTERNET
ReplyDelete""The "panty rule" as it is called, has a lofty objective, to encourage decency. Before it was added to the dress code, many girls wore micro-miniskirts and baby doll dresses, and relied on their underwear to cover their privates. Since the rule was passed, fewer girls wear the very short dresses, but paradoxically, more girls go without panties, so the overall effect of the rule as regards decency is mixed.
""The dress code goes on at some length, describing various combinations of clothing, alternatives such as body paint, and exceptions for bathing suits, etc. But one part of the dress code that is not explicitly mentioned is VPL - Visible Panty Lines. It comes close to outlawing VPL where it says that underwear may not be seen. But opinions differ as to whether VPL constitutes "seeing".""
As if anything needs to be added to ditch your thong:
ReplyDeleteFrom the Internet:
"""The main health risks we’re taking when we wear thongs: infection and irritation.
"""Infections can occur when the balance of the vaginal environment, including the moisture levels from vaginal secretions, is thrown off, says Dr. Ghofrany. The most common? Yeast infections and bacterial infections, mainly bacterial vaginosis. The extra bacteria usually manifests with increased discharge, which leads to what Dr. Ghofrany calls the “vicious cycle of thong use”: the increase in discharge leads to an increased use of panty liners, which leads to even more trapped moisture, which leads to more infections and more discharge.
"""Thongs also carry the risk of external irritation. “I see more patients with skin tags on their vulva and near their rectum, in the exact distribution of the thongs,” Dr. Ghofrany tells us. “I sometimes will be mid-pap and ask a patient, ‘So you wear thongs a lot?’ And their response is always ‘Ya! How can you tell?’ And it’s because of the skin tags, small ‘piles’ of soft tissue that occur from the skin being constantly rubbed in the same spot. These happen traditionally at bra lines and neck lines, and now increasingly at thong lines!”
"""
As for thongs, the same goes for g-strings, "panties," knickers or whatever that traps moisture, heat, germs & infection where rhere should be sunlight & fresh air "down there."
ReplyDeleteWhy else were skirts invented in the first place??? Fresh air, sunshine, freeedom from germs & other "conditions" ... au naturel!
Besides, you can squat and pee!
FROM THE INTERNET:
ReplyDelete''honeybee808 • 2 years agoi love going commando! it's so freeing i don't even think about wearing draws anymore. the only time i may put some on is if the skirt i'm wearing blows easily in the wind (and my period), but other than that, i love being free!''
A New Exhibition Is All About Underwear
ReplyDeleteFrom a queen's drawers to David Beckham's briefs, The Victoria and Albert Museum gets "Undressed"
By Erin Blakemore
SMITHSONIAN.COM
APRIL 19, 2016
Curators of a new exhibition in London spend their days examining old underwear, and in Undressed: A Brief History of Underwear, they've unearthed the surprisingly serious history of the garments. The collection bills itself as the biggest-ever museum exhibit focused on underwear, and it’s being displayed in an unlikely location: The Victoria & Albert Museum, which was named after a queen you probably don’t associate with her undergarments. But long ago, when Queen Victoria laid the foundation stone of the museum, she was likely wearing both a corset and a petticoat—the kinds of garments the exhibition both displays and questions.
Undressed looks at the history of how underwear has protected and enhanced the body from the 18th century until today, and the over 200 pieces of underthings it contains may change the way you look at your own knickers forever. Among the collection’s highlights are an 1890s whalebone corset of the type Victoria wore—one with a waist below 19 inches in circumference. It’s displayed alongside X-rays and illustrations that show just how such a garment impacted the body. Other corsets abound, including a hand-made one made by a working-class woman in the 18th century and one made out of paper during the lean times of World War I.
Corsets are just the tip of the underwear iceberg: You can find bras, hosiery and even jock straps in the exhibition. There’s underwear and lingerie-inspired fashion worn by everyone from David Beckham to Kate Moss, the first mass-produced thong, which was invented in reaction to a ban on public swimming in Los Angeles, and undergarments made of brass and even glass.
What’s the point of lifting up the skirts and peering down the pants of the past? Plenty. The museum, which acquired more than 60 pieces of underwear, dipped into its own vast collection and borrowed noteworthy skivvies from museums and individuals all over the world, sees underwear as a lens through which culture can be viewed. From nursing bras that show the lives of working women to tracksuits that show the relaxation of social boundaries between street and home, underwear points to the obsessions and everyday lives of the people who wear it. And though Queen Victoria might blush at the news that her mother’s cotton drawers are on display—the queen herself wore monogrammed and crested nightgowns and bloomers, and would probably approve of an exhibition that adds a bit of focus to the garments we all wear beneath the surface.
A New Exhibition Is All About Underwear
ReplyDeleteFrom a queen's drawers to David Beckham's briefs, The Victoria and Albert Museum gets "Undressed"
By Erin Blakemore
SMITHSONIAN.COM
APRIL 19, 2016
Curators of a new exhibition in London spend their days examining old underwear, and in Undressed: A Brief History of Underwear, they've unearthed the surprisingly serious history of the garments. The collection bills itself as the biggest-ever museum exhibit focused on underwear, and it’s being displayed in an unlikely location: The Victoria & Albert Museum, which was named after a queen you probably don’t associate with her undergarments. But long ago, when Queen Victoria laid the foundation stone of the museum, she was likely wearing both a corset and a petticoat—the kinds of garments the exhibition both displays and questions.
Undressed looks at the history of how underwear has protected and enhanced the body from the 18th century until today, and the over 200 pieces of underthings it contains may change the way you look at your own knickers forever. Among the collection’s highlights are an 1890s whalebone corset of the type Victoria wore—one with a waist below 19 inches in circumference. It’s displayed alongside X-rays and illustrations that show just how such a garment impacted the body. Other corsets abound, including a hand-made one made by a working-class woman in the 18th century and one made out of paper during the lean times of World War I.
Corsets are just the tip of the underwear iceberg: You can find bras, hosiery and even jock straps in the exhibition. There’s underwear and lingerie-inspired fashion worn by everyone from David Beckham to Kate Moss, the first mass-produced thong, which was invented in reaction to a ban on public swimming in Los Angeles, and undergarments made of brass and even glass.
What’s the point of lifting up the skirts and peering down the pants of the past? Plenty. The museum, which acquired more than 60 pieces of underwear, dipped into its own vast collection and borrowed noteworthy skivvies from museums and individuals all over the world, sees underwear as a lens through which culture can be viewed. From nursing bras that show the lives of working women to tracksuits that show the relaxation of social boundaries between street and home, underwear points to the obsessions and everyday lives of the people who wear it. And though Queen Victoria might blush at the news that her mother’s cotton drawers are on display—the queen herself wore monogrammed and crested nightgowns and bloomers, and would probably approve of an exhibition that adds a bit of focus to the garments we all wear beneath the surface.
A New Exhibition Is All About Underwear
ReplyDeleteFrom a queen's drawers to David Beckham's briefs, The Victoria and Albert Museum gets "Undressed"
By Erin Blakemore
SMITHSONIAN.COM
APRIL 19, 2016
Curators of a new exhibition in London spend their days examining old underwear, and in Undressed: A Brief History of Underwear, they've unearthed the surprisingly serious history of the garments. The collection bills itself as the biggest-ever museum exhibit focused on underwear, and it’s being displayed in an unlikely location: The Victoria & Albert Museum, which was named after a queen you probably don’t associate with her undergarments. But long ago, when Queen Victoria laid the foundation stone of the museum, she was likely wearing both a corset and a petticoat—the kinds of garments the exhibition both displays and questions.
Undressed looks at the history of how underwear has protected and enhanced the body from the 18th century until today, and the over 200 pieces of underthings it contains may change the way you look at your own knickers forever. Among the collection’s highlights are an 1890s whalebone corset of the type Victoria wore—one with a waist below 19 inches in circumference. It’s displayed alongside X-rays and illustrations that show just how such a garment impacted the body. Other corsets abound, including a hand-made one made by a working-class woman in the 18th century and one made out of paper during the lean times of World War I.
Corsets are just the tip of the underwear iceberg: You can find bras, hosiery and even jock straps in the exhibition. There’s underwear and lingerie-inspired fashion worn by everyone from David Beckham to Kate Moss, the first mass-produced thong, which was invented in reaction to a ban on public swimming in Los Angeles, and undergarments made of brass and even glass.
What’s the point of lifting up the skirts and peering down the pants of the past? Plenty. The museum, which acquired more than 60 pieces of underwear, dipped into its own vast collection and borrowed noteworthy skivvies from museums and individuals all over the world, sees underwear as a lens through which culture can be viewed. From nursing bras that show the lives of working women to tracksuits that show the relaxation of social boundaries between street and home, underwear points to the obsessions and everyday lives of the people who wear it. And though Queen Victoria might blush at the news that her mother’s cotton drawers are on display—the queen herself wore monogrammed and crested nightgowns and bloomers, and would probably approve of an exhibition that adds a bit of focus to the garments we all wear beneath the surface.
Did Native Americans wear undergarments before contact with Europeans? ... Sugarland, Texas
ReplyDeleteNot really—but then, neither did Europeans wear underwear before contact with Native Americans. American Indian men and women wore loin- or breechcloths, which might be considered undergarments or outer garments, depending on climate and tribal lifestyle. But what we deem “going commando” today was more the norm until the 18th century—among native peoples and Europeans.
Adrienne Smith (Cherokee/Muscogee Nations of Oklahoma)
Manager, ImagiNATIONS Activity Center, National Museum of the American Indian
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/the-history-of-going-commando-and-more-questions-from-our-readers-74338606/#7dvrFQ5TkuyrUUOQ.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Dear Ladies, Here’s Why You Should Stop Wearing Underwear
ReplyDelete Crystal Collins 11 Comments
Dear Ladies, Here’s Why You Should Stop Wearing Underwear
The vagina is a funny thing. One little change in its ecosystem can throw it off balance for weeks. That’s why it’s so very important to take care of it. I’m a huge fan of putting garlic up there, using vbars, and all sorts of other remedies for keeping mine in prime form.
And one other thing I do? I don’t wear underwear.
I know I know… That’s probably way too much TMI and probably an invitation for all kinds of inappropriate comments from men (do it and I ban you!!), but I truly believe that it’s an important habit for women to get into.
The vagina is housed in a confined location. It gets dark and damp down there, AMIRIGHT? And if it continues to stay that way on a regular basis, it becomes a breeding ground for all kinds of nefarious things like yeast and bacteria.
And if you throw in the occasional member of the opposite sex, then you’re introducing even more bacterial culprits that can throw you off balance.
I don’t say this to be disgusting, but to point out how our vaginas are constantly fighting for their rights to stay clean. It is an amazingly magical piece of equipment, and for the most part it does a fabulous job at cleaning itself. But it often needs a little help along the way. And there is hope: it comes in the form of oxygen.
Here’s a video where I discuss more on why I don’t wear underwear.
Yes ladies, it’s time to let your lady parts breathe. Oxygen has a way of killing both bacteria and yeast. They don’t like it! These culprits love dark and damp places, but add some oxygen and they run in fear. Bacteria can’t thrive in an oxygen-rich environment.
So letting your vajayjay breathe on a regular basis is extremely important for daily maintenance. If it’s confined constantly behind panties, it’s going to struggle to get the oxygen it needs to breathe.
Moral of the story: Let your lady parts breathe, ladies! Let them breathe!
But, what if you have to wear underwear for some reason or another? That’s okay! You don’t have to go commando all the time. Going a couple times a week, or even just doing it at night is a healthy habit to have for your lady parts.
If you’d like to see more ways to care for your vagina by keeping it clean and healthy, be sure to also watch the video below from my MocrisTV channel.
What do you do to naturally care for your hoohah? Do you have thoughts on this topic? Do you wear underwear?
No Panties, No Problems: 11 Reasons Why Women Should Go Commando Alexia LaFataAlexia LaFata in Women Feb 17, 2015 Like Us On Facebook
ReplyDeleteTo commando or not to commando?
That is the question Shakespeare should have asked, for it would have saved women’s magazines years upon years of anguish and debate over whether or not we should suffocate our lady bits in strangling contraptions better known as “underwear” or if we should just let them be.
There are common misconceptions about going commando. Some see it as bad for your sexual health.
Some see it as an indication you’re promiscuous. And others see it as a weird publicity stunt to gasp at (see: Britney Spears, circa 2010).
But, at the end of the day, going commando is not nearly as big of a deal as we all think it is, mainly because you don’t really have to tell a single person you’re doing it. In fact, more women should embrace it.
Here’s why.
1. It’s comfortable.
The number one reason you should go commando is that it’s, honestly, really comfortable.
It’s just you, your vagina and your pants getting to know each other better, hanging out like old friends, sipping glasses of wine.
2. There are no links between going commando and contracting infections.
It might feel like your bare vagina rubbing right up against the inside of your pants would create a perfect breeding ground for bacteria, but that idea has long been debunked.
Dr. Gillian Dean, Planned Parenthood New York City’s associate medical director of clinical research and training, told The Village Voice there’s no scientific research suggesting a direct correlation between going commando and contracting infections like bacterial vaginosis or yeast infections - for more just GOOGLE also "Why I Don't Wear Underwear" is all over the Internet wit people coming out endorsing going commando/ditch your panties for good.
(continued)LONG BEEN DEBUNKED
DeleteIt might feel like your bare vagina rubbing right up against the inside of your pants would create a perfect breeding ground for bacteria, but that idea has long been debunked.
Dr. Gillian Dean, Planned Parenthood New York City’s associate medical director of clinical research and training, told The Village Voice there’s no scientific research suggesting a direct correlation between going commando and contracting infections like bacterial vaginosis or yeast infections.
3. Going commando can actually help prevent infections.
If you have lots of itching and irritation down there, gynecologists actually recommend you skip wearing underwear.
On her blog, gynecologist “Dr. Kate” has found doing so really will decrease those feelings of discomfort. If you can’t find it in you to ditch underwear during the day, try doing it at night.
Vaginas are already moist and hairy, so adding a layer of suffocation (in the form of underwear) can actually make things worse.
Dr. Alyssa Dweck, M.D., told Shape magazine if your vagina is constantly covered, more moisture collects down there, which cultivates an ideal environment for yeast growth.
And since the risk of yeast infections among humans has actually been increasing, it might be a good idea to start going commando ASAP.
4. No VPL
We’ve all seen the phenomenon: A woman in tight, light-colored pants who forgets her purple granny panties are visible through her ass — in color, shape and outline — to the whole world.
Could someone really be that unaware? There’s nothing more embarrassing than that dreaded VPL (Visible Panty Line), but when you go commando, you’ll never, ever have to worry about it.
Exercise caution, though: You aren’t safe from camel toes.
5. No wedgies
Ever find yourself digging out a wedgie deeper than you’d dig for gold? Going commando means never again having to sneak away from a social situation to claw around inside your butt.
If that right there isn’t enough of a reason, I don’t know what is.
CONTINUED:"WHY I DON'T WEAR UNDERWARE" IS FILNG TE INTERNET
ReplyDeleteIf that right there isn’t enough of a reason, I don’t know what is.
6. When you actually need to go commando, you’ll already be used to it.
In your life, you might wear something to require you to go commando, and there’s no better way to prepare for that moment than going commando all the time.
Take a look at some of these celebrities whose dresses with impractical cut-outs forced them to forgo underwear for a fancy event.
For those women who’d previously been uninitiated into the commando lifestyle, I’m sure having to do so was intimidating. But for those who were used to it, it was probably just another day.
Back in high school, I wore a clingy, white, floor-length dress for senior prom that, if I wasn’t 17 at the time, I probably would have gone commando in.
If you asked me to wear that same dress now, you can bet your ass I would not wear any underwear. I’d just get a really good bikini wax instead.
7. You’ll feel sexier.
Sure, some girls feel sexy in a matching lace lingerie set, but what’s sexier and more risqué than being fully naked under those jeans?
And that little secret you have with yourself will totally up your confidence when you talk to coworkers, professors, friends and the guy you have a crush on.
8. Your man will definitely find it sexy.
Maybe your relationship needs a little excitement in the sexual department, or, hey, maybe you and your boyfriend already f*ck like wild animals and you just want to make things even more interesting.
Let your boyfriend know you’re not wearing any underwear and watch his lust for you skyrocket.
You can up the ante by whispering it in his ear in a public place where he can’t do anything about it just yet, like at a party.
You will officially become the only thing on his mind all night.
9. Your pants will fit better
Are there certain pairs of underwear you can’t wear with certain pairs of pants because they make your pants fit differently?
I can’t wear full-coverage underwear with so many of my jeans; the underwear adds just enough extra thickness, making my jeans too tight.
I feel much better in my jeans when I wear a thong or, better yet, when I go commando.
If you went commando more often, you’d never have to worry about what kind of underwear you have to wear for specific pants.
And you probably could afford to buy jeans in smaller sizes, which obviously would feel awesome.
10. You’ll feel random bursts of pleasure throughout the day.
Having the seam of your pants run right along your vagina can create some interesting sensations throughout the day.
This will especially happen if you’re wearing jeans, where the stitching is so thick, fidgeting around in a chair can rub you the wrong — or, ahem, right — way to make you feel a little unexpected warmth down there.
When this happens, smile subtly to yourself and embrace it. It’s a day-maker for sure.
11. Sometimes, it’s just necessary
If you’ve run out of clean underwear and you’re too lazy to do a wash, do not even think about going back in your dirty hamper and fetching a used pair. Instead, just go commando.
There’s no better time to start than right now.
from the internet
ReplyDelete"Most panties are not even comfortable and if you are adjusting them all the time it can really affect your mood. Might be something you could do as your New Year’s resolution, go without for 2014."
Read "Ditch Your Panties" on the Internet for advice (for both better health and comfort ... even better confidence where it counts)
ReplyDeletefrom the Internet:
ReplyDeleteRuth Turner · Human Services Worker at Independant Contractor
I had a vein specialist tell me that panties decrese circulation to the legs, making it more likely to develop vericose veins.
Indeed, you're better "off" & better off completely and permanently than "on" with panties ... as or when u hav your period, trust your brand of tampon or menstrual "cup"
DeleteFROM THE INTERNET-QUOTE
ReplyDelete"Commando Perks
"Skipping your undies has practical advantages. First, you eliminate that dreaded wardrobe woe, visible panty lines. Second, you'll never do an emergency load of laundry because you've run out of clean underwear. Plus, briefs and thongs can be icky sweat magnets.
"But it's also about reveling in your sexy side. "Not wearing panties is risqué; you get a naughty rush knowing you're so exposed," explains Los Angeles clinical sexologist Ava Cadell, PhD. Removing the barrier that shields your intimate anatomy makes you more in touch with your innate sensuality, she adds.
"Another benefit to being bare: how it affects your man. Whisper that you're pantyless and his lust level will instantly soar. Even if you don't clue him in, he'll still be burning with desire. "Without underwear blocking your body, a man has an easier time picking up on your pheromones, which are natural chemicals you emit below the belt that make you attractive to guys," says Cadell." TRY IT, YOU'LL LIKE IT
See ''kinckerless rowers on BBC'' for a view of the advantages of knickerless/ pantiless
ReplyDeleteFROM THE INTERNET - STANDING OVATION
Delete"From what my wife tells me, it's actually better for you to not wear panties, especially in summer. She's read that it helps to prevent yeast infections. I just like the idea because it's sexy. I remember the first time years ago when we were out at dinner that she wasn't wearing panties. It had an interesting impact on the old boy.
"HOWEVER, you do have to (as one person put it) watch out for those stairs in malls and such that have no walls just railings....could provide and interesting show for the crowd on the first level. I remember a woman telling me years back that she used to go commando and flash people when she was out with hubby because hubby found it quite the turn on to see the reaction of other men.
"Another story......a friend told us once that she was at a wedding reception and some woman slipped on somthing on the dance floor, went ass over teacups with legs in the air and was not wearing panties. She got a standing ovation from everybody and I'm thinking that some of the men in the audience had something else standing as well."
SES ALSO "Why I Don't Wear Underwear" on the Internet
FROM A CHAT ROOM - A GOOD LOOK AT WHAT'S GONG ON IN THE OFFICE:
ReplyDeleteI work in a small office with five girls, one of which is quite new. She always wears fairly short skirts, but not overly so. I never really thought about whether she wore knickers or not until about a month ago when she needed to take some files from the bottom drawer of a cabinet. As she crouched down, I got a superb view right up her skirt. She had no knickers on and her pussy was clean shaven. She was in that position for a couple of minutes and didn't notice me looking.
Since then I have seen up her skirt twice more. On both occasions she was knickerless.
Last Tuesday, another of the girls bent over in front of me to retrieve something from the floor. She also had no knickers on. Lately, life is getting a lot more interesting.
Respond to this message Ralph Mc J
April 7 2011, 12:16 PM
The other day while I was sitting in my office one of the outer office girls came in carrying a folder. She was wearing a summery dress with quite a short, floaty skirt. She threw the folder onto my desk and started complaining that I hadn't put the contents back in the correct order. I said OK I'll sort it out, but this did'nt seem to satisfy her, she still kept moaning. Getting a bit fed up with her, I said,"don't get your knickers in a twist, I'll sort it out". She gave me a funny look, and said, "I'm not wearing any". Jokingly I said, "prove it". With that she took hold of the hem of her dress and lifted it up to her waist, showing me her totally bare, shaven pussy. I asked her why she had no knickers on, and she told me that she hadn't worn any for about five years as it was so much more comfortable without them.
IT WOULD APPEAR (OR NOT APPEAR AT ALL) THAT KNICKERLESS/PANTILESS WAS QUITE "NORMAL" AT THAT OFFICE ... COMFORTABLE AS WELL AS NATURAL!
FROM A CHAT ROOM - A GOOD LOOK AT WHAT'S GONG ON IN THE OFFICE:
ReplyDeleteI work in a small office with five girls, one of which is quite new. She always wears fairly short skirts, but not overly so. I never really thought about whether she wore knickers or not until about a month ago when she needed to take some files from the bottom drawer of a cabinet. As she crouched down, I got a superb view right up her skirt. She had no knickers on and her pussy was clean shaven. She was in that position for a couple of minutes and didn't notice me looking.
Since then I have seen up her skirt twice more. On both occasions she was knickerless.
Last Tuesday, another of the girls bent over in front of me to retrieve something from the floor. She also had no knickers on. Lately, life is getting a lot more interesting.
Respond to this message Ralph Mc J
April 7 2011, 12:16 PM
The other day while I was sitting in my office one of the outer office girls came in carrying a folder. She was wearing a summery dress with quite a short, floaty skirt. She threw the folder onto my desk and started complaining that I hadn't put the contents back in the correct order. I said OK I'll sort it out, but this did'nt seem to satisfy her, she still kept moaning. Getting a bit fed up with her, I said,"don't get your knickers in a twist, I'll sort it out". She gave me a funny look, and said, "I'm not wearing any". Jokingly I said, "prove it". With that she took hold of the hem of her dress and lifted it up to her waist, showing me her totally bare, shaven pussy. I asked her why she had no knickers on, and she told me that she hadn't worn any for about five years as it was so much more comfortable without them.
IT WOULD APPEAR (OR NOT APPEAR AT ALL) THAT KNICKERLESS/PANTILESS WAS QUITE "NORMAL" AT THAT OFFICE ... COMFORTABLE AS WELL AS NATURAL!
SOMBODY SOMTHING
ReplyDeleteFrom what my wife tells me, it's actually better for you to not wear panties, especially in summer. She's read that it helps to prevent yeast infections. I just like the idea because it's sexy. I remember the first time years ago when we were out at dinner that she wasn't wearing panties. It had an interesting impact on the old boy.
HOWEVER, you do have to (as one person put it) watch out for those stairs in malls and such that have no walls just railings....could provide and interesting show for the crowd on the first level. I remember a woman telling me years back that she used to go commando and flash people when she was out with hubby because hubby found it quite the turn on to see the reaction of other men.
Another story......a friend told us once that she was at a wedding reception and some woman slipped on somthing on the dance floor, went ass over teacups with legs in the air and was not wearing panties. She got a standing ovation from everybody and I'm thinking that some of the men in the audience had something else standing as well.
I Don't Wear Underwear
ReplyDeleteIt Happened Gradually.
Seriously, I was once a law-abiding panty-loving girl.
A year and a half ago, I bought a particular pair of pants that I didn't like wearing panties with, so whenever I wore them, I went commando.
(PLEASE NOTE: I made sure to wash these pants every time I wore them.)
Anyway, soon I was thinking to myself, "Gee, this feels pretty good." So I started skipping panties two or three times a week. Always with pants, though.
Then, one day, I decided to wear a skirt, and all my skirt panties were in the wash, and I couldn't find a good pair, and I thought to myself, "Do you dare?"
Well, I did. And the rest is history. I can't tell you how deliciously free I feel! It's like skinny-dipping without the water!
ReplyDelete"Another story......a friend told us once that she was at a wedding reception and some woman slipped on somthing on the dance floor, went ass over teacups with legs in the air and was not wearing panties. She got a standing ovation from everybody and I'm thinking that some of the men in the audience had something else standing as well."
FROM INTERNET:::
ReplyDeleteDid her cooter get in the yearbook? | The Demon's Den
www.dreamindemon.com › Forums › Reality Bites! › Weird News
May 15, 2009 - it's been awhile since i was in high school, but do schoolgirls nowadays really routinely go pantie-less with a skirt like that?
LOOKS LIKE PANTIE-LESS IS "ON THE RISE" OR PERHAPS IT'S JUST LETTING THE WORLD KNOW ABOUT IT! PANTIES OPTIONAL IS (AND PROBABLY HAS BEEN) AROUND FOR A LONG TIME!!
FROM-THE-INTERNET-IS PANTILESS "NORMAL"
ReplyDeleteQUOTE
Going commando
There are plenty of reasons some women choose to go without panties.
First, there's this bright-and-breezy, liberating feeling about going commando that's hard to resist. Then, there's the whole "how to deal with panty lines" nightmare and the relevant wardrobe malfunctions.
More importantly, taking it a step further and ditching your bra as well could be good for your health. After examining for 15 years the effect of bras on breasts, Jean-Denis Rouillon– a sports medicine specialist at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire in France – found out last year that bras are detrimental to women's health. "Medically, physiologically, anatomically – breasts gain no benefit from being denied gravity," he said during a radio interview with France Info.
Yet, despite the undeniable perks that come with skipping your undies, this scandalous habit was always considered the hallmark of provocative wannabe celebs. It hasn't yet evolved into an actual trend, one that grabs the attention of lingerie industry players. But things could be changing.
In a recent, fashion-based poll conducted by Vanity Fair and 60 Minutes, 25% of the Americans surveyed confirmed that they leave the house without undies, at least, occasionally. Apparently, more people go commando than we might think.
jUST AS WELL BE PANTILESS. THE MAIN FUNCTION OF THESE ITEMS SEEMS TO BE GROWING CROPS OF YEAST (AND WORSE) AND KEEPING GYNECOLOGISTS WELL PAID FOR TREATING WHAT WOMEN LEARNED LONG AGO TO ELIMINATE ALONG WITH PANTIES. BESIDES, IT'S A LOT EASIER TO "SQUAT AND PEE" THAN PILE ON EXCESS LAYERS AS WELL AS CUT OFF CIRCULATION TO YOUR LEGS AND LOWER ABDOMEN.
DeleteIT'S JUST AS WELL BE PANTILESS (BRA-LESS TOO). THE MAIN FUNCTION OF THESE ITEMS SEEMS TO BE GROWING CROPS OF YEAST (AND WORSE) AND KEEPING GYNECOLOGISTS WELL PAID FOR TREATING WHAT WOMEN LEARNED LONG AGO TO ELIMINATE ALONG WITH NEVER WEARING (OR EVEN KNOWING ABOUT) PANTIES. BESIDES, IT'S A LOT EASIER TO "SQUAT AND PEE" THAN PILE ON EXCESS LAYERS AS WELL AS CUT OFF CIRCULATION TO YOUR LEGS AND LOWER ABDOMEN. AS FOR THE BRA, WOMEN GOT ALONG JUST FINE WITHOUT THEM ... LONG BEFORE SOMEBODY THOUGHT TO PUT THEM WHERE THEY DON'T BELONG!!
ReplyDeleteIT'S JUST AS WELL BE PANTILESS (BRA-LESS TOO). THE MAIN FUNCTION OF THESE ITEMS SEEMS TO BE GROWING CROPS OF YEAST (AND WORSE) AND KEEPING GYNECOLOGISTS WELL PAID FOR TREATING WHAT WOMEN LEARNED LONG AGO TO ELIMINATE ALONG WITH NEVER WEARING (OR EVEN KNOWING ABOUT) PANTIES. BESIDES, IT'S A LOT EASIER TO "SQUAT AND PEE" THAN PILE ON EXCESS LAYERS AS WELL AS CUT OFF CIRCULATION TO YOUR LEGS AND LOWER ABDOMEN. AS FOR THE BRA, WOMEN GOT ALONG JUST FINE WITHOUT THEM ... LONG BEFORE SOMEBODY THOUGHT TO PUT THEM WHERE THEY DON'T BELONG!!
ReplyDeletefrom the internet:Why It Pays to Ditch Your Panties\\Christina Aguilera is on to something—going commando has its perks. It's comfy, practical, and undeniably sexy. Here's everything you need to know about going bare.\By Sara Bodnar\Christina Aguilera doesn't like to wear panties.\Special Offer\Christina Aguilera recently caught our attention when she talked about how much she hates wearing underwear. Going pantyless is "empowering," she confessed. "I like to be as free as possible at all times."\Stepping out sans panties is a frisky fashion move more and more chicks like Christina are daring to try. But it’s not exactly a new trend; some of history’s hottest sex goddesses, such as Cleopatra and Jean Harlow, reportedly went au naturel beneath their clothes. If you want in on the no-panties movement, read on.\Commando Perks\Skipping your undies has practical advantages. First, you eliminate that dreaded wardrobe woe, visible panty lines. Second, you’ll never do an emergency load of laundry because you’ve run out of clean underwear. Plus, briefs and thongs can be icky sweat magnets.\But it’s also about reveling in your sexy side. "Not wearing panties is risqué; you get a naughty rush knowing you’re so exposed," explains Los Angeles clinical sexologist Ava Cadell, PhD. Removing the barrier that shields your intimate anatomy makes you more in touch with your innate sensuality, she adds.\Another benefit to being bare: how it affects your man. Whisper that you’re pantyless and his lust level will instantly soar. Even if you don’t clue him in, he’ll still be burning with desire. "Without underwear blocking your body, a man has an easier time picking up on your pheromones, which are natural chemicals you emit below the belt that make you attractive to guys," says Cadell.\Bare-Down-There Drawbacks\Ditching your undies has a few small pitfalls. One minor risk is a rash that can result from the delicate skin down below chafing against your pants. Another is pubic lice, aka crabs — parasites that are usually transmitted via sex but can live on towels and other surfaces. If you’re wearing a skirt and then sit on a lice-infested towel, they have a direct path to your privates.\Going panty-free during your period makes you more vulnerable to infections. "Anytime you use a tampon, your vaginal opening is more exposed, allowing bacteria to enter and trigger bacterial vaginosis or a urinary tract infection," says Lisa Masterson, an ob-gyn at Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles. "Since your vagina isn’t covered by undies, you’re more susceptible to these possibly serious conditions."\And what about ordinary daily discharge? Without panties, the inside of your clothes may end up with a slight trace. But it’s not a health risk. "As long as you wash your private parts daily, you won’t increase your odds of developing an infection," says Dr. Masterson.\The bottom line on going bare: It’s all about personal preference. You can do it as seldom or as often as you’d like and it’ll be your sexy secret — that is, unless you decide to share.
ReplyDeletefrom the internet:Why It Pays to Ditch Your Panties\\Christina Aguilera is on to something—going commando has its perks. It's comfy, practical, and undeniably sexy. Here's everything you need to know about going bare.\By Sara Bodnar\Christina Aguilera doesn't like to wear panties.\Special Offer\Christina Aguilera recently caught our attention when she talked about how much she hates wearing underwear. Going pantyless is "empowering," she confessed. "I like to be as free as possible at all times."\Stepping out sans panties is a frisky fashion move more and more chicks like Christina are daring to try. But it’s not exactly a new trend; some of history’s hottest sex goddesses, such as Cleopatra and Jean Harlow, reportedly went au naturel beneath their clothes. If you want in on the no-panties movement, read on.\Commando Perks\Skipping your undies has practical advantages. First, you eliminate that dreaded wardrobe woe, visible panty lines. Second, you’ll never do an emergency load of laundry because you’ve run out of clean underwear. Plus, briefs and thongs can be icky sweat magnets.\But it’s also about reveling in your sexy side. "Not wearing panties is risqué; you get a naughty rush knowing you’re so exposed," explains Los Angeles clinical sexologist Ava Cadell, PhD. Removing the barrier that shields your intimate anatomy makes you more in touch with your innate sensuality, she adds.\Another benefit to being bare: how it affects your man. Whisper that you’re pantyless and his lust level will instantly soar. Even if you don’t clue him in, he’ll still be burning with desire. "Without underwear blocking your body, a man has an easier time picking up on your pheromones, which are natural chemicals you emit below the belt that make you attractive to guys," says Cadell.\Bare-Down-There Drawbacks\Ditching your undies has a few small pitfalls. One minor risk is a rash that can result from the delicate skin down below chafing against your pants. Another is pubic lice, aka crabs — parasites that are usually transmitted via sex but can live on towels and other surfaces. If you’re wearing a skirt and then sit on a lice-infested towel, they have a direct path to your privates.\Going panty-free during your period makes you more vulnerable to infections. "Anytime you use a tampon, your vaginal opening is more exposed, allowing bacteria to enter and trigger bacterial vaginosis or a urinary tract infection," says Lisa Masterson, an ob-gyn at Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles. "Since your vagina isn’t covered by undies, you’re more susceptible to these possibly serious conditions."\And what about ordinary daily discharge? Without panties, the inside of your clothes may end up with a slight trace. But it’s not a health risk. "As long as you wash your private parts daily, you won’t increase your odds of developing an infection," says Dr. Masterson.\The bottom line on going bare: It’s all about personal preference. You can do it as seldom or as often as you’d like and it’ll be your sexy secret — that is, unless you decide to share.
ReplyDeleteBritain by numbers: top 20 facts
ReplyDelete8 Out of 10 Brits, a book on British statistics by Charlie Croker, reveals some surprising facts about what he dubs world's 79th largest nation.
By Sasjkia Otto 11:32AM BST 20 Aug 2009
Charlie Croker is an author and journalist who specialises in compiling unusual lists.
Here is a top 20 glimpse of his numerical portrait of British life, as compiled by The Sun.
1. Almost one in five women have gone to work without wearing any underwear.
2. British people eat twice as many baked beans as anybody else in Europe.
Pantiless or rather Knickerless seems to be quite normal and natural!
ReplyDeleteWhat a person wears under their "outerwear" is obviously their own choice, comfort & delight. Besides "panties" thongs G-strings and knickers, if you read up on fashion history, are quite recent inventions/ impositions upon women ... being free of them sounds like an idea whose time has come!
Pantiless or rather Knickerless seems to be quite normal and natural!
ReplyDeleteWhat a person wears under their "outerwear" is obviously their own choice, comfort & delight. Besides "panties" thongs G-strings and knickers, if you read up on fashion history, are quite recent inventions/ impositions upon women ... being free of them sounds like an idea whose time has come!
SUURVEY
ReplyDeleteVanity Fair teamed up with 60 Minutes to conduct a fashion-based poll, asking Americans everything from what their biggest fashion nightmare would be, to identifying big industry names to… how often they go commando. According to the results, more...
Vanity Fair teamed up with 60 Minutes to conduct a fashion-based poll, asking Americans everything from what their biggest fashion nightmare would be, to identifying big industry names to… how often they go commando. According to the results, more people do it than you might think.
25 percent of those polled admitted they go sans underwear at least sometimes. Of that 25 percent, 13 percent said they do it “occasionally,” 5 percent confessed they ditch their underwear “once a week” and 7 percent said they went without undergarments “all the time.”
Of course, there are plenty of reasons to leave the house without your undies every so often. It can be pretty liberating, for one. Plus there’s that whole thing about shapewear being detrimental to your health.
Still, we can’t imagine ditching our beloved undie collection permanently. What about you? Would you go commando for good? Sound off below!
Huffingtonpost
60 minutes
It seems than women have caught on that panties, knickers, thongs, G-strings, cheese-wire or whatever binds up between your legs r a matter of "anything goes" or in this case "everything goes" ... in the name and spirit of health, comfort, economy, fresh air and freedom from being "locked up" and hobbled in getting out and enjoying yourself!!! Panties Be Gone!
ReplyDeleteA BRIEF HISTORY OF LADIES UNDERWEAR By Tim Lambert Early Women's Underwear Ancient Greek women wore a form of bra called an apodesme. Both Roman men&women wore a loincloth or shorts called subligaculum. Women also wore a band of cloth or leather around their chest called a strophium or mamilare. \\After the fall of Rome women did not usually wear panties until the 19th century. Their only underwear was a long linen garment called a shift, smock or chemise, which they wore under their dress. From the 16th century women wore corsets made with whalebone. Also in the late 16th century women began to a wear frame made of wire or whalebone called a farthingale. Slightly later some women wore a roll around their waist called a 'bum-roll' to hold out their dress.\\From the end of the 16th century women wore skirt like garments called petticoats, which were some-times embroidered. (A petticoat was originally a petty coat, a short coat worn by a man but women borrowed the term).\19th Century Women's Underwear \The word drawers was invented because underwear was drawn on. Where does the word knickers come from? It comes from a novel called History of New York by Diedrich Knicker-bocker, supposedly a Dutchman living in New York (it was actually written by Washington Irving). In Britain the illustrations for the book showed a Dutchman wearing long, loose fitting garments on his lower body. When men wore loose trousers for sport they were sometimes called knickerbockers. However women's underwear were soon called knickerbockers too. In the late 19th century the word was shortened to knickers.\In the USA women's underwear are called panties, which is obviously a diminutive of pants. However the word panties has never been common in the UK.\At the beginning of the 19th century women still wore a long nightie-like garment under their dress but it was now called a chemise not a shift. However after about 1800 they also wore drawers. Sometimes they came to below the knee or sometimes they were longer garments with frills at the bottom called pantalettes. However by the 1830s only girls not women wore pantalettes.\Today we still say a pair of knickers or panties. That is because in the early 19th century women's underwear consisted to two separate legs joined at the waist. They really were a 'pair'.\At first women's drawers were usually very plain but in the late 19th century they were decorated with lace&bands. In the winter women often wore woolen knickers &woolen vests. In the 1860s some women began to wear colored petticoats &drawers although white remained very common.\Life in the 19th Century \In the 19th century women's underwear were sometimes called bloomers. Elizabeth Miller invented loose trousers to be worn by women. Amelia Bloomer promoted the idea from 1849&they became known as bloomers. In time long underwear became known as bloomers.20th Century Women's Underwear\In the 19th century women's underwear was usually open between the legs but in the 20th century closed knickers replaced them. In 1910 stockings&knickers were first made of rayon (at first rayon was called artificial silk). Nylon was invented by Wallace Carothers in 1935. The first nylon stockings were sold in 1939. Later knickers were also made of nylon.\
ReplyDeletecontinued Nylon was invented by Wallace Carothers in 1935. The first nylon stockings were sold in 1939. Later knickers were also made of nylon.\ Meanwhile in 1913 Mary Phelps Jacob invented the modern bra. She used 2 handkerchiefs joined by ribbon. The wonderbra was invented in 1963.\In the 19th century knickers came down to well below the knee. In the 1920s they became shorter. They ended above the knee. By the 1940s&1950s many women wore briefs. Knickers became briefer still in the 1970s. In the 1990s thongs became common. \Meanwhile in 1949 an American tennis player named Gertrude Moran or Gussie Moran (1923-2013) caused a sensation when she appeared at Wimbledon wearing frilly panties. She was called Gorgeous Gussie&it was very daring in 1949! \Women have worn stockings for centuries but tights (pantyhose) were introduced in 1959. Meanwhile in the late 20th century women's underwear became more basic& corsets& petticoats became less&less common. Finally our word lingerie is derived from the French word for linen, lin. Lingerie were things made from linen.
Deletefrom the inernet - quote
ReplyDeleteThe other day while I was sitting in my office one of the outer office girls came in carrying a folder. She was wearing a summery dress with quite a short, floaty skirt.
She threw the folder onto my desk and started complaining that I hadn't put the contents back in the correct order. I said OK I'll sort it out, but this did'nt seem to satisfy her, she still kept moaning. Getting a bit fed up with her, I said,"don't get your knickers in a twist, I'll sort it out".
She gave me a funny look, and said, "I'm not wearing any". Jokingly I said, "prove it". With that she took hold of the hem of her dress and lifted it up to her waist, showing me her totally bare, shaven pussy. I asked her why she had no knickers on, and she told me that she hadn't worn any for about five years as it was so much more comfortable without them.
comfortable? also healthier, more economical, more delightful etc. makes u wonder why anybody ever wears panties under their skirts at all (P.S. tampons work great for special occasions)
ReplyDeleteFROM THE INTERNET:20% of Brit women go to work knickerless!
ReplyDeleteLast Updated: Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 15:44
London: Almost twenty percent of British women have gone to work without wearing their knickers, says a new book.
The book titled ‘8 Out Of 10 Brits’ by Charlie Croker has revealed that women own 22 pairs of knickers on average – and nearly 1 in 5 has gone to work knickerless.
Although it's a WIFL -- Whatever I Feel Like -- matter, going pantiless, knickerless and definitely G-string and "thong-less" is quite popular and acceptable ... a lot healthier too!!!
Seems knickerless / pantiless is not just an idea whose time has come ... but something women have enjoyed for 99+ percent of human history if you read up on history of underwear or Google "Why I Don't Wear Underwear." Ditch Your Panties seems 2B best!!!
DeleteKEY TO GOOD HEALTH! SEE:
Deletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3573984/Women-say-key-good-health-NOT-wearing-knickers-sounds-extraordinary-evidence-surprising.html#ixzz4OOx4U5eP