Talk:Undergarment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Boxer Shorts Pic 2 History 3 Bustle 4 Many problems with this article 5 Double-seat briefs 6 Chastity belts 7 Briefs and sperm count 8 I vote to merge 9 Underwearing 10 Dessous 11 Superman? 12 Braies 13 Anyone want to post a picture of their underwear 14 Too Many Pictures of Guys 15 Henry VIII 16 Deletion 16.1 Can we settle this? 17 Too Many Pictures?? 18 VPL 19 Religious underwear 20 Going bareback?

[edit] Boxer Shorts Pic

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

[edit] History

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

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

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

[edit] Bustle

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

[edit] Many problems with this article

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

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

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

PS. I just checked. I was wrong re cotton. According to this link [1] it has been known for a long time, but because it required extremely time-intensive seed-removal, it was expensive and scarce. It wasn't common till after the cotton gin. THAT is what I was remembering. I knew there was a reason that European underclothing was made out of linen. Zora 06:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Double-seat briefs

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

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

[edit] Chastity belts

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

Said editor was moi, evidence...blah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Briefs and sperm count

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

[edit] I vote to merge

Crzrussian 00:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Underwearing

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

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

[edit] Dessous

There is a picture in the article captioned "model in dessous" but the term is a redlink and there is no other use of the word in the article. I would try to fix it but I have absolutely no idea what that term means and Google did not help me much. It's clearly underwear related but that's all I got. Any ideas? ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Both Babelfish & Google language translate "dessous" from french as "below", I changed it to "camisole, garters and stockings". -RJFerret 15:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superman?

Well, I don't know if you want to mention this, but Superman wears his underwear over his pants :).

It's already mentioned, as a gimec of various 'superheroes', but in the specific article Briefs Fastifex 16:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Braies

Reverted someone's removal of link markup on braies, which they said they took off because there was "no suitable article". Failure to grasp the concept. Ortolan88 20:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously they mean no link to braies as undergarment, in effect a crypto-red link Fastifex 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone want to post a picture of their underwear

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

[edit] Too Many Pictures of Guys

We need a couple of these photos to be replaced with pictures of women wearing underwear. Thank you.
Knightskye 06:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Henry VIII

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

[edit] Deletion

I have deleted the unsourced comment that corsets were very uncomfortable for the wearer and caused health problems. Tightlacing is certainly an issue, but a well-fitted corset of modest compression is not. - PKM 22:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Rodparkes 07:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)== Crusade ==

I removed an image after coming across it in Temple garments. From what I can tell this user is on a crusade to insert this image in any article he thinks he can argue it has relevence. I don't think it has relevence here because the picture does not add any information to what is already in the text Abeo Paliurus 21:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The image is perfectly relevent in this article and in Temple garments. If he puts it in places where it isn't relevent ot the topic it will be removed. However, Wikipedia is not censored for anyone's religious views. pschemp | talk 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this silly edit warring. Let's discuss the merits of keeping/deleting the picture of Mormons in their underwear and come to a consensus (if that is possible). Pontificake 21:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - but when someone specficially picks out an image with the express purpose of embarrasing a group of people that is wrong. I will be happy to find another image, or even take one myself. I left the image where it was on-topic - unlike some other editors there. I plead with the editors here to not allow one editor to harrass a group of people by embarrasing them. We don't put the images of the prophet mohammad on the cartoon page, why would we treat a christian religion any differently. Abeo Paliurus 21:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore - the addition is awkward since there are already so many pictures - Abeo Paliurus 21:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a cartoon, it is a straightforward illustration. There is no intent to ridicule inherent in the image. I don't see anything embarassing about it either, as the faces are not visible. I think this page does have too many pictures, but I'd keep this one since it is one of the more interesting ones and certainly not the only religious undergarment in the world. Many beleif systems have things they consider secret that are discussed and illustrated on Wikipedia, but we don't remove them because that group is uncomfortable with them being shared. Doing so is the silppery slope to censorship. If you don't like the image, don't look at it, but no religion has precedence here when it comes to content. pschemp | talk 22:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article contains too many pictures, but it is not fair to accuse another editor of doing something for the purpose of embarrassing a group. FYI, the Mohammed cartoons do appear on Wikipedia so there are no double-standards. As the Temple Garments are very distinctive I think that the image does contribute to the article.Pontificake 22:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

the photo contributes nothing - it's insertion was intended to ridicule, as anyone familiar with anti-mormon literature knows. distinctive? with the exception of certain details not even visible in the photo, the male garment is identical to regular men's undergarments you can buy at any wal-mart. also, i'm not myself mormon. 63.166.224.67 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The photo illustrates what is stated in the accompanying text. Wikipedia does not allow censorship. Leave this image where it is. Removing it again will be considered vandalism. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed a compromise on the LDS garment page. Someone can take a photo of some run of the mill undies, that resemeble Mormon underwear (they are really not all that different than contemporary non-Mormon underwear), and have a caption that says "Mormon underwear is similar to those shown here". This way, we have a depiction of the clothing without offending Mormons by using actual underwear. Bytebear 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, then we would have a depiction of something 'similar' to the actual object rather than the current actual item, a step back from where we are now. See my counterproposal over at the other talk page. I consider this 'proposal' to be an end run to censorship. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I too think the LDS Garments photo should be removed from the article. The text itself may be ok, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has never released general public photos of those two piece garments and as such, the photo is unverifiable and generally disrespectful. 4.154.53.242 23:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow censorship; if the picture is so upsetting to you, don't look at it. The LDS church can dictate what goes into their publications; they do not have the right to do that here. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about censorship Duke53. This is about including unverifiable and possibly inaccurate information into a wikipedia article, all in the name of anti-censorship. I vote that this picture be removed. As was previously stated, the LDS church has never released public pictures, in reference to the garments, and should therefore be treated as non-notable. For all we know, the picture could be completely wrong. The only word we have that this picture is correct is some random wikipedia user. Quit harping on "we don't allow censorship" and do what is right. If this picture stays, then you will be stating that Wikipedia allows for potentially inaccurate images to be included with their information.Phefner 04:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to vandalize articles you will be barred from editing at Wikipedia. The picture does not have to come from the LDS church; they do not control what appears in Wikipedia. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Duke, you are real close to be banned yourself. I sincerely question your "neutral" point of view on this topic. Of course the LDS church doesn't dictate what is on wikipedia, that is not the debate at hand. The debate is that you are putting non-notable photographs into your articles. I urge you to remove the picture before another mod is dragged in to this. Besides, after doing a little research, I've noticed that you have quite a few "LDS" articles that you've added this picture to. Is this a personal vendetta that you have against them, I didn't think that was allowed in Wikipedia? Phefner 05:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Duke, you are real close to be banned yourself." Do tell. If you noticed the names of the articles you would be able to see why they are relevant to the article. The picture, after much debate, will be staying in the articles. Wikipedia does not allow censorship. Please stop with the personal attacks or I will report you; that behavior is definitely not allowed here.

Bytebear, persistant deletion of the article is vandalism, especially after the long discussions we have had here. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Duke, you are not assuming good faith. Please stop with the threats. Bytebear 05:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A thought: The LDS temple garments are probably the best-known example of religious underwear, at least in the Western Hemisphere. The picture is not inherently to ridicule; the simple fact is that not everyone knows what the garments look like, and it's not the LDS church's place to say that they can't be shown on Wikipedia. Haikupoet 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the photograph is totally to ridicule either, however my problem lies with the notability of the photograph. Phefner 05:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Duke, Wikipedia also doesn't allow the uploading of non-notable photographs as well. My apologies for the "you are close to being banned yourself" comment, that was spoken out of emotion, and I do apologize, but my argument still stands. Post a notable picture that can verify the authenticity of your claims, otherwise it should be removed. Phefner 05:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A little background: This discussion has been hashed out quite a bit on the Temple garment page, and the image has been cleaned up to make it less obtrusive, but it is still unverifiable and I believe unnecessary in this article. Duke is a bit of a crusader for the inclusion of this image. He uploaded it originally and claims to have permission for it's use. This issue has never, and probably will never be resolved, and the image will be removed and added time and again, and threatening good faith users is not the solution. Bytebear 05:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"He uploaded it originally and claims to have permission for it's use". Good faith? Hmm ... I gave all the pertinent and necessary info about the original photograph and the means for anyone to verify it. The original was more pertinent until someone decided that it 'looked' better rendered almost as a cartoon; the original is still available and could be put back in place very easily. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not LDS and I find the idea of sacred underwear a bit silly. BUT -- using a WP article to conduct some sort of "embarrass the LDS" crusade is just plain wrong. Duke can get his own web page and fill it with underwear pictures if he likes, but he can't use this article for his purposes. Perhaps this has reached the point where we can ask to have Duke banned, as having exhausted the community's patience? Zora 06:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps this has reached the point where we can ask to have Duke banned, as having exhausted the community's patience"? The entire community? You do what you think that you have to do, and I will do the same. This picture is relevant to this article. Ask yourself one question though: What other pictures here have been deleted on a regular basis? It is clearly a select group who seem to be repeatedly deleting this photo. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am up for any solution you feel is appropriate, but I think it should be initiated by those who have no stake in the image debate itself, but rather are looking at the disruptive nature of the user in question. Certainly there are plenty of people who dislike the image, and Duke is the only vocal proponent of it's use in this article, so I want to make sure he is given a fair shake. Bytebear 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we settle this?

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who's tired of seeing this picture getting yanked in and out on a weekly basis. It seems to me that there are several questions here we should address:

1. Is Mormon underwear of sufficient significance to be mentioned in the article?

2. If so, should there be an illustration of it?

3. If so, is the disputed picture suitable for this purpose (i.e. is it verifiable as an accurate depiction, is it free of copyright problems, and does it show clearly what makes this underwear distinctive)?

My own answers would be 1- yes; 2- probably yes; and 3- I have no idea. What do others think? Clearly Duke is intent on inserting it and some others (presumably Mormons) are intent on excluding it; what we need is a consensus of those in neither camp. Rodparkes 07:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've reverted the last removal, with my reasons in the history summary, but I'll repeat them here. Mormon temple garments are likely the best-known form of religious underwear in the English-speaking world, and as such are perfectly representative of the phenomenon. Their existence is common knowledge and pictures (such as this one) are readily available. There is no reason to not have a picture here. On a personal level, coming from a religious background that is quite open about its doctrines and symbols (though not its practices), the Roman Catholic Church, and now being a member of the secularist/humanist tradition, which prizes openness as a major virtue, I don't really sympathize with the LDS contributors who feel that their religious symbols shouldn't be shown in public -- to me, it's sufficient that they be shown without being ridiculed or defaced. But that's only my personal opinion. Haikupoet 07:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Many Pictures??

Stepping aside form the conversation about re: Mormon temple garments, several peopole have said that there are "too many pictures" in this article. What does everyone mean by that? To my mind, there are too many contemporary photographs that don't adequately illustrate the features of the garments worn (as opposed to other garments) and not enough images of historical styles (no union suits, for example). Would it be better to move some of the images into galleries with smaller pictures, perhaps one for "contemporary underwear"? Thoughts? - PKM 18:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that - whether or not you decide to keep the temple garments - there are too many pictures in this article - it is not aesthetically pleasing. --Trödel 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that a gallery is probably not the answer here, I'd prefer to see the pictures pared down. Many are redundant. pschemp | talk 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree on gallery - I have arranged the pics a little and think they look more aesthetically pleasing - I used 1024x768 and 1280x1024 resolutions to test the visual appearance. --Trödel 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This change to move the picture to the left and change sizes hurts the visual appeal because it pushes section headings to the middle of the screen and throws of the bulleted list of underwear styles. --Trödel 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VPL

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

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

[edit] Religious underwear

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

[edit] Going bareback?

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