Panties? Should I or should I not wear any? - Baltimore Post-ExaminerBaltimore Post-Examiner

Panties? Should I or should I not wear any?

Panties. Do you ever think about them? Are you a panty aficionado? There are panty raids in college and panty parties. Once at a bachelorette party in Vegas one of the women traded her panties for some guy’s boxers.

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.

Women aren’t the only ones wearing panties. If you ask online, it will tell you that 75 percent of men have tried women’s panties on and 20 percent wear them all the time. Men, are they comfortable to you and which do you prefer?

I took all but one picture from Google images so you can find more there. Let’s look at those I chose.

Bikini: always comfortable, always cute and never goes out of style. Who doesn’t have at least one of these in their panty drawer?

FrillyFrilly panties: These are cute like little baby dolls although you really can’t wear them under much so I guess they are just to wear by themselves, or maybe with a short tee?

Rear ShapersRear Shapers: I love these! We are a family of no butts and most of us could actually use one of these panties. If you are squeezed, can others tell? How many women wear these all the time and how do you explain later?

Invisible panties: I found this website called Kickstarter where you can post an item for a given amount of time that you would like funding for. These invisible panties were on the site and they didn’t get the funding they were looking for. The post says they are invisible, comfortable and sexy. Potential backers probably saw what I saw: the invisible panties look like wadded up toilet paper and were taped them on. I am sure all the potential backers (men and women) agreed they would rather just forego any panties – if the invisible panties were our only choice.

Barely there thong: They say thong underwear can cause yeast and bacterial infections so you should wear cotton, unless of course, it’s a special occasion. These are cute, much, much cuter than the invisible panties above. What is the use of the invisible panties when you have these? Wouldn’t you consider the barely there thong practically invisible, comfortable and sexy? I think so!

Hey guys, confident women wear thongs. Why do you ask? Because they are more comfortable with their body and here’s another hot tip, those confident in their body are more likely to enjoy experimenting in the bedroom.

BriefsBriefs: No one likes to admit they own briefs but come on, if you have a not so perfect body, these shape you and they look great under dress pants and skirts. I’ll bet a huge percentage of professional women own more than one.

Edible Chocolate Thongs: Japanese Culture says Japanese women give chocolate to men on Valentine’s Day. Would this be considered Fine Chocolates, comparable to the Japanese Royce chocolates or Belgium’s Godiva? I remember those edible panties that were like old fruit roll ups. Yuck, thank goodness I don’t have to eat them. Throw them to the side.

Candie ThongsEdible Candy Thong: These look like the children’s necklaces where it has the candy that you chew off. They are pretty good until you’ve eaten a few and then they all start to stick together with the moisture and the color starts staining your mouth and neck. Does the same thing happen with candy thong underwear?

FundiesFundies: For two they might be fun for a little while to start the togetherness. But just like lingerie, they are only good for a few anticipatory moments and then you both want them off.

Beef Jerky pantiesBrief jerky edible meat underwear: I found these on Google Images. Hmmm, meat between your legs? Oh. Hmmm, meat between your legs.

Bomb UndiesBomb Underwear: for some explosive sex in the bedroom or mind-blowing sex. What a minute, not mind blowing…

The Other alternative: Wikipedia calls it “Free Buffing” when women choose the practice of going without underwear and says it is considered to be socially unacceptable incase the crotch area becomes exposed. Others know it as “going commando.”

To each their own. Free Buffing is great for form fitting clothing where you need to avoid a panty line and definitely cooler in the summer. Only 1 in 10 women go without. Somehow I thought that would be a little bit higher.

Free Buffing can be sexually exciting when your partner knows what is missing and the anticipation can become very erotic. Hey try out the even more exciting combo of anticipation with him Free Balling while you’re Free Buffing.





About the author

Terri Underwood

Terri Underwood has always written women’s fiction because she finds it so much fun. Love, sex and relationships all have their ups and downs but without the downs, there would be no ups. She likes to look for the good moments in life and she learned that from her huge loving family who get together often for some of the most hilarious times. Terri is a professional who enjoys hiking, fishing and even camping. She’s a California girl who lived in Arizona for six years before running back to California. She didn’t come away empty-handed though, she learned to look at the sky in Arizona. The billions and billions of stars against a deep black sky, the clouds, beautiful sunsets and thunderstorms, isn’t that what romance is all about? Contact the author.
COMMENT POLICY

35 Comments

  1. anonymous says:

    A 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 Knickerbocker, 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 CenturyIn 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 UnderwearIn 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.Meanwhile in 1913 Mary Phelps Jacob invented the modern bra. She used two 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.

    Reply
    • down-with-panties-forever says:

      It’s pretty obvious that Iin order to genuinely appreciate the “squat & pee” PURPOSE OF THE SKIRT (long before “panties” were ever invented/ imposed on/ or even thought-of) is only accomplished/ carried out/ effective WITHOUT “panties” knickers G-strings thongs cheese wire or anything “fashionable” else GETTING IN THE WAY OF & coming between women & fresh clean air sunshine & producing a dark/warm place for germs & bugs to breed & set up “housekeeping” to the great pain, discomfort & inconvenience to women’s health!!! It’s surprising the panties are not sold with a “caution this product is hazardous to your health label”!!!

      Reply
  2. panties-begone says:

    If you want to know what’s going on, GOOGLE on “Why I Don’t Wear Underwear” … ….. among many other postings that given the invention of indoor heating (and air conditioning) (and tampons) panties should be discarded completely as just about useless and quite unhealthy.

    Reply
  3. pantilesshooray says:

    Meredith Vieira Admits She Still Doesn’t Wear Underwear, Is the Ladies’ Answer to Jon Hamm November 20, 2014 @ 1:40 PM By Rose Walano
    Meredith Vieira admits to More magazine that she still doesn’t like to wear underwear! Read more from her interview here. Credit: Ari Michelson/More
    Commander Commando!\Back when Meredith Vieira was a co-host on The View in 2006, she revealed to the audience that she does not like to wear underwear. 8 years later, the former Today Show host is finally explaining her breezy decision.\”I always thought, ‘Why bother?'” Vieira, 60, reveals inside the December/January 2015 issue of More magazine. “I’ve always been a pretty open book, for better or worse.”\That doesn’t mean that she’s always going completely free. “If it’s pantyhose, it’s built in.&in the summer I wear leotards,” Vieira explains to the mag, for which she posed in a tulle Brunello Cucinelli dress&studded heels.Thinking back to her time on the morning show, then-anchored by Barbara Walters, Vieira recalls, “I would say the craziest things [on The View]&people would look at me like, ‘Oh my God, what are you talking about?’ I’d be screaming out, ‘I DON’T WEAR UNDERWEAR!’ It was like something was the matter with me.” But she adds, “I liked it. It was really, really fun.”

    Reply
  4. bak2nature says:

    FROMTHE INTERNET REALLY REALLY FUN
    :Meredith Vieira Admits She Still Doesn’t Wear Underwear, Is the Ladies’ Answer to Jon Hamm November 20, 2014 @ 1:40 PM By Rose Walano\Meredith Vieira admits to More magazine that she still doesn’t like to wear underwear! Read more from her interview here. Credit: Ari Michelson/More
    Commander Commando!\Back when Meredith Vieira was a co-host on The View in 2006, she revealed to the audience that she does not like to wear underwear. 8 years later, the former Today Show host is finally explaining her breezy decision.\”I always thought, ‘Why bother?'” Vieira, 60, reveals inside the December/January 2015 issue of More magazine. “I’ve always been a pretty open book, for better or worse.”\That doesn’t mean that she’s always going completely free. “If it’s pantyhose, it’s built in.&in the summer I wear leotards,” Vieira explains to the mag, for which she posed in a tulle Brunello Cucinelli dress&studded heels.Thinking back to her time on the morning show, then-anchored by Barbara Walters, Vieira recalls, “I would say the craziest things [on The View]&people would look at me like, ‘Oh my God, what are you talking about?’ I’d be screaming out, ‘I DON’T WEAR UNDERWEAR!’ It was like something was the matter with me.” But she adds, “I liked it. It was really, really fun.”

    Reply
  5. naturalzbest says:

    Read on Google

    At first, I just wouldn’t wear underwear with my tight skinny jeans because that made the most

    Reply
  6. pantiess&saddlebacking says:

    Going Commando: The Only Way To Live APR. 25, 2012 By TREY SALM
    I have a confession. I dont wear underwear. Im a 23 year old male who wears suits or slacks five days a week, and I never wear anything underneath em. Im here today, foremost, to champion this cause, to let every male out there know that you dont have to go on wearing cotton under-things that hug too tight or persistently wedge in your crack. Im here today to proclaim that I wont idly stand by any longer, hearing folks bash my beloved passion for a more freeing fashion.

    There are some of you out there who like to make snide comments, suggest vicious preconceived notions about what must be happening in or around my trousers, and I am here to speak out and stop that. Perhaps after today, history will view me as the vanguard of men everywhere enjoying a nice breeze as it passes through our legs, or perhaps after today, my office will find out about this and suggest I take an absence of the more permanent kind. But regardless of what occurs, I will say the truth and nothing but the truth so help me god. That truth being I dont 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. ? (GOOGLE FOR FULL TEXT)

    Reply
  7. begonewithknickers says:

    The women who say the key to good health is NOT wearing knickers: It sounds extraordinary but the evidence may surprise you

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3573984/Women-say-key-good-health-NOT-wearing-knickers-sounds-extraordinary-evidence-surprising.html#ixzz48f8r83s2
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Reply
    • PANTIES-AWAY says:

      GOOGLE

      At first, I just wouldn’t wear underwear with my tight skinny jeans because that made the most

      FOR THE ANSWER TO SHOULD I WEAR PANTIES

      Reply
  8. best-without-panties says:

    best to have a panty burning party & “Ditch Your Panties” forever

    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

    Reply
  9. back2naturel says:

    quote (find the rest by GOOGL-ing on it)

    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

    Reply
  10. off-with-panties says:

    More 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 Feldman Associate Style Editor, The Huffington Post

    Here’s one way to save money on laundry (and look, feel & be wonderful inside & outside) — 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!

    Reply
  11. better-without says:

    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.”

    Reply
  12. back2natural says:

    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&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.
    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,&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.
    Save your money for outer clothing — or anything else/more visible&enjoyable

    Reply
  13. quotes says:

    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&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.
    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,&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.
    Saves money too for outerwear!

    Reply
  14. freedom-from-panties-forever says:

    Going commando? Great idea. This is just a return to old-fashioned standards of underwear (chemise only … nothin’ tight, binding, & uncomfortable … nothin’ to trap moisture & germs … clean, clear & unobstucted sunlight & fresh air in good weather). Making panties, g-strings, thongs or whatever-not optional is a great idea for all times. Especially down with VPL’s forever.

    Reply
  15. less-izzz-best says:

    Some facts about European underwear, 1700 – 1900,
    and its relationship 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)

    Reply
  16. scipio says:

    As 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).

    Now, why not ask the experts?

    “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”

    Reply
    • down-with-panties says:

      More 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 Feldman Associate Style
      Editor, The Huffington Post

      Here’s one way to save money on laundry (not to mention saving money on buying panties, G-strings, thongs or other instruments of torture, disease & cheese-wire) — 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!

      Reply
  17. scipio says:

    Should-I-go-pantiless? Most definitely … & permanently. The sooner your wardrobe “goes commando” (if you can bring yourself to try it & why not — it’s your business Down There & Nobody Else’s Concern, period) (&with tampons who needs to worry about the period) the better. Give it a good try & you won’t go back to fashion slavery!

    Reply
  18. free-from-fashion-slavery says:

    free-clear-and-unobstructed-down-there

    See

    “The Unofficial Underwear Issue – Creative Loafing Charlotte”

    for an update on getting rid of panti lines … permanently!

    Reply
  19. scipio says:

    “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.”

    Finally, mid-1800s fashion began to change.’

    Reply
    • V&A Museum says:

      Shift (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)

      Reply
      • better-off-without-permanently says:

        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

        Reply
  20. scipio says:

    HISTORY LESSON101:The Evolution of UnderwearPeter 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.”

    Reply
  21. better without says:

    suggest the reader look into women’s fashion & sports as well as other ways in which fashion/clothing restricted women’s roles in society … in short, panties begone or at least made completely optional!

    Reply
  22. PANTIES-BE-GONE says:

    Open-crotch drawers (underpants) and menstruation
    (late 19th century, U.S.A.)

    Although women sometimes wore pants underneath their dresses for riding or
    to keep warm, pants were a symbol of men’s power, and women’s underpants as such
    apparently developed very slowly around 1800 in Europe among the upper classes,
    partly for concealment of the genitals and legs (Germans called them
    “Beinkleider,” “leg clothes,” as “Hose,” the German word for pants, referred to
    men’s clothing and was considered indecent when applied to women.) For hundreds
    of years before this time both men and women of all classes wore the shirt-like
    chemise, day and night, as their only
    underclothing.

    In the 19th century, cumbersome and sometimes huge
    dresses and complex underclothing made it practical for women to wear underpants
    with a permanent opening between the legs, so they wouldn’t have to reach
    under and pull them down when urinating or defecating. (This raises the
    troubling question of how – or
    if – they cleaned themselves afterward. Folks
    did not think bathing was healthy for a large part of that century. I don’t want
    to think about this, actually. That fortress-like clothing could have served as
    an odor barrier. I’m sorry I brought this up. But, if you’re game, or
    perhaps gamey, check out the odor page.)

    Fewer and lighter clothes in the early 20th century made open crotches
    unnecessary – now pulling underpants down was easy – and underpants could then
    fulfill their concealment function by covering the genitals. But they were still
    wide-leg and long (but see this exception for
    menstruation) until the mid 1930s, when briefs for
    women appeared in mass markets.

    Ultimately underpants functioned to preserve
    modesty, and in a century when people covered their chair and table legs
    because of their suggestive nature, it’s understandable how long the ones below
    are. High-top shoes covered the lower leg, and drawers, with lace covering the
    lower part – in case someone peeked – covered much of the rest, as you see.

    (This raises another question: did the can-can
    dancers in late 19th century Paris expose their vulvas when kicking their
    legs up, since open underpants were apparently the fashion? If so, no wonder it
    was scandalous! And I thought it was just because they were showing their
    undies.)

    The museum has this pair, below, made of linen. I will later post a photo of
    them.

    Rear view

    Front view

    How a woman could wear menstrual-pad
    suspenders over her underclothing. (Here’s
    how she wore it under all her
    clothing.)

    Below, left: U.S. patent No. 169, 245,
    1875, granted to Stephen Ellis.

    The holders at the bottom attach to the pad or pad holder, often
    a trough.

    The back strap has farther to go and is longer – it must pass
    over, or between, the buttocks – as the vulva and vaginal entrance are more
    toward the front of the body (see a drawing). Later,
    by popular request (read part of the 1927 Gilbreth
    report), commercial pads for belts often had tabs of unequal length because of
    this (see a Modess).

    Open-crotch underpants, unbuttoned and opened wide, from the
    rear.

    See other underpants – See belts that hold pads – See suspenders that hold pads

    Copyright 2001 Harry Finley

    Reply
    • good-olde-days says:

      In the good olde days, apparently it was just squat and pee … (or whatever else) on the farm or in the nearest clear spot …

      Reply
      • scipio says:

        HISTORY LESSON-PANTILESS IS BEST

        August 18, 2008

        Underwear in the 18th CenturyPosted 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.

        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.

        Reply
    • betterwithout'em says:

      RIGHT OFF THE INTERNET:::
      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

      Reply
  23. aardvark says:

    It’s amazing nobody seems to hav commented yet. Free buffing – a great new term. There’s plenty on the internet on pantiless, starting out with Pantiless in NYC & Ditch Your Panties on Cosmopolitan. Reading up on women’s fashion, “umentionables,” & women’s sports history, it’s clear that “panties” are a very recent addition to the wardrobe … as well as prone to be the cause of numerous infections, most of all yeast, growing in moist, warm, dark places like women’s genitals, as featured in What’s Up Down There … & thriving when anti-biotics kill off the bacteria that keep yeast under control “down there” & elsewhere. But back to women & sports (& on the workplace) probably the greatest improvement in women’s fashion is tampons, which make wearing anything at all from the waist down (especially panties, G-strings, thongs or anything else “at all”) unnecessary & often confining, uncomfortable & in a word, useless … purely optional (& not very healthy compared to fresh air, sunshine & just plain freedom especially from excess moisture). As the saying goes, try going “sans” — starting off & on, mostly off & you’ll never go back to panties!

    Reply
    • xyzee says:

      Better off without. Spend your money on outerwear (what is meant to be clearly visible) not underwear … unless you’re living in a very cold & windy climate. Modern “panties” in pastel colors for flashing (while dancing or whatever to attract a little attention — elastic is a rather recent invention after all, ditto spandex) seem to have come out during the 1920’s for flappers following the can-can display of What’s Up Down There.

      Reply
      • ollie123 says:

        free buffing: reference – regarding can-can dancers

        “I guess I need to add some more things in there first. Yes, in the past Western women really were quite pitiful. An open-crotch underpant really helps them in working through all sorts of tasks. For example, when they are in need for bathing room, they can just life up their dress and then they can urinate. And when they are having the period, the menstruation blood can pass out through the open-crotch so that it would stick to the same place the whole day, so that all the germs and all the odor can spread away quicker.

        “This also raise a very interesting question… did the can-can dancers also wear such underpants in their performance in the late 19th century? It would be very surprising then that in a million years I never thought of their dance move was supposed to show their “flower” to the customers!

        “http://www.mum.org/drawnocr.htm”

        Reply
        • better-off says:

          Better off without if you have problems with or worries about yeast infections

          Reply
        • fresh-airzbest says:

          BEST WITHOUT!!!

          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

          Reply

Leave a Comment

Comment Policy

HOME / ABOUT / CONTACT / JOIN THE TEAM / TERMS OF SERVICE / PRIVACY POLICY / COMMENT POLICY