Talk:Underwear/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Bustle

message: 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)
thread_title:  Many problems with this article 

message: Crzrussian 00:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge with what?--Patrick 10:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I vote to merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Underwearing

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dessous 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Superman? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anyone want to post a picture of their underwear 

message: 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)
replies: text: Added a late Elizabethan lady in her corset and petticoat.  Will scout for additional suitable images. - PKM 21:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And added some more. -PKM 23:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many Pictures of Guys 

message: 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)
thread_title: Henry VIII

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Too Many Pictures??

message: 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)
thread_title:  VPL 

message: 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)
thread_title: Religious underwear

message: 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)
thread_title: Going bareback?

message: Why does he have an erection and why is he called a 'boy'. doesn't seem very academic to me. Bawdekin
I reverted it. Some clown thinks that 19 year olds are "boys". Lord Patrick 06:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  boxer-short picture 

message: This phenomenon has been likened to Adam of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. Where once they where naked, but oblivious to their own nudity, it wasn't until they possessed knowledge of their nudity that they became modest. So to men have historically been unashamed of exposing their body, up until society began to portray them as sexual objects, in which case a new modesty and discomfort with exposure lead to underwear and swimmwear becoming more conservative in the 1990's as a statement against objectification of the male form. Which for so long had been considered sexually neutral.
As for the future of men's underwear, future styles will be determined by how comfortable or uncomfortable men will be with their role as sexual objects. Since in the modern sense, underwear has more to do with sexuality than utility. It is also interesting to note that the emergence and acceptance of homosexuality in western society has also directly correlated with a sudden need for modesty in mens underwear styles. The growing awareness of homosexuality has also seen socialized nudity in the school shower and gymnasium to become less acceptable (in the United States and other similar cultures)because of the fear of being perceived to be "gay." Nudity and exposure has taken on sexual overtones in modern day society that didn't exist generations before. This is also one of the reasons men's underwear styles ceased to become more and more revealing. Man men suddenly felt that it was "gay" to expose the body in such a fashion. Particularly in a social context with other men.
In schools in Great Britain and the United States Of America some boys may be bullied for wearing Y-Fronts which are also known as "Ballies", "Tighty Whiteies" and "Ball Stranglers".
Why is this text even in an article on undergarments? Does anyone object to its deletion?
lone_twin 12:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here.  Are these "facts" verified anywhere? Bytebear 17:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant text