Talk:Union suit

message: what is the origin of the union suit? does anyone have any idea why a union suit is called such?  My roommate and i have had a somewhat major fight over the issue.  I have aruged the Union suit is called such because it unites both the top and the bottom, it is both a shirt and pants.  My roommate who owns a union suit and champions wearing is properly, not undergarment necessary or even desired, argues that the union army in the civil war began the tradition and that is where the name comes from.  If anyone has any informaion it would be greatly appreciated and will bring much needed peace to my home.  In all reality, we both made up or theories for the naming of the suit and are involved in a pride war for who is right.
"In 1891, the Northwestern Knitting Company introduced another breakthrough product, the one-piece, full-length union suit seen in thousands of period films and photos. The union suit, also known as long johns, enjoyed great success for many years and later became standard issue for U.S. soldiers in World War I." from -  http://www.premiumwear.com/content.m/about/history
AND
"The Industrial Revolution with the invention of water-powered spinning machines and the ¹cotton gin¹ made cotton fabrics widely available and saw the beginning of mass-produced underwear. For the first time, people began buying undergarments in stores rather than making them at home. The standard undergarment of this period for men, women, and children was the Œunion suit¹, which provided coverage from the wrists to the ankles. The union suits of the era were usually made of knitted material and included a drop flap in the back to ease visits to the toilet. Because the top and bottom were united as a one-piece garment it received the name Œunion suit¹. Hanes opened several mills producing 'union suits'. Originally made with ankle length legs and long sleeves, later versions were available in knee length versions with or without sleeves. 
The name 'Long Johns', long skin-tight underpants, was actually first used for the long underwear issued to American soldiers during World War Two. The name is derived from the old boxing gear worn by John L. Sullivan, who was a boxer in the late 1880s, the height of his career being 1882-92."
from - http://manstouch.com/mensunderwear/historyofmensunderwear.html
I've a certain amount trouble believing that the same underwear was worn all winter.  Underwear starts to smell really bad after a few days--after months it would be truly disgusting.
:Well actually.. Sears, Roebuck and Company advertised its union suits for "year-round wear". This is according to Esquire's Encyclopedia of 20th century Men's Fashions‎, McGraw-Hill, 1973, Page 372,  -- œ™ 07:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Neither "all winter" nor "year-round wear" mean you shouldn't take it off and wash it. Are we being silly, or what? OK, some people never washed anything at all, including themselves. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin?

message: Does anyone know when and why union suits were made in red?  Mrsdoodlepunk 11:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the first manufacturer had a surplus of red fabric to use up? Perhaps red showed soiling less prominently than white? So, Anonymous Poster, without a citation for your comment, we can speculate endlessly. Please provide your reference. Thank You, Wordreader (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The color red 

message: Has anyone else heard of this style? I remember hearing about when I was a kid, but i haven't see or heard of them since.
70.88.213.74 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several images of short-sleeve/short-leg union suits in different styles online. I had a relative who throughout the first half of the 20th C always wore an unusual style of union suit that, at least in later years, he had to order from Brooks Brothers as the only supplier. This was a thin lightweight cotton broadcloth garment, sleeveless rather than short-sleeved, but not ribbed like an old-fashioned knitted "wife-beater". The legs came to about mid-thigh. It had no waist, but fit loosely in a straight line from armpits to where the legs started and flared slightly like standard boxer shorts. The neckline was curved and low, roughly at the level of the wearer's armpits. The whole thing buttoned from neckline to crotch, with buttons somewhat farther apart than on a dress shirt, and the flap in back buttoned at the corners. Apparently Brooks Brothers removed this style from their catalog around 1950. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short Sleeve/Short Leg Version? 

message: Regarding the citation needed tag for the sentence: 
"It was not uncommon until the mid-1900s for rural men to wear the same union suit continuously all week, or even all winter.[citation needed]"
I found this very interesting mention in a book called Life Is But a Dream by Holly Irons where two characters discuss union suits, but unfortunately it's fiction so it cannot be used as a reference. Page 372 is a really fun read how these characters react to the union suit, you can read it a this link. -- œ™ 07:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wear all winter without removing? 

message: The image at the top of the article looks like the suit is stained around the private areas ... yuck.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.79.35.227 (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does! Yours, Wordreader (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Rather unappealing illustration

message: Authors, you have neglected to add your references. Please do so. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ((Citations needed)) 

message: Okay, so it has a handy dump-flap at the back, but... don't most people also urinate when they defecate? It seems like there's no provision for either gender to do this. And since we pee more often than we crap, wouldn't access for the former be more useful? How would one wear the suit while using the toilet? 
And more importantly, why has it taken over a century for somebody to ask this question? Surely somebody noticed! Is there some system?
188.29.164.197 (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about... that part