Are women wearing underwear less often nowadays?

[HugoHackenbush]

The solution, dear friends, as I overheard a wardrobe consultant tell a group of women at a party, to the panty-line dilemma, is what they call "boy shorts". The top hugs the belt line, covers the bum, and a smidge of the upper thigh. No need to go commando.

When a woman did go commando, and told me they had done so, it was usually for the purposes of erotic arousal, as the article indicates.

It worked.

[Sir Spender]

```Do a lot of women nowadays wear no underwear underneath their dresses, skirts, pants, shorts, etc?``


I wish !!

unlikely in this weather though? now you`re talking

[Festerplink]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Festerplink,



Well, clearly, you must not know very many women who are into fashion. I'm no expert but I've gone out with enough of them to know that, at certain events, panty lines and bra straps are unacceptable. And pieces that are supposed to be designed to hide those things don't work especially with some gowns.

So its apparent you didn't actually read the Cosmo article (who certainly know more about womens fashion than I) which stated,

"Commando Perks
Skipping your undies has practical advantages. First, you eliminate that dreaded wardrobe woe, visible panty lines."

So if you want to argue with someone, argue with them. I've gone out with several hundred women in my younger days and to some of them, fashion is important. And its actually fun, at times, to watch them deal with it. I have no doubt whatsoever this is true. Anyone that says its not has no idea what they're talking about.



And some clothes do not "hang freely". Some dresses hug a womans body tightly and some fabrics, when hugging a womans body tightly, are prone to showing any little defect or piece of underwear.

Go talk to a designer, they'll set you straight. Or, turn on "Sex in the City" for a while. You'll get the idea.

Dude, really. You are talking in circles and also getting personal.
Cosmo, at least in the USA, is a laughing stock of a magazine, I dont know anyone who doesn't at least snicker if not ridicule it if you mention its name.

OF course bra straps and panty lines are unacceptable for the more discriminating women. My post was about choices OTHER than nothing at all. You maintain tacitly they dont have that choice, I know better.

I would never cite a vapid TV show, that's all fantasy-based, for any type of usable credibility. There was nothing even remotely accurate about that show.

[Festerplink]

Originally Posted by HugoHackenbush

The solution, dear friends, as I overheard a wardrobe consultant tell a group of women at a party, to the panty-line dilemma, is what they call "boy shorts". The top hugs the belt line, covers the bum, and a smidge of the upper thigh. No need to go commando.

When a woman did go commando, and told me they had done so, it was usually for the purposes of erotic arousal, as the article indicates.

It worked.

Thank you!

[Sharkhunter]

Some women either like showing off their underwear or don't care - wide bra straps being exposed when wearing a halter-neck top for example is just so obvious that it has to be deliberate.

Maybe it's a generational thing, but every girl I have ever been out with has always wanted to hide her underwear.

[kenveco68]

I just a read a thread about this on a women's site, with a large number of women saying they hate wearing undies and often decide not to. I had no idea it was so common outside of the pornstar interviews where they say they usually don't wear them.

[9876543210]

Festerplink,

Originally Posted by Festerplink

Dude, really. You are talking in circles and also getting personal.

Please give me an example. I just went through all of my responses and I don't know what you're seeing.

Cosmo, at least in the USA, is a laughing stock of a magazine, I dont know anyone who doesn't at least snicker if not ridicule it if you mention its name.

Well, I don't know where you're from but statistics don't seem to back up your assertion. From Wikipedia:

Cosmopolitan has 64 international editions worldwide published in 35 languages with distribution in more than 100 countries making Cosmopolitan the largest-selling young women's magazine in the world.

Their circulation is now about 550,000 monthly in the US with an average demographic of 31 years of age and a graduate degree. You could also check the Hearst website if you don't believe the wiki as Hearst Publishing now owns Cosmo. So, where are you that people are snickering or ridiculing the magazine? Why exactly would they do that? Are you in high school or something? If so, I don't think you're supposed to be here until you're at least 18.

OF course bra straps and panty lines are unacceptable for the more discriminating women.

Of course, that's what I've been saying all along. And with some fabrics and cuts (very tight to the body) there isn't much choice for a discriminating woman, model or starlet on the red carpet. But if you're wearing something loose fitting or blue jeans, then a woman can wear whatever she wants.

My post was about choices OTHER than nothing at all. You maintain tacitly they dont have that choice, I know better.

Again, please show me precisely where I said that women had no other choice than commando. I never said that at all.

I would never cite a vapid TV show, that's all fantasy-based, for any type of usable credibility. There was nothing even remotely accurate about that show.

Ummm, you do actually know a few women? Don't you? Quite a few women I know have the whole show on DVD's and they seem to like it for some reason. Just checked and it seems there are a few women out there who liked the show:

From http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2010/SATC2-DVD.php

Sex and the City 2 - DVD Sales

Released on DVD: October 26, 2010
DVD Units Sold: 1,867,114
Consumer Spending: $27,963,017

I may have been fairly prolific in my youth but certainly not even close to 1.8+ million. So a few more women than I know must have liked it. Wonder why that is?

[Festerplink]

Are you trolling?
The spice girls sold a lot of CDs too. I guess that means, following your "reasoning", they are good musicians? Reader's Digest sells 5.5 million copies a month, but I cant imagine anyone with an IQ over 80 that would consider it a worthy literary source. So why you find ANY value in espousing DVD sales and circulations (using two highly inane examples)as some sort of leveraging bias to elevate credibility within the confines of a debate is ridiculous.

" Do I know women?" "Are you in high school or something? If so, I don't think you're supposed to be here until you're at least 18." Those read like personal comments to me.

So what other choice DO they have besides commando? Id like to remind you before you reply, that smoothing-out undergarments or not wearing them at all, are no longer choices you can employ for an answer. I hope you can understand why that is so.

BTW, You may want to look up what tacit means.

[9876543210]

Festerplink,

Originally Posted by Festerplink

Are you trolling?

Trolling? For what?

The spice girls sold a lot of CDs too. I guess that means, following your "reasoning", they are good musicians? Reader's Digest sells 5.5 million copies a month, but I cant imagine anyone with an IQ over 80 that would consider it a worthy literary source. So why you find ANY value in espousing DVD sales and circulations (using two highly inane examples)as some sort of leveraging bias to elevate credibility within the confines of a debate is ridiculous.

Jeez, you really seem to have a problem with people who don't have your same tastes. I'd certainly never call the Spice Girls good musicians, but there were a lot of people that liked them so thats OK. Not my cup of tea but "viva la difference!" Same with Readers Digest (didn't even know they were still around.) You may really want to talk with someone about that judgmental attitude. It can turn people off a bit.

And the reason I brought up the DVD sales of Sex and the City should be obvious but I guess I'll have to explain it to you. You made the statement:

I would never cite a vapid TV show, that's all fantasy-based, for any type of usable credibility. There was nothing even remotely accurate about that show.

It may be vapid to you (there's that judgement problem again) but certainly not to several million women around the globe. And it may be fantasy based, but so is most of the stuff on the tube. So whats the big deal? And as far as "nothing even remotely accurate about that show", well, that statement is so far wrong as to be somewhat ridiculous. Sorry, but it is.

Its not a show that I'd watch by myself but I've known more than a few women that really liked it. And I've watched it a few times with them and it was OK. They liked it so thats all that matters. They put up with my football and so I have to put up with some of what they like. Its called being an adult in a relationship. Being judgmental in a relationship is a very quick way to get out of one.

" Do I know women?" "Are you in high school or something? If so, I don't think you're supposed to be here until you're at least 18." Those read like personal comments to me.

Well, you haven't answered the question. Anyone that would make this statement:

Cosmo, at least in the USA, is a laughing stock of a magazine, I dont know anyone who doesn't at least snicker if not ridicule it if you mention its name.

has to make me wonder. Most adults just don't care. There are thousands of magazines and entertainment options out there in the world which I don't have much interest in but I don't go around "snickering or ridiculing someone" that likes those options. Someone that would do such a thing needs to grow up.

So what other choice DO they have besides commando? Id like to remind you before you reply, that smoothing-out undergarments or not wearing them at all, are no longer choices you can employ for an answer. I hope you can understand why that is so.

Here's a very simple reply. They can do whatever they feel comfortable doing. It doesn't matter to me. But if you're a model or starlet then you have to deal with the fashion industry. Its part of the job description. If you're a "discerning" woman then its up to you. If you're into the dictates of the fashion industry then follow them. If you're not then thats OK too. Just recognize that you probably won't attract males which put some value on fashion. It really is that simple.

[scoundrel]

I would have imagined that a topic such was whether or not women are increasing the incidence of not wearing underclothes could be discussed in a pleasant spirit between gentlemen, any ladies present, and friends. But in order to be helpful, I would point out that the first rule of a discussion is that other people are allowed to disagree with you and its not to be interpreted as a personal slight if they do. The second rule of a discussion is that when you yourself need to disagree with someone else, you are careful to be polite about it and not to express your disagreement in words which the other party could reasonably believe were intended to give offence.

I expect to deal with friction between members in a political discussion; but not so much in a discussion of ladies underwear. Chaps, lighten up; we're in the lounge bar.