My mom was sarcastic about men. She would tell me Adam was the rough draft and Eve was the final product. She was a feminist minister, an earth mom who wore a bra only on Sundays. —Daphne Zuniga
[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]We end this week of lingerie-inspired posts with – nothing. For all the wonderful lace and silk and satin things there are for a woman to wear under her clothing, there are still a number of women who don’t want anything at all between them and their clothes. They prefer to go commando, as it were. Some like the feel of the fabric against their skin. Some don’t like the restriction of a bra or the bunching of panties. Some just don’t like to be bothered. Whatever the reason, we couldn’t end our discussion of what’s underneath clothing without admitting that sometimes there’s nothing there at all, and sometimes that’s wonderful.
Sometimes, however, the result is less wonderful and more curiously interesting. There is a humorous saying, “Go without a bra and pull the wrinkles from your feet.” Certainly, there is a point at which mother nature’s blessings give way to the reality of gravity and what was once sexy and attractive becomes more of a comic about old age.
I strongly remember a high school history teacher who had already put in 40 years of service by the time I was in her class. She was a striking woman, over six feet tall, broad-shouldered, and a sharp wit that could cut the most caustic teen sarcasm. In her youth, she had been quite a beauty and even a bit of an exhibitionist for her time. The pictures she showed were tame compared to contemporary styles but one had cost her a teaching job when she was fresh out of college. Over the years, she had kept that “don’t care” attitude and even as she was nearing retirement she would show up at school at least once a week not wearing a bra. One would have needed to be blind to not notice. Her large, once proud breasts sagged to her waist. No need to hide the laughter, though. She made the jokes herself and loved the horrified reaction of teenage girls.[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Humor aside, there are times when not wearing underwear really does make sense, especially during the summer. Restrictive clothing and heat result in moisture that just sits against the skin, which is rarely a good thing. Moisture under bras, especially those with built-in support, can result in rashes that may then rub raw and result in infection. Those skinny jeans you like so much? On hot summer days they cause perspiration that, when trapped by underwear, leads to yeast infections and other not-so-nice hygiene problems. The solution for those situations is to, a: wear loose-fitting clothing, especially skirts, and b: go commando. Your body appreciates the extra air and freedom to move.
Going commando also has its sexy side as well. The natural shape of the breast becomes more evident outside a bra. Over the past few years, exposure of side-boob has become a “thing” that has its own groups on tumblr and reddit. The sight of a woman’s nude silhouette beneath a dress of light fabric has always been enticing. Then, there’s also the fact that a large number of contemporary designs are such that wearing anything under them is either practically impossible or would be a horrifying distraction to the look, especially within the realm of evening wear. Our exhibitionist society often delights in seeing just how close to nude one can get without being arrested. Does Rhianna even own underwear?
Lingerie is wonderful and our all-to-brief look at it this week has been fun. While styles inevitably change and women’s preference shift, what women wear under their clothes is something we will always find exciting, interesting, and alluring.
Even when what they’re wearing is nothing at all.[/one_half_last]
Independent Thought
Tied To TV (2006)
“No man is great enough or wise enough for any of us to surrender our destiny to. The only way in which anyone can lead us is to restore to us the belief in our own guidance.” ― Henry Miller
[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Our obsession with media was predictable, and widely predicted. Even by 1964, when television was allegedly in its Golden Age, children’s author Roald Dahl saw the enslavement factor so obvious as to include it in one of the characters in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Saying matters have only grown worse since is a severe understatement. Not only have we become more enslaved by media, but we continually create new forms of media to keep our minds, and our opinions, closely tied to whatever output mechanism manages to keep our highly unreliable attention for more than five seconds. We know we’re addicted and that our habit is bad for us, but we are absolutely unwilling to even attempt to break the cord, firm in the belief that we are better off with the knowledge that media imparts.
Granted, there was one a time when media such as printed pamphlets and newspapers were beneficial. In fact, one can reasonably argue that our country’s Declaration of Independence from England would never have happened if not for the influence and information distributed by Thomas Paine is his Common Sense pamphlet. Since 1837, the press has wielded sufficient influence as to be referred to as the fourth estate (a reference to pre-revolution French society divided into the estates: the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners). As the reach of the press grew, so did its influence. In 1897, Francis P. Church validated the presence of Santa Claus by telling little Virginia that, “If you see it in the Sun, it must be true.”
As the reach of the press grew, so did its influence. In 1897, Francis P. Church validated the presence of Santa Claus by telling little Virginia that, “If you see it in the Sun, it must be true.” Edward R. Murrow was the voice of all that was true in the 1950s and following him Walter Cronkite became known as “the most trusted man in America.” Not that everything in the field of journalism was always reliable, but there was a basis of trust and expectation of honesty that allowed people to ingest their information with a sense of security.[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]The media monster to which we are now tied has no sense of security to it at all. We have gotten to the point that we allow the media we consume to do all our thinking for us. If something is not validated by our preferred source, then it simply cannot be correct. That multiple sources are never in agreement doesn’t seem to bother us. We choose sides and assume that one is always wrong while the other is always correct, when often the truth of a matter is nowhere near what we’re being told by any major source.
Thomas Paine said something that I think is poignant:
Notice what is missing from that definition: external influence. Not that Paine expected people to just automatically know everything, but rather he expected that they would take information, such as what he produced, and use that to think, reflect, and come to a reasonable opinion of one’s accord. There’s not accommodation here for allowing any external party to make our opinions for us. In fact, Paine and his peers would find the degree to which we’ve surrendered our thought process to be quite alarming.
Declaring Independence from media is difficult. One has a need to be reasonably informed and the expectations of today’s society are such that one’s need for information is almost immediate. At the same time, though, we should never allow that media to do our thinking for us. Talking heads spouting opinion rather than fact need to be severed from the public arena and not fed their diet of shares and likes and hashtag mentions. We need to take time to step away, to reflect on what we’ve been told and form our own opinion, then see what thoughts might bolt into our minds of their own accord. [/one_half_last]
Share this:
Like this: