03 September 2012

Under Where?

You all know how I love my Medieval underwear.   You've seen my oh-so-stylish braies, and my faux-hardie crop top underlayer.   Lots of you have also seen the news story running around the internet lately about the "bras" found in Austria "recently" (actually found in 2008, but the story's been circulating the last couple of months like wildfire amongst reenactment communities online;  and if you haven't seen this article on supportive undergarments and chemises, you should).

For my part, I'm still firmly attached to my idea of NOT wearing five thousand layers of clothing in central Texas, sorry.  Braies, a chemise, a dress, and possibly a surcote or some other top layer, is just too much; and since I'm a firm believer in NOT starting small brush fires with thigh friction, I prefer to have some form of pants on under my dresses.   I did the yoga pants/bike shorts thing before I made my short braies, but the waistbands on those things are just too tight, and leave big "pantylines" showing under my dresses.  No thank you.

I've also realized that I really, really need a second skirt underneath my gowns to help with fullness and flow...and so that I still have my legs covered if I need to hike up my dress for working or walking in wet grass. All of my cotehardies are self-supporting and lined through the bust if not the entire bodice; so a full chemise underneath isn't technically necessary - and again, there's that whole extra-layer thing.

So I decided to combine braies, full-length chemise, and one of my fashion nemeses from my childhood:  the dreaded culottes: 

*horror movie sound effects*REET REET REET*


I'd been trying to figure out what to call these, and my BFF hit it right on the head:  MY CROTCHLESS GAUCHO PANTIES - LET ME SHOW YOU THEM...

  • long enough and wide enough to fulfill the "skirt" job of filling out and effectively lining my gowns
  • keeping my thighs from rubbing together and attracting hordes of thousands of crickets
  • lightweight enough not to be an issue in the heat (lighter weight than my first pair of braies)
  • soft and minimal enough in the waist-band not to em-bulk-en my waist under my gowns (I made that word up)

Oh, and they're also..

  • elastic-waisted, because I HAVE HAD IT with trying to undo the Gordian clusterf** that my drawstring-waisted braies always manage to get themselves into
  • crotchless, because (a) dealing with pull-down pant-things under a giant skirt in a port-a-potty?  Hell no!  and also (b) there IS actually evidence of crotchless underpants for men and women from hundreds of years ago, because they knew what they were doing back then.  I've heard.  I tried to find a link for you, but, well, YOU trying googling crotchless anything and see what happens.  
I have noticed, through trying them on with different outfits, that I should have made the legs wider.  They fill out my skirts nicely, but not quite enough; and when I stick my leg out, it's obvious I basically have pants on. The first event of the season is this coming weekend, though, so I'll try them out there and decide afterward.

More underwear tomorrow!



  1. Google crotchless anything...BWHAHAHAHA. Here you go. http://katerina.purplefiles.net/DOCO/dressing%20insideout.htm

    Now, that's late period, and I don't know that any extant examples of earlier things have been found (off the top of my head), but as with many things--like bras, for example--we know that they were used earlier and just didn't survive.

  2. And here http://www.kostym.cz/Anglicky/VI_01_01.htm


Hooray, comments! Be nice to each other, and to me. Or I shall boot your ass and then mail you a dead fish. :D