Saturday, February 22, 2014

Hose, Codpiece and Why I am Insane, Part 2

While looking for underpants slang, like you do, a flood of underwear history was presented and as I am predisposed to do, I spent an enormous amount of time reading up on the ramification of hidden apparel. (Well generally hidden but I'll come around to that.)

In recognition that time constraints prevent me from surfing the web for longer than one evening on this topic, straight away I disregarded foundation garments for women. (Male history of dressing is convoluted enough without tossing in virginity, liberation, constriction and titillation.)

As a representation of global history there is the pendulum swing from functionality, comfort and a little devil-may-care refusal to conform to the swing of ostentatious display, body enhancement and discomfort in the name of religious devotion. (Religion of Discomfort is my favorite religion. Keeps you one your toes.)

Lets start off with the codpiece. Why? Well I don’t think there is another fashion statement that measures up to this display of male prowess, wealth and egotistical assertion. (And yes, all you purists, at this point, the codpiece had moved from underwear to outerwear.)

Originally, hose didn’t have any opening in the front, leading to that annoying chore of pulling them down before any event that required releasing what was inside.

Then some genius designed a fold and a tuck and voila’ the fly was born. At the same time, the length of the male tunic was shrinking so eventually fly exposure became covered with a flap of fabric. 

We all know what happens to a flap of fabric covering a fly. The size of the flap started to expand, additional padding was added and it became an enlarged, garish, jewel-encrusted indication of the gem beneath.

Evidently, there is a continuation in the display of male prowess but synthetics bring an entire new look to things.

However, I am disappointed there are no jewel-encrusted displays. Where are the jewels boys?

No comments :