Briefs, Briefly Noted

Leave it to a a reporter for a British newspaper to, ummm, uncover a major moment in American history:

For men, 19 January, 1935, was their equivalent of the day Mary Jacob patented the first bra in 1913 or the moment in 1959 when Glen Mills had the inspiration for tights - it was when Arthur Kneibler's Jockey briefs first went on sale at a department store.

Until reading this article, it had never occurred to me that briefs -- also known as "Jockey shorts" or, in the UK, the more descriptive "Y-fronts" -- had been invented. I figured they just evolved. I had no idea how revolutionary they were. Notes Terry Kirby in The Independent:

Mr Kneibler was an "apparel engineer" for a company called Coopers, originally set up to sell socks to lumberjacks, but which had been hit hard by the recession. While searching for an idea to help the company, he received a postcard from a friend on holiday in the south of France, which featured a picture of man wearing an abbreviated swim suit.

At this point, the only serious challenge to the hegemony of long johns had come from the boxer short, a cotton version of the trunks worn by boxers, and first designed in 1925 by a Joseph Golomb, founder of the Everlast company that still makes boxing equipment. But they were slow in finding customers because they did not provide much of what was termed "masculine support".

One thing that did was the "jock strap", a method of protection mostly worn by sportsmen and named after the bi-cycle "jockeys" or messengers who rode penny farthings for whom they were designed. Mr Kneibler's mission was clear - the Jockey brief was born.

They were so popular that the briefs sold out in every store almost immediately. Coopers sent its "Mascu-line" airplane to bring special deliveries of "masculine support" Jockey briefs to desperate retailers around the United States.

Of course, design did evolve, over a long period of time, but fashions come and go. The lowly briefs morphed into bikini briefs, boxer briefs, and thongs, among other styles. (The traditional boxer evolved along a different genetic line.) And things were interesting in the pre-modern era:

All of these, of course, are just contemporary versions of the lioncloth, which is as old as mankind, was worn by both sexes in Greek and Roman civilisations and still exists as a traditional form of undergarment in many Asian cultures, as well as among primitive peoples. Sometime during the Middle Ages, the loincloth was replaced by a loose, trouser-like garment, called braies, which were laced around the waist and calves; the flap at the front was called the codpiece and allowed men to urinate. It was Henry VIII who began the fashion for padded codpieces.

By the 18th century and the advent of widespread cotton fabrics, the dominant type of undergarment for both sexes was the close fitting union suit, which eventually became long johns.

While women's underclothing spiralled off into all manner of stays, corsets, drawers, chemises and so forth, men were stuck with various types of long johns until well into the 20th century, until Messrs Kneibler, Golomb et al came along.

So that's what codpieces were all about! I wonder if that topic is covered in costume design courses in university drama departments.

Is there any guy reading this who doesn't raise his eyes to Heaven in thanks when he learns about Arthur Kneibler?

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter!

I See London, I See France ... I See Silly Laws about Underpants

Just as Charlottesville's Live Arts theatre company completed a run of Steve Martin's play, The Underpants, whose farcical plot is set off by the inadvertant sight of a woman's bloomers by onlookers at a royal parade, the oldest legislative body in North America has passed a law that would ensure that Martin's hapless heroine would be fined $50 for her embarrassment.

Drawing national (AP, Chicago Sun-Times, ABC News, Neal Boortz) and international (The Scotsman, BBC News, Der Spiegel) attention -- and ridicule, it goes without saying -- the Virginia House of Delegates has passed a bill, HB 1981, patroned by Norfolk Democrat Algie Howell, which states:

Any person who, while in a public place, intentionally wears and displays his below-waist undergarments, intended to cover a person's intimate parts, in a lewd or indecent manner, shall be subject to a civil penalty of no more than$50.

The bill is designed to inhibit, if not prohibit, the wearing of "low-riding" jeans and the above-waistband display of boxers and thongs -- a popular fashion trend among young people, in particular young African-Americans. (Delegate Howell himself is African-American.)

Not having more important things to do -- such as ending intrusive business regulations or cutting taxes for Virginia's workers -- the House voted 60 to 34 to send this bill to the state Senate.

Delegate Lionel Spruill, also a black Democrat, opposed the bill, reminding his colleagues, to no avail, that youthful fashion trends come and go. He asked if any members of the House can look at their high school yearbook pictures without laughing -- or cringing. As reported in the Washington Times:

Mr. Spruill conducted an informal survey of his colleagues, asking about their youthful fashion fads and faux pas. The responses, he said, ranged from Afros to platform shoes to polyester leisure suits.

"Please, let these kids express themselves," he said. "It will pass on. Don't fine these young kids. You had your time, let them have their time."

On a more serious note, Spruill argued:

"This is a foolish bill because it will hurt so many," said Mr. Spruill, who is black.

"This will be a bill that will target blacks."

At one point, Mr. Spruill suggested that lawmakers who vote for the bill "should be ashamed" and said Mr. Howell has let his constituents down.

His view was echoed by civil libertarians. The Times again:

However, Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, said the bill "clearly targets" black men.

"African-Americans are going to be the ones who are harassed by police under this law," Mr. Willis said yesterday.

"Another concern is that legislators may have started a trend where they are designating themselves the arbiters of taste for Virginia, maybe even the fashion police," the ACLU director said. "This is simply not the kind of detail legislators should be addressing."

In June, Louisiana's Legislature rejected a bill that would have made it illegal to wear sagging pants that exposed a person's underwear. According to published reports, the Louisiana House voted 54-39 to reject the bill, which was later parodied on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show." That bill would have imposed a $175 fine.

A little bit of parody is good for the legislative soul. (Although it's hard to see how a bill like HB 1981 is anything less than self-parody.) Jon Stewart, call your Richmond bureau.