Name: 穿著這些洋裝她們是怎麼尿尿的？ 內衣淺史（How Did They Pee in Those Dresses? A Superficial History of Underwear）
Uploaded: 2023-01-08T07:20:55.000Z
Duration: 6 min 55 s
Description: 【看影片學英語】數萬部 YouTube 影片，搭配英漢字典即點即查，輕鬆掌握單字發音與用法，長久累積看電影不必再看字幕。

- So you are a woman in the mid-18th century.

You're getting dressed, and in order to do that,

you put on your shift, your petticoat, your hoops,

because you feel like being ~a bit posh~,

your second petticoat, your stays, your pocket,

your gown, your cap, fichu, ruffles, et cetera,

or perhaps you are a woman of the mid-19th century,

your corset, crinoline, petticoat, skirt,

or maybe you're an Elizabethan, where instead you are opting

for smock, partlet, pair of bodies, bum roll, farthingale,

underskirt, overskirt, bodice, cap, and ruff.

With all those layers interconnecting and overlapping,

how did anyone get anything off efficiently

You will perhaps notice that the one garment not included

in your daily dressing throughout any of these periods is,

in fact, what we today would think of as "underwear",

for a simple logical reason that, for the most part,

I'm going to be referring to this particular garment

as "underwear", and not meaning the general concept

of garments worn underneath other clothing,

since yes, they did indeed wear many more things

under their other things than we do today,

but the word "pants" confuses the Americans,

and any more obscure reference to said small clothes

I say women "for the most part" didn't wear underwear,

because as is the precarious way of history,

we're all just interpreting the selected evidence

that happens to survive to us, however many centuries later,

and that subsequently there is no such thing

about things that we have no firsthand experience in.

at some point in future, some evidence to suggest

regularly wearing what we might call underwear today.

There is, for example, the textile finds uncovered

in Lengberg Castle in Austria, including this pair

of what distinctly looks to be underwear,

and although confirmably similar in style

in the circa-15th century period attributed

amongst fragments of a distinctly women's undergarment.

So anything is possible, but for the most part, evidence,

or the comparative lack of surviving evidence thereof,

but lack of written indications in journals, inventories,

for the most part, these garments were not a prevalent part

When you think about it, it kind of makes sense.

of shifts and petticoats and skirts going

on with the lower half of your outfit, who would have said,

"Hey, you know what would be a really great idea?

that we have to surgically extract from under our skirts

It is far easier not to have to extract anything at all,

position your chamber pot accordingly, and go. "But wait!",

"What was one supposed to do at that time of moon

to have something a bit tighter going on,

References to 18th century menstrual management are rare,

save for the implication of an apron being used.

of absorbent diaper woven cloth on her channel,

There are copious references and advertisements

by the latter part of the 19th century for reusable,

and later disposable, towels that could be clipped

as well as absorbent aprons worn to protect the back

of the skirts, were prevalent in advertisements

(music from the ball scene in a Regency period drama)

The transition from no drawers to yes drawers

but is one that occurs gradually sometime

字幕列表影片播放

穿著這些洋裝她們是怎麼尿尿的？內衣淺史（How Did They Pee in Those Dresses? A Superficial History of Underwear）

potential

majority

evidence

period

穿著這些洋裝她們是怎麼尿尿的？ 內衣淺史（How Did They Pee in Those Dresses? A Superficial History of Underwear）

potential

majority

evidence

period

穿著這些洋裝她們是怎麼尿尿的？內衣淺史（How Did They Pee in Those Dresses? A Superficial History of Underwear）