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,

in which case, you've got your chemise,

your corset, crinoline, petticoat, skirt,

bodice, shoes, shawls, and bonnet,

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.

The question looms eternally:

With all those layers interconnecting and overlapping,

especially around the waist area,

how did anyone get anything off efficiently

to pee multiple times per day?

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,

women just didn't wear them.

For the sake of this video, by the way,

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 "panties" confuses the British,

and any more obscure reference to said small clothes

is just generally unnecessarily unfair

to our multilingual friends,

so underwear, it shall be.

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

as a straightforward fact, when speaking

about things that we have no firsthand experience in.

And while this no underwear thing is

where the evidence points us at present,

there will undoubtedly be uncovered,

at some point in future, some evidence to suggest

that one woman somewhere was, in fact,

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

to the undergarments worn by men

in the circa-15th century period attributed

as the date of origin, it was found

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,

and not just surviving garments,

but lack of written indications in journals, inventories,

dictionaries, and wills, indicates that,

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

of the average woman's wardrobe

until about the 19th century.

But we'll get to that.

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

When you've already got layers

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?

An additional little garment

that we have to surgically extract from under our skirts

and stays every time we have to pee."

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

but rather to just lift up your skirts,

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

I hear you ask.

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

when one might actually prefer

to have something a bit tighter going on,

despite the additional inconvenience?"

References to 18th century menstrual management are rare,

save for the implication of an apron being used.

Abby Cox has experimented

with a theory of using an apron made

of absorbent diaper woven cloth on her channel,

if you care to investigate

in greater detail on this subject.

There are copious references and advertisements

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

and later disposable, towels that could be clipped

to sanitary belts, and sanitary belts,

as well as absorbent aprons worn to protect the back

of the skirts, were prevalent in advertisements

by the early 20th century.

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

The transition from no drawers to yes drawers

is not one that happens overnight,

but is one that occurs gradually sometime

around the 19th century,

such that the Workwoman's Guide states by 1838

that drawers are, quote, "worn by men, women,

and children of all classes, and almost all ages."

I should note that Queen Victoria ascended

the English throne only one year before in 1837,

and drawers have already apparently

become a ubiquitous necessity

according to the reference from 1838,

so we can't necessarily blame delicate Victorian

sensibilities for their adoption.

Visual representations of fashionable dress continue

to depict commando ladies all the way

up until at least 1811,

but this image, dated a mere seven years later,

to 1818, is already showing a woman wearing drawers

as part of her usual dressing routine.

Much like a change from the term stays to corset,

the adoption of drawers wasn't a transition

that happened overnight,

but rather more likely over the course of a generation.

Nevertheless, despite the adoption of drawers under dresses

in the 19th century, these still didn't pose any impediment

to peeing, as in the vast majority of surviving examples,

the crotch seam of 19th-century drawers,

and later combinations, was generally left open.

I say generally,

because there are examples of sewn drawers that,

if museum dating can be trusted,

would have existed towards the mid

to early later part of the 19th century,

well before sewn drawers became widespread,

but the circumstances in which these were worn,

whether by a staunchly anti-corset lady, an invalid,

or just someone particularly committed

to completely undressing in order to pee is unknown.

And of course, it is also unconfirmable

as to whether or not these garments even were worn,

considering that the ones that survive seem

to be... surprisingly pristine...?

It is around the very end of the 19th century,

and into the Edwardian era,

that we begin to see this seam being closed,

first with buttons in some surviving examples,

so that the seam could still be opened easily

without the entire garment needing to be extracted

from under the corset,

and finally sewn up completely, as we approach the 1920s.

(that vaguely '20s-sounding vlogger music)

The simplification and shortening of skirts,

and the adoption of the brassiere in place of the corset,

are likely significant factors in this evolution,

since fewer foundational layers simultaneously

meant less layers of protection and concealment,

but also easier potential for extraction

of a pair of closed-seam underwear at necessary moments.

The term "pair of underwear", by the way,

comes from their ancestral pair of drawers,

and the two individual legs from which they were comprised.

The prevalent adoption of underwear

is thus a surprisingly recent event.

There is evidence of men's underpants occurring

throughout periods of history,

from the linen briefs of the medieval periods,

to the occasional evidence of linen drawers

in the 18th century, despite most visual evidence suggesting

that drawers were likewise uncommon

in menswear by this time as well.

But this isn't wholly irrelevant to the dilemma of peeing,

since men's styles of dress were, if not less layered,

at least constructed so that they were easily dismantlable

for peeing purposes with codpieces,

fall fronts, and button flies.

So that was me sufficiently taking six whole minutes longer

than it should have to answer

this exceedingly simple question, but if you are not here

for unnecessarily passionate explorations

into the urinary habits of pre-20th century humans,

then honestly... I don't even know why you're still here.