Wonderbras for Men, Pt. II ~ More on Codpiece Look and peep at history of men's underwear....

[mechtild]

***

Notes: Still sure to offend some, and still rated Mature for explicit talk of "packages", images of racy men's underwear, nude Michelangelo’s David, nude Iggy again, and a Victorian photograph of nude men.

Again, there are loads of images to plague dial-up viewers. Images in this post are NOT links (so don’t wear out your clicking finger trying to make the guys bigger).

The first section will survey the history of men’s underwear, continuing with the discussion of the way underwear presents men’s genitals.



Section I. [European] Men’s Underwear.

In antiquity, Roman and Greek men, if they wore underwear at all, wore something of the loin cloth variety. Very little antique underwear exists even from more recent centuries, the garments passed on until they wore out and became rags. But, by the Middle Ages, judging from surviving texts and illustrations, women were wearing shifts* and men were wearing underdrawers, braies, from which came “breeches”.

*Women’s drawers wear not worn until the early 19th century, prompted by the clingy, form-fit style of Empire fashion. These were truly drawers, the pant legs open at the crotch for accessibility when using the toilet. Drawers continued to be open at the crotch for most of the 19th century, partially explaining the scandal of the can-can.

Medieval braies of the 13th century looked like boxer shorts, falling to the knee, with drawstring waists, which were then rolled a few times for comfort, and to bring the crotch to the right level. The inseams, except for the part near the crotch, were finished off open. This is clearly seen in prints.

The advantages of this were several. When peeing, the split inseam allowed a man to pull out his penis without taking down the braies. The split inseams also meant the man could wrap the leg panels more closely over his upper legs before tucking them down into his hose. A better fit in the legs meant there wasn’t a lot of excess linen hanging out of the tops of the hose.

The hose were tied to laces on the waistbands of the braies. Working outside in hot weather, stripped to their braies, men could tie up the ends of the legs with the laces at the waist, making the braies as short as they wished.

Braies have continued to be worn little changed ever since. Frodo, in the Cirith Ungol scene, appears to be wearing linen braies, the drawstring waist just visible above his breeches. That would make sense, since it is noted in the book that Sam, making sure he has plenty of everything, has packed "extra linen", ready to be produced when called for [by Frodo]. That could mean shirts, but in the scene in which Frodo's Moria wound is dressed, he's wearing a jacket over his worn tunic, under which is the mithril corselet. Under that is a shirt of soft leather worn next to the skin. No mention is made of additional linen in this detailed desciption of his upper clothing, so I am assuming the "extra linen" refers to braies.



Here are some illustrations showing the split-inseamed braies, worn alone, or tucked into split hose.












Replicas of split hose with braies tucked in, hose tied to doublet:








Braies were not always worn in the 13th century, an era when men’s tunics were well below the knee. This blown-up tiny image comes from a Book of Hours, showing a peasant man and woman warming themselves before the fire. They are quite naked under their clothes.







As the years went on, fashions changed. Men’s tunics became shorter. And shorter. Underneath, there was no fabric covering the crotch except the braies. If the man did not wear braies, he was naked above his hose.

I found the fascinating historical note below here.

Late-14th c fashions for dandies raised the hemlines to the ballocks, and early 15th c saw the first public exposure of the male crotch beneath the tunic. This trend forced the chaussers to invent the one-piece or joined hose. There is a turn-of-the-century admonition by an English bishop against men who sit splay-legged, exposing themselves; the implication is that they have purposefully chosen to omit wearing braies for shock value, but it may merely indicate outrage at the public display of the underpants.

At this point or soon after, the joined hose are no longer tied to the waistband, as mentioned above.

It should be noted that the rise of joined hosen did not eradicate the older, simpler style of separate hosen. As late as 1460 there is clear evidence in manuscripts of separate hosen worn by a member of the middle class. Obviously joined hosen, with the difficulties in tailoring and susceptability to bursting at the seat seams, were unpractical for the laboring class altogether.

Between the 14th and 15th century fashionable hose began to be made joined from the crotch to the back, but open in the front (for convenience), covered by a triangular panel, essentially a fly. Also, as more and more leg was being seen, even the buttocks, the braies became smaller and more fitted.


Here are some 14th and 15th century braies, also some joined hose with the front panel (historical replica).












The image below shows split hose tied to a doublet, braies beneath. It was not dated, but I’m guessing it’s just before joined hose became the style. The 15th century split hose in the photo of historical replicas above are also tied to a doublet, so I will assume this image is from the 15th century.







The triangular piece covering the crotch eventually came into general use.






When tunic hems rose higher than the triangular piece, it began to receive fashionable attention. It might be trimmed, or be made of a contrasting colour. The pieces might have been sewn in a manner that made them more pouch-like, too. Already hose and braies had long been cut on the bias for better, closer fit. The ones pictured below seem to have a snug, supportive fit:






In this 15th century Renaissance painting, the cloth codpieces do seem to have had a pouch-like shape, very much like the “contour pouch”-style underwear I posted yesterday. Any braies worn under such close-fitting hose had to fit well, unlike the big, loose-fitting braies of previous centuries.


Modern equivalents of "soft codpiece" underwear (the last, I suspect, has a c-ring device):










With the 16th century came the true “codpiece” – a structured cover for the penis and scrotum, resembling an athletic cup to start with, growing to a stiff, cotton-stuffed erection by mid-century.


Here are some examples from art:













Detail from Giovanni Battista Moroni's portrait of Antonio Navagero, 1565:






Here’s an interesting snippet on the codpiece (larger article here):

Codpiece - Codd in old English is the word for bag. The origin of the codpiece is under some debate. Some say it came to England by way of Italian Duke Fabrizio of Bologna (well-known for being well-endowed). The rumor is King Henry VIII ordered his Codpieces enlarged after his wife, at the moment, Queen Anne Boleyn said what we thought Mae West was popular for saying. "Be that thine codling, or art thou glad to see me?"

Early cod pieces were a simple triangle buttoned [tied, more likely] at the top on either side to hold in the male anatomy. As the Codpiece became a fashion statement not just a necessity they became ridiculously elaborate. Codpieces were often padded and highly decorative. Eventually men started to use them as a pouch to hold coin and such. This is where the term “The Family Jewels” finds its origin.

After the codpiece era, the skirts of tunics dropped and men’s pieces were no longer on public display. During the early and mid-18th century, men wore breeches buckled below the knee that fit well, but with plenty of room behind the front placket and in the seat, to tuck in voluminous shirts. But the crotch portion was not on view. Over the close-legged breeches a long-fronted waistcoat was worn. Over that, a jacket.

Not every 18th century man wore braies, however, making do by tucking the long shirt tails around himself, front and back. But underwear that was worn followed the line of the breeches (more often fastening at the waist, with drawstrings, than buttons as shown below):






Here is a detail from a painting of a tryst in progress by Fragonard, “Le Verrou” (“The Bolt”), painted in 1777-78. The man is down to what then would be entirely underwear (being in shirt-sleeves counted as underwear): a billowing shirt is tucked into fine drawstring braies. He’s already without his shoes, stockings, jacket, waistcoat, neck cloth, and breeches.





To see the full painting, click HERE.







Men’s crotches became very viewable again in the classical revival, beginning in the late 18th century, when everyone fashionable wished to look like newly-excavated Roman and Greek statues of gods and goddesses. For women, it meant the decline of wide skirts and multi-layers of petticoats beneath them, long corsets, and a good deal of coverage generally. For men, at first, it was merely a matter of taking up the waistcoat, so that the front of the breeches showed. Otherwise, the cloth thickness and fit was still very like that of the previous decade. Below is a still of Hugh Grant wearing breeches with a buttoned frontfall (placket), from Sense and Sensibility, set in the latter half of the 1790’s.








In the images painted by Louis-Leopold Bouilly below, it’s the next decade. The first is a self-portrait, showing a cutaway jacket and waistcoat, with tan breeches, but the fit of the pants is still not tight.

Below that is a portrait by Bouilly of young Francois Boieldieu, wearing the latest skin-tight, flesh-toned breeches.







The naked, Greek-statue-look was all the rage for several years. For men with great bodies, it was a fabulous era. But, perhaps, never in fashion history was there an era of men’s clothing more unforgiving to a man with a less than ideal physique. If the 16th century loved an erect phallus, the early 19th loved an erect torso. Stomachers were worn by men to flatten their stomachs, but that didn’t do nearly enough for most, I suspect. As we know from our recent era of women’s fashions, tight, clingy clothes enhance the bodies of those who are in perfect shape, but reveal the imperfections of those who are not.



Underwear? Judging from the painting of Mr. Boieldieu, and the 1817 painting below by Pierre Narcisse Guerin, of Henri de la Rochejaquelin leading the revolt in the Vendee, fashionable men might not have worn wear any. If they did, the garments would have to have had an extremely close fit, made of very thin stuff.





Under such breeches, the slightest crease or seam would show—as did everything else. As I said, a very interesting age in which to live.

Here is Monsieur de Nogent wearing a similar pair of clingy, pale, tight breeches, painted by Ingres, 1815:







Section II. More thoughts on the Codpiece-look, or Bulge.


I had already written most of the material above when I posted Part I, but a lead from yeuxdebleu gave me the opportunity to put more thought into the matter of the male bulge and its fashions. She linked me to the amusing, and amazing, Bulge Research Institute, which in turn pointed me (ha) to EBulges.

Ebulges* has hundreds of files to look at, if someone has the inclination to browse them all. Even I got tired of scrolling through columns and columns of every sort of male showing off every sort of bulge.

After all, I was looking for illustrations that would compare underwear designs. It was difficult to make comparisons when some images showed men with erections, or semi-erections, and other images showed men in their flaccid state (it was not always easy to tell in the Wonderbra models). Comparing penises that are erect to penises that are not is like comparing green beans to zucchinis. When it comes to size, zucchinis best green beans every time.

There were other links at the “Bulge Research Institute”, which I didn’t spend as much time browsing. The EBulge site was for clothed crotches, which was just what I was looking for, researching underwear. But the associated links specialized in other things. Some specialized in uncircumcised men, some in older men. One featured men’s bulges as seen in beach settings. Others promised glimpses of especially huge-membered men.

For me, the most thought-provoking specialty-bulge gallery featured photos of men whose testicles were notably large, housed in pendulous scrotums. After viewing a dozen images from the site, I began to think I was at a county fair. I expected a tweedy arm wielding a walking stick to appear in the picture, poking and prodding the goods to check out the heft and sway, commenting knowledgeably, “Aye, Angus. This one’s sure to sire some fine progeny.” I wondered if I hadn’t inadvertently clicked open a site for stud sheep or cattle.



Comparable specimens: stud bulls and rams.

* I was astonished, I should note, even in this show-and-tell era, at the sheer number and variety of the photos on EBulge. Most of them were taken of “regular” men. Few images showed a face, yet I still was amazed that so many men would put their photographs on the site. I thought it funny, yes, but also an indicator of how content men are with their bodies and genitals generally. Every sort of body appeared in the images: fit, soft, skinny, fat, teenaged, elderly, shaved, hairy, laughably little, and impressively huge. There were beautiful bulges, and bulges nearly deformed and monstrous; flaccid members, and penises flamboyantly erect. I can’t imagine women doing this. Not because they’re shyer, necessarily, but because so few women think their bodies or genitals are worth looking at. Men seem to just love what they’ve got, whatever it is. I think that aspect of their exhibitionism rather enviable.

I digress, but only slightly. As I said, I gave the site a perusal (of course), but, as I did, it occurred to me how much the total bulge a man is able to muster depends on the size and hang of his testicles. If his testicles are pendulous, and if he wears loose boxers or pants, they may languish unnoticed. But, gathered up into a pouch (or c-ring/sling/o-ring), his testicles can provide the platform on which the penis—even if it is small—sits in prominence, rather like a sceptre laying upon a ceremonial pillow. The plumper the pillow, the higher the sceptre sits.

This, I decided, was what made all the “pull up and project forward” underwear devices work. In an exaggerated fashion, they simulated what drawn-up testicles do, making the penis look more “perky” because of its jauntier angle sitting atop the high-gathered, plumped-up testicles.

Even “little fellows” can convey this look. Art critics of Michelangelo’s David (often tittered over as a little fellow) sometimes have noted that the marble hero has drawn-up testicles—the result of “fight-or-flight” pre-conflict excitement. Thus, from the front, David’s penis looks especially small because it is foreshortened. From the side (although his is still a modest [if perfect] member), it is clear that his penis is borne up at an angle by his relatively drawn-up testicles.












What is the appeal of the accentuated “up” look in modern men’s underwear?—other than the obvious one of sexual readiness? A penis that is fully “up” is what the most extreme codpieces of the 16th century emulated. Yet as wild as the style was, otherwise staid, important public figures wore it.

I have begun to think that these men didn’t just want to look big—or even sexy—as much as they wanted to look like men to be reckoned with. Men with fire in their minds and spirits, not just their groins—but which their potent-looking groins stood for. The testicles of an excited man, whether from sudden desire or the adrenalin that comes from fear or tension at the threat of conflict, draw up closer to the body. Apart from whether the penis is erect, the overall “look” is that of a man ready for action. “Up”, “high”, “ready”, and “rarin’ to go” are expressions that carry all sorts of associations, not just sexual ones. Being “ready for action”, “full of ardour”, “aflame with passion”, and “full of daring” are all attributes of the hero—the commander, the innovator, the leader—not just the lover: .

No wonder 16th century monarchs posed for state portraits wearing these high-rearing, projecting phalluses. They, too, wanted to look bold, forceful, forthright and full of fervour. This, I think, is the essence of the codpiece look of yore—it was not merely considered sexy, but the symbol of everything competent, courageous, and bold.




Yet there is another “look” that prominent male bulges can convey—that is, other than ‘ready for action’, and ‘once more into the breech’. This other sort of genital prominence conveys more a sense of rich resources, and, perhaps, a greater sensuality. This is the look of luxuriously pendant genitals. As opposed to the erect look, in which the penis is the star and leader of the charge, the full, ripe look implies someone with deep reserves.

Sometimes the expression, “That was ballsy!”, or “That guy has balls!” commends daring or risky behaviour. Yet saying “that guy has balls” can also mean that the speaker finds the person worthy as a man: a person with strength and staying power, a person with the resources to back up the opening charge. “Balls” implies an ongoing reserve of character and energy beyond the first passionate assault. Concentrating on the jutting codpiece, I had forgotten how much impact sheer, solid voluptuousness can have.

The pendulous look in genitals implies reserves but also a sense of leisure—as if the possessor of such genitals can take his time. There's a look of lushness, languor; ripeness. These are genitals like fruit that hangs from vine and branch to be held and tested, plucked, and savoured.

Estë remarked that the William Morris background for my journal was chock-full of sensual imagery—small but luscious fruit, ripe to bursting, round and ovoid. I hadn’t noticed the detail, choosing it for its overall hue and look, but she’s right. I do love what the imagery implies (for me): potency, fecundity (physical and non-physical), and a lush sensuality.


There has long been underwear, such as the loincloth or the traditional hang-low jock strap, and some modern low-slung pouch-style underwear, that accentuates this look. With this look, it’s less a matter of “bulge” than “hang”. The impetuosity and daring of the ‘codpiece look’ impresses, and makes me ogle, but the ‘pendulous fruit’ look invites me to come closer: to touch, to be intimate.



To return briefly to the original topic (how EW might portray Iggy Pop in the package department), Iggy’s nude photo falls in the “hanging fruit” category. He doesn't bulge, but hangs. His penis has the slightest lift from the testicles behind, hidden in the shadows, but probably set low since they don't create "the lifeguard lift" (don't know if it's the cold water or what, but a lot of lifeguards in my day seemed to have had some version of the "David" genitals: a penis resting at a jaunty angle atop a mound of high-set testicles).



The "lifeguard lift":







With this in mind, I don't see how Iggy's look could be approximated with either c-ring or structured pouch underwear. Iggy, who went underwear-less, has a very natural look. There is none of the pokey-pointy-bulgy-thing going on. Whoever played him would have to wear no underwear, or what looked like no underwear. No man-bras.








Aesthetics.

There really is quite a difference between the “up” and “let-it-hang” look. I will try to show the difference in the images below, in which the same [very big] man wears different underwear. The first image shows him wearing racy but unstructured hi-cut briefs. He appears to have large testicles, and a medium-to-large penis. The fundamental effect his genitals make in this soft cloth pouch is one of plenitude, but not excess.

On another page, I found two images of the same man, but wearing briefs utilizing c-rings assists. These garments lift his genitals up and forward. He does look bigger, but his ripe, fruitful look is transformed into a projecting codpiece. It really is quite a different effect. Personally, I much prefer the natural look, however eye-popping his enhanced super-bulge.


Tattooed man with plain support briefs:





Same man in thong and briefs with c-rings:











Below is a photograph by Wilhelm von Gloeden. This 19th century artist is famous today for his images of nude men and boys made while in Sicily (the services of these comely Italian working men and boys were cheap). Some are erotic, but most have an artistic, elegiac tone. He typically posed his subjects as if for a painting or sculpture, and his photos were used by other artists as bases for their paintings.

The photograph below demonstrates the difference between the two “looks” I've been talking about, but on young men of normal proportions, unassisted by special underwear or appliances. The youth on the left has the high-set testicles of the Michelangelo 'David', his penis lying atop his testicles nearly perpendicular to the ground. This is the realistically proportioned version of what the “projecting package” underwear tries to do—but on a much grander scale. The penis of the youth on the right, on the other hand, hangs nearly straight down, implying low-slung testicles behind them. He demonstrates what I've been calling the "pendulous fruit" model.

I think both these models are wonderful. They could have stepped out of ancient Roman or Greek frescos. No wonder van Gloeden wanted to paint them. With their earth-stained feet and calves, one could even pretend they're furry, like fauns—or hobbits.








It occurred to me that the youth on the right could represent the the no-underwear look of 70's rock-and-rollers, the guys of Iggy’s era.

That rock fans were ogling the bulges under the jeans of 70’s rock stars was made clear in the hilarious “mockumentary” by Rob Reiner, made in 1984, spoofing heavy metal bands and their sexual flamboyance. This is Spinal Tap is about a fictional rock band that is on the downside of its career. Interestingly, the three band members are played by the same actors (Christopher Guest, Michael McKeen and Harry Shearer) who played the folk trio in Christopher Guest’s 2003 mockumentary, A Mighty Wind.


Here’s a still from a memorable scene:






In this scene, Harry Shearer’s character is stopped, going through the metal detector at the airport. The attendant wands him, and registers trouble in his pant leg. Harry is made to unzip, revealing a large cucumber wrapped in aluminium foil, his home-made rock-star prosthetic.





Section III. Codpiece flights of fancy.

Another thing. While looking at hundreds of examples of men displaying themselves in every sort of hidden-structured or contour-pouched underwear, I couldn't help thinking of things they reminded me of. The more aggressively the underwear “lifted and projected forward”, the more implausible, fanciful, or grotesque the profiles.

Some were so large and bulbous, the ends of their penises curving over the uplifted package, I was reminded of the proboscis of Groucho Marx, or of a bull elephant seal.

























Others reminded me of the beaks of birds. Here is the Toucan look:













Honk for the Canada goose:












Ones like flamingos (or like the nose of Punch):

















Smaller, pointier fellows, like hummingbirds:











Last (and least, bless them), the little chickadees of the bulge world:












As the last group demonstrates, *every* man seems to think well of his bulge, no matter what its dimensions.


~*~


Well, that’s it, really. Below I’m just going to post a few special selections that I thought memorable.




For just_ann_now: this might be what the Men of Gondor were wearing under their tunics (note built-in contour pouch)....







And here’s what the "Cruel Haradrim" were wearing:







Here’s what the healers in the Houses of Healing had under their robes:







~*~



And that’s all for the Codpiece Extravaganza. I have spent FAR too many days putting this together, but it’s been illuminating and fun.

In the meantime, I hope to catch up on all the journals of friends I've been missing while I've been working on this. My next post, when it appears, will return to the regularly-scheduled programming (Frodo screencaps).



~ Mechtild



Previous entry: "Wonderbras for Men Pt. I" HERE.

Comments

[yeuxdebleu.livejournal.com]

Well, it took over an hour with dial-up to look at/read this (yes, you forewarned me) and it was totally worth the time and effort.

I can't believe the work you put into this two-part history. It's amazing. The Arts & Entertainment network had a program several years ago about the history of women's underwear, mostly bras and corsets, but I think you did a much better job than they did.

I see you found EBulge, too. I didn't mention that before because most of the links lead to sites you have to pay to see. Or did you figure out a way to get in for free? *g*

Thanks so much for all your work. This has been quite an eye-popping trip.

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

Yeuxdebleu, what nice things to say! *smooches you* If you hadn't given me that link to EBulge, I wouldn't have thought of half this stuff. Oh, you are right that those sites required memberships, but most of them had "free previews", enough to get the idea. Some of the "Apple Sacks" men really did look like the ram I posted. If they gave naked horsie-back rides, they'd be dragging on the ground!

Just in case you tried looking again and images were missing, when I got home from work this afternoon I saw that Photobucket had taken down a lot of the underwears I had loaded. Those prudes. They weren't even naked! So I reposted them at Scrapbook, where they don't care about naked shots as long as they aren't actual porn.

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

Awww, thank you, Rodia!

[maewyn-2.livejournal.com]

My mind is very busy, boggling!!!

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

This project has given me a whole window into what might have gone under breeches in the Shire. (Frodo, however, often wore no braies -- my Frodo, that is. Only if he was going to do something dirty, hot or strenuous, other than making love.)

[verangel.livejournal.com]

I have GOT to save this!!! Its incredible. I loved it! You are amazing. Great research. I truly had no idea. I learned somuch. hugs you! v

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

Thanks for commenting! I studied costuming a long time ago, but never underwear. I've only studied it for writing LotR fic, but never this in-depth. I learned a lot!

Verangel, you didn't mention it, but I've heard from other people that they couldn't see some of the underwear images, which had been taken down during the day by Photobucket. I replaced them all at another host's, re-posting them.

[aussiepeach.livejournal.com]

That Tryst piccy looks very Haremish. :) Great post! I will contribute an extract from Francois Rabelais:

And, like to that horn of abundance, it was still gallant, succulent, droppy, sappy, pithy, lively, always flourishing, always fructifying, full of juice, full of flower, full of fruit, and all manner of delight. I avow God, it would have done one good to have seen him, but I will tell you more of him in the book which I have made of the dignity of codpieces. One thing I will tell you, that as it was both long and large, so was it well furnished and victualled within, nothing like unto the hypocritical codpieces of some fond wooers and wench-courtiers, which are stuffed only with wind, to the great prejudice of the female sex.

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

What a *fabulous* quote from Rabelais, Peachy. I've heard of him since I was a teenager, of course, but I've never actually read anything of his. What was that from? It was absolutely wonderful, and completely right. Maybe it's the old hippie in me. Or the old fruit-grower. Really, that was JUICY writing, better than any image.

Peachy, just in case there were images missing when you opened this, I have replaced the ones Photobucket took down.

[taerie.livejournal.com]

Well, I guess we know now what it takes to peel me away from my videogames. I read every word several times and stared at the pictures that stupid Photobucket spared and even spent some enjoyable time at the links you provided!
Extremely fascinating subject and very very entertainingly presented!!
Is there any way to see the pics that the crotch police took off?


I learned a lot that I wanted to KNOW! I can't wait to draw Frodo in his smalls.. or not so smalls.

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

Thank you, White Gull. I thought there were a lot of laughs in it, too. It sounds from your post in the Harem (where I still haven't caught up in commenting) you could use some cheering up.

Just in case there were images missing when you opened this entry, I re-posted underwear shots that Photobucket took down (the bums).

[melyanna-65.livejournal.com]

OMG, what an entry! You should have spent a lot of time researching all this material and sources and comparisons ...

I can't say if I'm fascinating by all those tricks or if they make me laugh helplessly. For sure I prefer a natural looking man.

And I noticed that Photobucket again deleted some of your pics, damn!

*hugs*

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

I hadn't realised they'd been taken down, Melyanna. They weren't nude, so I thought they'd be O.K. Not. I loaded all the underwear shots into Scrapbook and reposted them. That Photobucket! Grrr.

I prefer a natural look, too, Melyanna, very much so. Especially after looking at all those hundreds of shots of men wearing pull and push-up thongs and briefs. I don't mind the soft pouches, but I think the c-rings, while they can make the package look impressive, just don't look natural.

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

Blimey.




Um. Yes.

Iggy Pop does nothing for me, btw. I don't care how big his whang was. *snort*

Neither do codpieces, either the Tudor or the modern Calvin Klein variety. Some of those underpants are EXTREMELY silly. :p

But I rather like braies. They're endearing. (I particularly like Frodo's. :p )

I also like the, erm, Michelangelo look. Love his David. In RL though, the 'lifeguard lift' isn't really a turn-on for me. I just want to snigger.

Which, I guess, is the classic female response! I mean, look at how women all shriek with laughter at male strippers, whereas men watching women strip do so in lustful, heavy silence. Big difference.

I agree that the Wilhelm von Gloeden photo is wonderful: those two boys ARE very lovely, like young Greek gods. That kind of unself-conscious nudity I do find attractive. Whereas I find something rather repellent in the Iggy Pop photo - perhaps it's his self-absorbed gaze. Plus, I really don't go in for that kind of androgynous look. And I'm really not bothered about how big a man's bits and pieces are. It's the whole look of a handsome man's body that will arrest my attention, rather than being fixated on his penis alone. Like, um, young Dan in Equus. *blushes*

Love that Fragonard tryst painting! Very, very Haremy! :) Love the way that dark-curled hunk is pulling his lady to him and slamming the door shut! I also love his white shirt and braies.

The Men of Gondor leather pouch made me guffaw! The thought of Boromir (oh, that is SO Boromir :D) or Aragorn or Faramir sporting this look made me keel over with laughter. Now that is kind of sexy. :p

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

Howdy, Pearl. Iggy doesn't light my fire, either, but Part I of this post came into being simply to consider how EW might portray him physically, Mr. Pop's body type being very distinctive and very different from EW's. Since Iggy's body was often on view, this would matter for his actor. There also was the matter of the "package". That's when I started going through the sites featuring men's underwear, following the trail of the "package enhancer" underwear ads.

Maybe I didn't get my point across, but I, too, am unmoved by the codpieces or their modern equivalents, which make men pokey or proddy or lumpy in their "bits-bras". I like the look of the natural person, modestly-sized or large. If their gentials happen to be beautifully made, too, I appreciate it very much, just as much as beauty in the rest of them. And I posted most of the underwear *because* it looked silly; I had meant it to be funny. I wasn't seriously recommending them.

Yes, the Fragonard is wonderful. I'd never seen it before preparing this post. Did you click open the full painting? It's very lovely. The swain is a bit herky for me, but I love his clothes, the fabrics and colours in the picture and the swoony expression of the woman. I suppose this is the original "bodice-ripper" romance cover!

[frolijah-fan-54.livejournal.com]

WOW - just WOW!! This is absolutely fascinating (and also very funny). Your work on this is really appreciated - thank you so much.

I had to esp. laugh at the codpieces in "upright" mode - it just looked so silly!! I like a more natural look - the very prominent bulges just look enhanced to me. It is interesting though how different men and women are when it comes to showing off their attributes.

Thanks again!!

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

I like the "natural look", too. Actually, I am betting that the jutting package-look appeals more to men than to women. It's men who can't get enough of their own rocketry.

I'm glad you laughed over the array of pointy-pokey-bulgy-looking thongs and briefs at the bottom. Paired with the pictures of birds and etc., I thought they looked even more hilarious. What are men thinking?

[bellewood.livejournal.com]

This is totally out of this world!!

WHAT a lot of time and effort must have gone into putting this wonderful piece together! It's great! SO many interesting facts i would never have dreamed of! Underwear through the ages and the animal/bird likenesses had me in stitches...thanks!

btw..it's the 'natural' look for me every time! Really, when it comes down to it.. size, appearance, high or low, bulging or hanging..it's who it's attached to that makes the difference.. NOT that i have anyone in mind..*ahem*!!

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

I think most of us are agreed that the "natural" look is the most appealing, aesthetically and erotically.

I just said to Frolijah Fan above, I think it's primarily *men* who are keen to have mega-members, hankering for a more noticeable bulge. There are just not that many who admit it and act on it. Some men don't care a jot, of course, but judging from what I've heard from men and their partners over the years, and read men saying on the topic, men are far more likely to revel in sheer size, wishing they were bigger.

I'm so glad you liked the bird/seal/Punch--codpiece underwear comparisons. They made me laugh out loud. How could they wear such things? I thought again as I posted them of the character in "Spinal Tap" who was so desperate to look "hung" he wore a salami under his jeans.

[este-tangletoes.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this in-depth presentation it is greatly appreciated. Such well chosen illustration and also very informative.

But as the saying goes:

It’s not the wand it’s the magician.

Thank you again, Mechling, a lot of work went into this indeed.

--Estë

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

Thanks for commenting, Este!

[whiteling.livejournal.com]

Mechtild's men in wonderbra
are simply this: so *wunderbar*!
From big too small, it is a pleasure,
every guy will find his measure.
We ladies ogle this parade -
for what else is fashion made?


:-) Thanks Mechtild. Those posts were entertaining and highly informative. A cunning combination, for sure!

Happy Easter, dearie! *hugs*

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much, Whiteling, for the kind and clever words, and the Easter wishes. A joyful holy-day to you!

[elycia.livejournal.com]

This treatise is just BEYOND brilliant. I laughed my rump off, of course, but I also learned TONS! (The categorizations at the end are particularly hysterical.) I can't thank you enough for going to the trouble to share all this accumulated information. Like others who've commented, I plan to save it for reference--the historical costuming, in particular, fascinates me.

As for Elijah, maybe they'll go the "Boogie Nights" route and give the boy a prosthetic pecker. (I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw Mark Wahlberg whip that sucker out, and I was actually relieved to read it was a fake--the poor fellow would have passed out every time he got excited, methinks.)

Or maybe they'll take the "Elvis on Ed Sullivan" approach and only film him from the waist up. :-)

Thanks again for this awesome post!

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

Thanks so much for commenting, Elycia. I have laughed at your signature icon browsing many an LJ.

Yes, I think I learned a lot researching men's underwear. I knew a lot about women's undergarments (from my costumer days), but not men's. In my own fanfic, I had costumed my Shire (in my mind, that is, I'm not one who goes in for big descriptions of what characters are wearing unless it matters to the narrative) in late 18th century era clothes--or something close to it. I had decided Frodo Baggins, a gentleman (gentlehobbit), would not need to wear underwear most of the time, since its purpose was to soak up dirt and sweat, and to protect sensitive body parts from rough, coarse fabrics. Frodo's clothes would be made of finer fabrics, he had the wherewithal to bathe regularly, and he needn't work up a sweat unless he felt like it (hiking, playing games, or joining in at harvest time, etc.), in which case he could wear some sort of underlinens. But what those underlinens would look like I didn't really know. I had been imagining something like a breech clout (like a modern jockstrap). But I was wrong. It would have been braies, if anything -- more like drawstring boxer shorts.

As for Elijah, maybe they'll go the "Boogie Nights" route and give the boy a prosthetic pecker. (I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw Mark Wahlberg whip that sucker out, and I was actually relieved to read it was a fake--the poor fellow would have passed out every time he got excited, methinks.)

What's this? What's this? I saw Boogie Nights (on DVD), but I don't remember any shot of his naked penis. How could I -- I -- have missed it? Is there a "Director's Cut"? I must have seen the theatrical version.

In an interview about an older film in which Ian McKellen plays D. H. Lawrence, he mentioned wearing a prosthetic, meant to be an erection. I don't doubt that Ian McKellen can get it up with the best of them, but I suppose it's too much to ask of any actor to get one on demand and for sustained periods of filming. Can't you just hear PJ saying, after the twentieth take, "Just one more, for luck!"?

[julchen11.livejournal.com]

It’s unbelievable how much work you put in this very interesting posts. I took me quite a time to look and read but every single minute, second was worth it.
Some of them are simply stunning, some of them made me smile and as you say :

*every* man seems to think well of his bulge, no matter what its dimensions.

Looking at the “codpieces” 16th century – it hasn’t changed much when I look at the underwear of today 

I think I’ll look at your archive post of Frodo’s scrotch now *giggles*

Thank you, honey. You made me smile, you made my night.

Oh, and many many thanks and lots of hugs for your lovely e-mail. YOU made my day AND my night, sweetheart. I’m soooo blessed to be your

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

Julchen, you are so gracious! Thank you for your comment, and thank you for your encouragement. For well-words constitute encouragement. I did work hard on these posts, but they engrossed me for a week. I wouldn't have bothered had I not become interested. Yes, underwear seems to be having its "codpiece era" resurgence.

[frodosweetstuff.livejournal.com]

Wow. I think I can't say more than "wow". I didn't know we had the authority on codpieces etc in our midst!! :D

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

Ha! You make me laugh, Frodosweetstuff. "Authority on Codpieces": it would make a great business card.

[just-ann-now.livejournal.com]

Mechtild, I can't believe I neglected to comment when you first posted these, thanking you for your care and attention to the entire subject, and particularly for your samples of Gondorian, Haradric, and special-purpose garments! Those Gondorian leathers certainly give the term "hotpants" a whole new meaning, don't they! I can imagine Boromir wearing them, whipping himself up to a frenzy on his way to visit Theodred. Thanks so much for this really delightful imagery!

[mechtild.livejournal.com]

Ann! I'm so glad you finally got to see the Haradric and Gondorian leathers (yes, Boromir was made for those), not to mention the natty little briefs for the pretty-boy go-fers in the HOH. "Lavendar oil, my Lord King?" "NO. Athelas. Wait. I will take the lavendar oil for later, when I shall use my hands in other, non-healing activities. Well, not directly healing."