Wherein Corvid topic-hops and sounds mildly delirious. Which she might be, she isn't sure.

Nov 29, 2010 21:52

I am behind on pretty much everything. I probably owe you an email or an lj comment. Sorry ( Read more... )

consumption

Leave a comment

Comments 13

spacedmonkey November 29 2010, 22:35:03 UTC
I'm not convinced that they did (I am very bored) and haven't found anything ton contradict that. I know that 40 years earlier they generally didn't but that's not a great help in the underwear department.

Reply


wraithwitch November 29 2010, 23:09:52 UTC
Ah ha!
Cool.
Thank-you to you and your boredom!

*corvid now wonders exactly how naked she's gonna make a certain half-drowned police inspector become in the name of getting-him-out-of-wet-clothes...*

Reply

spacedmonkey November 30 2010, 06:31:34 UTC
Depends on how naked you want him to be. :)

Reply

wraithwitch November 30 2010, 10:00:28 UTC
*tries to canvas neuron opinion.*
Hm. Results mixed but seem to fall into the following categories: 'Heehee - naked!' 'Can we steal his coat?' 'Can I have his boots?' 'He'll sulk'. Which translates roughly as one for, one against, and twice as many not caring so long as they've a chance to steal his swishy coat. *sigh* Not overly helpful.

Reply


themadone November 30 2010, 12:01:44 UTC

Surely men's underwear is pretty straight forward compared to women's?

Reply

wraithwitch November 30 2010, 12:20:39 UTC
Yes, and there's loads of info on the net about historical underwear for girls... but the main question was whether in 1820 blokes wore any at all or not. And the answer is - nope, they were commando beneath their breeches =) Since in the story it's a bloke who's getting undressed and not a girl, that was why i needed to know.

Reply

themadone November 30 2010, 16:00:26 UTC

Brrrr...I'm glad that's no longer the case with it being as cold as it is :)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up