<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Vintage Sixty-Nine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.erosblog.com/2008/09/02/vintage-sixty-nine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/09/02/vintage-sixty-nine/</link>
	<description>Sex Blogging, Gratuitous Nudity, Kinky Sex, Sundry Sensuality</description>
	<pubDate>Thu,  8 Jan 2009 23:19:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bacchus</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/09/02/vintage-sixty-nine/#comment-94856</link>
		<dc:creator>Bacchus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:33:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2374#comment-94856</guid>
		<description>No sexual behavior was implied?  Oh, I wouldn't go &lt;b&gt;that&lt;/b&gt; far.

This was the era that put skirts on &lt;b&gt;table&lt;/b&gt; legs to avoid sexual suggestiveness.  They were keenly aware of suggestive possibilities.  And no matter how many layers of clothes the women layered on, you'll never convince me they didn't take full advantage -- when they wanted to -- of whatever suggestive attributes their clothing may have had -- crotchlessness included.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No sexual behavior was implied?  Oh, I wouldn&#8217;t go <b>that</b> far.</p>
<p>This was the era that put skirts on <b>table</b> legs to avoid sexual suggestiveness.  They were keenly aware of suggestive possibilities.  And no matter how many layers of clothes the women layered on, you&#8217;ll never convince me they didn&#8217;t take full advantage &#8212; when they wanted to &#8212; of whatever suggestive attributes their clothing may have had &#8212; crotchlessness included.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bobolink</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/09/02/vintage-sixty-nine/#comment-94848</link>
		<dc:creator>Bobolink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:10:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2374#comment-94848</guid>
		<description>We know from a recent auction sale that Queen Victoria's undies were crotchless. As Rikibeth has pointed out, this was a primary aid to toileting, especially with women's clothing of the Victorian era. No sexual behavior was implied by these.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We know from a recent auction sale that Queen Victoria&#8217;s undies were crotchless. As Rikibeth has pointed out, this was a primary aid to toileting, especially with women&#8217;s clothing of the Victorian era. No sexual behavior was implied by these.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gem</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/09/02/vintage-sixty-nine/#comment-94830</link>
		<dc:creator>Gem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:18:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2374#comment-94830</guid>
		<description>Re: "John Thomas". Yes, it's fairly well-known over here in Britain, just a bit old fashioned!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: &#8220;John Thomas&#8221;. Yes, it&#8217;s fairly well-known over here in Britain, just a bit old fashioned!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rikibeth</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/09/02/vintage-sixty-nine/#comment-94731</link>
		<dc:creator>Rikibeth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:35:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2374#comment-94731</guid>
		<description>Dr. Whiplash, the open-crotch drawers may seem counterintuitive for such an outwardly demure era, but there you are, they existed!  Having had to help a friend manage a wedding gown and modern underwear in the bathroom once, I can appreciate their practical value.

Also, it's why can-can dancers were so scandalous -- once they bent over or kicked up their legs and flounced their skirts out of the way, you could see their ladyparts!  There's a DVD extra of the costume designer for "Moulin Rouge" explaining how she couldn't do that for the modern movie and had to get the idea across in other ways.

The lace insertions ARE hot, and no, they're not appliques.  They're tricky to sew -- the Folkwear Edwardian Tea Gown pattern has instructions, and I've seen the finished effect and it's gorgeous, but I don't think I've got the skill to get it right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dr. Whiplash, the open-crotch drawers may seem counterintuitive for such an outwardly demure era, but there you are, they existed!  Having had to help a friend manage a wedding gown and modern underwear in the bathroom once, I can appreciate their practical value.</p>
<p>Also, it&#8217;s why can-can dancers were so scandalous &#8212; once they bent over or kicked up their legs and flounced their skirts out of the way, you could see their ladyparts!  There&#8217;s a DVD extra of the costume designer for &#8220;Moulin Rouge&#8221; explaining how she couldn&#8217;t do that for the modern movie and had to get the idea across in other ways.</p>
<p>The lace insertions ARE hot, and no, they&#8217;re not appliques.  They&#8217;re tricky to sew &#8212; the Folkwear Edwardian Tea Gown pattern has instructions, and I&#8217;ve seen the finished effect and it&#8217;s gorgeous, but I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;ve got the skill to get it right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. Whiplash</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/09/02/vintage-sixty-nine/#comment-94694</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Whiplash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:40:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2374#comment-94694</guid>
		<description>Note to Ann:
Personally, I've heard "John Thomas" quite a bit from various British sources, so I assume it is (or was) a common euphemism in the U.K.

Also, Note to Rikibeth: Thanks for the extra info and don't get me wrong, I'm all for open-crotch underwear, but they do seem a bit antithetical or counter-productive in such a sexually repressed era. The lace inserts seem pretty hot to me, assuming that they were not mere applique...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Note to Ann:<br />
Personally, I&#8217;ve heard &#8220;John Thomas&#8221; quite a bit from various British sources, so I assume it is (or was) a common euphemism in the U.K.</p>
<p>Also, Note to Rikibeth: Thanks for the extra info and don&#8217;t get me wrong, I&#8217;m all for open-crotch underwear, but they do seem a bit antithetical or counter-productive in such a sexually repressed era. The lace inserts seem pretty hot to me, assuming that they were not mere applique&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A fan of moral erotica</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/09/02/vintage-sixty-nine/#comment-94690</link>
		<dc:creator>A fan of moral erotica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:08:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2374#comment-94690</guid>
		<description>"John Thomas" was prominant in "Lady Chatterly's Lover", the 1928 novel by T.H. Lawrence (not to be confused with T.E. Lawrence). I always assumed it was an invention for that book. Time to do some serious (and entertaining) research!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;John Thomas&#8221; was prominant in &#8220;Lady Chatterly&#8217;s Lover&#8221;, the 1928 novel by T.H. Lawrence (not to be confused with T.E. Lawrence). I always assumed it was an invention for that book. Time to do some serious (and entertaining) research!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rikibeth</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/09/02/vintage-sixty-nine/#comment-94634</link>
		<dc:creator>Rikibeth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:47:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2374#comment-94634</guid>
		<description>Dr. Whiplash, if you want thin translucent lawn to be crisp, you've got to starch it, which makes it rather less translucent.  It was common to starch petticoats, but not so much for the drawers.

Basically, think loose, mid-thigh or knee-length shorts of the finest, lightest handkerchief cotton you've ever seen, with inset lace strips (the "insertions" mentioned above).  Oh, and open crotch!  Because if you've got the multiple layers of skirt and petticoats typical in 1907, you weren't going to be able to take down your drawers to go to the toilet.

Way prettier than thong panties, if you ask me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dr. Whiplash, if you want thin translucent lawn to be crisp, you&#8217;ve got to starch it, which makes it rather less translucent.  It was common to starch petticoats, but not so much for the drawers.</p>
<p>Basically, think loose, mid-thigh or knee-length shorts of the finest, lightest handkerchief cotton you&#8217;ve ever seen, with inset lace strips (the &#8220;insertions&#8221; mentioned above).  Oh, and open crotch!  Because if you&#8217;ve got the multiple layers of skirt and petticoats typical in 1907, you weren&#8217;t going to be able to take down your drawers to go to the toilet.</p>
<p>Way prettier than thong panties, if you ask me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred Flintstone</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/09/02/vintage-sixty-nine/#comment-94603</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred Flintstone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:25:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2374#comment-94603</guid>
		<description>Mossy Grot and John Thomas. Most prime writing. From the genteel nature to the unabashed detail, a tremendous little story.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mossy Grot and John Thomas. Most prime writing. From the genteel nature to the unabashed detail, a tremendous little story.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ann</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/09/02/vintage-sixty-nine/#comment-94590</link>
		<dc:creator>Ann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:27:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2374#comment-94590</guid>
		<description>John Thomas?  That's a new one for me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John Thomas?  That&#8217;s a new one for me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. Whiplash</title>
		<link>http://www.erosblog.com/2008/09/02/vintage-sixty-nine/#comment-94578</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Whiplash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:46:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2374#comment-94578</guid>
		<description>The writing was hot! I had to turn the thermostat back a few degrees to get comforatble again. But... Er... "lawn drawers"...?

I must confess I was unfamiliar with the term and therefore intrigued. ...Special pants made for playing backyard croquet perhaps? My first attempt to define the term was even more confusing, as it was defined as "drawers made from lawn" Hmm... Grass skirts? Pants woven from fescue? Finally I found that "lawn" was a crisp fabric, resistant to creasing, that was often made from linen. Were the Victorians trying to keep the clitoris constantly irritated into a state of arousal?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The writing was hot! I had to turn the thermostat back a few degrees to get comforatble again. But&#8230; Er&#8230; &#8220;lawn drawers&#8221;&#8230;?</p>
<p>I must confess I was unfamiliar with the term and therefore intrigued. &#8230;Special pants made for playing backyard croquet perhaps? My first attempt to define the term was even more confusing, as it was defined as &#8220;drawers made from lawn&#8221; Hmm&#8230; Grass skirts? Pants woven from fescue? Finally I found that &#8220;lawn&#8221; was a crisp fabric, resistant to creasing, that was often made from linen. Were the Victorians trying to keep the clitoris constantly irritated into a state of arousal?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
