Author Topic: What’s in your Pants?  (Read 1329 times)

John P

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
    • View Profile
    • My naturist page
Re: What’s in your Pants?
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2020, 09:23:48 PM »
William Wood, New-England’s Prospect. 1635.

Since the English arrival comparison hath made [Indian women] miserable; for seeing the kind usage of the English to their wives, they do as much condemn their husbands for unkindness, and commend the English for their love, as their husbands commending themselves for their wit in keeping their wives industrious, do condemn the English for their folly in spoiling good working creatures. These women resort often to the English houses, where pares cum paribus congregatæ*,—in sex, I mean,—they do somewhat ease their misery by complaining, and seldom part without a relief. If her husband come to seek for his squaw, and begin to bluster, the English woman betakes her to her arms, which are the warlike ladle, and the scalding liquors, threatening blistering to the naked runaway, who is soon expelled by such liquid comminations.

* Like joins with like.

jbeegoode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3842
    • View Profile
Re: What’s in your Pants?
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2020, 03:29:41 AM »
Naked meaning something. Not so monogamous. Free liquor for her mate. Some kind of chauvinist leanings of the natives, even abusive. Did I get that correct?

Not the noble savage narrative.
Jbee
Barefoot all over, all over.

reubenT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
Re: What’s in your Pants?
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2020, 07:28:34 AM »
That is saying that the Indian women envy the English women for their  seemingly easy life,  the men taking more work,  (while the Indian men seemed lazy and forced the squaws to do more of the domestic labor)    But when the Indian men came to fetch their squaws from the houses of the English women,  the woman having a pot of stew on the fire with ladle handy threatened to throw boiling liquid at the Indian man,   who apparently was in no gentle mood toward his mate. 

The Creator gave humans brains instead of pockets.   Gave them the ability to use tools and make pockets or bags for themselves if they wanted a container to carry things.  He gave us tender feet instead of hooves,   and figured we could make our own foot protection.   He gave us no fur for a coat,  but instead intelligence to make coats for ourselves to insulate against the cold. 

BlueTrain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
    • View Profile
Re: What’s in your Pants?
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2020, 02:28:24 PM »
One need not wear pants to have a pocket, although we'd call it a pouch. Indians used them to their fire-making outfit, pipe and tobacco (the habit of smoking tobacco came from American Indians, you know), good luck charms and I guess their pocket change. They wore a loincloth and sometimes thigh-high leggings, neither of which have pockets. Otzi the unfortunate iceman had one, too. Modern day mountain men carry one they call a possibles pouch. I mentioned carrying only house keys and pocket handkerchief myself but I really don't like carrying things in my pants pockets. But a pouch requires at least a belt or shoulder strap.

Bob Knows

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1512
  • Human bodies are natural, comfortable, and green.
    • View Profile
    • Greenbare Photos
Re: What’s in your Pants?
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2020, 05:46:50 PM »
One need not wear pants to have a pocket,

Traditional Scottish outfits with kilts and all often includes a pouch or "sporran" hanging on a belt. 
Human bodies are natural, comfortable, and green.
To see more of Bob you can view his personal photo page
http://www.photos.bradkemp.com/greenbare.html

BlueTrain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
    • View Profile
Re: What’s in your Pants?
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2020, 05:52:41 PM »
I wore a kilt in my wedding.

John P

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
    • View Profile
    • My naturist page
Re: What’s in your Pants?
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2020, 11:21:40 PM »
I think it was routine in an English house back in the 1600s for there to be a pot of water over the fire all the time. There was always a need for hot water for some purpose or other--cooking or washing, or repelling an unwanted visitor! I think "liquor" in Wood's account just meant "liquid'.

Dan and I went for a hike yesterday with some shopping beforehand, and we both went into the store in our skirts. We shopped again today, but since it was a shopping trip only, I wore shorts, though Dan is a skirtman all the time. I'm not totally comfortable in public places with a short skirt on and no undies! Also lack of pockets is indeed a problem. One needs a reticule I suppose.

BlueTrain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
    • View Profile
Re: What’s in your Pants?
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2020, 01:11:54 PM »
If you lived in a house with a wood-burning stove and no water heater, as I have, you'd always have a kettle of water on the stove.

Speaking of skirts, some of those Utilikilts have pockets and some are virtual bins. Also, back when kilts were actually worn into battle by highland infantry (until around 1940), soldiers were sometimes issued with a kilt cover, referred to as an apron. Some were actually an apron, covering only the front, and some were full-coverage, going all the way around. Either way, they had a pocket in the front, right about where the sporran would hang. There would have been a time when trousers, pantaloons and whatnot may not have had pockets but I don't know when pockets first appeared in pants. At least one reference I have seen said that a sporran was originally for holding ammunition. Some of the more decorative sporrans in the Victorian era wouldn't hold much of anything.

jbeegoode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3842
    • View Profile
Re: What’s in your Pants?
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2020, 05:44:40 PM »
Poor quality of water was compensated, with fermentation, like wine, BEER or tea. It would make sense to have hot safe water on the fire. Why wait for the water to boil, before drinking?
Jbee
Barefoot all over, all over.

BlueTrain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
    • View Profile
Re: What’s in your Pants?
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2020, 08:45:10 PM »
Where I lived in the country in 1964, the water was not boiled before drinking. It came either from a cistern (which someone else had a stronger pull on, if you follow me) or a spring. There was nothing "upstream" to pollute the water. But that was then. Don't know about now. My father died over 20 years ago and the property isn't in the family anymore. Around there, however, the chief health problems were from where people worked. Since men are more likely to work under poor or unhealthy conditions (even though factory work is woman's work!), that may help to explain why women live longer.

In some places, a source for water can be problematic. Good water doesn't just fall out of the sky, you know. More rivers seem to be polluted than not and the average home wouldn't have the facilities for purifying the water. And plenty of water isn't always available year round sometimes because of extended dry weather. It also matters how many are actually obtaining water from a particular source. That's what I meant by having a stronger pull. Another party that drew water from the cistern was further down the hill and when they turned on the water, it went to their house. Surprisingly few people there had a well but I understand that mining ruined the ground water by lowering the water table. I can only imagine what conditions are like in the plains or the southwest. But I never heard of anyone becoming ill from the water there. It was not exactly a heavily populated area. Other places have other problems. Everyone using the same dipper for drinking was not unusual, by the way, or considered a bad thing to do.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2020, 08:47:00 PM by BlueTrain »

Safebare

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: What’s in your Pants?
« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2020, 01:15:50 AM »
Pollution of ground water and other water supplies continues to be a significant concern just about everywhere or anywhere. I was delighted to have reliable water from the well on property when I purchased the current home. After the last flood, many wells were contaminated from pollutants entering the wells that flooded. We faired better.
Then, last weekend I learn that an EPA Superfund Site is only 5.7 miles away. 🤮🤮
It's an old dry cleaning operation that disposed of the chemicals in their septic drain field, contaminating the ground water below.
Luckily it is downstream and the plume is not threatening us. But, it makes me wonder. It's probably time to get another water test.
~Safebare