Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ann Summers Knicker Party


Knickers in the 19th Century


Women did not wear knickers until about 1800. Until then the only underwear women wore was a long garment like a nightie. It was called a chemise or a shift. From the Middle Ages men wore linen shorts but until the end of the 18th century it was not considered seemly for women to wear undergarments apart from a chemise. However after about 1800 women also wore drawers. Sometimes they came to below the knee or sometimes they were longer garments with frills at the bottom called pantalettes. However by the 1830s only girls wore pantalettes. Women wore drawers.


Today we still say a pair of knickers or a pair of panties. That is because in the early 19th century women's underwear consisted to two separate legs joined at the waist. They really were a 'pair' of knickers.

  • 2 weeks later...
I don't personally sell them! Someone from the ann summers company brings a few things to show the guests & people can order from the catalogue, called a party because you have food, drink & a good time! Play games, have a laugh! Sounds like many of you don't know what it is

Tammie92 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> seriously you people are @#$%& perfectic! get a

> life seriously



What can you expect when you open with "I know this is a bit weird..." Maybe you should have started with Tupperware and worked your way up.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • No photograph taken and no video evidence of anyone approaching or ringing my doorbell all morning. I have made a complaint to EVRI, but just in case anyone has taken in or found some James Wellbeloved Senior dry catfood on their doorstep ... I am at the South Circular/Horniman end of Underhill.
    • I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone has made that argument have they?  I don't know, but suspect they've figured the costs of cancelling at this late stage are greater than the costs of losing another legal challenge. I agree that if so, it's putting commercial considerations over legal process.
    • Honestly don't know what Lambeth are thinking - they should consider their reputation, loss of public trust, legal challenges and findings of maladministration. Perhaps they have and don't care. It stinks of commercial bias and contempt for the legal process and public.  
    • If the argument was 'all councils are bad' that would be clearly true, but as much of the debate has been about 'once a council is elected, what it does is right and mandated' I think there is greater merit in using this as a debating point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...