To me, wearing clothes all the time is commando, and not wearing underwear is a poor second to being free. How many fucking commandos do you know who go into battle naked? The British used to at least paint themselves blue.
It's the criticisms from other women (and their white knights) who don't like the competition... Just gotta look past em.
Interesting thread, but there is a point I'd like to bring up. Notice most of the comments seem to be from guys. I wonder if thats because women going without underwear is more of a taboo in our society. Look how poor Britney Spears got slut-shamed when someone took photos of her with no panties on. Seems like no one passes judgment on men for going commando, but women and girls are likely to be considered sluts if they do so (just like with other fashion choices-yoga pants, thong bikinis,etc). I seldom wear anything under shorts but not with skirts or dresses. Depends a lot on the occasion. Nice lingerie goes well when you want to really dress up for a serious affair.
I think that no matter what you do wear panties or none if you feel comfortable with it it should be ok and if someone doesn’t like it then either they shouldn’t look or just ignore it
Interesting thought... I would think it's more like people generally don't think of guys going commando, but guys (being the horndogs we are) fantasize about girls going commando, some of us look for it and it excites us when we detect it. Having gone commando all my adult life, it's usually not noticeable to others. And I found that to be noticeable I had to switch to thin fabrics that would be snug enough at that level to fall across the protrusion for "print through" to occur. And even then, only a small portion of us in the general public even looks at guys crutches. If I want to increase the likelihood that it be noticed, I have to position myself so the target audience has a view up my shorts ("accidentally"), doing so usually gets noticed but typically is met with a smile and a quick look away. Of course that's not on blatant display for anyone and everyone, else I'd be met with disdain. With women, an apparent accidental brief display is met similarly, but a knowing show is received as an invitation. An invitation is looked at favorably by (most) men, but unfavorably by (most) women (it's a competition thing). A man is much more likely to be called out and punished for indecent exposure than would be a woman under similar circumstances. It's because historically men have been a greater threat to forcing unwanted advances. People "slut shaming" the millions of women like your example are mostly women doing so out of jealousy. And the few men who might would do so to please their women by going along with them (usually "beta orbiters"). Those women often wish they had the intestinal fortitude to be so secure in themselves. So if it's more taboo for women to be noticed commando, that's basically some of the underlying principles for it. But when it comes down to it, it's only as taboo as the particular individual deems it.
Good point you made about men more likely to be called out or charged with indecent exposure. For example, have heard of communities wanting to make guys wearing saggy pants a criminal offense, but have not heard anything about making it illegal for women to have their thongs exposed. On the other hand women have been arrested for wearing thong bikinis on public beaches in some places, including Virginia, South Carolina and Florida. It happened to French swimwear designer Brigitte some years back in Florida. And I read on some site of how back in the 50s some towns tried to make wearing shorts that were too short in some prudes' eyes illegal. Slut shaming is practiced by those women called "Karens" out of jealousy often as not, by those of both sexes who follow a rigid brand of religion that considers the human body shameful. Some varieties of Christians could teach the Taliban a thing or two about oppressing women!
Were they arrested, or simply asked to cover up more? There is a difference, even though the lesser of the two is too much, imo. Let my people free! I doubt you'd find a consensus of Christians anywhere in the world wanting to force women to cover from head to toe, stay home unless accompanied by a man, and limit education to eighth grade. I think you'd be hard pressed to find even a handful. But if you did, that's all it would be, a handful -- just as likely a handful of "non religious" people too. The basis of Christianity is simple: love God over all else and love your neighbor as yourself. All this other crap people try to convince you is the nature of Christ are men (humans) adding their two cents worth. So beware.
Sometimes it’s for a tease for my husband or sometimes it’s just to feel sexy myself and honestly once in a while I just don’t want to wear them. Most days I do though
I, most of the time, do not go commando except around just the house (and do not go commando while sleeping either), but I do not see why I cannot...I should be able to simply do this because I'm in need of some air down there.
I worked a long time for an organization that had a strict dress code. Knee length pencil skirt and fitted jacket [dark grey] white blouse, black legs [tights[US pantyhose]]. My idea of conforming but with rebellion was to wear stockings ,not hose and no panties. Silly I know but I was young. What I found suprising though is other girls somehow knew ? One girl said she noticed my suspender straps and lack of panty line when she watched me walk . I had no idea they were checking me out !!
