Community hub
0 subscribers8 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Open drawers.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Open drawers
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
 Photo illustration of open drawers from Garments for Girls, 1919[1] | |
| Type | Underwear |
|---|---|
Open drawers were a type of undergarment worn by women and girls until the early 20th century.[1] Unlike closed drawers with a seam connecting the leg sections, open drawers featured an open-crotch design extending from front to back,[1] allowing for practicality, ease of movement, and improved hygiene in daily wear.[2]
As chemise undergarments shortened, the use of open drawers gradually declined in favour of more fitted and enclosed undergarments, such as closed drawers, and French knickers.[3] By the late 19th century, discussions arose regarding whether women should wear open or closed drawers, reflecting evolving attitudes toward modesty and practicality.
Description
[edit].jpg)
Open drawers are a type of undergarment in which the front and back sections of the legs remain separate, featuring a central split.[1] This design provided ease of movement and allowed wearers to maintain personal hygiene without needing to remove multiple layers of clothing.[2]
Historically, women, girls, and very young boys (before breeching) did not wear undergarments beneath their gowns or dresses. Factors such as ventilation, hygiene, practicality, and moisture control influenced the development of early undergarments, often leading to open styles rather than fully enclosed designs. Menstruation hygiene also played a role in shaping women's undergarments.
In the 18th century, women's undergarments became more common as modesty gained importance, with stays, petticoats, and shifts playing a key role. In the early 19th century, pantalettes became a popular choice for additional coverage beneath gowns and dresses. As fashion evolved, crinoline styles gained prominence in the mid-19th century, further shaping undergarment design.[4] Over time, pantalettes were replaced by open-crotch drawers, which aligned more closely with changing fashion preferences.
Before the invention of elastic waistbands (such as briefs), undergarments were fastened at the waist using ties or, more commonly, buttons.[1] Women typically layered multiple skirts and underskirts over their garments for added coverage and warmth.
The open-crotch design made personal hygiene more convenient, particularly when dealing with multiple layers of clothing.[2] This allowed women to use chamber pots, outhouses, or communal latrines without needing to undress completely—especially beneficial in colder climates or limited-privacy situations.
Beyond hygiene, the design improved airflow, reduced discomfort, and minimized fabric soiling, making it a practical choice when frequent washing was difficult due to limited access to clean water. This style was particularly useful for female farm workers, enabling them to relieve themselves discreetly in the fields without compromising modesty or requiring long trips to distant sanitation facilities.[2]
Usage
[edit]In 1894, Elizabeth Rosevear wrote:[5]
Open Drawers. – Girls generally begin to wear open drawers when they are about nine or ten years old. Open drawers are not cut down at the hips, and the band is made all in one piece of the material. The backs and fronts of the legs are not joined together, but hemmed separately, or lined with false hems. The fronts, in children's sizes, are seamed together for about 2 inches, in women's sizes a little more. A button and buttonhole are placed at the ends of the bands, or two tape strings. The legs may be constructed as for closed drawers, i.e. as knickerbockers with bands, or they may be made up with a deep hem, and narrow tucks above. The drawers are gathered or pleated into the bands at the waist and legs. Women's drawers are very seldom made up as closed, but nearly always as open.
As chemises decreased in length, open drawers stopped being used.[3]
Controversy
[edit]In the late 19th century, there was discussion over whether or not women should wear open drawers. Dr. E. R. Palmer wrote against their use:[6]
I saw in a paper the other day that ladies in a Canadian city had a grand convention, and had celebrated their magnificent resolve by building in a public square a bonfire, being fed by the corsets they had been wearing. It was a revival of the old tirade against the corset. I have not forgotten what Thomas said, that women should burn their open drawers instead of their corsets. The idea of a beautifully dressed woman with trail sweeping the streets! The idea of that mode of dress being countenanced by the profession!
While the profession are warring against corsets, is it not ridiculous, not to say criminal, for us to take the position that the corset is harmful and the open drawers is not? The knights of old used to protect the genital organs of their wives from receiving germs during the day when they had gone to business. If it is gonorrhea, it is due to external infection, and I hold that infection takes place as frequently in this as in any other way on account of the delicate organ being unprotected.
Conversely, E. R. Shepherd wrote in favor of the open drawers:[7]
Many physicians oppose the wearing of closed drawers by women. In bad cases of leucorrhoea the odor arising from the discharged confined from the air in this way becomes extremely offensive to the patient at least, and may extend beyond the confines of the dress, and when she comes near the stove or register, if at no other time, to be detected by the bystanders. A free circulation of air by open drawers is wholesome to the parts, as well as a deodorizer. It is well enough for little girls, and even advisable for them to wear tight drawers, but it is probably best for young ladies and women to wear them open.
See also
[edit]- Pantalettes
- Open-crotch pants, commonly worn by toddlers throughout mainland China
References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e Schmidt, Celestine Leontine (1919). Garments for girls. New York: The Century Co. pp. 124–126.
- ^ a b c d Canter Cremers-van der Does, Eline (1980). The agony of fashion. p. 90.
open drawers, split in the middle in order to enable, for example, the peasant in the field to urinate
- ^ a b Carter, Alison J (1992). Underwear, the fashion history. p. 87.
By 1900, the chemise was at calf- rather than knee length as previously; by 1914, it was well above the knee, revealing the drawers. There seems to have been a relationship between the length of the chemise and the height of the opening in open drawers; when this closed the chemise did not need to be so long
- ^ "Comic Valentines: An! biddy, dear, do cease to scrub". 1840–1880.
'An! biddy, dear, do cease to scrub, And mount a box, bench, chair or tub, For while you're dusting off the blind, The boys are peeping up behind.' Image Description: Her crinoline pulls up the fabric of the Irish domestic's dress as she leans forward and reveals her legs and behind. The verse shames the biddy for her immodesty and does not blame the men watching.
- ^ Rosevear, Elizabeth (1894). "A manual of needlework, knitting and cutting out for evening continuation by". p. 62.
- ^ The American practitioner, Volumes 13-14 (1892) [1], p. 335, at Google Books pg 335-336. Dr. E. R. Palmer. Article: Kentucky State Medical Society. Stated Meeting, Louisville, May 4, 5, and 6, 1892
- ^ For girls: a special physiology : being a supplement to the study of general physiology. E. R. Shepherd. [2], p. 145, at Google Books 1882, pg 145
Open drawers
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Historical Development
Origins in Early 19th Century
Open drawers, characterized by separate leg tubes tied at the waist with an open crotch for practical toileting, emerged among European women in the early 19th century as an evolution from prior leg coverings like pantalettes. Pantalettes, originating in France around 1800 and spreading to Britain and America, were initially visible frilled extensions of undergarments for girls, providing modesty beneath short skirts but transitioning toward concealed drawers for adult women by the 1810s.[5] These early forms addressed the need to protect outer garments from bodily fluids amid increasing layers of petticoats, though adoption remained optional during the Regency period (circa 1811–1820), with many women relying solely on shifts.[2] By 1806, references to ladies' underdrawers appear in British contexts, often as two simple cloth tubes fastened at the waist, viewed as somewhat indecent and primarily worn by lower classes, actresses, or children until fashion shifts necessitated broader use.[6] The open-crotch design facilitated hygiene without disrobing under cumbersome skirts, aligning with causal practicalities of daily life rather than strict modesty norms. Full acceptance among British women occurred by 1830, coinciding with documented patterns and surviving examples of plain cotton or linen versions reaching below the knee.[7][8] Earlier isolated evidence of women's drawers exists from 16th-century Italy, typically associated with sex workers, but systematic use in England traces to the late 18th century at earliest, gaining traction only in the early 1800s as skirt volumes increased, rendering commando impractical for many.[9] This development reflected empirical adaptations to clothing evolution, prioritizing functionality over contemporary propriety concerns.[2]Peak Usage in Victorian Era
Open drawers achieved widespread adoption among women and girls during the Victorian era (1837–1901), becoming a standard undergarment as layered skirts and crinolines expanded, necessitating protection for the lower body against exposure from wide hoops.[10] By the 1850s, following the popularization of cage crinolines—which could swing and reveal legs—drawers transitioned from optional to essential for maintaining modesty under voluminous outerwear.[10] This period marked their peak usage, with open-crotch designs predominant for practicality in an age of multiple petticoats and restricted mobility, allowing toilet access without full removal.[8] Historical records indicate near-universal wear by mid-century, extending from waist to mid-calf or below, often in lightweight cotton or cambric for breathability.[3] The open-crotch configuration, featuring separate leg tubes tied at the waist with overlapping seams front and back, aligned with medical advice emphasizing ventilation to prevent irritation and promote health, as closed alternatives were viewed as unhygienic by physicians.[11] Usage spanned social classes: working women favored durable, plain versions for daily labor, while affluent ladies incorporated lace trims or embroidery for refinement, as seen in mid-19th-century examples from English collections.[12] Manufacturing scaled with industrialization; by the 1860s, mass-produced drawers in Britain and the U.S. used machine-stitched seams, reducing costs and boosting accessibility.[13] Peak prevalence persisted through the 1870s and 1880s, even as bustles altered silhouettes, but began waning toward century's end with shifts toward tailored clothing and emerging closed-crotch variants around 1880, driven by evolving hygiene norms and fabric improvements.[14] Despite Victorian emphasis on propriety, the design's persistence underscores functional priorities over absolute coverage, with open drawers comprising the majority of undergarments until the 1890s in many households.[8] Girls adopted similar styles from childhood, often shortened, reflecting normalized integration into female wardrobes across the era.[2]Transition to Closed Drawers by Early 20th Century
By the early 20th century, open-crotch drawers, a staple of women's undergarments since the 19th century, increasingly yielded to closed-crotch variants as fashion and societal norms evolved. While closed designs had emerged in the 1870s, their widespread adoption lagged until the 1910s, when open drawers still predominated but began to decline rapidly. According to industry data from Women's Wear Daily, closed drawers surpassed open styles in popularity by 1917, reflecting a broader move toward more fitted, enclosed undergarments that aligned with slimmer silhouettes and shorter skirt lengths introduced post-1909.[8] This shift was propelled by practical and cultural factors. Declining reliance on restrictive corsets after World War I reduced the necessity for open crotches, which had facilitated toilet access under layered clothing, while advancements like buttons and snaps enabled secure closures without sacrificing convenience. Fashion catalogs, such as the 1908 Eaton’s edition, explicitly offered consumers a choice between open and closed options, indicating growing availability and preference for the latter among modernizing wardrobes. Socially, the transition coincided with women's expanding roles, including suffrage victories and greater public mobility, symbolizing a departure from Victorian ideals of feminine passivity and toward assertions of autonomy and sexual agency.[8][15] By the late 1920s, the change was complete, with closed-crotch drawers—often shorter and integrated into "step-ins" or combinations—embodying the era's emphasis on streamlined, hygienic modernity over traditional modesty. Advertisements, like the 1924 McLoughlin’s Fitz-U Bloomer promotion, touted closed designs for enhanced comfort and freedom, while cultural depictions such as the 1928 film Our Dancing Daughters showcased short, closed drawers as markers of youthful liberation. Among affluent women, closed styles had appeared as early as the mid-1890s, gradually diffusing to broader classes as manufacturing scaled and hemlines rose, though regional and economic variations persisted into the decade.[8][7]Design and Materials
Construction and Open-Crotch Mechanism
Open drawers were typically constructed from two independent leg panels, each sewn from a rectangular piece of fabric into a tubular shape along the outer seam, with the bottom edges hemmed for wear at or below the knee. These legs were gathered or pleated at the waist and attached to a narrow waistband made of tape, linen, or matching fabric, which was secured around the body via drawstrings or buttons at the front or back.[2][4] Seams were hand-stitched using techniques such as flat-felling or simple running stitches for durability and to lie flat against the skin, reflecting the era's emphasis on practical, washable undergarments derived from 19th-century sewing manuals like The Workwoman's Guide (1840).[16] The open-crotch mechanism was achieved by omitting any inseam connecting the two legs, leaving the inner front and rear edges unsewn and often finished with hemming or binding to prevent fraying. Instead of a continuous crotch, the legs were designed to overlap slightly at the front and back when worn, creating a gap that extended fully from the pubic area to the rear without fabric closure.[2][1] This configuration allowed the wearer to separate the legs manually for urination, defecation, or menstrual management, accommodating the layered outer garments like crinolines and multiple petticoats that made full removal cumbersome.[4][1] Contemporary sources viewed this design as hygienic, as it minimized direct contact between undergarments and outer layers while facilitating frequent washing of the drawers themselves.[4] Variations in construction included reinforcements like additional gussets at the leg openings for better fit or durability, particularly in later 19th-century examples, though the core open mechanism remained consistent until the shift to closed-crotch designs around the 1890s-1900s.[2][1]Fabrics and Manufacturing Techniques
Open drawers were predominantly fabricated from lightweight, absorbent materials such as fine cotton or linen to promote hygiene and comfort against the skin.[13] White linen proved especially favored for its durability, ability to endure repeated laundering, and quick-drying properties, often trimmed with lace or tucks for decoration.[5] Cotton gained prevalence through the 19th century, supplanting wool as industrialization enhanced production efficiency and affordability, aligning with medical endorsements for its sanitary benefits in undergarments like drawers introduced around 1843.[17] Early manufacturing relied on hand-sewing techniques, including whipstitches for seam finishes and French seams for reinforcement, ensuring neatness and strength in the bifurcated design featuring separate legs attached to a drawstring waistband with overlapping front and back edges to preserve modesty via the open crotch.[18] The legs, typically knee-length, incorporated simple closures like 3-4 buttons at the front, while decorative elements such as pintucks or embroidery were applied by hand.[17] By the 1850s, sewing machine adoption facilitated mass production, transitioning undergarments from bespoke handwork to more standardized output, though hand-finishing persisted for trims and fits.[13][19] This shift, driven by inventions like Elias Howe's 1846 patented machine, lowered costs and increased accessibility across social classes.[20]Variations Across Classes and Regions
Open drawers varied significantly by social class, with affluent women employing luxurious materials like fine cotton lawn, silk, or cambric, frequently embellished with lace, embroidery, or tucks for aesthetic appeal and personal monogramming.[12][21] Working-class women, by contrast, utilized more utilitarian fabrics such as coarse cotton, flannel, or woolen blends, featuring plain seams and minimal finishing to emphasize practicality and cost-effectiveness amid limited resources.[21] These distinctions reflected broader socioeconomic divides, where higher-status garments prioritized delicacy and decoration, while lower-status ones focused on endurance for labor-intensive lifestyles. Regionally, open drawers emerged in France circa 1800 as pantaloons, achieving earlier widespread acceptance among the aristocracy before proliferating across Europe and North America.[17] In England, adoption accelerated post-1820s with the use of feminine cotton fabrics and drawstring waists, often in baggier, longer styles aligned with prevailing modesty norms.[3] American variants mirrored British designs but adapted to local textile production, incorporating readily available cottons and occasionally shorter lengths suited to practical wardrobes in expanding frontiers.[22] French iterations remained influential for their refinement, prompting English and American elites to import elaborate examples for wardrobes, underscoring continental Europe's lead in lingerie innovation.[23]Practical Usage
Integration with Layered Clothing
Open drawers were positioned in the undergarment layering sequence after the chemise, serving as a protective barrier against bodily secretions that could soil petticoats and outer skirts.[2] Their loose, bifurcated construction—consisting of two independent legs joined at the waistband with overlapping seams at the crotch—ensured minimal bulk under the corset, which cinched the waist to as little as 18-22 inches in diameter during the mid-Victorian period (circa 1850-1870).[8] This design accommodated the subsequent layers, including multiple petticoats (often 3-5 for insulation and volume) and structural supports like crinolines or bustles, which expanded skirts to widths exceeding 150 inches at the hem by the 1860s.[13] The open-crotch mechanism was essential for practicality amid these encumbrances, enabling women to access facilities by simply parting the drawers' legs and lifting overlying skirts at the rear or front, without unfastening or removing the corset or foundational garments.[24] Historical accounts indicate that full undressing was infeasible given the combined weight of layers, which could surpass 10-15 pounds for daywear ensembles, thus prioritizing the drawers' functionality to preserve hygiene while upholding the era's emphasis on rapid, discreet adjustments.[4] Fabrics such as lightweight cotton or cambric further aided seamless integration by allowing breathability and reducing chafing against stockings or petticoat hems, particularly in regions with variable climates where additional woolen petticoats were common.[8] Variations in integration reflected socioeconomic and regional differences; working-class women often paired simpler, shorter open drawers with fewer petticoats (1-2 layers) for mobility in labor-intensive tasks, whereas elite ensembles incorporated embroidered or flounced drawers beneath elaborate crinolines to maintain silhouette without visible outlines.[12] By the late 19th century (1880s-1890s), as skirt widths narrowed post-bustle era, drawers retained their open form to interface with streamlined petticoats, though closed alternatives began emerging among younger urban women influenced by emerging dress reform movements.[13] This adaptation underscored the garment's role in balancing physiological needs with the rigid demands of stratified fashion systems.[2]Hygiene and Physiological Functionality
The open-crotch mechanism in women's drawers, prevalent from the early 19th century through the Victorian period, primarily served hygienic purposes by enabling absorption of sweat, oils, and minor bodily discharges directly into the fabric, thereby protecting petticoats and outer skirts from contamination and extending their usability in an era of limited laundering facilities.[1] This design minimized the transfer of moisture to heavier outer layers, reducing odors and fabric degradation, as drawers acted as a barrier layer that could be washed more frequently than voluminous skirts.[2] Physiologically, the split crotch allowed for unobstructed urination and defecation without the need to remove multiple constraining garments, such as corsets, chemises, petticoats, and full skirts weighing up to 10-15 pounds when wet or soiled.[24] Women could position themselves over chamber pots or privies—common until widespread indoor plumbing in the late 19th century—by parting the drawers' legs, facilitating quick relief in domestic or outdoor settings where privacy was scarce and dress removal impractical.[14] For menstruation, however, the open design offered minimal containment; users typically relied on separate linen rags or belts to secure absorbents, with medical texts from the 1850s-1870s noting risks of leakage onto outer clothing absent additional padding.[24] This functionality aligned with the era's layered clothing systems, where ease of voiding outweighed full enclosure, though closed-crotch variants emerged by the 1890s as cotton manufacturing improved and sewing machines enabled gusset additions for better retention during active movement.[3] Empirical accounts from surviving garments and period laundry manuals confirm the design's role in preventing chronic skin irritations from trapped moisture, prioritizing causal efficacy over aesthetic coverage.[22]Daily and Occupational Applications
Open drawers served primarily as a practical undergarment for women in the 19th century, enabling bodily functions without the need to remove multiple layers of clothing, such as petticoats and dresses, which were often voluminous and restrictive.[1] This design was particularly advantageous during daily routines involving frequent movement or limited privacy, as it minimized disruption for tasks like household chores or childcare.[2] By absorbing perspiration, oils, and discharges directly against the skin, they protected outer garments and petticoats from soiling, thereby extending the lifespan of more expensive fabrics in an era without modern laundering conveniences.[2] In occupational contexts, open drawers were essential for working-class women in physically demanding roles, such as factory operatives, domestic servants, or farm laborers, where long hours and exposure to dirt necessitated protective underlayers that could be easily managed.[8] The open-crotch mechanism allowed quick access for elimination in rudimentary facilities, reducing downtime in environments like textile mills, where women comprised a significant portion of the workforce— for instance, over 50% of Lancashire cotton factory employees by the 1840s— and where absenteeism from physiological needs could impact productivity.[1] For servants handling heavy cleaning or cooking, the garments' absorbency prevented stains from transferring to uniforms, aligning with the functional demands of low-wage labor that prioritized durability over ornamentation.[2] Upper-class women, though less occupationally engaged, adapted similar designs for light domestic oversight, underscoring the garment's broad utility across social strata in pre-industrial hygiene standards.[8]Social and Cultural Reception
Contemporary Views on Modesty and Propriety
In the nineteenth century, open drawers were widely accepted among middle-class women as a garment that reinforced Victorian ideals of modesty by adding an extra layer of fabric to cover the legs, which were increasingly exposed by shorter hemlines and active pursuits, beneath multiple petticoats and skirts.[8] Physicians and medical authorities endorsed the open-crotch design for its hygienic advantages, arguing that it promoted "a free circulation of air by open drawers [which] is wholesome to the parts," thereby preventing moisture buildup and associated health risks in an era of limited sanitation and constrictive corsetry.[11] This functionality aligned with propriety, as the garment's loose, bifurcated legs—often tied at the waist with tapes and made from fine cotton or cambric—facilitated bodily functions without disrobing, preserving outward decorum amid cumbersome outerwear.[8] By midcentury, open drawers had become a standard element of respectable female attire, distinguished from men's closed trousers through feminine embellishments like lace trims and embroidery, which signified propriety and class status rather than utility alone.[8] Etiquette guides and fashion periodicals implicitly supported their use by emphasizing layered underclothing as essential to shielding the body from view, with drawers providing incidental modesty against accidental exposures, such as wind lifting skirts or during carriage descents.[25] However, the design's inherent openness invited scrutiny; some observers, including later historians citing period critiques, interpreted it as subtly erotic, potentially signaling "a woman’s sexual availability" through easy genital access, though this view contrasted with the garment's primary role in upholding domestic respectability.[26] These dual perceptions—practical modesty versus latent immodesty—reflected broader tensions in Victorian gender norms, where drawers both concealed and hinted at the female form, yet medical and social consensus prioritized their propriety for health and convenience over closing the crotch, a change not widely adopted until the early twentieth century.[8][17] Among working-class women, similar garments were valued for occupational practicality, such as in factories or domestic service, without the same ornate details but still framed within cultural expectations of concealed underlayers to maintain social propriety.[8]Representations in Art, Literature, and Fashion
Open drawers were primarily represented in fashion through detailed sewing patterns and illustrations in periodicals aimed at homemakers and seamstresses, emphasizing their construction for practical home production. In the March 1874 issue of Arthur's Home Magazine, Figure 3105 depicted ladies' open drawers suitable for various materials, offered in nine sizes for waist measurements from 20 to 36 inches, priced at 25 cents per pattern.[27] Similarly, the June 1913 edition of Woman's Home Companion featured No. 2302, dart-fitted open drawers for waists 22 to 36 inches, requiring four and one-half yards of material for a 26-inch waist size.[28] These illustrations highlighted features like gathered legs and waist ties, underscoring the garment's functionality within layered attire, with patterns promoting accessibility for middle-class women.[8] In art, explicit depictions of open drawers were uncommon owing to their status as private undergarments, rarely appearing in fine paintings or public visual media; instead, indirect references occurred in satirical prints or functional sketches, such as early 19th-century caricatures associating drawers with immodesty in exaggerated forms, though not always specifying the open-crotch design.[29] Scholarly analyses note that by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, evolving notions of female sexuality influenced retrospective artistic interpretations, as seen in silent films like Our Dancing Daughters (1928), which alluded to undergarment shifts away from open styles amid changing propriety standards.[8] Literary representations of open drawers were subdued, constrained by Victorian-era conventions against explicit intimate details, with mentions typically confined to general references to "drawers" in domestic or sartorial contexts without elaborating on the open mechanism. In works surveying lingerie history, such garments symbolized a tension between modesty and erotic undertones, as open drawers integrated into "respectable" dress yet evoked accessibility, a duality reflected obliquely in period fiction depicting women's daily routines.[30] Primary sources like household manuals occasionally instructed on their use, but narrative literature prioritized propriety, avoiding focal treatment of undergarments' physiological adaptations.[8]Influence on Gender Norms and Dress Reform
The adoption of open drawers by women in the early 19th century represented an initial blurring of traditional gender boundaries in undergarments, as the bifurcated design borrowed from men's leg coverings challenged the skirt-only ideal of femininity, yet was feminized through lace trims, soft fabrics, and the open-crotch feature to preserve distinctions of propriety and "passionlessness."[8][30] This design facilitated practical mobility and hygiene under restrictive layered skirts, subtly supporting norms that confined women to domestic roles while enabling functionality without overt disruption.[8] During the Victorian period, open drawers persisted as standard wear despite prevailing modesty codes, adding an extra layer of coverage that paradoxically enhanced perceived decency through indirection, even as the open crotch invited debates over erotic potential and female sexuality.[8][30] Their endurance highlighted a tension in gender norms: practicality for women's daily bodily needs coexisted with cultural emphasis on concealment, influencing perceptions of female propriety as both vulnerable and contained.[8] In the dress reform movement of the mid-to-late 19th century, open drawers indirectly bolstered arguments for rational attire by demonstrating the viability of leg-enclosing undergarments for health and movement, paving the way for innovations like the 1851 Bloomer costume—which adapted trouser-like drawers for outerwear—and the National Dress Reform Association's (1856–1865) advocacy for simplified clothing.[8][31] Reformers, including suffragists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, prioritized undergarment changes to avoid social ridicule, transitioning toward closed-crotch variants and one-piece union suits patented in 1868 and 1875 as "emancipation" wear, which eliminated separate drawers and chemises to reduce weight (up to 15 pounds from petticoats) and promote physical freedom.[31] This shift reflected growing female autonomy, with closed drawers symbolizing modern agency by the 1910s–1920s amid increased public participation and cycling bloomers' acceptance in the 1890s.[8][30]Controversies and Criticisms
Moral and Religious Objections
In the Victorian era, the adoption of drawers, including open-crotch designs, elicited moral objections primarily for resembling men's breeches, which critics argued blurred gender distinctions and undermined feminine propriety. Such garments were perceived as a symbolic encroachment on male attire, fostering indecency and potentially eroding social order by encouraging women toward masculine behaviors.[29][8] This view aligned with broader concerns that visible undergarments, such as when skirts lifted, exposed women to scandal, equating partial revelation with greater eroticism than nudity and violating ideals of passive female virtue.[8][32] Religious objections, rooted in Protestant emphases on modesty and gendered roles, amplified these moral critiques, with evangelical reformers decrying drawers as conducive to vanity and moral laxity. For instance, the 1851 Bloomer costume—featuring visible trousers over drawers—drew condemnation from religious periodicals and clergy, who linked it to prostitution and spiritual corruption, arguing it defied biblical injunctions against cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5) and promoted female autonomy over submission.[8] Though open-crotch drawers were defended for hygiene and layering practicality, detractors contended the split design inherently risked genital exposure during movement, compromising chastity and inviting temptation, a concern heightened in religious contexts valuing bodily enclosure as symbolic of purity.[8][1] By the late 19th century, as closed-crotch variants emerged around the 1890s, perceptions shifted: open drawers increasingly connoted sexual availability or vice, particularly in urban vice districts, while closed designs signified refined morality.[8] This evolution reflected causal tensions between technological feasibility (e.g., sewing machines enabling closures) and cultural demands for stricter propriety, with moralists favoring enclosures to align undergarments with emerging norms of contained femininity. Religious institutions, including conservative Christian groups, implicitly endorsed this transition by associating openness with moral regression, though explicit doctrinal prohibitions remained rare.[8]Erotic and Accessibility Interpretations
Open drawers have been interpreted as embodying an erotic dimension within frameworks of Victorian-era modesty and "passionlessness," where the open-crotch design facilitated sexual access while maintaining an outward propriety. Historian Jill Fields argues that this configuration enhanced male pleasure by allowing intercourse without full undressing, thereby eroticizing female submission to gendered codes of respectability; surviving garment sets from museum collections, often pairing open drawers with low-necked camisoles, provide material evidence for this linkage between concealment and subtle eroticism.[8] By the early 1800s, the feminization of drawers through delicate fabrics, lace ornamentation, and the open seam constructed women's sexuality as simultaneously modest and inviting, aligning with cultural ideologies that positioned women as passive yet biologically distinct.[30] This erotic interpretation persisted into the early 20th century but reversed amid shifting norms; by the 1920s, open drawers increasingly connoted wantonness and outdated propriety, as depictions in films like Our Dancing Daughters (1928) highlighted closed-crotch alternatives to symbolize modern female agency and overt sexuality.[8] Fields notes that the transition reflected broader struggles over women's public presence and feminist activism, with crotch construction becoming a site for negotiating sexual boundaries—open designs once deemed healthful and modest gave way to closed ones as symbols of autonomy and containment.[30] Interpretations of accessibility emphasize the garment's practical design for bodily functions under restrictive layered clothing, particularly in eras lacking indoor plumbing. The open-crotch feature, extending from front to back, enabled waste elimination without removing corsets, petticoats, or skirts, addressing hygiene challenges posed by voluminous 19th-century attire.[8] Contemporary hygiene reformers, such as Dr. Gustav Jaeger in the 1880s, endorsed open designs for exposing genitals to air circulation, deeming it beneficial for health amid woolen fabric recommendations.[8] This functionality extended to ease of movement and sexual practicality within marriage, where the design minimized disruption to daily or intimate routines, though late-19th-century debates framed such openness as a modesty risk, prompting a shift toward closed variants by the 1910s.[8]Retrospective Analyses and Modern Debates
Historians assessing open drawers retrospectively highlight their primary functional role in addressing physiological needs amid limited sanitation infrastructure, as indoor plumbing became widespread only after the 1880s in urban U.S. and European settings.[8] This design enabled ease of elimination without full undressing, aligning with layered clothing systems that prioritized hygiene over enclosure, a necessity given the era's chamber pot reliance and outdoor privies.[30] Scholarly examinations, such as Gayle V. Fischer's analysis in Pantaloons & Power, reveal a reversal in cultural perceptions: open-crotch drawers, standard for middle-class women by the mid-19th century, initially enhanced modesty by adding coverage while maintaining practicality, yet by the 1910s–1920s, they connoted wantonness as closed designs symbolized emerging sexual propriety and autonomy.[8] Fischer attributes this shift to technological advances like shorter hemlines and active lifestyles, which diminished the open style's utility and reframed it against evolving gender norms.[8] Jill Fields, in her study of undergarments from 1800–1930, introduces "erotic modesty" as a framework where open drawers embodied controlled female sexuality under Victorian "passionlessness," permitting erotic accessibility within propriety's bounds through feminized fabrics and ornamentation.[30] This interpretation underscores causal links between garment design and ideological constructs, though Fields notes resistance from social conservatives viewing any divided legs as trousers-like transgression.[30] Contemporary debates among costume historians question the timeline and universality of drawers' adoption, with evidence indicating sporadic 17th–early 19th-century use primarily among working-class or specific demographics, challenging narratives of widespread Regency-era prevalence.[9] Some analyses prioritize empirical functionality—such as sweat absorption and chafing prevention—over symbolic readings, critiquing overemphasis on sexuality as potentially anachronistic projection amid academia's interpretive biases.[8] Medical discussions in period sources, echoed in modern reviews, debated open versus closed for health, with advocates citing ventilation benefits against infection risks from enclosure.[33]References
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arthurs_home_magazine_open_drawers_3105.png
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Womans_home_companion_dart_fitted_open_drawers_2302.png