As creative director Melissa Oyler and I looked through photos of sexy men stripped down to their skivvies for this week’s cover, we couldn’t suppress the puns. We just knew this was going to be “a great package” … of stories. After we’d pored over a dozen or so different images of male underwear models, Melissa made the decision to just “play around with the photos and see what comes up.”
Ah, underwear. We all (probably) wear it. We’ve all (probably) seen someone else in his or hers. And yet, when the idea of devoting this issue’s cover to underwear came up, female staffers tittered. “That’s hilarious,” said one of my male editors, his eyes a little wide.
Well, it’s about time for a little lighthearted fun, don’t you think? The news coming out of Raleigh the last few months, as the General Assembly proposed and somehow passed controversial bills on women’s health care, voting, guns and more, has been so disheartening. Didn’t you get just a little depressed when you read the words “General Assembly”? I hated to write it.
How about we talk about panties and boxers instead?
— Kimberly Lawson
The right fit
Retail veteran Dan Mauney opens a men’s underwear shop
By Kimberly Lawson
“What kind of underwear are you wearing right now?” I ask Dan Mauney casually. He’s leaning against a bare wall in a recently renovated space in South End. (For the record, this is probably the only time I’ll pose this question to a man I’m not dating.)
Mauney hesitates for a moment, as if he’s trying to remember what pair he pulled on that rainy morning we meet at 1426 S. Tryon St. Is Mauney, a 20-year veteran in the retail business, a boxers kind of guy? Briefs? Banana hammock? He pulls down the beltline of his jeans a little to show me the name etched across the elastic band. Today, he’s sporting Andrew Christian trunks.
“This is their gold label — they come in gold and silver,” he answers with a grin. He chose that pair, he says, “because it makes me feel sexy. And also I just did [a fitness] boot camp and I’m in pain so I wanted something soft.”
His new retail venture will benefit from his outgoing personality. In just a few weeks, he will open Brief, a men’s underwear, swimwear and loungewear boutique. In recent history, it is the first store of its kind in Charlotte.
“Underwear is typically crammed in a corner of a department store,” Mauney, 42, says. Brief will turn men’s underwear into more than just an afterthought. Products include everything from tighty-whitey briefs and boxer-briefs to jock straps, with a variety of brands like Hugo Boss, Calvin Klein, Polo, 2(x)ist and Andrew Christian. Brief will also carry compression shorts for athletes, speedos and board shorts for swimmers and lounge pants and T-shirts for weekend couch potatoes, among other products.
“We’ll probably have 2,000 items on the floor at any time,” Mauney says. The 1,100-square-foot space is only a small portion of the larger warehouse space Mauney is renting. (There’s also room for the soon-to-follow shoe store Shu, offering women’s shoes, handbags and accessories, as well as a 3,000-square-foot event space for trunk shows and cocktail parties.)
The idea for a shop specializing in men’s underwear came about five years ago, when Mauney organized and hosted Brief, a fashion show featuring hot male models stripped down to their stylish skivvies to raise money for Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
“I kept bringing in all this great underwear to showcase, and afterward, people would ask where they could buy it,” Mauney says. “There’s no [men’s] underwear store in Charlotte.”
The day I visit, there’s not much to see in Brief. But the store’s clean white walls, white cabinetry, glassy, white epoxy floors and exposed industrial ceiling present a blank canvas for sophisticated fashion. “We wanted that whole idea of the color of the underwear, the fashionable colors, becoming the décor,” Mauney says.
The last time Mauney was behind the counter at a retail store, it was at Step By Sloan, where he sold women’s shoes. He says selling footwear is probably one of the hardest retail businesses to be in. “You’ve got to know exactly what you’re doing or you’re going to get yourself in trouble. Running a ladies shoe store was very high service.”
In the same sense, he says, “dealing with underwear, with fit and quality,” Brief will also “be a very high-service store.”
David Watkins, owner of the custom men’s clothing line and four-month-old brick and mortar store Abbeydale, knows what it’s like to offer such a specialized retail concept to men, tailoring shirts and suits to fit. He says the attentiveness to clients is going to be vital to any shop with a niche, targeted audience. Prior to opening his Uptown store four months ago, Watkins operated an appointment-only studio for several years, taking the time to talk fabric, style and fit with each of his clients.
“When you’re selling men’s clothes, a lot of it has to do with the relationship” with customers, Watkins says.
Mauney has become an expert of sorts on what men look for in their underwear; he’s smooth as silk boxers when he talks about fit. “Guys are vain,” he says. “We need support. We need enhancement. We need downplay. You’ve got a lot down there but you need support, or you don’t have a lot down there and you need to make it look like you’ve got a lot down there. There’s a lot of components.”
What is Charlotte wearing underneath it all?
*From a sampling of roughly 100 people.
Flashing the pastor
Why I’ve gone pantyless for the last eight years
By Megan Henshall
Tattoos, an affection for horror movies, nail polish that isn’t nude or bubble gum pink, ombre hair color — those are just some of the things my mother doesn’t understand about me. No. 1 on that list, though, is my aversion to underwear.
In college, when I realized that I had no idea how to do my own laundry properly (nor desire to learn), I ran out of clean underwear and hesitantly went “commando” for the first time. That was it for me. I had inadvertently liberated myself from elastic prison and started an ongoing mother/daughter battle.
“What if you get into a car accident and the first responders see your nunu?!” is one repeat argument.
“In a dress? What happens if there is a strong breeze and Pastor So-and-So sees your privates?” is another.
Then there is the most common and brusque, “That’s just nasty, Megan.”
From what I can gather via the Internet, the term “going commando” originated during the Vietnam War. Apparently, wearing tight clothing in exceedingly hot and humid climates can cause one to contract something adorably referred to as “jungle rot.” In an attempt to prevent this condition of nightmares, soldiers would forgo their GI skivvies and go au naturel. Later, college students spread the word and the act. Back home in the States, it wasn’t a medical necessity, but rather a statement of rebellion and perhaps solidarity, according to my research.
My own reason for opting to go pantyless for more than eight years is simple. It’s far more comfortable. Interestingly, the No. 1 objection that I get from friends, significant others and of course my lovely mother regarding my choice is the exact opposite. Not only does my not wearing the underwear distress them, the thought of going without underwear themselves causes them to make sour lemon faces and blush. “I would sooner die,” my mom says tersely.
I think it all comes back to the idea that there is something naughty about walking around in broad daylight with no underwear on. Despite growing up being forced through the heavy doors of a very backwoods Southern Baptist church three times a week, I managed to recover from most of the stigmas. This could be because I spent Sunday School classes daydreaming about playing lead guitar for Jem and the Holograms and writing throbbing poetry to Jordan Knight and missed all the shit about how you should wear turtlenecks and full coverage briefs forever, Amen. It could also be because the same mother who reprimands me now about not wearing clothing under clothing also put me in countless beauty pageants and musical theater productions, at which we both fully accepted showing my naked butt to strangers during quick costume and wardrobe changes.
Modesty is important, as long as it doesn’t derail the road to Miss America.
Don’t get me wrong, modesty is a virtue, but dressing modestly while remaining on trend is becomingly increasingly difficult. It takes talent and creativity. Do I sometimes wish that I hadn’t committed so fully to the backless/cropped shirt trend in the 2000s? Sure, but we aren’t even talking about what people can readily see here.
Bottom line, pun intended, is that you should do whatever makes you comfortable, and disregard what anyone else has to say about it. Gold star for that one guy who unapologetically wears a “banana hammock” under his work clothes. Go ‘head, sir. In the same respect, I applaud my mother for rocking the hell out of her granny panties for the Lord.
Underwear, or lack thereof, in and of itself isn’t naughty or virtuous. We attach connotations to it based upon our own hang-ups, fantasies and wiring. Where we allow our minds to take it is the naughty part.
If Pastor So-and-so had looked twice, that’s on him.
Local underwear designer grows his business
Concord-based entrepreneur in talks with nationwide stores
By Ana McKenzie
Ulises Padilla is a lot of things: a native New Yorker, a former banker and an entrepreneur. He’s also an underwear designer, and right now, he’s excited. In the next few months, he plans on penning contracts with several nationwide department stores to sell his men’s and women’s underwear lines, Khyng and Empress. He hopes to launch a Valentine and Christmas underwear series so that by December he can leave his job in Charlotte (which Padilla forbid me from naming) and dedicate his full attention to Picante Apparel, the underwear-design company he started in 2003.
The 37-year-old talks fast on the phone from his home in Concord. He and his wife moved to the Charlotte suburb about six years ago from New York mostly to start a family — they now have three children — but to also get Picante off the ground. Starting a business in New York is expensive. Padilla couldn’t afford to use local models, photographers and office space, so he outsourced much of the work to different companies in South America. Now he keeps mostly everything local, including shipping items from his two-car garage. He outsources manufacturing to Colombia.
How did a former Bank of America employee get into underwear?
“In high school for some reason I loved wearing … T-shirts and boxers around the house,” Padilla said. “The boxer shorts were cooler than what I was wearing on the outside.”
In college, Padilla needed a job and sought the help of a temp agency to find a position he could easily balance with school. He interviewed with a small, family-owned underwear-design company and intrigued the owner, who instantly offered him a paid internship. That position quickly turned into a full-time job, where he picked up some contacts and cultivated a creative side he’s had since childhood. He simultaneously enrolled in a local MBA program and for six years, on weeknights and weekends, Padilla learned everything he could about starting a business. While his classmates gave presentations on the evolution of Kellogg’s and General Motors, he focused on Victoria’s Secret.
At school, he “saw the opportunity to be creative as well as apply a scientific method toward fashion. In other words, if you have an artist who can sing phenomenally but can’t package themselves,” that artist won’t succeed, Padilla said. “You have to have that business part to connect on to [your creative side] and take it to the next level.”
Padilla designs men’s boxer shorts and boxer briefs and women’s underwear, including bras and briefs, in colorful, trendy, whimsical patterns, from his home office. His bigger seller is a pink camo bra-and-panty set, designed intentionally for his audience. The U.S. military’s Army & Air Force Exchange Service, Padilla’s sole customer, sells his designs on its website (think Amazon for soldiers to purchase items for themselves and their families). But potentially selling to department stores will mean Padilla will have to expand his business. He is looking at office space in Concord and is teaching himself accounting, a slow and painful process, Padilla admits.
“I have to be able to manage the day-to-day activity entirely for the company,” he said, especially aspects he doesn’t enjoy. “The things I don’t like are the things I have to pursue.”
Boxers or briefs (or something else)?
In which CL guesses at the underwear of choice for some local well-knowns*
1. Michael Jordan, owner of the Bobcats: Boxers. If the Cats have proved anything, it’s that they have no control of their balls.
2. Jerry Richardson, owner of the Panthers: Banana hammock. A man bold enough to swindle Charlotte out of $144 million isn’t sporting tighty-whities.
3. Dale Earnhardt Jr., NASCAR driver: Man thong. It’s built for speed.
4. Hugh McColl, former chairman and CEO of Bank of America: Commando. Hugh McColl can wear whatever the hell he wants — and who are we to point out the emperor has no clothes?
5. Pat McCrory, governor of North Carolina: Cup. Poor Pat’s been getting a lot of (deserved) kicks to the junk lately.
*”Participants,” email backtalk@creativeloafing.com should our uneducated guesses on your undergarment choices prove wrong.
Related Stories
Andrew Christian is a ‘Pride virgin’
This article appears in Aug 7-13, 2013.
“Apparently, going commando has health benefits to it. Apparently wearing nothing but good clean air prevents yeast infections. Apparently, gynecologists have been ripping us off by keeping this from us. Is that not liberation in itself though. It will even save you money for cocktails, which you will have at the bar counter wearing your tightest bodycon dress which will have no visible panty lines.” Joanna’s Blog
Right on, of OFF, to be more on target with panties. Read “Pantiless in NYC” for the benefits of beating yeast infections by going pantiless permanently. Also Ditch Your Panties” (Cosmopolitan) & What’s Up Down There. Apparently as history goes the importance of skirts over “no nothing” was fresh clean air & nowhere for moisture & a warm place to grow for infections. Try reading on History of Unmentionables, where excessive layers & barriers were mostly to keep women off the workplace & unable to compete with men in most athletic/ sports events … akin to hobbling & foot binding in a world of women’s suffering/sufrage!
Seems that “pastel panties” (for show) were invented (as were bras) in the twenties for “flashers” performing in stage or in night clubs. Before that, it was Emma (Amelia) Bloomer’s baggy drawers for bicycling with “bloomers.” Before that it was many petticoats over stockings or less.
“Going Commando” seems — with good justification — to be gaining in popularity. Best to be yourself & not be a slave to the fashion industry. Money not spent on underwear can be spent (or saved) elsewhere to great advantage!
from oukidd:
It amazes us (or at least me) to learn that women for the first five thousand years of Western civilization wore nothing between their legs beyond their natural chinchilla. “Until the late 18th century, [women’s] underwear consisted only of smocks or shifts, stays [i.e., corsets] and the highly important petticoats of all kinds,” harrumphs The History of Underclothes by Willet and Cunnington. But nothing between the legs.
It seems fairly mind-boggling to consider millions of women for thousands of years with no garment snugly covering their Delta. Sure, they generally wore very long dresses, but why not any close-fitting underwear?
Yeast infections and crab lice, among other reasons, argue authors Janet and Peter Phillips in their masterful article, History From Below: Women’s Underwear and the Rise of Women’s Sports. “Pre-20th century women had to do without knickers and the like because of the perpetual threat of thrush [i.e., yeast infection],” state the British authors. “Since the vagina is naturally warm and moist, any covering increasing the temperature will put out a welcome mat to thrush,” they contend, pointing out that yesteryear’s lower standards of personal hygiene, due to lack of indoor running water, would have greatly promoted thrush and lice.
Pls read Ditch Your Panties (Cosmo) & Pantiless in NYC for a good idea of how to cure, not just treat, yeast infections! It seems than a lot of women’s clothing (also foot binding) was designed to hobble & restrict women on the job market & from enjoying/participating in sports against men.
from offtheygo:
It amazes us (or at least me) to learn that women for the first five thousand years of Western civilization wore nothing between their legs beyond their natural chinchilla. “Until the late 18th century, [women’s] underwear consisted only of smocks or shifts, stays [i.e., corsets] and the highly important petticoats of all kinds,” harrumphs The History of Underclothes by Willet and Cunnington. But nothing between the legs.
It seems fairly mind-boggling to consider millions of women for thousands of years with no garment snugly covering their Delta. Sure, they generally wore very long dresses, but why not any close-fitting underwear?
Yeast infections and crab lice, among other reasons, argue authors Janet and Peter Phillips in their masterful article, History From Below: Women’s Underwear and the Rise of Women’s Sports. “Pre-20th century women had to do without knickers and the like because of the perpetual threat of thrush [i.e., yeast infection],” state the British authors. “Since the vagina is naturally warm and moist, any covering increasing the temperature will put out a welcome mat to thrush,” they contend, pointing out that yesteryear’s lower standards of personal hygiene, due to lack of indoor running water, would have greatly promoted thrush and lice.
Near Eastern women who did bathe more frequently than their European sisters did wear trousers or “harem pants,” sometimes under skirts. And it’s speculated that during the Renaissance, these garments were imported into Europe and gradually adapted into drawers, i.e., loose-fitting under-trousers, with ribbons to “draw” them tight at the waist and the legs. But these imported strange items (considered masculine and somehow perverse) never caught on with working-class women, who could still squat and pee in an alleyway.
In fact, almost the only French women in the 1700s who wore drawers did so by law. A ballerina in 1727 got her skirt caught on a piece of stage scenery. Her exposure led to the passage of a police regulation in Paris that “no actress or dancer should appear on stage without drawers.”
Finally, mid-1800s fashion began to change.
△ ▽
Commando or pantiless or no nothin’ seems to be becoming more & more popular, especially as a PERMANENT CURE for dreaded “panty lines” (no panties=no panty lines … forevermore — or foreverless to be precise) & for yeast infections (killing bugs with fresh air, sunshine “Down There” & no moisture au naturale — after a week or so of gradual pantiless days — or better yet, going “cold turkey” “once & for all” with no panties ever again — & your system gives off less moisture to compensate). Probably the greatest “invention” for women’s freedom from fashion has been the tampon, making the open crotch not only feasible but also the very most desirable for work & sports & almost any other activity one can imagine. For the one activity for which the tampon would interfere … it can be easily, desirably & discretely replaced (& disposed of) … as it was designed to be! Off with panties & on with living freely & comfortably!
PostScript: Panties also (usually) have elastic — or call it “e-nastic,” which any doctor, nurse or health professional (or other person with common sense or 30 seconds of thinking capacity) will agree CUTS OFF YOUR CIRCULATION … perhaps a little at a time but certainly doesn’t give it any benefit. It isn’t exactly foot binding, but it isn’t exactly good for you!
Goodbye effective circulation, Hello varicose veins (it takes years but again, time passes for everyone inevitably), heart problems, swelling of the ankles, etc. especially on a long car, bus or airplane ride … many problems with your system come from strangulation, major or minor, quickly or slowly. In the “good olde days” women wore a chemise under everything else … with no “gusset,” “crotch” or anything else to get in the way of fresh air & sunshine … & good health. After all, maybe our ancestors weren’t entirely stupid or misinformed about the facts of life & healthy living.
As the saying goes, things should be clear, free & unobstructed! Un-constricted too!
Apparently (or to be more precise/accurate, pretty much invisibly beneath skirts, uniforms & so forth) with shortages of rubber (latex — imported from rubber plantations in the Orient) led to eliminating “latex” from underwear during WW II. Also steel for corsets, etc. was diverted to wartime production. Thus, women in & out of uniform had to make do with snaps, hooks & such … as they did before latex was “discovered” & adapted to garments such as “panties.”
One solution was ribbons & other “ties” to hold things up … which had the tendency to unravel [and/or “reveal”] … & do so at almost always the most unexpected & inconvenient moments. Once again, panties, nickers & whatever proved not just useless & unhealthy but … dropping right toward one’s ankles … counter productive.
Less is best & no nothing “Down There” is best-est … once again, our ancestors (& Scottish lads & lassies all along) knew what they were doing, for the addition of panties to modern fashion (& budgets) seems to provide no useful purpose at all … except to restrict women’s freedom on & off the job!!!
Less is best. Be free & unobstructed. Save your money for outerwear!
As the saying goes: History of Panties? There Isn’t Any!!! — A very, very recent addition/ imposition on women’s fashion … & judging from yeast infections, caused by panties, something long overdue to be discarded in favor of women’s freedom from fashion slavery).
“Did Native Americans wear undergarments before contact with Europeans?
Kathleen Kelley
Sugarland, Texas
“Not really—but then, neither did Europeans wear underwear before contact with Native Americans. American Indian men and women wore loin- or breechcloths, which might be considered undergarments or outer garments, depending on climate and tribal lifestyle. But what we deem “going commando” today was more the norm until the 18th century—among native peoples and Europeans.
Adrienne Smith (Cherokee/Muscogee Nations of Oklahoma)
Manager, ImagiNATIONS Activity Center, National Museum of the American Indian
“Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/the-history-of-going-commando-and-more-questions-from-our-readers-74338606/#ilWIgrwpL40UYCJo.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter”
Click for more pictures – Pin to your Collection
aAfkjfp01fo1i-5922/loc1012/38927_BS101007Candids002_123_1012lo.jpg
According to the Museum of Menstruation, women’s underwear as we know it today (close fitting briefs), didn’t exist until the 1930s. Of course there was the pair in the Austrian floorboards, but it is safe to assume that, tucked away as they were, they did not influence 20th century fashions. The first mention of “briefs” (so brief! Barely pantaloons at all!) the museum could find was in the Sears Roebuck catalog of 1935, where special mention was made that they were “every day” briefs. This harkens back to the nuanced world of menstruation containment. Before women wore fitted underpants every day, they wore them only monthly, to keep pads in place. Some historians believe the menstrual brief was designed based on diapers, which in turn inspired the prototype of all modern women’s underwear.
Indeed, it seems either women (and men) are wearing a lot less underwear (GOOGLE “Why I Don’t Wear Underwear” & “Ditch Your Panties” … or with the Internet providing freer communication & more privacy/anonymity, they are ADMITTING (and also ASKING ABOUT IT) au naturel more freely, or to put it better BEING MORE OPEN (as in Sharon Stone & many other) about the subject! It also seems that the purpose of “panties” was pretty much to restrict women’s freedom (of movement… of employment… etc.), for if anything panties collect germs rather than anything else. In short, down with panties permanently & completely unless u r completely “hooked” on them.