Check out our friends at Trailer Inhaler. The best new movie trailers on shuffle, just like in the theater.

Are You Normal?

Ask your question today!

Do many other girls go without panties?
Favorited (undo)
92% Normal
31 Comments

I am 20, female. I do not wear underwear... ever except when I need to use feminine products every month.
How many others don't wear panties? Is it normal?
Is It Normal?
Next >>
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks! [Report] [Best Of] [Vulgar] [Funny] [Fake] [Weird] [Interesting]
Comments (31)
well i always wear underwear but i knowlots of girls who don't its normal in my opinion
Comment Hidden (show)
-
From the Interne
''Happy Go Commando Friday! It’s comfy, practical, and undeniably sexy""

Seems to be very, very normal ... also practical, comfortable, more healthy ... even economical

Makes a person wonder how women ever got started wearing them at all ... probably Emma Bloomer & bicycle riding!
Comment Hidden (show)
-
I Never Wear Underwear, Even on Public Transportation, Even When I Have My Period: Author:Rebecca:Jul18,2013\\\I don’t understand why anyone wears underwear. I mean, I can conceive of why as a person with a penis you might want to -- it could get stuck in things like train doors or the slats of a beach chair. But as a lady, it’s something I have a hard time wrapping my head around. Because I almost never do. I haven’t for as long as I can remember. I’m pretty sure it started out of laziness, but now as a much-less-lazy adult with a penchant for pretty things, bottom-lingerie is still something I’d rather do without.\“Oh my god,” my friends say when I disclose this intel. “What about when you are wearing a skirt?”\To which I respond, “Whatever man, it’s already a crazy-complex ecosystem happening down there in the bush&beyond -- I doubt a little office-chair-contact is going to fuck it up.”\People also get squicked when they consider the fact that I ride the subway. But let’s be real -- most of the time I don’t get a seat &when I do, it’s not like I’m wearing a lot of micro-minis (my ass does this things where it extends to basically right above my knee, eliminating the things most of you have called "thighs.") For the most part my shit is covered, protecting my parts&protecting you from any&all juices, because I am a model citizen.\Besides, even if your jeans come into contact with some of my crack/slit sweat, I doubt it’s the worst thing you’ve rubbed up against on public transportation. I once watched a drunk guy pee onto the floor&run so quickly between cars to hurl that he threw up on the door while careening into it&then fell back down into his own pee. Just as a “for example.”\I don’t wear underwear because I hate it. I hate how it makes me sweat, no matter what the fabric, cut, or style. I hate how it loves to sneak into my asshole uninvited. I hate how even the ones that fit right enhance my muffin top. Not to mention, modern underwear doesn’t flatter the bush-having among us. It make me look like my vagina is a wearing a tiny spandex hat.\Sure, there’s underwear with a more generous cut. This also tends to be the underwear that can double as a strapless bathing suit, or even better, serve as a parachute were I ever to find myself in a position of unexpectedly jumping from a plane. I hate feeling so restricted.\What about during my period, I hear you ask? Mostly no! Mostly still no! If anything I’m even more anti-drawers during my monthlies. That shit gets to stankin’ &keeping it hidden away to sweat&bleed in a little nether-tent only makes it worse.\To be fair, at night during my moon blood time, I shall don a pair of the gigantics. But this is only because I am tired of buying new sheets&have a tendency to re-enact both the elevator scene from "The Shining"&the part in "The God-father" when dude finds a horse head in his bed overnight. Even so, slapping on a pad to the adult-sized-lady-panties&pairing it with a super tampon seem to simply provide more material for me to bloody. It’s much easier to clean off your ass&legs than it is to haul your private woman shame down to the laundry so that the all&sundry might bear witness.\My parents have tried to intervention me several times. My dad, not a yelling guy, once screamed in a way I’d only ever seen Al Pacino do, when I confessed that no, I was not wearing underwear one day in sixth grade. They probably thought I was a secret sex pervert.\My mom tried to make the prospect of underwear wearing (underwearing, perhaps) alluring to me by buying me a set of blue silk underpants. I hated them&their itchy lace bands with the fire of my soul&at age 10, wore them only so that they might serve as the hilarious punchline to a joke I’d been working on about “blue moons.” \Admittedly, now that I’ve got some jeans that I have not purchased for less than $10, I will wear underpants. Because, you know, odors amassing over time. (Oh my god I am a monster). Still, on the days I do this, I am totally aware that I am in a vaguely worse mood than I could be if I were going commando. I’m basically one step away from being Zach Galifianakis in that Tim&Eric Vodka ad, bellow/crying “IT’S TOO HOT!”\You might think I am the most disgusting person on the planet &that is your right. Having conceded this point, I’d now like to share something that might sway you back toward me on this one: I have never gotten a yeast infection. Never. Not once. Never, never, never. Is this because I am always airing my bits? I don’t know. I am not made of science. But it is a fact, all the same. Don’t believe me? I shall put you in touch with gynos present&past!&verily, do I rest my case.
Comment Hidden (show)
FROM DOWN UNDER-
HISTORY LESSON101:The Evolution of Underwear\Peter the Great, visiting Paris in 1717, was riding down a crowded street when a woman slipped and fell in front of his horse. The czar, intently watching the pretty Parisienne scissor and squirm out of danger, observed with some delight: "The gates of Paradise are open."\What's interesting is not that that particular French woman didn't wear any underwear, but that almost no French women at the time wore any underwear that would have blocked the czar's view. Or any English women. Or any German women. Or any American women.\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 under-wear? \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."
Comment Hidden (show)
I couldn't go without, though thongs are pretty close to nothing! lol
Comment Hidden (show)
-
Pretty close indeed, but thongs are closer to cheese wire1 I'd suspect that if it were either cheese-wire thongs or au naturel, there wouldn't anything butt 'fresh air' sunshine & freedom from yeast & other infections!!!
Comment Hidden (show)
try it & once you get used to it, chances are you will never want to go back to anything butt fresh, clean air & sunshine!
Comment Hidden (show)
Thongs? Better off (and more comfortable) without thongs or G-strings! Again, whoever invented them in the first place had nothing in mind but women's discomfort & worse.
Comment Hidden (show)
Hot hot hot !!
Comment Hidden (show)
I am a woman who only wears panties when she has to. I wear them to work and to university and that is about it.

At home? No panties

Summer? No panties

Partying? No panties
Comment Hidden (show)
-
Quite normal & even more sensible & practical (& economical)
Comment Hidden (show)
Love your girls with or without the only think with out used panties I would have to ask that you let me put my nose in your crotch as I masturbate.
Comment Hidden (show)
Good for you all...it is sexy, although sexy underwear makes you girls even sexies...but if you have the ody and attetude it is a great turn-on.
Comment Hidden (show)
NICE !!!
Comment Hidden (show)
im a dude and i often go without underwear. its not a sex thing, its just, comfort
Comment Hidden (show)
LOOKING AT HISTORY, PANTIES WEREN'T WORN AT ALL UNTIL THE 1930'S - SEE PANTILESS IN NYC, ALSO DITCH YOUR PANTIES ...

The era spanning from the 1790s to the 1820s saw an emphasis on elegance and simplicity which was motivated by the democratic ideals of the French Republic but which looked back to classical Greece and Rome for its fashion inspiration. Waists were high, the directional emphasis was vertical, and lightweight white fabrics were at the height of fashions which were so simple that the lady of the time often wore only three garments; a chemise, a corset and a gown! This was an incredible contrast to the clothing of preceding and succeeding periods with their horizontal emphases, multiple layers and often heavy fabrics.

Chemise:
The chemise was the only ladies' undergarment used during the era. (Panties would not be developed until the 20th century and pantalets were not in vogue until Victorian times.) The chemise was simply constructed of linen or cotton. In modern terms its appearance was similar to a long blouse or short nightgown.

Corset:
In the early days of the Regency era some women wore tight but lightweight linen stays which had an effect similar to a modern push-up bra while some chose to wear no support at all. The ideal was to emulate the "classical" Greek look of ancient statuary and the older conical shaped stays of the Georgian era didn't do the trick. But soon new corset designs had caught up in "support" of the latest fashions. The corset was worn over the chemise, was typically made of linen, laced in the back, was “boned” for firmness and often had a long wooden or whalebone busk in the front to create the “lift and separate” support necessary for Regency fashions. A lady wearing a proper Regency style corset will likely carry herself with flawless posture.

Gown or Dress:
The gown was at least ankle length and had a very high “empire” waist. Some bodices scooped quite low in front and/or back while others were more moderate. Some had trains in the rear which were pinned up while dancing. The sleeves could be short or wrist length as each style was popular at different times. Even a few sleeveless gowns were seen early in the period. The fabric was usually light in color with solid white being the favorite of the era. Small patterns and vertical stripes were also used. Good fabric choices would be lightweight such as cotton batiste, lightweight cotton muslin or a silk such as charmeuse that isn’t too stiff but has a good “drape” to it. Sometimes a very light semi-transparent overdress was worn on top of the main article. White cotton voile or silk chiffon might be good fabrics for such an option. Trim could be in the form of piping, metallic braid or ribbon.
Comment Hidden (show)
-
GOOGLE "PANTILESS" "KNICKERLESS" TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE HISTORY OF PANTIES ... THERE ISN'T ANY ... WEREN'T WORN TILL VERY RECENTLY ... & FOR GOOD REASONS ... HEALTH VERSUS MOIST, WARM, DARK HAVENS FOR GERMS ETC. SUCH AS YEAST

The era spanning from the 1790s to the 1820s saw an emphasis on elegance and simplicity which was motivated by the democratic ideals of the French Republic but which looked back to classical Greece and Rome for its fashion inspiration. Waists were high, the directional emphasis was vertical, and lightweight white fabrics were at the height of fashions which were so simple that the lady of the time often wore only three garments; a chemise, a corset and a gown! This was an incredible contrast to the clothing of preceding and succeeding periods with their horizontal emphases, multiple layers and often heavy fabrics.

Chemise:
The chemise was the only ladies' undergarment used during the era. (Panties would not be developed until the 20th century and pantalets were not in vogue until Victorian times.) The chemise was simply constructed of linen or cotton. In modern terms its appearance was similar to a long blouse or short nightgown.

Corset:
In the early days of the Regency era some women wore tight but lightweight linen stays which had an effect similar to a modern push-up bra while some chose to wear no support at all. The ideal was to emulate the "classical" Greek look of ancient statuary and the older conical shaped stays of the Georgian era didn't do the trick. But soon new corset designs had caught up in "support" of the latest fashions. The corset was worn over the chemise, was typically made of linen, laced in the back, was “boned” for firmness and often had a long wooden or whalebone busk in the front to create the “lift and separate” support necessary for Regency fashions. A lady wearing a proper Regency style corset will likely carry herself with flawless posture.

Gown or Dress:
The gown was at least ankle length and had a very high “empire” waist. Some bodices scooped quite low in front and/or back while others were more moderate. Some had trains in the rear which were pinned up while dancing. The sleeves could be short or wrist length as each style was popular at different times. Even a few sleeveless gowns were seen early in the period. The fabric was usually light in color with solid white being the favorite of the era. Small patterns and vertical stripes were also used. Good fabric choices would be lightweight such as cotton batiste, lightweight cotton muslin or a silk such as charmeuse that isn’t too stiff but has a good “drape” to it. Sometimes a very light semi-transparent overdress was worn on top of the main article. White cotton voile or silk chiffon might be good fabrics for such an option. Trim could be in the form of piping, metallic braid or ribbon.
Comment Hidden (show)
GOOGLE ON

"going-commando-the-only-way-to-live'

ABOUT NORMAL
Comment Hidden (show)
WHY NOT READ
"Why So Many Women Are Ditching Their Underwear"?
Just GOOGLE on the title (using quotation marks)
Comment Hidden (show)
-
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT WOMEN WERE INVENTED/CREATED BEFORE CLOTHING, WHICH CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO THEIR HEALTH
I Never Wear Underwear, Even on Public Transportation, Even When I Have My Period: Author:Rebecca:Jul18,2013\I don’t understand why anyone wears underwear. I mean, I can conceive of why as a person with a penis you might want to -- it could get stuck in things like train doors or the slats of a beach chair. But as a lady, it’s something I have a hard time wrapping my head around. Because I almost never do. I haven’t for as long as I can remember. I’m pretty sure it started out of laziness, but now as a much-less-lazy adult with a penchant for pretty things, bottom-lingerie is still something I’d rather do without.\“Oh my god,” my friends say when I disclose this intel. “What about when you are wearing a skirt?”\To which I respond, “Whatever man, it’s already a crazy-complex ecosystem happening down there in the bush&beyond -- I doubt a little office-chair-contact is going to fuck it up.”\People also get squicked when they consider the fact that I ride the subway. But let’s be real -- most of the time I don’t get a seat &when I do, it’s not like I’m wearing a lot of micro-minis (my ass does this things where it extends to basically right above my knee, eliminating the things most of you have called "thighs.") For the most part my shit is covered, protecting my parts&protecting you from any&all juices, because I am a model citizen.\Besides, even if your jeans come into contact with some of my crack/slit sweat, I doubt it’s the worst thing you’ve rubbed up against on public transportation. I once watched a drunk guy pee onto the floor&run so quickly between cars to hurl that he threw up on the door while careening into it&then fell back down into his own pee. Just as a “for example.”\I don’t wear underwear because I hate it. I hate how it makes me sweat, no matter what the fabric, cut, or style. I hate how it loves to sneak into my asshole uninvited. I hate how even the ones that fit right enhance my muffin top. Not to mention, modern underwear doesn’t flatter the bush-having among us. It make me look like my vagina is a wearing a tiny spandex hat.\Sure, there’s underwear with a more generous cut. This also tends to be the underwear that can double as a strapless bathing suit, or even better, serve as a parachute were I ever to find myself in a position of unexpectedly jumping from a plane. I hate feeling so restricted.\What about during my period, I hear you ask? Mostly no! Mostly still no! If anything I’m even more anti-drawers during my monthlies. That shit gets to stankin’ &keeping it hidden away to sweat&bleed in a little nether-tent only makes it worse.\To be fair, at night during my moon blood time, I shall don a pair of the gigantics. But this is only because I am tired of buying new sheets&have a tendency to re-enact both the elevator scene from "The Shining"&the part in "The God-father" when dude finds a horse head in his bed overnight. Even so, slapping on a pad to the adult-sized-lady-panties&pairing it with a super tampon seem to simply provide more material for me to bloody. It’s much easier to clean off your ass&legs than it is to haul your private woman shame down to the laundry so that the all&sundry might bear witness.\My parents have tried to intervention me several times. My dad, not a yelling guy, once screamed in a way I’d only ever seen Al Pacino do, when I confessed that no, I was not wearing underwear one day in sixth grade. They probably thought I was a secret sex pervert.\My mom tried to make the prospect of underwear wearing (underwearing, perhaps) alluring to me by buying me a set of blue silk underpants. I hated them&their itchy lace bands with the fire of my soul&at age 10, wore them only so that they might serve as the hilarious punchline to a joke I’d been working on about “blue moons.” \Admittedly, now that I’ve got some jeans that I have not purchased for less than $10, I will wear underpants. Because, you know, odors amassing over time. (Oh my god I am a monster). Still, on the days I do this, I am totally aware that I am in a vaguely worse mood than I could be if I were going commando. I’m basically one step away from being Zach Galifianakis in that Tim&Eric Vodka ad, bellow/crying “IT’S TOO HOT!”\You might think I am the most disgusting person on the planet &that is your right. Having conceded this point, I’d now like to share something that might sway you back toward me on this one: I have never gotten a yeast infection. Never. Not once. Never, never, never. Is this because I am always airing my bits? I don’t know. I am not made of science. But it is a fact, all the same. Don’t believe me? I shall put you in touch with gynos present&past!&verily, do I rest my case.
Comment Hidden (show)
It seems that I’ve been Sharon Van Winkle, snoozing for years and suddenly waking to a world where a lot of women have ditched their underwear. Commando appears to be en vogue and some of my girlfriends, people in my 45-54 demographic, are choosing to go sans panties.
The chorus of advice I’ve been hearing, “Go Commando.”
Even though it wasn’t advice I’d sought, I couldn’t help considering the directive.
I grew up with Brooke Shields. I didn’t know her personally, but we were two years apart in age, we both grew up in New Jersey, we both sported bushy eyebrows on our adolescent faces. In 1980, Brooke asked, “Want to know what comes between me and my Calvins?” and then she answered, “Nothing.” It was effective advertising, because I took to buying Calvin Klein underwear.
Flash forward a few decades and though my preferred brand has changed I wear underwear. All. The. Time. I’m a big fan of Soma’s bikini Vanishing Edge underwear so there is nothing granny about my panties. They’re my daily accessory.
Sharon Van Winkle discovered that’s not the case for everyone.
During the past year, three different friends have given me their undie-busting advice. Panty-Raider Number One told me to stop wearing them altogether, but especially when I run. I’m an avid runner, have run marathons, and I warily listened to her rationale of no visible panty lines with exercise shorts.
Comment Hidden (show)
-
Flash forward a few decades and though my preferred brand has changed I wear underwear. All. The. Time. I'm a big fan of Soma's bikini Vanishing Edge underwear so there is nothing granny about my panties. They're my daily accessory.

Sharon Van Winkle discovered that's not the case for everyone.

During the past year, three different friends have given me their undie-busting advice. Panty-Raider Number One told me to stop wearing them altogether, but especially when I run. I'm an avid runner, have run marathons, and I warily listened to her rationale of no visible panty lines with exercise shorts.

Recently, I've taken up biking. A month ago, I bought bike shorts, which are super-comfy and like riding with a mattress in my pants. After pedaling fifteen to twenty miles, that's a good thing. Panty-Raider Number Two advised me to stop wearing underwear with my bike shorts. It was a suggestion she'd been given when she started biking. She tried it, she liked it. I haven't tried it.

On a not-long-ago shopping trip, Panty-Raider Number Three and I were wandering through a high-end boutique when she whispered, "I have underwear in my purse in case I try on pants."

I stopped short between racks of designer jeans. "Why are they in your purse and not on your body?" Of course, I should have whispered my response, but surprise trumped volume control.

She spoke quietly, "I almost never wear underwear."

"Almost never?"

She nodded. "It's more comfortable. You should go commando."

It may be that the third time's the charm, but I still wasn't convinced that trashing my knickers was something I wanted to do. I needed more information.

First, I took a rudimentary survey of 10 girlfriends who were all around my age. The result: At least on occasion -- exercise being the predominant occasion -- 60 percent of these ladies went commando. In 2015, I of course turned to the Internet and Google to round out my research. A number of articles touted the health benefits of commando life. An article at Elite Daily listed things like comfort and feeling sexy as reasons for turning your body into a no-underwear zone.

I didn't need an article to point out potential economic benefits. Some brands are pricey. Swearing off underwear could pad my wallet, though not lift my butt.
Comment Hidden (show)
and I warily listened to her rationale of no visible panty lines with exercise shorts.
Recently, I’ve taken up biking. A month ago, I bought bike shorts, which are super-comfy and like riding with a mattress in my pants. After pedaling fifteen to twenty miles, that’s a good thing. Panty-Raider Number Two advised me to stop wearing underwear with my bike shorts. It was a suggestion she’d been given when she started biking. She tried it, she liked it. I haven’t tried it.
On a not-long-ago shopping trip, Panty-Raider Number Three and I were wandering through a high-end boutique when she whispered, “I have underwear in my purse in case I try on pants.”
I stopped short between racks of designer jeans. “Why are they in your purse and not on your body?” Of course, I should have whispered my response, but surprise trumped volume control.
She spoke quietly, “I almost never wear underwear.”
“Almost never?”
She nodded. “It’s more comfortable. You should go commando.”
It may be that the third time’s the charm, but I still wasn’t convinced that trashing my knickers was something I wanted to do. I needed more information.
First, I took a rudimentary survey of 10 girlfriends who were all around my age. The result: At least on occasion — exercise being the predominant occasion — 60 percent of these ladies went commando. In 2015, I of course turned to the Internet and Google to round out my research. A number of articles touted the health benefits of commando life. An article at Elite Daily listed things like comfort and feeling sexy as reasons for turning your body into a no-underwear zone.
I didn’t need an article to point out potential economic benefits. Some brands are pricey. Swearing off underwear could pad my wallet, though not lift my butt.
I chewed on all the well-intentioned advice from friends and the information I found online. Most of those I’d queried leaned toward ditching their underwear before exercising. Using that as my guide, I tried going commando for two of my runs. I didn’t like it, preferring an extra layer between the world, my spandex and my sweaty self. And though I’m not a stage performer, after Lenny Kravitz’s in concert commando-wardrobe malfunction, I think underwear is a key piece of clothing—for women and “dudes”. #penisgate
For now, I’m leaving the commando lifestyle to others. Lucky for me, a few weeks ago Soma had a buy-three-get-two-free underwear sale.
Comment Hidden (show)
-
FROM HISTORY-HISTORY LESSON101:The Evolution of Underwear\Peter the Great, visiting Paris in 1717, was riding down a crowded street when a woman slipped and fell in front of his horse. The czar, intently watching the pretty Parisienne scissor and squirm out of danger, observed with some delight: "The gates of Paradise are open."\What's interesting is not that that particular French woman didn't wear any underwear, but that almost no French women at the time wore any underwear that would have blocked the czar's view. Or any English women. Or any German women. Or any American women.\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 yester-year'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."
Comment Hidden (show)
Let Her Breathe: Why I Wish I Could Go Without Panties
July 22, 2014 ‐ By Renay Alize

Read what others are saying, doing & wishing for
Comment Hidden (show)
I knew a woman once who couldn't wear undergarments without getting a bad case of thrush. Didn't matter if they were cotton, lace, or other - she wore underwear, she got thrush.
Comment Hidden (show)
-
Seems to me getting thrush, etc. is exactly what one would expect from "panty-prison" & fashion slavery! indeed, pantiless has a lot of advantages & makes the most sense!!!
Comment Hidden (show)
FROM THE INTERNET hooray for fresh air, sunshine & no germs collected all day "down there" ... & inside:

""honeybee808 • 2 years ago
i love going commando! it's so freeing i don't even think about wearing draws anymore.
the only time i may put some on is if the skirt i'm wearing blows easily in the wind (and my period),
but other than that,
''i love being free!''

Seems that pantiless is normal and natural, & has been for all but very recent times ... a lot of 'drawers' & sanitary belts in "fashion" were appropriate before TAMPONS but now TAMPONS are safe clean & available, panties/ thongs/ g-strings/ etc. are "passe" --- clothing that really serve any useful purpose & indeed are hazards to your health & comfort -- they just trap 7 collect germs & disease)!
Comment Hidden (show)
-
Indeed pantiless is becoming lot more ... if what's called "panties" these days gets any smaller, they will serve no function at all & disappear altogether ... saving a lot of spending money for outerwear ... & saving a lot of visits to the gynecologist to treat yeast infections & other "panty-caused" diseases down there. It seems the main purpose of "bloomers" is to restrict/injure women's ability to enjoy good health, movement & freedom on the job market (as well as in competing with men elsewhere, such as in sports).
Comment Hidden (show)
It would appear that pantiless (and thong-less, G-string-less, bloomer-less and just plain back-to-Mother Nature) are very much a return to comfort health and economy. So spend your money on outerwear not underwear, unless you live in a very cold climate ... then go for long Johns and "union suits" not panties that cover practically nothing and contribute mainly to thrush & other germs taking up housekeeping between your legs! Read "Pantiless in NYC" on that score as well as "Ditch Your Panties." Also read up on fashion history/ History of "Unmentionables" and there's even a Museum of Menstruation!
Comment Hidden (show)
TO: "hotchickie81"
who wrote in "I couldn't go without, though thongs are pretty close to nothing! lol"

Try it & go commando consistently, perhaps a bit at a time, & it's a good bet that once you get used to it & feel comfortable with it, you'll never go back to G-strings, thongs, panties, or any other germ traps .... nor anything butt clean fresh air & sunshine ( and freedom from yeast & other consequences of having a warm, wet, dark place to cultivate discomfort & diseases)
Comment Hidden (show)

Sorry, you need to be signed in to comment.

Click here to sign in or register.