Archive for May 16th, 2009

May 16, 2009

and while on the subject of codpieces

…I hope it is sufficiently clear to people that a codpiece is something you wear (if you are so inclined); not a part of the human body. One Jamaica Layne is clearly under the impression that “codpiece” is a euphemism for “penis”.

The knight gives me a knowing smile, and jiggles his giant cock in my direction. “You look like a fair maiden in need of a good visit from the codpiece,” he says

He grins wider. “Your lady-softness told me herself when she was wrapped round my codpiece.”

I’m horribly, horribly tempted to read this book.

May 16, 2009

Suspicious bulges in Regency Pantaloons

(re)Reading Georgette Heyer yesterday I was, as always, pleased by the amount of attention she pays to men’s clothing – and by the amount of attention her male characters (and apparently most upper-class Regency men) do. However, reading about young Peregrine’s skin-tight pantaloons has made me wonder.

According to Boots and Bonnets,

Breeches were replaced by pantaloons, which were tighter fitting and extended to mid calf or below. These were bias cut to achieve a much closer fit. They were worn with highly polished tall boots. Between 1807-25 trousers, originally worn by working men, appeared as an alternative. They were skin tight to the knees and below the knee they were looser and anchored in place by straps under the instep, a device possibly introduced by Brummell to ensure the trousers’ unwrinkled perfection could be maintained. Breeches, pantaloons and trousers in this period fastened with a side buttoned rectangular panel to produce a flat front to the garment and preserve the closeness of fit.

This is all very well. But I have to wonder whether all these skin tight garments were not sometimes rather…revealing? When Lady Barbara Childe walked into a room having damped her petticoats so they would cling to her body, was it not obvious that the men present were affected by the sight? Codpieces were no longer in fashion, and as far as I can tell, male underwear mostly consisted of cotton drawers. Does anyone know how this worked? Did young Regency girls just have to determinedly look at men’s faces? I’m told that the “modesty girdle” took a while later to come into existence – what exactly was happening in between?

May 16, 2009

MammothFail

I’ve been following the discussions around the new Patricia Wrede book (The Thirteenth Child) for some time now, and it’s probably obvious where I stand on the issue. But for now, I’m going to post this quote from Wrede, without comment.

I’m currently assuming there will be African slaves, possibly even more (since there won’t be any Native Americans to have already done a certain amount of prepping land for human occupation, nor to be exploited later).
(Context)

Actually, no. Here’s a comment. WTF?