×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Medieval "Lingerie" From 15th Century Castle Could Rewrite Fashion History

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the old-cloths dept.

Idle 177

fangmcgee writes "Archaeologists have unearthed several 500-year-old bras that some experts say could rewrite fashion history. While they'll hardly send pulses racing by today's standards, the lace-and-linen underpinnings predate the invention of the modern brassiere by hundreds of years. Found hidden under the floorboards of Lengberg Castle in Austria's East Tyrol, along with some 2,700 textile fragments and one completely preserved pair of (presumably male) linen underpants, the four intact bras and two fragmented specimens are thought to date to the 15th century, a hypothesis scientists later confirmed through carbon-dating."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

177 comments

Holy moly! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40708091)

I farted out of my own asshole and shot a cursory glance at the person behind me...

Re:Holy moly! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40708155)

drink yo prune juice brony! MLP is for queers. sudo mod me down!

some old bras (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40708101)

And who the fuck cares?

If this is news for nerds (0, Flamebait)

sick_uf_u (515976) | about 2 years ago | (#40708115)

I've really been underestimating how desperate nerds are for companionship.

Re:If this is news for nerds (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#40708621)

Since when are nerds *not* interested in the fates of stranded time travelers from the future?

Re:If this is news for nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40709179)

I've really been underestimating how desperate nerds are for companionship.

If you are not a nerd then WTF are you doing here?

Two different links... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40708129)

to the exact same article....

Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (4, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | about 2 years ago | (#40708131)

I'm rather more interested in WHY all this was hidden under floorboards in the first place. "2700 textile fragments"? Must've been a lot of space under there, enough for a nice big hoard of gold bullion. Instead we find... clothes?

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (3, Funny)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about 2 years ago | (#40708181)

Medieval trolling: Came expecting gold, left with some hag's bra. You mad bro?

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (4, Funny)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#40708353)

Thou are speaketh in a comical form and manor. I say art thoueth a baffoon or comical jester?
You simply must continue on. Doesth thou produce plays? Pray tell where doest one sign up to get tickets? I wish to submit myself to thy whimsicle banter!

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (5, Funny)

pthisis (27352) | about 2 years ago | (#40708483)

Thou are speaketh in a comical form and manor. I say art thoueth a baffoon or comical jester?
You simply must continue on. Doesth thou produce plays? Pray tell where doest one sign up to get tickets? I wish to submit myself to thy whimsicle banter!

Art thou a foreigner still attempting to apprehend the vagaries of the English tongue?

Thy grammar is weak; though switchest betwixt second person singular and plural without reason, and though fabricatest idiomatic chimerae such as "thoueth" without regard for linguistic merit. Thy conjugation is often off: thou dost use the third person indicative form "speaketh" when thou speakest directly to a second person. Thine usage of helping verbs is often spurious, and thine orthological butcherings of "dost" and "doth" are most droll.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (3, Funny)

idji (984038) | about 2 years ago | (#40708533)

Your text, Sir, on the other hand is full off anachronisms.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (5, Interesting)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 2 years ago | (#40708685)

But in honesty - so was Shakespeare's and indeed all medieval and renaissance playwrights. The anachronisms have their origins in the circle-plays which were one of the few forms of theater that were allowed in the middle-ages under catholic rule. Peasants used to do Easter Passions with each craft guild depicting one part of the story - and they used to set the story in their own familiar circumstances. The Shepherd's circle for example is in medieval English and describes things from a contemporary rather than ancient shepherd's point of view.

These anachronisms were probably unintentional at the start but became traditional over the years.

By Renaissance times the tradition was well established and all playwrights gleefully used anachronisms all the time. Sometimes with clever plot points to sneak them in. Marlowe's Doctor Faustus uses magic to introduce time-travel in a plot which left a clear imprint on present-day Doctor Who - and so hides it's massive anachronisms (a medieval character meeting Helen of Troy) behind a clever plot - but even that wasn't always done, when the anachronisms were more subtle they were usually just left unexplained. So for example, in Macbeth, Duncan's two sons spend time at the court of Edward the Great, even though Macbeth is set almost two centuries before Edward the Great was even BORN (but Edward was a direct ancestor to Queen Elizabeth - still reigning monarch when Macbeth was written), the passage is a clear case of puckering up to the royal rectum rather than attempting to be historically accurate or believable.
So one could argue that any attempt to write in Shakespearean-inspired middle-English would be MORE authentic if it's filled with anachronisms since Shakespeare himself loved anachronisms.
Tom Stoppard (perhaps the greatest Shakespeare-expert in contemporary theater, also the script-writer for Shakespeare in Love) played on this beautifully when he wrote "Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are dead" - a play which posits what would happen if the two messengers that leave the court of Hamlet to visit England would arrive in the England of King Lear.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (1)

BlindRobin (768267) | about 2 years ago | (#40709103)

I would say, good sir, that your presence in these fora is, now as we find a disturbing degree of degenerative decay herein, itself an anachronism perchance? Me annaw...

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (2)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 2 years ago | (#40709171)

Forsooth, though hast caught me. I am a time traveller from the long distant past of slashdot circa 1999.

Not only, but also (3, Informative)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#40708581)

The castle is in Austria. And the period is the 15th century, not the 16th. Although the clothes have been carbon dated I can't find a reference to the exact date, but for most of the 15th century the language would have been Middle English. And educated people like yourself would have been writing Latin. (In fact, you have to resort to Latin to get your point over: grammar,singular, plural,fabricate,idiomatic,linguistic,conjugation,indicative, and a bit of Greek: orthological.)

Why am I being a pedant? It narks me, very slightly, that the GPP post is off-topic and gets modded +5, while on-topic posts are ignored. Come on guys, I know this is Slashdot, but have you really never seen a bra before?

Re:Not only, but also (2)

azalin (67640) | about 2 years ago | (#40708769)

Come on guys, I know this is Slashdot, but have you really never seen a bra before?

To quote admiral Ackbar: "It's a trap!"
Be careful before you answer, because mentioning your private collection of Victoria's not so secret catalog, will result in even less people willing to shake your hand.

Re:Not only, but also (2, Informative)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#40709767)

Come on guys, I know this is Slashdot, but have you really never seen a bra before?

To quote admiral Ackbar: "It's a trap!" Be careful before you answer, because mentioning your private collection of Victoria's not so secret catalog, will result in even less people willing to shake your hand.

Fewer. Sorry, pet peeve. Fewer of a distinct number, less of an homogenous mass.

Re:Not only, but also (4, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | about 2 years ago | (#40709367)

The castle is in Austria. And the period is the 15th century, not the 16th. Although the clothes have been carbon dated I can't find a reference to the exact date, but for most of the 15th century the language would have been Middle English.

In Austria??? A dialect of Early New High German, surely? If you're going to be a pedant it's important to get it right.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (2)

TuringTest (533084) | about 2 years ago | (#40708737)

Beware of the Grammar Huguenots.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (5, Interesting)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 2 years ago | (#40708759)

>Beware of the Grammar Huguenots.

That post had such potential... if only you knew history. The Huguenots fled persecution (In fact I'm of Huguenot Descent - that's my own family history you're talking about) - you basically said the equivalent of "Beware the Grammar Jews" when you meant to say Nazis.

Since "Grammar Catholics" has no time-reference, I suppose a good version could be "Beware the Henry VIII Grammar Anglicans" instead ?

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (3, Funny)

cold fjord (826450) | about 2 years ago | (#40709051)

Since "Grammar Catholics" has no time-reference, I suppose a good version could be "Beware the Henry VIII Grammar Anglicans" instead ?

Surely you jest? Henry VIII's Grammar Anglicans? As a descendant of Huguenots you can't expect . .

Knock, knock . . . Smash! . . .

Ah ha!! Nobody expects the Anglican grammaticians!* . . . Cardinal Biggles! Read the charges!

.

.

* Nope, not made up [wiktionary.org] ! And I won't stop calling you Shirley.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#40709801)

Since "Grammar Catholics" has no time-reference, I suppose a good version could be "Beware the Henry VIII Grammar Anglicans" instead ?

That makes no sense: the Huguenots were persecuted by and fled from Catholic France TO England and other Protestant countries.
You do know that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in opposition to Catholicism?

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40709007)

You missed the part of baffoon instead of buffoon... spelling nazi, can't be helped

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#40709819)

You missed the part of baffoon instead of buffoon... spelling nazi, can't be helped

Spelling in the past was a lot more hit and miss than today, even in Shakespeare's time, never mind the 15th century. A spelling Nazi 500 years ago would have quickly gone insane.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (1)

umghhh (965931) | about 2 years ago | (#40709181)

not that I am an expert but since when people speak and write as grammar of the language they use (mother or otherwise) allows ? That is the way language develops - people make changes to existing grammar and words introducing and changing things accidentally or not - some of this stuff sticks around for longer and is more popular some less, some of the stuff sticks around for so long that it gets into the official rules books. So maybe GP got confused or tried too hard but an odd chance may be that his phrases are replicas of some drunken poster of middle ages slashdot?

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40708585)

A comical manor?

A comical manor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40708623)

The White House.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (4, Interesting)

JanneM (7445) | about 2 years ago | (#40708297)

Probably fairly valuable clothes at the time. Few people ever actually saw money in their whole lives; a dowry would most likely have been in the form of clothes, cloth and similar things.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (4, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | about 2 years ago | (#40708341)

Dude, these were floorboards in a CASTLE. A One Percenter lived there.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40708471)

Yes, see. The world will be just fine even though there are 1%'ers -- we're still around today aren't we. No go make me money slave!

Electrons flow between positive and negative, gas moves from high pressure to low. Rich and poor are both equally important for progress -- these are the laws of the universe. The poor must exist.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (-1, Troll)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#40709893)

Yes, see. The world will be just fine even though there are 1%'ers -- we're still around today aren't we. No go make me money slave!

Electrons flow between positive and negative, gas moves from high pressure to low. Rich and poor are both equally important for progress -- these are the laws of the universe. The poor must exist.

Electrons and gas aren't intelligent creatures with free will, fuckface.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (2)

voss (52565) | about 2 years ago | (#40708487)

One percenters did live in castles. So did female servants..and mistresses and courtesans and seamstresses.

No mod points... (4, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#40708535)

And currently this intelligent post has no mods while a load of pseudo-15th century English tosh above gets modded up to +5. Yes, I am a boring old fart. And your point is?

In fact, I'd go further. certainly valuable clothes at the time. And yet another reminder that "trickle down" works so far as that, as the economy develops, the privileges of the rich extend to wider society. If this is "news for nerds" it is a reminder that what probably took a skilled seamstress a week in the 15th century is almost disposably cheap in the 21st, due to factory automation.

Re:No mod points... (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | about 2 years ago | (#40708691)

Because the pseudo-15th century English tosh is funny, you can hide funny comments in your prefferences.

And yes, it's not very convenient.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#40708705)

My guess to why would be either medieval perverts stashing away their conquests to brag when the boys from the next castle over came to visit (sex outside of marriage happened but was frowned on) or more likely rodents of some sort took them to create a nesting area which would explain 2700 fragments outside of getting old and falling apart.

Of course the carpenter who built that room could have been getting old and the cracks between the floorboards were larger then in other rooms. In this case, they could have just slipped through the cracks like that one dam sock that keeps coming up missing.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (2)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#40709357)

I guess the Earl's wife arrived earlier that day and he really really needed to stash all the evidence of what we was doing.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40709369)

Insulation. Castles tended to be drafty places. Perhaps one brutal winter day, someone came up with the idea of stuffing the space below the floorboards with worn out clothing and other scraps of fabric to help reduce the draft into the room. In more modern times, it's not unusual to stuff such spaces with old newspapers or fiberglass insulation in our homes.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40709561)

I'm rather more interested in WHY all this was hidden under floorboards in the first place. "2700 textile fragments"? Must've been a lot of space under there, enough for a nice big hoard of gold bullion. Instead we find... clothes?

It's obvious. It was some medieval person's "porn stash". Of course they hid it under the floorboards.

Re:Of all the things to hide under floorboards.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40709771)

I'm rather more interested in WHY all this was hidden under floorboards in the first place. "2700 textile fragments"? Must've been a lot of space under there, enough for a nice big hoard of gold bullion. Instead we find... clothes?

Easy. The clothes was worn out, or "in fragments". So clearly they used discarded clothes as insulation - or just stuffed it under the floor to avoid taking out trash. There were no garbage service in those days, so they had to bring their garbage to its final destination. Putting non-smelly stuff under the floor was less work than burning/burying it.

Well, yes. (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#40708139)

I know a chick named Donna Matrix who goes for the whole Medieval Lingerie thing.

Tends more toward leather and chainmail than lace. Probably due to the crude manufacturing technology of the times.

Re:Well, yes. WERP VIRGIN ALARM WERP VIRGIN ALARM (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40708991)

I know a chick named Donna Matrix who goes for the whole Medieval Lingerie thing

Is that you Lone Starr? This is her sister Dot, we will have none of that mister; unless you want me to set off my virgin alarm [youtube.com] again!

Innovative (1)

sixtyeight (844265) | about 2 years ago | (#40708165)

Those "(presumably male) linen underpants" look more like a g-string.

Perhaps those bards got up to more fun in the taverns than we know.

Re:Innovative (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40708215)

At least back then there wasn't an issue with google nexus 7's defective screens. The left side creaks and may evens shatter because it is a millimeter above the bevel. Google really dropped the ball on that one.

Re:Innovative (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40708435)

Google really dropped the ball on that one.

Have they really?

I've certainly seen that exact phrase repeated many times on many sites on the web, so somebody must think it's true.

Gaudeamus igitur (3)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#40708605)

You know the song "Gaudeamus igitur"? The one they used to sing in some US colleges? It starts "Jam nox stellata volumina pandet, nunc, nunc bibendum et amandum est" - "already night unfolds her starry veil, now is the time to drink and make love". If that isn't enough, read Rabelais, including his interesting proposals for how to build a new wall round Paris. Rabelais was a 16th century medical doctor who wrote humorous books to amuse his patients (and piss off the Pope). At one point he lists the best sound in the world as being bollocks slapping against a woman's bottom. With all the worries nowadays about the spread of pornography, we tend to forget that the 19th century and the rise of fundamentalist Protestantism was actually a very aberrant period of human history.

Re:Gaudeamus igitur (2)

wisty (1335733) | about 2 years ago | (#40708861)

Or Carmina Burana.

I'm only familia with the Cantana by Orff (written in .... modernish Germany) but it's based on 11th or 12th century poetry.

The first bit is about the wheel of fate, then spring, then drinking, then courtship, then there's the song when the soprano fakes an orgasm onstage, then we go back to the wheel of fate.

The words are written by monks, I think.

Re:Innovative (1)

azalin (67640) | about 2 years ago | (#40708803)

Those "(presumably male) linen underpants" look more like a g-string.

Perhaps those bards got up to more fun in the taverns than we know.

To be more precise many women wore less under their several layers of skirts. Sweet dreams.

bras and dating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40708169)

Nerds, bras, carbon dating
Nerds, bras, dating
Nerds... Bras ... dating
Nerds... Bras .. dating
hmmm

What can possibly go wrong?
When nerds are involved? Wet pants!!!

Re:bras and dating (1)

azalin (67640) | about 2 years ago | (#40708813)

Nerds, bras, carbon dating Nerds, bras, dating Nerds... Bras ... dating Nerds... Bras .. dating hmmm

What can possibly go wrong? When nerds are involved? Wet pants!!!

Once a nerd is involved a WHOLE LOT can go wrong with dating.

Come on, these people wore cod pieces. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#40708191)

Didn't some fashions have the breasts completely out?

I don't know if I'd be ready to jump to the conclusion that the invention of bras was a racy improvement, rather than a censorious one.

Indeed (5, Interesting)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#40708633)

There is a reference in Dante's Comedy, where Dante is told that a religious reformer is coming who will force the women of Florence to cover their breasts. The rules varied, of course, from time to time and place to place (and often with marital status). However, I doubt bras were ever censorious. Censorious cultures expected women to flatten their chests under their clothes.

Many cultures do put the most absurd expectations on women. The desire of (mostly old men and women) to control female behaviour is quite uniform and quite depressing.

Of interest... (1)

drkim (1559875) | about 2 years ago | (#40708197)

I think this of interest to /. readers, as most have never seen a bra that has been successfully removed from a woman.

Re:Of interest... (1)

sixtyeight (844265) | about 2 years ago | (#40708451)

Thanks for reminding me that, being gay, I'm fortunate not to be living in the 1400's and fumbling around in the dark with those tricky codpieces.

Look lets clear something up (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#40709205)

Being gay != not having sex with women.

Being gay == having sex with men.

You are on slashdot, you are not gay or hetero.

Eunuch you probably would have noticed but the life style is much the same.

Re:Of interest... (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#40708663)

Every ./er has seen a bra successfully removed from a woman. The basement is where the washer and dryer is and mom does laundry ever couple days.

Maybe you meant never seen a bra that has been successfully removed from a woman not related to them?

not a bra. an invitation. (2)

decora (1710862) | about 2 years ago | (#40708299)

the patterns of the seams were shared by numerous ancient civilizations, separated by centuries, that had no contact with each other. and yet, they all share the same markings.

That photo is not of a complete garment. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40708397)

What looks at first glance like a descending backstrap is, in fact, the edge of a missing descending section - look at the lace holes, and the lay of the fabric.

The entire lower front of what I assume to be some kind of "control garment" (like those combined bra/corset things you sometimes see in catalogues) is missing. Bodice, or corset, with built-in cups, yes. Brassiere, in the modern sense, no.

I'm betting on costumes for a game of "The Naughty Pirate rips the Farmer's Daughter's Bodice".

Why bras? (0)

antdude (79039) | about 2 years ago | (#40708425)

Why do women wear bras anyways? They don't need them. :P

Re:Why bras? (5, Funny)

sixtyeight (844265) | about 2 years ago | (#40708465)

Why do women wear bras anyways? They don't need them. :P

I've always assumed it was to prevent them from slapping against their foreheads cartoonishly when running.

Re:Why bras? (2)

pablo_max (626328) | about 2 years ago | (#40709177)

So true. I recall my buddies and I coming back from the beach a few years back when a very well endowed young lady wanted to cross at the crossing walk as the light timer was drawing below 10 seconds. Thus, she started to run. Hilarity ensued. She actually stopped running and also started to laugh.
Ah...I do miss south California.

Re:Why bras? (4, Informative)

blackest_k (761565) | about 2 years ago | (#40708511)

comfort maybe? The larger the breasts, the heavier they are and the more support is needed.

Your comment reveals your still a youth as more senior slashdotters are well aware of the long term effects of gravity on the female breast, they are not so perky any more.

but anyway bra's make a woman look more attractive , especially the ones where you get the opportunity to remove the bra.

Re:Why bras? (-1, Troll)

antdude (79039) | about 2 years ago | (#40708543)

Since you're older than me, you should know the differences between your and you're, capitalizing the first letter of each sentence, don't start with "but", apostrophes for plurals (bra's?), etc. :P

Re:Why bras? (2)

blackest_k (761565) | about 2 years ago | (#40709375)

I don't care about grammar points at 8 am on a friday morning, communication is the point of language not syntax errors. the interpreter is flexible enough to cope :P

However I am curious as how you got such a relatively low user id, did you sign up to slashdot when you were 10?
   

Re:Why bras? (1, Informative)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 2 years ago | (#40708731)

>Your comment reveals your still a youth as more senior slashdotters are well aware of the long term effects of gravity on the female breast, they are not so perky any more.

There have been several studies that suggested the opposite. The theory being that since Breasts contain almost no muscle, what holds them up is the ligaments in the chest. The bra moves the pressure to the shoulder muscles, which makes those ligaments weaken - so in fact wearing bras INCREASE sagging.

Re:Why bras? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40709233)

There have been several studies that suggested the opposite.

Studies done by idiots who've apparently never seen women with flat, deflated udders dangling down to their belly buttons and beyond.

Re:Why bras? (1)

etash (1907284) | about 2 years ago | (#40709475)

>Your comment reveals your still a youth as more senior slashdotters are well aware of the long term effects of gravity on the female breast, they are not so perky any more.

There have been several studies that suggested the opposite. The theory being that since Breasts contain almost no muscle, what holds them up is the ligaments in the chest. The bra moves the pressure to the shoulder muscles, which makes those ligaments weaken - so in fact wearing bras INCREASE sagging.

I guess that's why african women who never wear bras have their breasts almost touching their vaginas.

Re:Why bras? (3, Informative)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 2 years ago | (#40709537)

>I guess that's why african women who never wear bras have their breasts almost touching their vaginas.

Actually that's pretty much a myth. The saggy-boobs on African woman is actually caused by malnutrition. There's no observable sagging in healthy women.
I actually LIVE in Africa, I see African tits every day of my life.

Re:Why bras? (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 2 years ago | (#40709549)

>Actually that's pretty much a myth. The saggy-boobs on African woman is actually caused by malnutrition. There's no observable sagging in healthy women.

Mind you, it says a LOT about the perception of Africa for outsiders, that most of the images you've ever seen of our women were of the ones who are malnourished. Those make the news.
Your typical Africa city-girl sure doesn't, her rural cousin who is required by custom to remain topless until her wedding day doesn't either. In the vast majority of healthy African woman - I have never seen the kind of sagging that I've seen on CNN and Discovery channel however.

Re:Why bras? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40708577)

I suspect you won't actually care for an answer, but it's for both practical and aesthetic reasons.

My breasts would not be considered "big" by most people's standards, but they still move enough to make running without a bra very uncomfortable. Being braless is a hindrance to free, impulsive movement for me.

If that weren't reason enough, my natural breast shape is not considered fashionable in this decade (or since sometimes in the 50s, I reckon). Also, since almost no one has their daily streetclothes personally tailored to them these days, a bra is often necessary to make one's silhouette fit the cut of modern off-the-rack clothes.

Re:Why bras? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40709239)

even for men it makes sense and is more comfortable to have something to keep the dangly bits in check when you are for example running

Re:Why bras? (3, Informative)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#40709425)

A nation of braless women sounds nice, but the reality is that without the brassiere, women's boobs would sag and the nipples would point at the ground by the age of 21. Ever seen those National Geographic photos of African tribesladies wearing their topless tribal costumes? Yeah, like that. The bra is a wonderful invention - if you like perky boobies.

This clearly demonstrates (5, Funny)

maroberts (15852) | about 2 years ago | (#40708427)

...that even in the 15th century, you still had to ensure you protected your washing line from underwear fetishists.....

Re:This clearly demonstrates (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 2 years ago | (#40709099)

...that even in the 15th century, you still had to ensure you protected your washing line from underwear fetishists.....

You think the lady doth undress too much?

Unlock thy bra! (1)

stigamet (1942936) | about 2 years ago | (#40708619)

(unleashes longsword) ...Before I cut it off thee!

Re:Unlock thy bra! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40709511)

Mmmm, well not that I'm one to judge, but I would suggest referring to that as a short sword, or perhaps a large dagger.

Ranks right up there (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#40708631)

This scientific achievement clearly ranks right up there with discovery of the Higgs Boson. Is there a Nobel prize for underpants?

Re:Ranks right up there (1)

fatphil (181876) | about 2 years ago | (#40708981)

Well, there has been an Ignobel prize for a bra (which turned into a pair of breathing filters).

Re:Ranks right up there (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 2 years ago | (#40709091)

This scientific achievement clearly ranks right up there with discovery of the Higgs Boson. Is there a Nobel prize for underpants?

Perhaps this discovery could be titled the discovery of the Higgs Bosom covering?

Talkin' about jumping to conclusions! (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | about 2 years ago | (#40708639)

While they'll hardly send pulses racing by today's standards, the lace-and-linen underpinnings predate the invention of the modern brassiere by hundreds of years.

(Emphasis mine.)

Talkin' about jumping to conclusions!

Re:Talkin' about jumping to conclusions! (1)

azalin (67640) | about 2 years ago | (#40708849)

Well most people, while appreciating good packaging, are more interested in the content.

Editors screw up again (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 2 years ago | (#40708979)

Once again /. editors can't get even the basics correct. They refer to 500 year old bras while the article says 600 years old...

Re:Editors screw up again (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#40709021)

The first article linked to by the article says 500 years old, though whether the discrepancy in the summary is down to scrupulous fact-checking by the editor or a serendipitous cock-up is anyone's guess.

News for serfs. Stuff in tatters.

2 words... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40709031)

0xB16B00B5

The Romans already had bikinis (5, Interesting)

photonic (584757) | about 2 years ago | (#40709095)

Maybe they found one of the first versions of a bra with a modern design, but already some Roman mosaics [wikipedia.org] showed women wearing two-piece clothing, which isn't so different from a modern day bikini.

Department (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40709365)

I'm sure you meant to say "prior art"?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...