Customer Reviews

The History of Men's Underwear: From Union Suits to Bikini Briefs

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Almost the first item of "information" offered in this book is the assertion that "Prior to 1935, there was only one style of underwear available to American men -- the union suit, which came in every color imaginable -- as long as it was white." I'm comparing this to my reprint of the 1895 Montgomery Ward catalogue, which offers no union suits at all for men, but which does offer undershirts and drawers in white, gray, "fancy stripes", "natural wool", "light brown or camel's hair", "drab", scarlet, and cotton flannel both bleached and unbleached, as well as balbriggan (a knitted cotton fabric -- it took me three seconds at Merriam-Webster Online to learn that) and "gauze".

Another turn to my bookshelves brings me to the Sears Roebuck catalogue from 1897, where I find balbriggan drawers and undershirts in light blue, ecru and "cadet blue", as well as "fancy stripes", "beautiful subdued rainbow colored mixtures" and "fancy random figures" -- these last in "blue and white or tan and cream mixtures". I find merino undershirts striped in "light blue and white" or "fawn and cream". I find "grey merino" undershirts and drawers. I find "Dr. Reihl's Health Underwear" in "the finest uncolored Australian lamb's wool". Heavy winter undershirts and drawers are available in "olive brown or dark tan color". Undershirts of "fish net" are available as well.

So, men's underwear was available in any color as long as it was white, or gray, or tan, or brown, or blue, or red, or striped, or print, or natural, or "rainbow".

However, there are no union suits for men in either catalogue. Except in the Hollywood movies that Gary Griffin seems to use as his main research source, union suits, or "combination undergarments", were exclusively for women.

It took me less than ten minutes to look this up. I can't imagine that, even if the author had to go to a public library, it would have taken him more than an hour or two to locate comparable information ... if he could be bothered, which apparently wasn't the case. Instead, Mr. Griffin he selected his own specific area of interest -- men's undergarments from the mid-1930s onwards -- and dismissed everything outside that period not merely as uninteresting, but as nonexistent.

If the first two pages are this unreliable, how wildly at variance with reality is the rest of the book? As a source of information, "The History of Men's Underwear: From Union Suits to Bikini Briefs" is worse than useless.

someone gave me this as a gag birthday gift, but I'm glad I didn't toss it out. I sat down to read it and it's actually well done. As a man, I've wondered why our choices seem to be either boxers or briefs, but there's a whole social/cultural/religious/physical context going on here. Fascinating.

I have to admit, I thought this would be a lightweight book about a lightweight topic. But Griffin is serious about his subject and how this relates to social, personal and yes, political, religious and military history over the last 2,000 years.

It's a lot more interesting than one would think, and this subject has a definite correlation to sexual identity and freedom through the ages.

When shopping for men's underwear, selections sure have changed since the days of the union suits as this book details. Go to http://www.underneath.com and see for yourself.

In only 64 pages this can't be much more than a very, very short history of men's underwear so if you are looking for a detailed history, this is not it. If however you are just interested in the basics and especially how men's underwear has changed in the past two centuries in America then this book is a good place to start. There are many photographs and ad copies incloded that are interesting but since Griffin talks a good deal about the role of popular media in helping to make chances to underwears sales it would be better if he'd included ads featuring some of the "heartthrobs" he mentions. A lot more could be done frankly on the topic and has been done in more generalized books on clothing for both sexes.