Read an earlier discussion of this subject: What did European
and American women use for menstruation in the
19th century and before?
A very short history of women's
underclothing from 1700 to 1900
Directory of underwear on this site
 
|
 
What did women use for menstruation in Europe and America from 1700
- 1900, and probably earlier?
Many - most? - women probably used nothing.
Read this translated German quote:
"How did women handle their menstruation
in daily life? In 1899 a German woman physician wrote the following advice
in a book for German middle-class women ("Health in the House"):
'It is completely disgusting to bleed into your
chemise, and wearing
that same chemise for four to eight days can cause infections.'
"This was the age-old custom for rural women
and women from the lower classes. Virtually only women in the theater professions
wore close-fitting pads [Binden - see a modern American 'theatrical tampon'] or sponges and
few women wore underpants or even used pads, which they made from cloth.
Washing and changing underclothing was regarded as unhealthy, because women
feared it would block the bleeding or cause more intense bleeding."
(The above is my translation of a quote, below, from "Zur Geschichte der Unterwäsche 1700-1960."
1988. Historisches Museum Frankfurt, p. 336, written by two women, Almut
Junker and Eva Stille.
That history museum in Frankfurt, Germany, held
a large exhibit of the history of underwear that included menstrual clothing.
The Hessian State Museum in Darmstadt, Germany, exhibited menstrual products
in the city of Lorsch from 26 November 1998 to 31 July 1999.
The German quote is
"Wie aber gingen die Frauen mit der Monatsblutung im Alltag um? Noch
1899 findet sich in einem von einer Ärztin verfaßten Gesundheitsbuch
für bürgerliche Frauen die Belehrung: 'Es ist höchst unappetitlich,
das Blut im Hemd aufzufangen, und gar dasselbe Hemd 4-8 Tage zu tragen
ist infectionsgefärlich.' [H.B. Adams Lehmann: Die Gesundheit im Haus,
Stuttgart, 1899, p. 681.] Dies war bei Frauen auf dem Land und aus den
unteren Schichten eine von alters her bekannte Praxis. Enganliegende Binden
oder Schwammkissen waren fast nur in Theaterberufen in Gebrauch, und nur
wenig Frauen trugen Unterhosen oder benutzten schon Binden, die sie aus
Tüchern oder Leinwandlappen gefertigt hatten. Das Waschen und das
Wechseln der Wäsche galt in dieser Zeit als gesundheitsgefährdend,
weil eine Stockung oder Verstärkung der Blutung befürchtet wurde.")
(Probably because of the increasing acceptance
of germ theory, the authors report that German doctors in the 1880s and
1890s started proposing menstrual devices for women to wear to improve their
health, for example here and here.
American patents for menstrual devices start in 1854 for a belt with steel
springs to hold a pad, but really don't pick up steam until the 1870s. In
her PhD dissertation, Menstrual Technology in the United States [1994],
Laura Klosterman Kidd writes that she found no proof that anyone used these
patented devices, although it seems likely someone must
have.)
Let's say what Junker and Stille write is true,
as I think it is.
The second largest group of last names in America is of German origin,
after that from the British Isles, indicating that many Germans settled
in America. My guess is that many of them were from the lower classes, looking
for opportunities. Probably most of them kept many of their customs, including
menstrual, after arriving in America, as did others from Europe with similar
customs, at least for a while. And a certain proportion of them migrated
west as pioneers.
Menstruation and its customs are almost never mentioned in the 17 pioneer
women's diaries Laura Kidd examined and reported on in her dissertation
(above); but she found a passage in one diary that hinted that the writer
used nothing to absorb menstrual discharge other than her underwear, which
she told another woman were dark, not white, and advised her to use the
same dark colors. Kidd could find no extra cloth in lists of recommended
items for women to bring on their journeys, which might have suggested menstrual
use. Not one woman mentioned any device specifically designed to contain
menstrual blood. (In her dissertation, Kidd refers to E. Shorter's A History
of Women's Bodies [1982, New York. Basic Books] which also reports that
European peasant women bled into their clothing, even quite recently. I
have not read this book.)
(In 2001 producers of a American Public Television
series about pioneers called me to ask what the modern-day participants
re-creating pioneer conditions should use for menstruation. I told them
it was uncertain what pioneer women used but that it was quite possible
some, at least, used nothing. I understand they gave the women belts, possibly
based on 19th-century drawings I sent them, some on this site.)
I'm not sure what European and American women from the moneyed and ruling
classes used, although we probably can't regard them as all doing one thing
or another. It's possible they used cloth and belt, or something else, as
they could afford to do so, but not necessarily. The authors of Zur
Geschichte der Unterwäsche 1700-1960 write
of the strong perfumes women wore and used in their storage areas for clothing
to conceal body odors, including those of bad teeth, sweat, dirt, skin infections,
intestinal gas, and residue from defecation, urination and vaginal discharges,
including yeast and the awful-smelling trichomonad infections; and people
bathed much less often than today. Who knows what their "wiping practices"
were? For reasons discussed here women usually menstruated less often than today and perhaps
regarded menstruation as an accident, not completely predictable, and not
worth anything special, since it could be disguised from the eye by a long
dress or chemise and from the nose by perfume.
Today there are cultures in which women bleed
into their clothing - for example, at least one in India. A woman former Peace Corps member who visited this museum
told me that she was assigned to a region in Africa in which women in a
poor village bled into their clothing; according to her, the men paid no
special notice. Another woman told me that there is a culture on the Amazon
river in which the word for a woman is "the person with a red streak
down the leg." I suspect there are many such cultures. If so, why could
that have not been the case in Europe? Maybe ethnic pride prevents us from
considering this possibility. Europeans and especially Americans are above
such a thing! Hah!
I believe that one reason we read almost nothing
about what European and American women used for menstruation in the past
two thousand years is because there is nothing to write, since they used
nothing special, bleeding into their chemise or other clothing. At least
most of them.
In June 2001, I
received this e-mail from a writer doing research on this subject in England:
Dear Mr Finley,
I have just found your Web site on menstruation. Fascinating and very
informative.
I was particularly interested in your theory that European and American
women didn't use sanitary protection.
When studying the Suffragist movement and
Selina Cooper [an Englishwoman who lived from 1864 - 1946], I came across
a very interesting story about Mrs Cooper. When working in the cotton mills
circa 1900, she was horrified to discover that the
mill women used no sanitary towels [menstrual
pads], the floor of the work room was spread
with straw to absorb menstrual fluids. Mrs Cooper also mentions
the smell. When Mrs Cooper made sanitary pads for some of the women there
was an outcry from some of the girls' mothers as they
were worried that their daughters would not find husbands as the smell
and flow attracted them, both being considered signs of fertility. The
passage is in Jill Liddington, A Respectable Rebel: Selina Cooper,
Virago (1984). One could interpret from this that
the use of sanitary pads depended on the cultural background of women.
There is further evidence from other historical sources. I am trying
to work my way through women's advice books from the 16th and 17th century.
Culpepper for example goes into great detail about pregnancy, childbirth,
etc., and so far I can find no reference to the use of pads. [It's a typical,
but strange omission.] It's very early days yet for this research but I
hope to get something written in the autumn.
Regards
"The unhealthiness of wearing
underpants" (e-mail from a site visitor, July 2001)
The point of this is not to titillate fellows who hope to get a peek
up women's skirts, but to demonstrate that women survived the last several
thousand years without undertrousers/drawers/panties/underpants. Without
underpants women's crotches are ventilated and dry instead of unventilated
and damp. Fungi and bacteria proliferate in warm, damp areas where there
is nutrition. Female vaginal and vulval fluids are nutritious, and underpants,
particularly tight fitting ones, create a near-ideal environment for undesirable
fauna and flora.
For women who have trouble with chafing thighs, simply discarding the
underpants will in many cases reduce dampness in the region and prevent
chafing, which is mostly caused by damp skin rubbing together. Others who
still suffer from chafing can wear thigh-high stockings (hose) which will
prevent chafing, while the absence of underpants will help create a dry
area above the stockings.
Loose drawers are much better than tight-fitting panties, and for those
who are paranoid about some X-ray-eyed male peeking up the leg, loose "bloomers"
that are snug in the cuffs will block any possible view. They do, though,
reduce ventilation. Underskirts that are full enough to drape between the
thighs when sitting, even with the thighs spread a little, block any peeking.
They'll never know she doesn't have underpants on.
Excessive washing removes the oils that protect the skin.
Odor is reduced by the elimination of panties, reducing the perceived
need for lots of washing. The whole crotch area of both men and women is
mostly self-cleaning, and outside dirt is kept away by the outer clothing.
Maybe women were smarter years ago, wearing no underpants or wearing
open bottom or loose drawers, and not being such fanatics about scrubbing.
Shaving the legs also encourages chafing. Women didn't used to shave their
legs at all and still don't in most of the world.
Men aren't nearly as vulnerable to dampness
and chafing, but wearing tight underpants holds the testicles close to
the body, which raises their temperature, reducing sperm count and vigor
(not that this bothers many who don't want to be fertile, anyway). Testicular
cancer and tumors are much more common among tight brief-wearers than among
those men who wear loose drawers ("boxers") or no underpants.
No underpants is practical for uncircumcised men, but loose cotton
or silk drawers protect tender parts from seams and zippers, and reduce
soiling of the outer pants by body oils.
Just came back from a Scottish Highland Games festival. Bet those guys
in the kilts don't have any dampness problems (actually most wear Bermuda
shorts under them, not underdrawers). Formerly men wore loincloths under
their kilts and tunics.
An American woman born in Germany e-mailed me this in September 2001:
A family friend in a Kuhdorf in Germany said how women with their long
skirts wouldn't wear underpants presumably to pee standing up while outdoors
(farm work, traveling) without cover for privacy.
Read an earlier discussion of this subject: What did European and American
women use for menstruation in the 19th century
and before? - A very short history of women's
underclothing from 1700 to 1900
Directory of underwear on this site
© 2001 Harry Finley. It is illegal to reproduce
or distribute any of the work on this Web site
in any manner or medium without written permission
of the author. Please report suspected violations to hfinley@mum.org
|
|