June 8th 2026
–
WellBeing Magazine
–
Underwear is like electricity: obviously there but rarely discussed. And just like electricity, your underwear has power. It has a definite impact on your physical comfort and your psychological disposition. Despite its effects, underwear’s very ubiquity makes it easy to take for granted but it does have a worthwhile story to tell. Not only has it had a varied history, but it may also have a shocking future. To delve into your underwear fully would take more space than we have here so, for brevity, we will limit ourselves in this article to the fascinating history and diverse effects of your underpants.
Loincloths to codpieces
Humans and their forebears have been strutting around this planet for millions of years, and among their first “inventions” were textiles, a fabric made from weaving plant fibres together. We can imagine that once humans decided that clothing was a good option, an early use would have been to cover our vulnerable genitalia. Since the earliest evidence of textiles is from Georgia and dates back 32,000 years, it is very possible that genital coverings have been worn for that long.
While that might be speculation, we know for certain that underwear was developed in many different cultures independently and we have evidence that this began at least 6000 years ago. There are depictions of loincloths being worn by men and women in the Ubaid period of the Mesopotamian civilisation (ancient Iraq) from 5500–4000 BCE. A loincloth was a simple piece of cloth that could be tied around the waist then pulled between the legs and tucked in. The Persians also wore loincloths, as did the Chinese, although by the second century BCE, the Chinese were also wearing the “dubikun” (or cow’s nose), which wrapped around much of the lower body and tied at the waist.
In Egypt from at least 4400 BCE, loincloths were being worn. By 1200 BCE, artworks show us that Egyptians wore a loincloth known as a “schenti” made from cotton and flax. For some time, loincloths were not undergarments but were in fact outer garments, the only clothes being worn. However, later in Egypt, we know they were wearing long outer garments over their loincloths, which means that underpants had definitely arrived in our wardrobe at least 3000 to 4000 years ago.
The Romans also wore their loincloths as underwear. These were known as “sublicula” and were most often worn when exercising at the gymnasium. Sublicula were made from both linen and leather and women tended to wear the leather sort when they were menstruating.
During the Middle Ages (476 CE to the late 15th century CE), in Europe, underwear was largely reserved for men and took the form of “braies”, a loose-fitting pair of pants that was stepped into, tied around the waist, then secured just under the knee with garters.
Although braies were initially worn as outer garments, by the late Middle Ages they were exclusively worn as underwear and were designed with a flap at the front that could be untied, allowing men to urinate without removing the whole garment. This flap became known as a “codpiece”, not for any fishy or flopping linkage but derived from the Middle English word “cod” that meant “bag”, “pouch” or “scrotum”. Over the centuries, codpieces became symbols of wealth and power being padded and shaped to display manhood, as you will see only too clearly if you look at Holbein’s famous portrait of Henry VIII. The codpiece was to go the way of all fashion, and by the late 16th century, it waned in popularity. Underpants fashion would fluctuate over the next few centuries, but the 20th century saw an undercover revolution.
Union suits and G-strings
As alluded to earlier, upper-body underwear is a whole separate story and the transition from corsets to bras and then no-bras is a tale of feminine liberation. It is a story for another time, because here we restrain ourselves to the underwear that was used for the lower body and we take a bit of a jump from the Renaissance to the 19th century. At this time, “drawers” were worn by both sexes and were loose pants that went to the ankles. Drawers were made of wool, silk or flannel and sometimes had buttons down the front. Then, in the late 19th century, “union suits” brought upper- and lower-body underwear together.
Union suits were popular from the 1870s to the 1930s and were a type of underwear worn by women, men and children. They were a one-piece garment that buttoned up at the front and consisted of long sleeves at the top and long leggings at the bottom. A flap secured by buttons could be released to free the buttocks and make it easy to go to the toilet. Union suits were comfortable, which was a big step forward, especially for women who were freed from the pain of corsets. The union suit eventually evolved into “long johns”, which were probably named after the champion bare-knuckle boxer John L Sullivan who wore them when fighting.
In the early 20th century, the introduction of materials such as nylon and elastic did much to evolve underwear. Drawers became shorter for women. The “flapper” era of the 1920s saw shorter dresses and more active dancing combined with the use of these more flexible fabrics. This led to the development of “tap pants”, or “panties”, which were closer-fitting, closed in on the crotch and more decorative. These tighter pants were also known as “knickers”, which was a shortening of “knickerbockers”, a term used for sports outerwear in the late 1800s. The 1920s also saw the birth of the G-string, which was worn by showgirls for burlesque performances. The name “G-string” came from the 19th-century term “geestring” for the cord that held up a loincloth, with the “g” probably referring to either “girdle” or “groin”. The development of the string bikini in the 1970s took the G-string to a new level as a fashion item and by the 2000s, the straps of G-strings were deliberately worn to show above low-rise jeans.
The 1920s were a pivot point for underpants. For men, boxer shorts came into being in 1925 as a more flexible form of the leather-belted trunks worn by professional boxers. They became very popular after having been issued to soldiers during World War II. “Y-front” briefs, came into being in 1934 and were inspired by swimwear favoured on the French Riviera. Y-fronts were legless, close-fitting and supportive. They were also known as “jockeys” because of their similarity to an athletic jockstrap. The “boxers vs jockeys” debate has hence been raging for almost a century, and we will buy into it in a moment.
For now, we can sit back and admire the trajectory of an item of clothing that has taken it from a protective scrap of flax to a statement of personal identity. The very whimsical, and flimsical, nature of some modern underwear can lead you to not take it seriously, but you should be in no doubt that your choice of underpants has real implications for both your body and mind.
Bisphenols, bugs and balls
Nestling your genitals as they do, underpants have particular relevance to the health of the vagina, testicles and urinary tract. The first issue is not to do with heat and sweat, although we will come to that, but with something called bisphenol-A (BPA).
BPAs are hormone-like molecules that are often added to textiles as colour stabilisers. The problem is that they can disrupt your hormonal system, meaning they have been linked to diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, obesity and hormonal cancers. A report published in November 2024 by the not-for-profit organisation Arnika revealed the findings of tests done on underpants sold in Hungary, Austria, Slovenia, Czechia and Slovakia. The results showed that 33 per cent of underpants tested showed detectable levels of bisphenols and 10 per cent exceeded the safety thresholds set by authorities. Women’s underwear was found to be at the highest risk, with 50 per cent containing bisphenols, 17 per cent of which were at high levels. The good news is that washing reduced the bisphenol content by, on average, 74 per cent. So, especially if you are buying colourful, synthetic underpants, washing before you wear is a smart tactic.
In 2018, a study published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology found that G-string wearers were more likely to experience urinary tract infections, yeast vaginitis and bacterial vaginitis. However, they did find that women who frequently wear G-strings were also reported to more likely be engaging in oral sex, which may have been the cause of the risk of infection. The study also found that non-cotton underwear was linked to yeast vaginitis.
We mentioned earlier that the “boxers vs briefs” debate is an age-old one. The crux of this is that testes are the site of sperm production. They hang away from the body to achieve a temperature that is between two and four degrees Celsius below body temperature. This reduced temperature is so vital to producing healthy sperm that the body uses the “pampiniform plexus” to cool arterial blood as it flows into the testes. The theory is that briefs, or Y-fronts, will increase scrotal temperature more than boxers, leading to reduced sperm counts. A study from the Boston School of Public Health reported that men who primarily wore boxer shorts had a 25 per cent higher sperm concentration, a 17 per cent higher total sperm count and 33 per cent more swimming sperm in a single ejaculate. This does not mean that wearing briefs makes you infertile. A 17 per cent variation in sperm count needs to be put in the context that normal sperm counts range from 15 million to 200 million sperm per millilitre, or 39 million to 928 million sperm per ejaculation. With these kinds of numbers in play, brief wearing will realistically only have an effect if sperm counts are already very low.
Underwear on your mind
The psychology of underwear is not a field that is well studied but there is some interesting research out there. A study from the Journal of Consumer Culture found that women put a lot of effort into buying underpants for specific occasions. Women also report that underwear can be a representation of “who I really am”. At the same time, this study found that advertising for underwear, because it usually utilises models of a specific body type, can be challenging for a woman’s sense of self. A Japanese study suggested that men are also making a statement about themselves when they choose underwear, but that they tend to be less “differentiated” and invested in their attitudes than women.
Commando or not commando?
Going commando is a euphemism for not wearing any underwear. It derives from elite commando soldiers who are ready to “go” at any moment. What are the pros and cons of commando style
Pros
• Reduces odour from sweat being trapped in the groin
• Reduces chaffing
• Protects from allergic sensitivities to fabrics and dyes
• For women: reduces the risk of candidiasis (thrush)
• For men: can increase sperm count
Cons
• Your choice of clothing becomes important
• Tight clothes can irritate the vulva, penis or scrotum
• Tight clothes can still result in yeast infections
The fabulous future
Of course, the story of underpants continues to be written. In the December 2025 edition of the journal Biosensors & Bioelectronics, authors reported on the development of “smart underwear” that continuously measures hydrogen gas expelled in flatus (farts). The average person passes gas between 14 and 25 times per day, generating 250ml to 2000ml of gas. That is a lot of health data being generated and smart underwear can monitor it. The underwear can track dietary changes and assess the health of your microbiome. One day soon, your underwear might be communicating with your doctor, which might not be a comfortable thought, but it could be a healthy one.
In 2016 a report published in the Journal of Design History concluded: “Historians of various backgrounds have turned to the study of underwear as a fruitful means of studying society more broadly.” Underwear can certainly be revealing, not only of where we have been but also of where we may be going.
The post Underwear Origins appeared first on WellBeing Magazine.
Read the full article here:
