Hygene conditions, especially England, in the 19th century

[SusanJillParker]

I'm writing a story that takes place in 19th century England between 1860 and 1890.

From the movies that I've watched on TV and from the Charles Dickens books that I've read (lol), people didn't regularly bathe. Yet, they were always having sex.

My question is, how did they get by the stench of one another? I'm sure they must have washed their bodies at some point and changed their clothes but what did they use for deodorant, toothpaste, and mouthwash, or didn't they bother?

In the way people will look at us 100 years from now while scratching their heads about us, I look that way now about people who lived in the 1800's.

No cell phones, TV, cars, or computers. Other than having sex with their dirty, smelly partners, what did they do for fun?

Thank you in advance for your help.

 

[colddiesel]

Unless you define the economic and social class of the people in your story it will not be possible to answer you. It would also help if you could state whether they live in a rural, city or industrial environment. Occupation might be important too.

 

[oggbashan]

In 19th Century England indoor bathing facilities were rare except in the houses of the very rich and technically advanced.

At the Great Exhibition of 1851 there were many showers, douches, baths, etc on display as examples of modern technology.

BUT:

Middle class people had bathrooms with fixed baths. The water had to be brought to and from the bath by servants with buckets. Bedrooms had washstands with washbowls and water jugs - filled by the servant(s).

Lower class people had portable galvanised baths that would be filled by hot water from the kitchen range and emptied outside.

The poorest had to make do with washing all over with water from a bowl.

During the later part of the 19th Century many communities built public bathhouses where people could go for a shower, a bath, and many facilities that would now be found in a Spa Hotel.

HOWEVER:

1. If you don't bathe, and your companion doesn't bathe either, but the two of you just wash yourself, you don't notice your smell. It actually isn't as strong a smell as someone who has sweated after using deodorants.

2. Even in the 1940s on UK public transport it was very common to smell sweaty unwashed bodies of manual workers who hadn't changed clothes for a week. It was normal.

3. Victorian manufacturers produced better soaps and detergents; perfumes; talcum powder and cosmetics. They advertised them widely to those newly literate because of compulsory education.

4. TV and movie producers overstate the dirt and smell in the interests of 'period authenticity' that isn't authentic.

The first part of the 19th Century was much worse than the second part. In London the House of Commons had to stop meeting because of the stench from all the sewage in the River Thames. Joseph Bazelgette designed and built London's main sewage network, creating the Embankments either side of the river to house the major sewage pipes. His work is still the major part of London's sewage system because he built it very big to cope with the growing city.

In many UK towns and cities throughout the second part of the 19th Century clean drinking water and reasonable sewage systems were installed. People were cleaner than they had been.

Last - If you look at real outdoor photographs of Wild West pioneers, particularly the women, you will see stained and dirty clothing and faces that need a wash. The studio portraits were after the people had been scrubbed clean and wearing loaned clothes. The remoter parts of America were dirtier than the cities.

 

[SusanJillParker]

Thank you, Ogg, for all the information. I found it very helpful.

 

[SusanJillParker]

Unless you define the economic and social class of the people in your story it will not be possible to answer you. It would also help if you could state whether they live in a rural, city or industrial environment. Occupation might be important too.

The main character, Lord Dudley, is lord of the manor and his lover is his head cook, Susan.

They live on a modest rural estate of only 10,000 acres in a modest house (for the period) of only 30 rooms.

They had a dozen out buildings, barns, stables, kitchen, and wash house.

 

[weftandwarp]

I'm writing a story that takes place in 19th century England between 1860 and 1890.

From the movies that I've watched on TV and from the Charles Dickens books that I've read (lol), people didn't regularly bathe. Yet, they were always having sex.

My question is, how did they get by the stench of one another? I'm sure they must have washed their bodies at some point and changed their clothes but what did they use for deodorant, toothpaste, and mouthwash, or didn't they bother?

In the way people will look at us 100 years from now while scratching their heads about us, I look that way now about people who lived in the 1800's.

No cell phones, TV, cars, or computers. Other than having sex with their dirty, smelly partners, what did they do for fun?

Thank you in advance for your help.

I think they did bath then, once a week in the bath that was brought into the kitchen and the hot water came from the stove. They used to wash the important bits between baths at least every day- I think it was when they got up in the morning and before they went to bed at night. I remember seeing bathrooms that would shock now- walls of hessian, floors of cement, no roof, a hand bowl and a steel bath- the water had to be carted. It was more sophisticated than bathing in the kitchen. That was Australia and I have no reason to think it was different. Also, prior to then people washed very infrequently. Queen Anne was well known for how regularly she bathed.

I'm not sure but in those times they used soap made from animal fat and caustic soda. It wouldn't have killed many bacteria and with out antibiotics it is possible that a homeostasis was achieved with the smell and it wasn't too bad. Clothing in those times was copious with many layers which would have helped contain odour. As well, laundry day was always Monday and with a copper of boiling water the microbe levels would have been reduced. Obviously, they would not have boiled silk but the cotton was ok. (No synthetics but lots of wool and cotton. Wool contained odour but wasn't so easy to wash and mostly it was washed infrequently.)

 

[SusanJillParker]

I think they did bath then, once a week in the bath that was brought into the kitchen and the hot water came from the stove. They used to wash the important bits between baths at least every day- I think it was when they got up in the morning and before they went to bed at night. I remember seeing bathrooms that would shock now- walls of hessian, floors of cement, no roof, a hand bowl and a steel bath- the water had to be carted. It was more sophisticated than bathing in the kitchen. That was Australia and I have no reason to think it was different. Also, prior to then people washed very infrequently. Queen Anne was well known for how regularly she bathed.

I'm not sure but in those times they used soap made from animal fat and caustic soda. It wouldn't have killed many bacteria and with out antibiotics it is possible that a homeostasis was achieved with the smell and it wasn't too bad. Clothing in those times was copious with many layers which would have helped contain odour. As well, laundry day was always Monday and with a copper of boiling water the microbe levels would have been reduced. Obviously, they would not have boiled silk but the cotton was ok. (No synthetics but lots of wool and cotton. Wool contained odour but wasn't so easy to wash and mostly it was washed infrequently.)

Thanks for the info. I never would have considered some of those things.

 

[Green_Knight]

I'm writing a story that takes place in 19th century England between 1860 and 1890.

From the movies that I've watched on TV and from the Charles Dickens books that I've read (lol), people didn't regularly bathe. Yet, they were always having sex.

My question is, how did they get by the stench of one another? I'm sure they must have washed their bodies at some point and changed their clothes but what did they use for deodorant, toothpaste, and mouthwash, or didn't they bother?

In the way people will look at us 100 years from now while scratching their heads about us, I look that way now about people who lived in the 1800's.

No cell phones, TV, cars, or computers. Other than having sex with their dirty, smelly partners, what did they do for fun?

Thank you in advance for your help.

It depends what you're used to. People visiting me always comment when there's an 'agricultural' smell in the air – and if it's particularly strong I've known people to feel sick – but when you live here all the time you scarcely notice the smell of muck-spreading. When everyone's dirty and smelly, having sex with a dirty, smelly person IS fun, especially if you've had a few drinks. It's only since someone in the 20th century decided that there was money to be made out of convincing people that they smell and selling them deodorants that things began to change.

There were tooth powders - made of a whole variety of abrasive and often dubious substances. The poor probably rubbed fire ash or bicarbonate of soda round their teeth with a finger. The need for tooth powders, though, had only arisen with the vast increase in sugar consumption that followed the establishment of the plantations in the West Indies. And, because sugar was expensive, tooth decay was more of a problem for the rich than the poor.

The upper classes in the period did wash regularly and had vast quantities of shirts and underwear so that they could change frequently. The dandy Beau Brummell spent five hours a day getting washed, bathed and dressed but that was exceptional. Most people made do with a jug of water, a bowl, and a cloth – soap was a luxury. Those who could afford them used cosmetics (mostly to hide blemishes such as smallpox scars) and perfumes; others used posies of sweet-smelling flowers. As the 19th century progressed, the upper and middle classes began to take a great deal more care of themselves and smelling became unacceptable. Baths – and later bathrooms – became more widespread. However, not a great deal changed for the working classes.

Remember, though, that towns stunk to high-heaven because of the poor arrangements for the disposal of sewage - most rivers and streams were open sewers – and, as there were no public toilets, people pissed and defecated wherever they could, usually in some back alley. It took the Great Stink of London in July and August 1858 and the realisation that repeated cholera epidemics were caused by contaminated water supplies to force improvements in the drainage system.

If you want sources on what life was like then, I would particularly recommend Eavesdropping on Jane Austen's England by Roy and Lesley Adkins for the first half of the 19th century and Victorian London by Liza Picard for the 1840-1870 period.

 

[SusanJillParker]

Thank you so very much for all of the information, Green_Night. I may not use all of it but the details help with my backstory.

 

[oggbashan]

The main character, Lord Dudley, is lord of the manor and his lover is his head cook, Susan.

They live on a modest rural estate of only 10,000 acres in a modest house (for the period) of only 30 rooms.

They had a dozen out buildings, barns, stables, kitchen, and wash house.

Given that scenario they would be clean. There would be bathrooms even if the water had to be brought and taken away by the servants. There would be a staffed laundry and they would have enough clothes to change daily. The cook, as a senior servant, would have access to a bathroom and she too would change her clothes daily.

At that time one nobleman was notorious for never washing. He was notorious because that was exceptional.

Cleanliness in England became important with the Puritans and the Civil War. 'Cleanliness is next to Godliness' was a slogan from then. Social attitudes to washing and bathing had changed by the late 18th Century, particularly in the nobility and middle classes. A nobleman's cook would be considered middle class and her personal cleanliness, and the cleanliness of her kitchen, would be impeccable.

The real nobleman and servant story that shocked society was that of the 70 year old owner of Uppark House who married his 21 year old dairy maid Mary Ann Bullock in 1825. He sent her to Paris to learn how to behave in polite society. She kept him alive and well for over a decade and she inherited the estate, running it with her sister.

http://janitesonthejames.********.co.uk/2007/08/dairy-maid-and-master-of-uppark.html

Edited to add:

I have written two stories about that period. They might give some ideas:

This one was inspired by Mary Ann Bullock:

https://www.literotica.com/s/proving-my-sanity

This one features bathroom changes inspired by the Great Exhibition of 1851:

https://www.literotica.com/s/missed-fenian-outrage

 

[SusanJillParker]

Given that scenario they would be clean. There would be bathrooms even if the water had to be brought and taken away by the servants. There would be a staffed laundry and they would have enough clothes to change daily. The cook, as a senior servant, would have access to a bathroom and she too would change her clothes daily.

At that time one nobleman was notorious for never washing. He was notorious because that was exceptional.

Cleanliness in England became important with the Puritans and the Civil War. 'Cleanliness is next to Godliness' was a slogan from then. Social attitudes to washing and bathing had changed by the late 18th Century, particularly in the nobility and middle classes. A nobleman's cook who would be considered middle class and her personal cleanliness, and the cleanliness of her kitchen, would be impeccable.

The real nobleman and servant story that shocked society was that of the 70 year old owner of Uppark House who married his 21 year old dairy maid Mary Ann Bullock in 1825. He sent her to Paris to learn how to behave in polite society. She kept him alive and well for over a decade and she inherited the estate, running it with her sister.

http://janitesonthejames.********.co.uk/2007/08/dairy-maid-and-master-of-uppark.html

You're a warehouse of information, Ogg, and a valuable resource better than Wiki (lol).

 

[MoonlightandRoses]

Ok, first what did you do with the real Susan Jill Parker, the person who wrote this is polite and makes sense. Well whoever you are I think that the people before me, particularly Oggbashan would be more helpful than I could in terms of hygiene than I could be. There were a lot of smells. In regard to how disagreeable the smells were I feel it is important not to judge based on the feelings in our current times.

As to what people did for fun that would depend on the social class. Susan would probably do little for fun as she would be working most of the time. The upper class, particularly the women and the gentry, would engage themselves in various arts and crafts to enhance the home such as drawing, painting, singing, playing an instrument, needlework, etc. Also dance was much more intricate and formal then now and required practice. Other activities would be writing, letters or even amateur stories and plays. Lots of letters. Members of the family might get together to perform a play for themselves. There would be many parties and balls and dinners would be more elaborate. The upper class would visit each other quite a bit and these visits could last a long time. For the women getting dressed could take some time.

Now, since the real Susan Jill Parker is often very blunt I will be also. I don’t like your idea of Lord Dudley and his head cook. It would be difficult to realistically make the cook assertive and I can imagine the Lord easily becoming an unattractive man who thinks he is God’s gift to women, but only gets his way because of his economic power. A character such as Catherine Morland in Jane Austen’s “Northanger Abbey” particular in the second part could be made more assertive. While she is not from a rich family, she is independent and always has the option to return home. She is not the most assertive character at the beginning, but learns to be more so. Also she has a great imagination.

Moonlight and Roses,

 

[Green_Knight]

The main character, Lord Dudley, is lord of the manor and his lover is his head cook, Susan.

They live on a modest rural estate of only 10,000 acres in a modest house (for the period) of only 30 rooms.

They had a dozen out buildings, barns, stables, kitchen, and wash house.

An estate of 10,000 acres, assuming it's usable agricultural land, is hardly modest. It would bring in a decent income. Houses at that time were never defined by their number of rooms. What did you include - the grand rooms?; servants' bedrooms?; pantries? What mattered most was the size of the rooms, their opulence, and the way they were maintained in fashionable state. This house has eight main bedrooms and about the same number of rooms downstairs; in terms of a country house it might be termed modest. Of course, much would depend on the use to which the house was put - main residence or country retreat from London for weekends and holidays?

An affair between a head cook and the landowner would be unlikely. The cook was generally the employee of the lady of the house and she would be unlikely to crap on her mistress's doorstep. Furthermore, her duties would have been far too onerous to allow time for an affair. If she tried it, there would be bitter complaints from the other kitchen staff who would have had to take on her work. Gentlemen landowners would have maintained (or shared) a discreet mistress elsewhere, out of sight of the happy home. Such a mistress would also have been of a higher social status than a cook and status was everything in those days. The only exception might be if sons of the family were tempted to have their way with a servant girl - but, even then, that was a case of a quick fuck, not an affair.

 

[SusanJillParker]

Ok, first what did you do with the real Susan Jill Parker, the person who wrote this is polite and makes sense. Well whoever you are I think that the people before me, particularly Oggbashan would be more helpful than I could in terms of hygiene than I could be. There were a lot of smells. In regard to how disagreeable the smells were I feel it is important not to judge based on the feelings in our current times.

As to what people did for fun that would depend on the social class. Susan would probably do little for fun as she would be working most of the time. The upper class, particularly the women and the gentry, would engage themselves in various arts and crafts to enhance the home such as drawing, painting, singing, playing an instrument, needlework, etc. Also dance was much more intricate and formal then now and required practice. Other activities would be writing, letters or even amateur stories and plays. Lots of letters. Members of the family might get together to perform a play for themselves. There would be many parties and balls and dinners would be more elaborate. The upper class would visit each other quite a bit and these visits could last a long time. For the women getting dressed could take some time.

Now, since the real Susan Jill Parker is often very blunt I will be also. I don’t like your idea of Lord Dudley and his head cook. It would be difficult to realistically make the cook assertive and I can imagine the Lord easily becoming an unattractive man who thinks he is God’s gift to women, but only gets his way because of his economic power. A character such as Catherine Morland in Jane Austen’s “Northanger Abbey” particular in the second part could be made more assertive. While she is not from a rich family, she is independent and always has the option to return home. She is not the most assertive character at the beginning, but learns to be more so. Also she has a great imagination.

Moonlight and Roses,

I'm always nice unless attacked by sr71plt, LoveCraft68, and TxRad and called a man named Freddie, my brother's name that I used to write under when I wrote as BostonFictionWriter in 2007 and 2008. I was scared to death to use my real name, Susan Jill Parker, but not now.

Lord Dudley is a widower and Susan is a widow. They've known one another for years and, a few years after the death of their spouses, he offered her a job as a cook. He has a modest staff of about a dozen servants. Some live at the manor in the servants quarters and other live in the town close by.

Being that Lord Dudley was continually solicited by widowed women, he has no interest in dances and balls. His favorite activity is riding his horse around his grounds to scare away poachers and to walk his English garden.

It's been a long, seething romance that culminated when she brought water up to his room in her sheer dressing gown without having the modesty of wearing a robe.

All of my stories are erotic with a slow boil.

Thank you for your information and I apologize if you thought that I was not nice (lol). If anything, being that I grew up in Boston in a household of four brothers and a whore for a mother, I'm quite outspoken and won't take guff from any man, especially those three that I mentioned early.

Have a nice day.

 

[oggbashan]

It's been a long, seething romance that culminated when she brought water up to his room in her sheer dressing gown without having the modesty of wearing a robe.

That seems an unlikely scenario. Water would be brought to his dressing room by a very junior servant, not the Cook who is a departmental head of servants.

The senior servants in a nobleman's house were Butler, Housekeeper, Cook, Bailiff/Agent, and Head Gardener. The housekeeper would be responsible for the servant who brings the hot water.

30 rooms would refer only to the principal rooms. Servants quarters and domestic offices would not count. A house of that size in the latter half of the 19th Century would have at least as many indoor servants as rooms and all would be resident. For an estate in England of 10,000 acres the number employed in all capacities indoors and out would be closer to 100 than 30. Servants not resident would be a feature of the lower middle classes, not the nobility.

A cook who had been a friend before becoming a cook? Again unlikely. A 'friend' would be a woman of status who would never become a servant, even a senior servant. The only people who were near gentility and employed were governesses and agent/bailiffs.

As an example: My old house built 1897 was owned by a doctor, a single gentleman. He had a resident butler and cook who were married and two housemaids also living in the house. So he had four full-time staff just for himself.

Next door was his brother who was a solicitor and married. He had the same number of indoor servants plus a nursery nurse for the two small children.

The brothers shared the coachman and gardener who were not resident.

The brothers would have considered themselves as middle class professionals.

 

[SusanJillParker]

That seems an unlikely scenario. Water would be brought to his dressing room by a very junior servant, not the Cook who is a departmental head of servants.

The senior servants in a nobleman's house were Butler, Housekeeper, Cook, Bailiff/Agent, and Head Gardener. The housekeeper would be responsible for the servant who brings the hot water.

30 rooms would refer only to the principal rooms. Servants quarters and domestic offices would not count. A house of that size in the latter half of the 19th Century would have at least as many indoor servants as rooms and all would be resident. For an estate in England of 10,000 acres the number employed in all capacities indoors and out would be closer to 100 than 30. Servants not resident would be a feature of the lower middle classes, not the nobility.

A cook who had been a friend before becoming a cook? Again unlikely. A 'friend' would be a woman of status who would never become a servant, even a senior servant. The only people who were near gentility and employed were governesses and agent/bailiffs.

As an example: My old house built 1897 was owned by a doctor, a single gentleman. He had a resident butler and cook who were married and two housemaids also living in the house. So he had four full-time staff just for himself.

Next door was his brother who was a solicitor and married. He had the same number of indoor servants plus a nursery nurse for the two small children.

The brothers shared the coachman and gardener who were not resident.

The brothers would have considered themselves as middle class professionals.

You're right. Normally a lowly maid delivers him his water every evening but on this night, Susan, the Head Cook, with something more in mind than just quenching his thirst delivered him his water.

When he failed to make a pass at her, other than to stare lustfully and longingly at her, she made the move to seduce him by showing him much of what was beneath her sheer dressing gown.

Granted, she had much to lose in seducing the Lord of the Manor, namely her job and her place to live but in the end, it worked out for the both of them.

"Something that usually doesn't happen in real life, I just love happy endings (lol)."

 

[ChloeTzang]

I'm writing a story that takes place in 19th century England between 1860 and 1890.

It's a few decades earlier than the period you're writing about but these first book is a great reference

Georgette Heyer's Regency World, by Jennifer Kloester

Behind Closed Doors: At Home in Georgian England by Amanda Vickery

The Housekeepers Tale: The Women Who Really Ran the English Country House

City of Dreadful Delight: Narratives of Sexual Danger in Late-Victorian London by Judith Walkowitz

Georgian and Regency House Explained

For the period you're looking at, I've just been working my way through the Flashman novels by George MacDonald Fraser and they give you a good look at the kind of world you're writing about. Lots of background there. You can really immerse yourself in this stuff.... I started reading and its fascinating

 

[SusanJillParker]

It's a few decades earlier than the period you're writing about but these first book is a great reference

Georgette Heyer's Regency World, by Jennifer Kloester

Behind Closed Doors: At Home in Georgian England by Amanda Vickery

The Housekeepers Tale: The Women Who Really Ran the English Country House

City of Dreadful Delight: Narratives of Sexual Danger in Late-Victorian London by Judith Walkowitz

Georgian and Regency House Explained

For the period you're looking at, I've just been working my way through the Flashman novels by George MacDonald Fraser and they give you a good look at the kind of world you're writing about. Lots of background there. You can really immerse yourself in this stuff.... I started reading and its fascinating

Thank you for your kindness, help, and support.

 

[MoonlightandRoses]

Susan, there is certainly no need for you to apologize for what I thought and if I really thought you were not nice I would not have replied to your comment. I am interested in social and culture history so your title intrigued me. One item I forgot to mention earlier was that women did not shave under their arms during the time span you referred to and most women most likely did not remove any body hair at all including from their legs. That I feel would be an interesting addition to either a historical or present day story. Recently I did a post about that in the thread “Women.” I don’t know if you read anything from the two topics I started, but I am very interested in challenging current gender roles and I have come up with some ideas for stories that switch gender roles. This is to explain my previous comment on your idea.

Moonlight and Roses,

 

[Green_Knight]

.....

 

[Green_Knight]

...One item I forgot to mention earlier was that women did not shave under their arms during the time span you referred to and most women most likely did not remove any body hair at all including from their legs. That I feel would be an interesting addition to either a historical or present day story...
Moonlight and Roses,

Nor did they wear undergarments, as we understand them, for much of the first part of the 19th century.

Men wore shirts and drawers, but drawers were by no means universal. Women wore stockings that came to just above the knee, and a shift or chemise that came down to the knees. Women did not wear drawers until the first part of the 19th century, when Princess Charlotte, the heir to the throne, was reported wearing them. Before that, they were thought to be too masculine and, curiously, immodest. It was thought to be more modest to wear nothing!

The advent of cotton and muslins late in the 18th century meant that gowns could be made virtually transparent and modesty went out the window. One diarist was appalled by the dress worn by a lady at a dinner in the backwaters of rural South Molton, Devon:

Captain and Mrs Law, the gentleman handsome and of pleasing manners, the lady diminutive, affected, and almost naked in her dress. It disgusts me much to see such conduct.​

Sure, but I bet you had a good look, though.

With the advent of such thin fabrics, undergarments were kept to a minimum and corsets became shorter, no longer forcing the bosom upwards and outwards.

Needless to say, as the century continued, the dress of women, in particular, became far more modest. So, for a sexy romp, I would be looking far more to the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th.

 

[SusanJillParker]

Susan, there is certainly no need for you to apologize for what I thought and if I really thought you were not nice I would not have replied to your comment. I am interested in social and culture history so your title intrigued me. One item I forgot to mention earlier was that women did not shave under their arms during the time span you referred to and most women most likely did not remove any body hair at all including from their legs. That I feel would be an interesting addition to either a historical or present day story. Recently I did a post about that in the thread “Women.” I don’t know if you read anything from the two topics I started, but I am very interested in challenging current gender roles and I have come up with some ideas for stories that switch gender roles. This is to explain my previous comment on your idea.

Moonlight and Roses,

"Eww."

So...lemme get this straight...Cleopatra, Juliette, Snow White, Cinderella, Rapunzel, and Maid Marian all had hairy legs, scary armpits, and bushy pussies.

"Wow!"

Thanks for those images...I think.

"When I throw up a stone Rapunzel, you let down your armpit hair for me to climb."

 

[SusanJillParker]

Nor did they wear undergarments, as we understand them, for much of the first part of the 19th century.

Men wore shirts and drawers, but drawers were by no means universal. Women wore stockings that came to just above the knee, and a shift or chemise that came down to the knees. Women did not wear drawers until the first part of the 19th century, when Princess Charlotte, the heir to the throne, was reported wearing them. Before that, they were thought to be too masculine and, curiously, immodest. It was thought to be more modest to wear nothing!

The advent of cotton and muslins late in the 18th century meant that gowns could be made virtually transparent and modesty went out the window. One diarist was appalled by the dress worn by a lady at a dinner in the backwaters of rural South Molton, Devon:

Captain and Mrs Law, the gentleman handsome and of pleasing manners, the lady diminutive, affected, and almost naked in her dress. It disgusts me much to see such conduct.​

Sure, but I bet you had a good look, though.

With the advent of such thin fabrics, undergarments were kept to a minimum and corsets became shorter, no longer forcing the bosom upwards and outwards.

Needless to say, as the century continued, the dress of women, in particular, became far more modest. So, for a sexy romp, I would be looking far more to the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th.

I think in the mid 19th century, the upper society women started wearing pantaloons.

"So...tell me," said Joe. "What did you see?"

"When she sat on the grass...I saw her pantaloons," said Charlie.

"No way," said John.

"Not just that," said Charlie. "But she had her long uncut pubic hair sticking out by her ankles."

"Gross," said John.

 

[oggbashan]

I think in the mid 19th century, the upper society women started wearing pantaloons.

There was an incident in the mid 19th Century. The French Ambassador was visiting a nobleman's country estate and went for a walk accompanied by the nobleman, his lady, and others.

They had to climb a stile.

The ambassador was surprised to see that the lady wore nothing at all under her steel hooped crinoline.

"English ladies are hardy and natural." he wrote about the incident in his journal...

 

[MoonlightandRoses]

Susan I’m surprised at you saying “Eww.” After all you have written you’re grossed out by female body hair??? First in my reply to you I only referred to women in the period that you asked about 1860 to 1890. Cleopatra most likely removed her body hair and maybe removed all of her hair except her eyebrows. Given the clothes they wore the others probably didn’t remove their body hair. And I know that body hair grows only so far since I have let mine grow out. Have you ever seen your underarm hair all grown out? Let it grow!! To me body hair on a woman is not “scary” or “gross” in fact I like it. I also like when a woman has shaved her hair. It’s all a human body. A challenge – view the links on my comment #101 in the topic “Women” here: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1395005&page=5. My central idea on this forum is to challenge convention such as body hair on women is gross.

As to women’s underpants, Green Knight is basically correct, while there were exceptions, women generally didn’t wear underpants until the 1840s or 1850s, but that is outside your timeframe. After that women’s underpants came in two parts, each leg was separate and joined at the waist. That lasted until around the beginning of the 20th century. Women didn’t start wearing tight underpants until the 1930s at the earliest. Actually tight underpants for women are unhealthy. The reason pants, trousers, etc. are plural is the same reason that glasses and binoculars are plural. They originally came in two parts.

Moonlight and Roses,