General Cycling Discussion - More 'bout underwear(underwhere?)!!!

I used to go commando all the time but I've recently got in the habit of wearing my compression spandex(I use unpadded cycle shorts) as underwear under normal cloths. Does this count as underwear? It constantly reminds me that I'm a cyclist deep down and allows speedy Cycleman in a phone booth changes but I just can't shake that awfull feeling that it breaks the commando barrier.
I need to know does outerwear, like cycle shorts, become underwear just by the simple application of another layer, in this case denim jeans for work? :)

I dunno, but I'm doing the same thing. Next winter, it's going to be shorts, then long johns, then jeans or possibly wool pants...

The crappy office chairs that they give us are a lot more comfortable now, though...

And the bike chain around my wrist reminds me I'm a cyclist no matter what I'm wearing....

I have a high activity job(lumber resawing) so the wicking factor is great, and being spandex it keeps out the sawdust.

Capsicum:

Here's the rule of thumb: If you wear it under what you wear, it's underwear.

It's okay to wear underwear under your street clothes. It's okay to wear bike shorts for underwear. It is not okay to wear underwear under your bike shorts.

Underwear Nazi
Hope that clears up any confusion you might have been feeling.

What if what I wear, is the shorts, would everything worn on top be overwear?
I mean, underwear is worn because people feel they have to have it for functional reasons, and thus it's beleived by many to be a means to the ends that is outerwear. However, if the streetclothes/ outerwear was the part considered manditory for function and the clothing worn underneath was the actual prefered clothing, shouldn't the outerwear be looked down upon the way underwear normaly is?
Think of it this way; If you put a coat on over a fancy set of duds, do the duds then become underwear while the coat becomes the duds, or is the coat in the same class that underwear is normally placed and has little affect on what one considers the main outfit?
Man I'm tired.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

What if what I wear is the shorts would everything worn on top be overwear?
I meen underwear is worn because people feel the have to have it for functional reasons and thus its beleived by many to be a means to the ends of outerwear, however if the streetclothes/ outerwear was the part considered manditory for function and the part worn under it the actual clothing goal shouldn't the outerwear be looked down upon the way underwear normaly is?
Think of it this way; if you put a coat on over a fancy set of duds, do the duds then become underwear while the coat becomes the duds, or is the coat in the same class that underwear is normally placed and has little affect on what one considers the main outfit?
Man I'm tired.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Cap, Cap, Cap...

You are making this much too difficult. Try seeing things my way...in black and white.

There are three categories of clothing: outerwear, underwear and just plain wear.

Outerwear is designed to be worn outside of your just plain wear. The category of outerwear includes coats, jackets, coveralls and snowpants. If you wear outerwear with nothing underneath it does not make the outerwear just plain wear, but it does make you a pervert.

Underwear is designed to be worn under your just plain wear. That's why they call it underwear. The category of underwear includes boxers, briefs, undershirts, bras and panties. Wearing underwear over your just plain wear does not make it outerwear, but it does make you Superman. Wearing underwear with nothing over it does not make it just plain wear, but it does make you Madonna. Wearing underwear under your bike shorts makes you saddle sore and stupid.

The category of just plain wear includes shirts, pants, kilts, skirts, dresses, bike shorts and jerseys. Of these, kilts and bicycle shorts are designed to be worn without underwear. No one cares much what you wear under the others.

Underwear Nazi
Making difficult concepts clear

Underware is non-fuctional for bike shorts. Any cotton under any cycling cloths is non-fuctional.
Cotton when cycling is evil.

Mr. Nazi, can I still wear underwear if I wear it outside my shorts?

Underware is non-fuctional for bike shorts. Any cotton under any cycling cloths is non-fuctional.
Cotton when cycling is evil.

What about silk or some type of wicking synthetic?

Mr. Nazi, can I still wear underwear if I wear it outside my shorts?

Mr. Void,

This has been dealt with before. Yes, you may wear underwear outside of your shorts. You will look ridiculous, but you may do it.




What about silk or some type of wicking synthetic?

A synthetic undershirt under your jersey would be fine, but, under no circumstances should underwear of any kind be worn under bicycle shorts.


UN
Ever.

This is harder then Shimano vs Campy.

What if I wear my Cannondale Sobe biking shorts underneath my baggies? Now my C'dales have become underwear. But if I wear my compression short under my C'dales, which in turn are under my baggies, then the C'dales are mid-wear, right?

Cap, Cap, Cap...

You are making this much too difficult. Try seeing things my way...in black and white.

There are three categories of clothing: outerwear, underwear and just plain wear....

...The category of just plain wear includes shirts, pants, kilts, skirts, dresses, bike shorts and jerseys. Of these, kilts and bicycle shorts are designed to be worn without underwear. No one cares much what you wear under the others.

Underwear Nazi
Making difficult concepts clear
So if outerwear cannot become plain wear and underwear cannot become outer or plain wear, can plain wear become something different?
For instance if you wear two or more layers of pants and shirts, does one become either outer or underwear or does it just make you a skier 40 years behind the times?
Another might be like my case, if your choosen type of plainwear, in this case bike shorts, isn't suitable for conditions, like working in a lumber mill or similer factory, and you don a less desirable type of plainwear over it, like denim jeans, is the layer of plainwear that is mandated by conditions considered outerwear, while the more desirable plainwear underneath remains plainwear, or how would this work?

So if outerwear cannot become plain wear and underwear cannot become outer or plain wear, can plain wear become something different? For instance if you wear to or more layers of pants and shirts, does one become either outer or underwear or does it just make you a skier 40 years behind the times? Another might be like my case, if your choosen type of plainwear, in this case bike shorts, isn't suitable for conditions, like working in a lumber mill or similer factory, and you don a less desirable type of plainwear over it, like denim jeans, is the layer of plainwear mandated by conditions considered outerwear while the more desirable plainwear under remains plainwear or how would this work?

Well, Cappy, if you wore two shirts, and neither of them was an undershirt, you would simply be wearing two layers of just plain wear.

Ditto bike shorts under jeans.

UN
It's simple really

I'm wore out from wreading this underwear wrapup!

so what if you wore 1 pair of biking shorts under another pair of biking shorts ... what would THAT be!!!?!?!

so what if you wore 1 pair of biking shorts under another pair of biking shorts ... what would THAT be!!!?!?!

Knowing the buldge that would make, some might call it "impressive" ;)

This theory must be tested :D

so what if you wore 1 pair of biking shorts under another pair of biking shorts ... what would THAT be!!!?!?!

That would be redundant.

UN
Stamp out and eradicate all redundancy and reptition!

That would be redundant.

UN
Stamp out and eradicate all redundancy and reptition!

wouldn't that mean you should stamp on yerself?

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/ATA/24805BP.jpg

mr burns is so cool. :)

One last question:
If wearing outerwear with nothing under makes you a pervert, and underwear with nothing esle makes you Madona, then what would eliminating just plain wear do?
To clarify, that is outerwear and underwear without just plain wear.

One might well ask, "What does the term 'headset' have to do with underwear?"



Consult Lawrence Ferlinghetti (http://encarta.msn.com/media_461547005/%E2%80%9CUnderwear_%E2%80%9D_by_Lawrence_Ferlinghetti.html) for advice about underwear.

Cap, Cap, Cap...

You are making this much too difficult. Try seeing things my way...in black and white.

There are three categories of clothing: outerwear, underwear and just plain wear.

Outerwear is designed to be worn outside of your just plain wear. The category of outerwear includes coats, jackets, coveralls and snowpants. If you wear outerwear with nothing underneath it does not make the outerwear just plain wear, but it does make you a pervert.

Underwear is designed to be worn under your just plain wear. That's why they call it underwear. The category of underwear includes boxers, briefs, undershirts, bras and panties. Wearing underwear over your just plain wear does not make it outerwear, but it does make you Superman. Wearing underwear with nothing over it does not make it just plain wear, but it does make you Madonna. Wearing underwear under your bike shorts makes you saddle sore and stupid.

The category of just plain wear includes shirts, pants, kilts, skirts, dresses, bike shorts and jerseys. Of these, kilts and bicycle shorts are designed to be worn without underwear. No one cares much what you wear under the others.

Underwear Nazi
Making difficult concepts clear

A truly wonderful definition! I vote that this post becomes a sticky, and that eventually it be submitted as an addendum to wiki_underwear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwear).

- Wil

Cap, Cap, Cap...

You are making this much too difficult. Try seeing things my way...in black and white.

There are three categories of clothing: outerwear, underwear and just plain wear.

Outerwear is designed to be worn outside of your just plain wear. The category of outerwear includes coats, jackets, coveralls and snowpants. If you wear outerwear with nothing underneath it does not make the outerwear just plain wear, but it does make you a pervert.

Underwear is designed to be worn under your just plain wear. That's why they call it underwear. The category of underwear includes boxers, briefs, undershirts, bras and panties. Wearing underwear over your just plain wear does not make it outerwear, but it does make you Superman. Wearing underwear with nothing over it does not make it just plain wear, but it does make you Madonna. Wearing underwear under your bike shorts makes you saddle sore and stupid.

The category of just plain wear includes shirts, pants, kilts, skirts, dresses, bike shorts and jerseys. Of these, kilts and bicycle shorts are designed to be worn without underwear. No one cares much what you wear under the others.

Underwear Nazi
Making difficult concepts clear

So where in all this does swimwear fall?

can I still wear underwear if I wear it outside my shorts?

Only if it's a bra.

I used to go commando all the time but I've recently got in the habit of wearing my compression spandex(I use unpadded cycle shorts) as underwear under normal cloths. Does this count as underwear? It constantly reminds me that I'm a cyclist deep down and allows speedy Cycleman in a phone booth changes but I just can't shake that awfull feeling that it breaks the commando barrier.
I need to know does outerwear, like cycle shorts, become underwear just by the simple application of another layer, in this case denim jeans for work? :)
:lol: funny post!
Id say that no, cycling shorts are just that! it's just not made in the same material as Underwear:)
but Im still laughing here, I think it's cute and what ever floats your boat is just peachy, so why not :)

Dang! Has no one read Ferlinghetti ??

This is harder then Shimano vs Campy.
Is it ok to use the word "harder" when talking about wearing or not wearing underwear? :lol:



One last question:
If wearing outerwear with nothing under makes you a pervert...
:eek: Holy crap. If it does I'm in big trouble. ;)