Originally Posted by capsicum
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