Are they Pantaloons, Pantalettes, Drawers, or Bloomers?

What lies thereunder!

In the complex world of today, there are many questions of life, death and taxes to be pondered but for me, as a lover of Victorian fashions, the distinction, if any, between Victorian pantaloons, pantalettes, drawers and bloomers is one that has always intrigued me.  Now, I think I have finally figured it out.  I know exactly what to call those "unmentionables".

Pantaloons: According to costume historian, Elizabeth Clark, "pantaloons are actually men's clothing".  They were "an earlier style of roomy men's trousers, no longer worn in the mid-19th century". 

Pantalettes:  Pantalettes are female clothing.   “They are a much earlier term for underdrawers (1800-1830-ish)" according to Ms Clark.   Over the first few decades of the 19th century, they evolved mainly into long legged underwear for young girls which were visible (and, therefore, femininely frilled) below the hem of their dresses.

Bloomers: Bloomers in Victorian times referred to a style of 'reform' dress worn by Mrs. Amelia Bloomer, rather than to undergarments. The Bloomer Costume consists of a short (knee to mid-calf) length dress, worn over corded or quilted stays and some petticoats, with long trousers of the same fabric beneath them.

Drawers:  Elizabeth Clark says "drawers are the term used at mid-century to describe a cotton or linen bifurcated undergarment for men, women, or children. It's by far my favorite term for that portion of undergarments, because it shows up so often in period sources, including in clothing diagrams and wardrobe notes from period magazines and workbooks, as well as in private letters and diaries, and advertisements. The frequency of the term 'drawers' leads me to believe it is the most common term at mid-century, and therefore, the one I feel people ought to use, for greater clarity in communication."

Certainty and conviction..........and the road to Hell

I recently re-discovered an article called "Understanding the Transvestite" which I first read about 20 years ago at a time in my life when I was still searching for answers to questions that I no longer really care about.  That's why the article has languished under a figurative mountain of other accumulated papers until its rediscovery.  (I should admit at the outset that I very much dislike the term transvestite and much prefer TGrl but since the term was used in the article I will use it it here to avoid confusion.)

On reading it again, I was struck by its certainty and conviction and thought I would share it with you because we all love certainty and conviction........don't we?  

“Transvestism is not just deviant behaviour, it is wrong. TVism is a sexual act with solace through gratification. TVs have an active fantasy life. Following an episode, TVs loath themselves.  TVism is rooted in childhood where proper nurturing (actively bad by the mother and passively poor by the father) to form a healthy gender identity did not not occur.  Overall, the home environment was cold, tense and very inhibited fostering insecurity and a retreat into fantasy.

For the individual concerned, the creation of a second personality brings him a closeness that he has never had.  Further his "creation" measures up standards of womanhood addressing his sense of failure as a man.  Because of the lack of love in childhood, the individual has an exaggerated self-love.  In addition, TVs are characterised by having low sex drives. The "transvestic individual" also has resentments, hatreds and hostile feelings.”

I should add that the answer provided is to turn to God for help with this sin.  

Whatever about the answer and I am fairly certain God doesn't care about whether I wear a dress or not, I was, as I said at the beginning, struck by the certainty and the conviction in terns of the description and analysis.  Of course, as a rule, the most effective theories are those with certainty and conviction.  Unfortunately, conviction is not the same as being right.  It's certainly no substitute for rigorous analysis and testing of theory against the empirical evidence.  

I certainly display some of the characteristics listed but not all of them.  Equally, there are other factors at play in my own situation outside of those listed.  

I suspect that the authors of the article see themselves as God fearing folk out to save the world from the sex motivated sinner.  I hope rather than believe that the authors have evolved their thinking over the intervening years and have come to realise that making people feel bad about themselves is grounded in Old Testament hatreds rather New Testaments Christianity.  If they want to find sinners motivated by sexual desires or frustrations the mirror might be a good place to start their search.