Underwear evolution - women

Unlike their male counterparts, the amount of material used in female underwear has been steadily decreasing over the last number of centuries. Indeed, so much so that, short of going commando, this trend unfortunately can not keep continuing and must level off. Thus, we are left with an exponential decrease, as shown in the graph above. For direct comparisons with men, bras are not included in this treatise, despite the growing number of men who need them!

Back in the middle ages, a potential suitor would need a machete to hack through the layers of chemises, smocks, petticoats and the like that a woman used as underwear. This cornucopia of genital attire possible doubled as a chastity belt of sorts! By the early 1900s, this mercifully had been whittled down to mere bloomers. The trend continued through to bikini style briefs and the g-string - surely the acme of female underwear design!!!

I have noticed that the string nature of modern women's underwear would appear to the untrained male eye to be giving them constant wedgies! While this would seem to be most uncomfortable to a man, the absence of "undercarriage" does have to be factored in! Unfortunately, most of this empirical evidence has been gathered from VPL (visible panty lines) and not, err, investigations in the field!

Underwear evolution - men

The variation in the amount of material used in male underwear (also known as jocks, kacks, smalls etc.) down through the centuries to the present day turns out to be sinusoidal in nature. This is shown in the graph above, where the most popular type of male undergarment from medieval times onwards is displayed.

Back in the Middle Ages, men wore convoluted kacks called a braie. This usually came with a codpiece, which was a zipper of sorts for, err, easy access! Fast forward to the 1800s and you had long johns, a full body suit, again with flaps (front and back this time!) for convenience. In the 20th century, underwear shrank at a rate of knots with boxers first becoming popular in the 1930s. Briefs started at much the same time but became popular later on, thankfully marking the minimum amount of fabric used in popular male kacks (Peter Stringfellow et al take note: g-strings should not be worn by men!).

Funnily enough, boxers and their derivatives have become very popular again in the past number of years, causing the final upturn in the graph above. This is probably due to their reputation for being roomier and being easier to access, although at the expense of support for the two veg! It may be a periodic sinusoid so perhaps we'll have to dust off those codpieces soon!

Who said this blog wasn't educational?!

Mind mapping - male

I know us guys aren't perfect, but at least we're far more straightforward in this respect than our female counterparts. We generally keep things simple by saying what we mean! This is illustrated in the diagram above.

Thus, refreshingly, "yes" means "yes" when asked a question by a woman that involves some sort of sexual activity. And the answer will usually be "yes", as we are only big bags of testosterone after all. Occasionally, if you're strong willed and want to tease or in the lucky situation of being in a short inter-orgasmic period, you might play for time with a "maybe" answer. If the answer is "no", call the doctor because something serious must be wrong with him!

Mind Mapping - Female

Yes, chaps, it's the dreaded "does that no really mean no?" quandary. You've asked your beloved a delicate question, but unfortunately you're none the wiser after her answer. As the chart above shows, her answer could mean just about anything! It is still good manners to ask though, regardless of the confusion that will ensue.

If she said "no" to, say, your polite request of nookie, does this mean "not even when hell freezes over" or "not now, but ask me again in 5 minutes and we'll see"? If she replied "maybe", does this mean she's buying time to safeguard her virtue and with a little more spadework you'll be in there? Or, is it to let you down easier in the not too distance future? Even "yes" answers aren't safe, especially if you've been silly enough to ask a negative question. Sometimes, there's a statute of limitations on "yes" answers you make the mistake of thinking that one little "yes" is a carte blanche thereafter. So guys, best not to assume anything! I think the great man himself, Meatloaf, warbled it best in his song Where the rubber meets the road - "Yes means no means yes means no".

This uncertainty is one of the main reasons men use persistence when chasing women. Every man has had a woman flip on him at some stage, with a "no" magically transforming in to a "yes" and many pleasurable shenanigans ensuing. This is why when a guy comes up against a real "no", the women is often perplexed by his continued dedication to the case. Well, you only have yourselves to blame, I'm afraid!

The probability of finding available women

The ladies have had their Reilly equation*. Now it's the guys' turn! The above graphic shows the Reilly equation for calculating the number of women that are available to you, the single (or cheating!) man. It takes important factors such as the population density of where you live, your personal characteristics and your stamina for playing the field into consideration.

Typical approximate values for the terms in the equation are:

R*=3,350,000,000 - half the world's population.
fa=0.0000149 - assuming you live in a city of 100,000 people, half of whom are female.
fo=0.20 - discount the too young, the too old, the happily married etc.
M= 0.6 - normalised to between 0.1 (no pot to piss in) and 1.0 (millionaire and above). 0.6 equates to doing all right for yourself.
C= 0.5 - normalised to between 0.1 (shrinking violet) and 0.9 (you da man). 0.5 equates to a happy medium between shy and cocky.
A=0.5 - normalised to between 0.1 (Quasimodo) and 0.9 (Adonis). 0.5 equates to not frightening anyone with your visage.
P=0.5 - normalised to between 0.1 (accountant) and 0.8 (life and soul of the party). 0.5 equates to a person who doesn't train spot as a hobby.
L=0.4 - normalised to between 0.0 (agoraphobic) and 0.8 (party animal). 0.4 equates to a person who socialises normally.

Solving for N, the number of available women to this average Joe, gives about 300. An even worse return than for the ladies from a large enough city. However, you too can improve your odds. Try moving to Tokyo or Mexico City, reading a joke book, having plastic surgery, selling your TV and/or robbing a bank!


**As before, based on the Drake equation used to estimate the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our Milky Way galaxy!

The probability of finding available men

The above graphic shows the Reilly equation** for calculating the number of men that are available to you, the single (or cheating!) woman. It takes important factors such as the population density of where you live, your personal characteristics and your stamina for playing the field into consideration.

Typical approximate values for the terms in the equation are:

R*=3,350,000,000 - half the world's population.
fa=0.0000149 - assuming you live in a city of 100,000 people, half of whom are male.
fo=0.40 - discount the too young, the too old, the odd faithful man etc.
fb= 1 - normalised to between 0.0 (all dead) and 1.0 (all alive).
S= 0.6 - normalised to between 0.1 (fried eggs) and 0.9 (Lolo Ferrari). 0.6 equates to what our American brethren call a nice rack.
B=0.5 - normalised to between 0.2 (Ginger Rogers) and 0.8 (Marilyn Monroe).
H=0.5 - normalised to between 0.1 (babe, the pig) and 0.8 (hot babe). 0.5 equates to an attractive gal.
D=0.6 - normalised to between 0.2 (nun) and 0.9 (slut). 0.6 equates to a person tasteful, but alluring.
L=0.4 - normalised to between 0.0 (agoraphobic) and 0.8 (party animal). 0.4 equates to a person who socialises normally.

Solving for N, the number of available men to this average Jane, gives about 720. Not a great return from a largish city. Time to improve your man pool by moving to Tokyo or Mexico City, having plastic surgery, dyeing your hair, selling the TV and/or showing more cleavage!

Note: Negligible factors for men when they are out on the prowl, such as personality, are excluded from the equation.

**Based on the Drake equation used to estimate the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our Milky Way galaxy!

Ready, steady, wait

Of all the things that annoy men about women, getting ready for a night out must be up there just behind sudden headaches! And God help you, brother, if it's a swanky do that you are going to! And God help you even more if you're a stickler for punctuality! It doesn't seem to matter what time they start preparations at, because they never are ready on time. This means that you will be invariably be late for whatever you're going to. In addition, she'll probably hijack the rear view mirror for further adjustments en route.

The graph above shows the preparation times for an engagement with a 9pm kick off. The woman will start taking over the bathroom at about 6pm, bathing, preening and applying various lotions and creams. Then her entire wardrobe will have to be searched for the perfect combination of clothes and accessories. You are obliged to say that she looks wonderful in everything and avoid suggesting one particular outfit for fear that it implies another doesn't look good on her (or worse, implies that her arse look big in it)!

While the first few hours of this is going on you are watching TV while dispensing the aforementioned affirmations and under constant nagging to get ready yourself. Eventually, about 8.15, you get your ass in gear and after a quick shower, shave, tussle of the hair and 30 second rummage in the wardrobe, you're ready to go in about 15-30 minutes. This time maybe shortened if you had shaved/showered earlier in the day or lengthened if you have a "you're not wearing THAT, are you?" comment from herself!