Bringing it up for removal.

Reason: Loincloths aren't underwear.

Out of curiosity, why wouldn't a loincloth be considered underwear?

I mean... perhaps by literal definition of "underwear," being something you wear UNDERNEATH something else, maybe not, but I consider them to be underwear.

IJustBurst said:
Out of curiosity, why wouldn't a loincloth be considered underwear?

I mean... perhaps by literal definition of "underwear," being something you wear UNDERNEATH something else, maybe not, but I consider them to be underwear.

Well, there's breechcloths, which ARE underwear. Loincloths are NOT underwear, usually the only thing worn on that area.

Quite frankly, people will be looking for one or the other, not both. Lacy panties and a rough scrap of animal hide tied around one's middle are totally different animals.

By your same arguement, swimsuits ought to be underwear too. and they aren't. :)

I always thought loincloths were more like pants than underwear.

They are "overwear". Not underwear.

SnowWolf said:
By your same arguement

Yeah I totally never presented a case for loincloths being considered underwear, but I guess the tag alias makes less sense because of searcher's intent. Then again, if I did a search for underwear and it returned someone in a loincloth, I personally wouldn't be any kind of disappointed.

Marbles said:
I always thought loincloths were more like pants than underwear.

They are "overwear". Not underwear.

they are casualwear... veeery casualwear