Tweet
How many women have wet knickers??
Thinking about the number of women I have seen with a hand pressed between their legs, presumably in an attempt to contain a desperate need to pee, (“holding their crutch” I would say, though some disagree with this basic, plain English, expression.) I was surprised to remember that most of them were wearing jeans, or some type of trousers. Now, I assume that in England, where I have most experience of such matters, more than half the female population wear skirts, so I asked myself, why do women wearing jeans need to hold their crutch more than women wearing skirts?
Could it be that for women wearing skirts, the risk of wetting themselves, or even letting go a small leak of pee, is less embarrassing than the risk of being seen holding their crutch, an action that is a social taboo.
Couple this to the fact that the only women that I have seen to have wet have been wearing jeans, and I began to wonder if some skirts are hiding wet, or at least, damp, knickers??
Another line of thinking is that, as a male, there have been times when I have been walking in town, in great need of a pee, and seeing the cost of using a pubic toilet in London, (50p or US$ 0.80, in most cases) I have thought enviously of women in skirts who would be able to pee through their knickers and down their legs, only needing to take care they are standing in the right place. (I found, and have lost, and entire web-page devoted to this topic.) Maybe women are brought up to be prepared to pay for the chance of a pee, while men are spoiled by normally peeing for free, but there are fewer women’s facilities than men’s, especially late at night.
So, I ask for comments from this board: do women sometimes pee under their skirts, and nothing shows on the outside? Do they deliberately wear thin knickers and take care not to sit down to keep this a secret?
Normal people, those who do not have a pee fetish, and do not read this board, generally regard wetting as something that they must not ever, ever, do; while we, the enlightened ones, know that it is nothing terrible and often a pleasure, leading only to social rejection when the results are visible.
Maybe ‘normal’ women do not set out to deliberately wet, but as they desperately search to find a toilet to ease their bursting bladder, the urge to pee rises to danger level, and then they prefer a small squirt, or two, into their knickers, to being seen with a hand pressed between their legs, which usually means only one thing.
If they are wearing jeans, then, they know, that any leaks will be visible to the world, and must be stopped, and if the only way is to press a hand between their legs, then they will do this. Perhaps they think, correctly, that being seen ‘crutch holding’ is a transient thing, but a wet patch will linger all night, and tell everybody that she has wet herself.
I apologise for a long posting, but listening to past criticism, I have some paragraph breaks this time. I offer this as a basis for discussion and input from other board members, particularly female, and possibly some experiences and sightings to prove the point.
Also, I am an old-fashioned English man, so please allow me to us the term ‘crutch’ for the area between a woman’s legs, and jeans/trousers for the garment they are afraid of showing a wet patch. I know US reader would prefer ‘crotch’ and ‘pants,’
There is history in this, since it is commonly stated that in the 18th and 19th Century, when facilities for women’s comfort were rare, it was quite normal for all women to pee down their legs as they walked about the town. Their underwear at the time was only layers of underskirts, and no drawers or anything between their legs, perhaps to make it easier to pee like this, and streets were dirtier with all the horse manure left in the road. Period cartoons also show that women often peed standing up, lifting the front of their skirts and pelvis pushed forward, let go a torrent of pee. Easier that gathering up all those layers of skirts and pulling them up round her waist and then squatting to pee??
Thinking about the number of women I have seen with a hand pressed between their legs, presumably in an attempt to contain a desperate need to pee, (“holding their crutch” I would say, though some disagree with this basic, plain English, expression.) I was surprised to remember that most of them were wearing jeans, or some type of trousers. Now, I assume that in England, where I have most experience of such matters, more than half the female population wear skirts, so I asked myself, why do women wearing jeans need to hold their crutch more than women wearing skirts?
Could it be that for women wearing skirts, the risk of wetting themselves, or even letting go a small leak of pee, is less embarrassing than the risk of being seen holding their crutch, an action that is a social taboo.
Couple this to the fact that the only women that I have seen to have wet have been wearing jeans, and I began to wonder if some skirts are hiding wet, or at least, damp, knickers??
Another line of thinking is that, as a male, there have been times when I have been walking in town, in great need of a pee, and seeing the cost of using a pubic toilet in London, (50p or US$ 0.80, in most cases) I have thought enviously of women in skirts who would be able to pee through their knickers and down their legs, only needing to take care they are standing in the right place. (I found, and have lost, and entire web-page devoted to this topic.) Maybe women are brought up to be prepared to pay for the chance of a pee, while men are spoiled by normally peeing for free, but there are fewer women’s facilities than men’s, especially late at night.
So, I ask for comments from this board: do women sometimes pee under their skirts, and nothing shows on the outside? Do they deliberately wear thin knickers and take care not to sit down to keep this a secret?
Normal people, those who do not have a pee fetish, and do not read this board, generally regard wetting as something that they must not ever, ever, do; while we, the enlightened ones, know that it is nothing terrible and often a pleasure, leading only to social rejection when the results are visible.
Maybe ‘normal’ women do not set out to deliberately wet, but as they desperately search to find a toilet to ease their bursting bladder, the urge to pee rises to danger level, and then they prefer a small squirt, or two, into their knickers, to being seen with a hand pressed between their legs, which usually means only one thing.
If they are wearing jeans, then, they know, that any leaks will be visible to the world, and must be stopped, and if the only way is to press a hand between their legs, then they will do this. Perhaps they think, correctly, that being seen ‘crutch holding’ is a transient thing, but a wet patch will linger all night, and tell everybody that she has wet herself.
I apologise for a long posting, but listening to past criticism, I have some paragraph breaks this time. I offer this as a basis for discussion and input from other board members, particularly female, and possibly some experiences and sightings to prove the point.
Also, I am an old-fashioned English man, so please allow me to us the term ‘crutch’ for the area between a woman’s legs, and jeans/trousers for the garment they are afraid of showing a wet patch. I know US reader would prefer ‘crotch’ and ‘pants,’
There is history in this, since it is commonly stated that in the 18th and 19th Century, when facilities for women’s comfort were rare, it was quite normal for all women to pee down their legs as they walked about the town. Their underwear at the time was only layers of underskirts, and no drawers or anything between their legs, perhaps to make it easier to pee like this, and streets were dirtier with all the horse manure left in the road. Period cartoons also show that women often peed standing up, lifting the front of their skirts and pelvis pushed forward, let go a torrent of pee. Easier that gathering up all those layers of skirts and pulling them up round her waist and then squatting to pee??
Comment