h a l f b a k e r yYeah, I wish it made more sense too.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
It is almost universal: people wear underwear, although the reason can be difficult to surmise. Perhaps it is for comfort; perhaps it is for hygiene. Perhaps it is done out of mere habit.
But like it or not, we do not have underwear for the head. I think we must agree, however, that the Higher is
certainly as dirty as the Lower. Oh, but do you disagree? Consider the residues of spittle, of foods, of various expectora, etc. These may be caressed by the cloth. Indeed, a man's identity may thus be rendered discreet, and a woman's visual virtue reduced. Noises perhaps may be eliminated.
White will predominate as color, but rainbow shades and elegant patterns may be shown as fashion permits. If the wearer's identity be in doubt, a tuft of hair from an ear, or a protruding nose (similar in action to those elements of Lower underwear) may provide clarity.
Further, I implore you to sip Darjeeling tea through a well-cut hole in the cloth. Forgive my euphemistic expressions in this instance; this matter may be discussed with only the greatest circumspection.
Head Footie
http://www.halfbake.../idea/Head_20Footie
Similar Idea [blahginger, Jan 29 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
I admit the greatness of the Head Footie idea, but this is different. It is underwear for the head that is intended to promote cleanliness of that area. It is to be worn all day long. |
|
| |
A good ol' handkercheif fulfills all the above, with a few notable exceptions:
A hankie has nothing to do with Darjeeling tea(whatever that is), but whatever floats your boat...
Generally one wipes one's face, instead of caressing dirt with the cloth.
Perforce I shall salute Vance for whimsical recourse to a thesaurus. |
|
| |
Sorry, Bad, but the Thesaurus has been extinct for millions of years. |
|
| |
Surely - not to *quibble*, but - surely it isn't underwear for the head unless it's worn under outerwear for the head? Are you simultaneously requesting a return to helmets, hats, veils, the enveloping cloths of the Tuareg men? Which? |
|
| |
Of course, underwear is still underwear even if you're not wearing pants, right? Similarly, you could wear your head underwear with or without a hat, a helmet, etc. |
|
| |
I suggest a revival of the use of medieval-style chain-mail garments, of the kind that enclosed the entire head save the face. |
|
| |
Those were used for war and not daily wear. |
|
| |
Garments like underwear in all practical ways, but designed to be worn outside, are given other names ('slipdress', 'Speedo'). |
|
| |
Okay, it was a quibble. I just want to see the Supreme Court in wimples. |
|
| |
Even so. I think that the product should be given another name when it is marketed. |
|
| |
When I was a young'un, I drove my mom fucking nuts when I created the underwear ninja. I would run around the house with (clean, mind you) underwear on my head. It didn't bother her much until I started doing this around the neighborhood, stalking passing joggers. Aaahh, to be 17 again.... |
|
| |