I was wondering as this article seems to indicate that women wearing close fitting garments (ie underwear and pants) is a fairly recent thing and that historically maximizing airflow to the nether regions maximizes gynecological health and helps to prevent yeast infections.
You wish. 
[anectdotal “evidence”]
My gf’s mother frequently warned her of the dangers of sleeping while wearing underwear. “You’ll get the crotch rot!”
[/anecdotal "evidence]
Who am I to argue?
According to that site:
“Pre-20th century women had to do without knickers and the like because of the perpetual threat of thrush [i.e., yeast infection],” writes authors Janet and Peter Phillips in History From Below: Women’s Underwear and the Rise of Women’s Sports. “Since the vagina is naturally warm and moist, any covering increasing the temperature will put out a welcome mat to thrush.”
With which I must concur, as my current SO has not worn knickers for years and never gets thrush, unlike any other woman I’ve ever known.
On the other hand, I’ve heard that supposedly going without undies makes it easier to catch pubic lice. No idea if it’s true.
God Lumpy, I was really getting into the idea of all women going commando and then you have to come along and paint a picture like this?
Sheesh!
I think men need to try it first. Substitute kilts for skirts and ignore the mirrors on my shoes.
This would definately give me the edge in the arguement with my wife.
Me: Seriously honey, it’s better for you.
Her:Yeah right!
Me: No seriously - it helps you avoid thrush.
Her:Can’t argue with science. No need for knickers!
Everyone’s a winner !
‘Any covering increasing the temperature’? Then I propose that, if we stand any chance of eliminating this ‘thrush’ threat, women must be forced to abandon any garments of clothing that can be worn below the waist, including these preposterous ‘skirts’.
Now, what scientific reason can we use to rid ourselves of these pesky bras/shirts?
Not to worry, you can just that arguement with pubic shaving. So now we have a reason for women to go commando and hairless. Ain’t science grand?
I guess, if you like your women in pre-pubescent mode.
Real women have hair, real men like hair on their women.
The fact that “The Great Unwashed” replied to this thread is…odiferous.
I know TONS of women who’ve never had a yeast infection. Including me.
ditto. And I almost never wear skirts/dresses.
Doesn’t that imply that you’ve had TONS of conversations with women about yeast infections? Kind of a funny thing to talk about a TON, especially when you’ve never had one.
I am not convinced. The hair and panties have to go.
From my experience, cotton underwear helps keep the air nicely circulating down there. What with the occasional bit of leakage around ovulation, I feel more secure wearing panties than not, although I’m in no way opposed to going commando. No siree.
But there wouldn’t be any protection from dirt or dust so it doesn’t seem practical to me for the long run.
I don’t think you need protection from dirt and dust. Unless you live in the wilderness maybe.
I prefer “aromatic”, o vowelless one.
Yes. Much healthier. Especially short skirts, so their hoo-hahs can be well ventilated.
A message from the elmwood Gynecological Association.