Sanitary Belts

[Lena_Horne]

Now I've been holding off on asking this question for some time as it seemed that it would only suffice during an already "delicate" discussion. But since we're already there what better time than now. What about (if anyone is quite that gung-ho about going vintage) the use of belted sanitary napkins and such. Is this simply taking it too far? Are they even remotely comfortable? I know that they can be quite useful in that they make much less paper waste and therefore save trees. That they can be washed and what not. But has anyone any experience with these and if so was it over-the-top annoying or strangely comforting... Hm.

L_H

 

[Lauren]

I'm not really willing to find out

But I want a full report if someone has used them!

 

[decodoll]

I agree with you, Lauren! I'm all for being as vintage as possible, but in some regards the modern way is just better. According to my gramma, sanitary belts were just unpleasant to put it mildly.

As far as the underwear and girdle, they wore them over the girdle. Only in advertisements would you see them under and that was just so that you could see the product. Personally, I still wear mine under when I'm not wearing tap pants. My everyday girdles are the Lacette Rago open-bottom, and you can just pull the whole thing down without unclipping your stockings.

 

[BettyValentine]

Oh my God, ... I had never even thought of that.

No thank you, for me. I like my modern conveniences very much. But I definitely want to hear if someone does. Can you even buy those anymore?

BV

 

[Tin Pan Sally]

What about (if anyone is quite that gung-ho about going vintage) the use of belted sanitary napkins and such. Are they even remotely comfortable? L_H

I have when I was a young teen. The belted one I tried out was an elastic garter with tabs to fasten a special napkin consisting of long paper/cloth strips at the front and back. It was NOT comfortable, very obvious, and still required disposal so therefore was not environmentally friendly. The older ones were fabric and washable. I don't even know where you could buy these napkins nowadays. I wouldn't suggest it. Thank goodness for new fangled technology, I say.

That'll teach the boys to peak. All we do is make fun of men and discuss unpleasant toilet practices.
If you can't take the girltalk, don't go poking your nose into the powder room! lol

 

[Lena_Horne]

Ah the wonders of the past. *Click the picture*

L_H

 

[Tin Pan Sally]

Ah the wonders of the past. *Click the picture*L_H

Yikes, those were the days, huh? I didn't realize belts were still being used in the mid 60s.

 

[MissQueenie]

Many women involved in modern homesteading/"back to the land" movements (not all of whom are crazy-hippie types!) use washable pads. I'd suggest visiting www.homesteadingtoday.com and doing a search if you're really interested in hearing what modern women think about them!

 

[BettyValentine]

I do know some women who prefer the washable variety, or cups of some sort. Not so much my thing, though. Never really even been tempted to try.

They're advertised pretty regularly in Bust magazine, and apparently they're like hot pink and all sorts of bright crazy colors. They look like modern disposable pads only made of fleece or something. They look like tiny little snowboarder hats.



BV

 

[ITG]

I wonder if the Amish women of today use some sort of contraption like these ones of old or if they use more modern means.

 

[Lena_Horne]

I wonder if the Amish women of today use some sort of contraption like these ones of old or if they use more modern means.

I thought they weren't allowed to use any sort of modern convenience (I presume that it is permitted in an emergency) but I see them at the airport quite often.

So do modern sanitary napkins count as a new-fangled contraption or simply a modern take on an old standard?

L_H

 

[magneto]

The older ones were fabric and washable. I don't even know where you could buy these napkins nowadays.

You can buy washables; look in the local catering-to-environmentally-hardcore people/hippy grocery or pharmacy in your area. They are called Lunapads or Moonpads, something like that; am sure they're online. These are designed to be worn "independently" (snapping on to one's undergarments, ergo, sans belt) but I can't imagine why they couldn't work with a belt as well. (Although, if I correctly recall the shape of older disposable ones I've seen, these washables may need extra strips of fabric sewn on to give them the streamer-y bits the belt attaches to).

~Ellie, trying carefully to avoid TMI syndrome.

 

[AtomicBlonde]

This is one of those situations when I say "ew, I prefer the modern version"

I was talking to my mom about this recently, and she said she had to wear those belt thingies when she was a girl. She said that they were miserable, uncomfortable things, and she hated them. I'm going to take her word for it!

-Jess

 

[ITG]

Lena, that's kinda what I was thinking too but I know if I were Amish, I sure would want to make an exception when it came to that. If that's the case then, it's one more reason in my book to not be Amish (not that I was considering it to begin with).

 

[LaMedicine]

Having been in my teens in the 60s....
Sanitary shorts and napkins were already on the market by the early 60s. Tampons also came on the market around this time.
However, I well definitely say, stick to the modern stuff...as well as the matter of comfort, there's also the matter of absorbtion.
Especially if you are an active woman, exercise regularly, take part in sports...kinda disasterous.
If it was that way in the 60s, I don't want to think what it was like in the 30s, 40s. 50s...

 

[CWetherby]

I would hazard a guess, that if you go far enough back, you'd find that women were not too active at certain times of the month. No doubt because they dealt with cramps AND messy contraptions that didn't really lend themselves to activity.

I think they were told they were at greater risk for disease/injury at that time of the month, too. Has anyone else ever heard that?

Now, having 3-5 days every month to "rest"---that vintage idea just might catch on!!

 

[AtomicBlonde]

I would hazard a guess, that if you go far enough back, you'd find that women were not too active at certain times of the month. No doubt because they dealt with cramps AND messy contraptions that didn't really lend themselves to activity.

I think they were told they were at greater risk for disease/injury at that time of the month, too. Has anyone else ever heard that?

Now, having 3-5 days every month to "rest"---that vintage idea just might catch on!!

I dont know... I think it depends entirely on your cultural background and also your socio-economic status. I've done a little research on this subject in the 19th century. I think the average woman without the benefit of any sort of domestic help would have had to suck it up and go on with the daily activities as usual durring that time. If you were lucky enough to be able to afford some kind of help, then perhaps you could get away with doing less.
I come from a long line of rather hardboiled hardy women who dont give any sort of sympathy when it comes to feminine matters. (my mom never let me stay home from school when I had cramps, even though some of my friends got to.) There is a story of my g-g-grandmother giving birth one morning, having herself a cup of coffee, putting the baby in a sling and heading back outside to finish doing her work. If she didnt even take a break after having a baby, I cant imagine she gave herself a break because she felt bloated and crampy!

 

[Tin Pan Sally]

I come from a long line of rather hardboiled hardy women who dont give any sort of sympathy when it comes to feminine matters.

Me too. I was told to be more active during this time would lessen the chances of discomfort and shorten the visit from Aunt Flo. I was told the gals in our family didn't have cramps but had very regular light periods for that reason. Plus back then there was the saying, "A man works from dusk til dawn, but a woman's work is never done"
That saying wasn't used in our household, as both parents enjoyed careers and shared child rearing duties. I'm better for it.

I'll stick with the modern conveniences as far as being "on the rag".

 

[magneto]

I dont know... I think it depends entirely on your cultural background and also your socio-economic status. I've done a little research on this subject in the 19th century. I think the average woman without the benefit of any sort of domestic help would have had to suck it up and go on with the daily activities as usual durring that time.
...

Usual daily activities with one notable exception...my friend/room-mate (who is in her late 70s, a typical middle-class American) mentioned recently that she was raised to never bathe or wash her hair during "that time of the month"... one tradition I hope never comes back into fashion.

 

[Lena_Horne]

I've heard that back then women were advised to shower versus bathing but I've never heard of foregoing it altogether unless you didn't have adequate facilities. I often wonder how women dealt with bathing in those tiny silver washtubs during that time of the month. Yeesh.

L_H