well, having studied history, I may be able to help here. Follow if you can: It’s the medieval era. You are a woman and live in a castle. You share rooms with other people, some you may not be related to. You bathe and change clothes (when you do) in front of these other people. You wear a bra for these events but no panties. This is less liberal sexually than the Greeks and Romans (who let it all hang out regularly and had sex in the common rooms of their houses with other people around, probably all through their rise and fall) but more liberal sexually than the corset-wearing bodice ripping renaissance when lingerie was developed and women only bathed and dressed in front of other women - many times only close relatives, who probably don’t share your room.
———but no panties-——
The fallacy in the article is that the fact panties or pantaloons were not found does not mean they did not exist.
I’m sorry, I didn’t explain my point in my first post. What I meant was they found a few bras and not much else. How do we know this was the norm. Maybe there was lots of other underwear, maybe not. The problem with this sort of *science* is it extrapolates much from very little. That’s all I’m saying.