"I like fiery passion, actually." - Olympus
Question #92033 posted on 02/18/2019 9:40 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

So I normally go commando when I’m wearing workout clothes. I normally wear garments and don’t wear garments while working out and don’t really have much other underwear anymore. But I was shocked to find out recently on social media that so many others think that’s so weird, unhygienic, and even borderline immoral. Do any of you guys not care if people can see pantylines under leggings? It’s extra laundry too! So for those of you that think it’s so weird, would you ever try it? Is it just a matter of feeling embarrassed? I just thought everyone would think it’s liberating.

-Captain Commando

A:

Dear you,

I mean, it's not immoral, but unless you're changing your workout clothes every day, it is definitely less hygienic (guppy goes into more detail on this below, so I won't but really: please be washing your leggings after every workout). 

To answer your pantylines question, that does not bother me at all. For one, I wear thick enough yoga pants that the lines aren't really there. And even the lines did show, what I look like isn't on my mind when I'm working out. In the same vein, if I were to try going commando, it wouldn't be embarrassment that would get to me; it would be the deep discomfort. Honestly, there are some ways in which I do not want to be "liberated". I'm the type of person who doesn't like ever not wearing a bra, let alone not wearing bottom pieces of underwear. 

~Anathema

A:

Dear Cap'n, 

You can do whatever you want... but I don't think I'll ever want to join in, for a variety of reasons. I can't judge you because it's your call, so as long as you do your laundry and keep clean, whatever. It's a little weird, and I think I would feel a little bit uncomfortable and embarrassed if I tried, but if it's better for you, more power to ya. 

And pantylines under leggings are perfectly normal and I definitely don't think we should care about them in the first place. Also, why are we looking at each other's butts while we're working out in the first place? How abouts people just do what they're gonna do and we don't worry about other people? That sounds good to me. 

Cheers,

Guesthouse

A:

Dear CC,

Personally, I feel like that would be uncomfortable and would probably lead to rashes or chafing, depending on the material of clothing. I also unlikely to try it because my preferred forms of exercise are soccer and aerobics. Both of those are activities where having support is much more comfortable than "liberation". Most people that don't wear garments to those wear compression shorts or something, and all of the women wear sports bras.

Pantylines aren't anything to be embarrassed about. I would definitely be more uncomfortable going commando and risk people seeing noticing that than noticing that I am wearing underwear.

Peace,

Tipperary

A:

Dear anti-Captain Underpants,

I wouldn't do it. I don't think it's immoral but unhygienic. Do you wash your leggings after each workout? Using the same, unwashed leggings to workout commando can lead to bacteria growth and make unpleasant experiences (such as yeast infections) much more likely. Also, if you're wearing thin leggings you could pick up bacteria on a seat at the gym. (Which...ew. Just ew.) All of this comes from this article, which says going commando can be okay but "please do yourself (and other people at the gym) a favor and wash your clothes ― especially your leggings and especially if you work out sans underwear ― in between workouts." So...about that extra laundry you're worried about. You're washing your leggings after each workout, right? Because going commando gives you much, much more reason to wash your leggings after each workout.

I don't care if people see pantyliner because so many women are wearing leggings today it's almost expected. I am so much more concerned about hygiene.

-guppy of doom

Question #92038 posted on 02/18/2019 9:16 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

My question here is about copyrights.

Bachelor of Provo was just taken down, but it seems pretty clear that it's a parody. Does Warner Brothers have a substantial claim in copyright for this?

Also, if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints wanted to, could they have stopped The Book of Mormon musical due to copyright or defamation?

Thanks,

-D

A:

Dear D,

When I first read your question I nearly started crying. I started watching "Bachelor of Provo" not long ago and man, how it inspires cringes! Thankfully though it looks like they'll be back, but with a different title ("Provo's Most Eligible") and without the rose ceremony (source). Apparently a new episode is already up, and I will be watching them once I finish this question! I think the primary reason Warner Bros has this claim is because it isn't a direct parody. I first became familiar with parody copyright when some idiotic company tried to sue the creator of McMansion Hell for copyright stuff. Thankfully it didn't work because of a legal doctrine called fair use, which "lets people use copyrighted works without permission for things like reporting, criticism and parody" (source). The Book of Mormon Musical is most certainly a parody, while McMansion Hell is a combination of parody and criticism. Since "Bachelor of Provo" isn't intentionally mocking or criticizing "The Bachelor" but rather simply copying it, it makes sense that Warner Bros wants them to change some aspects of the show.

If the Church really wanted to sue over the musical, they might (no legal knowledge here so guessing) have had a slight stand with defamation? Definitely not copyright, because fair use would have protected it as a parody. From my limited understanding of the play, including listening to maybe three songs, it doesn't seem like they're completely lying about any LDS beliefs, though maybe exaggerating them or showing them from an outsider perspective. (I mean, if you don't have our view of prophets it does look like we believe in 1978 God changed his mind about black people.) So they definitely could argue back against defamation because they're not outright lying about our beliefs. Then again the Church is super rich and has lots of lawyers so at the very least they could have caused a very long, drawn-out legal battle that would have prevented the play from being performed for quite a while. So basically I don't think they could have stopped it permanently, and it would have caused massively bad PR to the Church, and their current nonchalant stance on it has actually increased respect for us as a religion who can take a joke.

-guppy of doom