Talk:Codpiece

The Pouch Conjecture

I call BS on these sentences: "They also often doubled as pockets, handy carrying places for a variety of items such as coins and stuff. (In this respect, the codpiece was an early forerunner to the more recently popular Bum Bag when worn in front.)"

Of course, the main purpose of a codpiece, which is completely ignored in the article, was to provide an openable cover the hole in the article of clothing through which the man could urinate without disrobing. Just like 'flies' or the flap in Bavaria's lederhosen.

Sporrans

Does the Scottish sporran qualify as a codpiece? It fits every criteria listed in this article: it is held in place by strings/straps, is a "covering... pouch," is worn over the crotch area, which it accentuates. If no one has a particular objection as to why it is NOT a codpiece, I think I will add a breif section about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.226.173 (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sporrans aren't codpieces. A sporran is just a purse worn around a fellow's waist. It's not a codpiece any more than a backpack is a waistcoat. Beastiepaws (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Convince me... how does it not fit the criteria? Again: it is worn over the crotch area; it accentuates the crotch area; and it is, to use the articles own language, "a covering flap or pouch." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.226.173 (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's you making the positive claim, so it's you that needs to do the convincing. At any rate, even this article calls it "a covering flap or pouch that attaches to the front of the crotch of men's trousers". A sporran isn't a flap or pouch-- it's a purse. It doesn't attach to the front of anything, but rather is worn around the waist, doesn't cover anything, isn't necessarily worn over the crotch, and isn't ordinarily worn with trousers at all. Beastiepaws (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC

A well-filled sporran protects the groin, but a kilt is normally so thick that little extra protection is necessary. Similarly, the shape of a kilt draws attention away from the crotch and a shapeless dangling purse/shield can do little to draw it back.

As for the claim in the article that a codpiece could be made which would hold a limp phallus in an erect position, as a long term sufferer from Brewers' droop, I doubt the possibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.217.117 (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Slang

I'm not sure the slang "cod" or "codswallop" belong on this page: both the slang term and the codpiece owe their name to the Middle English term "cod," but that doesn't bring "cod" or "codswallop" under the topic of codpieces. (It would fit as well, if not better, under the article on the scrotum). Therefore I think that the section on slang belongs elsewhere---perhaps in an article on slang. Dpmath (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

About this sentence in the "History" section: "Through the same linguistic route, cods became a modern slang term for the male genitalia.[6]" First, neither the statement nor the context conveys any clue to what "the same linguistic route" is supposed to mean; second, the footnote refers to a simple list of slang terms, which does not support the statement. I say, cut this. —Wegesrand (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Rabelais and History

What's the significance of this fact to the history of codpieces?

Renaissance humorist Francois Rabelais wrote a book entitled On the Dignity of Codpieces.

Dpmath (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it is not correct; he referenced that as a joke - he never actually wrote such a thing - that was humor. I went through the contents of "The Complete Works of Francois Rabelais" and while he mentions that (again, as a joke), the book "On the Dignity of Codpieces" did not exist.

Groat (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Codpiece as an insult

Within certain circles in south eastern australia, the word "codpiece" is often used as an insult. Possible derivation from tool -> toolpiece -> codpiece -Marco P 82.51.57.163 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Margo Kidder interview

I think I recently heard a Margot Kidder interview in which she made jokes about pinging on the metal codpeices they were trying for Superman and Reeves getting annoyed... I know I heard the story about pinging on Superman's steel codpiece, I just can't find the details (which is why I came to wikipedia for a reference....) Mulp 22:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it really a clothing?

Is this not a kind of armour or weapon, or perhaps decoration? Should i update the article?

Contemporary references

The list of references or usage of codpieces in recent films, etc exceeds the length of the rest of the article... Surely it could be edited down some? Sten for the win 00:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's only a small cut, but I am editing the passage on Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet: "Each half of the codpiece's color corresponds to that of the opposite leg from their tights to accentuate and give greater emphasis to the actors' genitalia" - I doubt that a source for this assertion can be cited; the reason that the codpieces are parti-coloured in contrast with the hose is because that was a common fashion of the time being represented. That might indeed have been in order to give greater emphasis to the genitalia, but that applies to Renaissance men who sported the fashion, not 20th century actors. - Tenmiles 04:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Did no one catch this? "Surprisingly, the codfish derives its name from an intimate relationship with the codpiece. In early 16th century Italy, it was common for noble men to pad their codpieces with microwaved codfish, thereby adding to the scale and pungent aroma of their codpieces." That can't be right.

Hmmm... that edit was made just after 15:00 today. Nope, sorry; I was at work at the time. I can only catch those in the evenings. - Tenmiles 05:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Peascod doublet?

I thought that a peascod doublet was simply one that had stuffing to make a man's _stomach_ seem larger (and thus more prosperous), and had nothing to do with covering the genitals. Anyone have information either way? Krilia 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

DC supervillainy

Was surprised to see no mention of this DC supervillain--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Codpieces aren't limited to heavy metal

I think the heading "Heavy Metal Fashion" is inaccurate, as at least two of the musicians noted are not generally considered to be heavy metal musicians. Specifically, Jethro Tull (Ian Anderson) was not a heavy metal band, and neither was Cameo (Larry Blackmon). Also, Larry Blackmon did not always wear a codpiece when performing. Finally, this section needs a crossreference to Larry Blackmon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.201.251 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting, too, that we currently list Ian Anderson's mid-'70s codpiece-wearing as being "subsequent" to 1978. Obviously, this makes no sense. How to fix it, though? We could simply delete "subsequently," but a better approach might be to rewrite the section to clarify the chronology of rock-stars' codpiece-wearing. Was Anderson actually the first? I have no idea, and I have no idea how to find out. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of rock history can step in to sort things out. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Did a few minutes' of searching and found a quote on Google Books in which Ian Anderson describes himself wearing a codpiece in performance in 1972. (Scott Allen Nollen, Jethro Tull: A History of the Band, p. 92). 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the leather codpiece picture

I felt it was inappropriate and unnecessary, and whats more it was typical of the self-serving nature of user made pictures that detract from the professionalism of wikipedia. Better luck next time BBnet3000 (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the picture. It's just an illustration and it's not inappropriate for a section on codpieces as subculture fashion. What "self" is it serving, exactly? Beastiepaws (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Modern definition

Harley Davidson motorcycles are often considered codpieces for aging white American men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.169.99 (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference between a modern leather codpiece, and a leather jock or thong? [1][2] In heavy metal context, they appear to be worn over pants. That's the only diffeence I can see. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Jock straps and thongs go all the way around to the back. I think codpieces are just a sort of pouch that attaches to the front. -kotra (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Attaches to what? The guy in this picture doesn't appear to be wearing any pants. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay. What I meant was that it doesn't have the part that goes over the butt. In the absence of a picture that illustrates this (don't ask me why, but I looked), here's an ASCII picture:

  _________       _________
 /_________\     /___   ___\
//         \\   //   | |   \\
\\_________//   \\___|_|___//
 \__|   |__/     \__|   |__/
    \   /           \   /
     \_/             \_/

   Codpiece    Thong/Jock strap

I never thought I'd be drawing codpiece ASCII art on Wikipedia. Excuse me while I reexamine my life. -kotra (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicely drawn. It matches the codpieces worn in A Clockwork Orange.[3] But it doens't match all garments called "codpieces". I bet you didn't know that trees wear codpieces, but this one certainly appears to have an under strap.[4] This page on the same site seems to indicate that some do and some don't.[5] This article lists Ian Anderson as a famous codpiece wearer, and some of his appear to have an under strap,[6] while with others it's unclear.[7] Here, someone is wearing a protective cup and calling it a codpiece.[8] To repeat, it seems that the main difference between a jock/thong and a (modern) codpiece is that a codpiece is meant as outerwear. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. I think though, that the main difference is that jock straps and thongs don't tend to emphasize the groin area as much as codpieces. This is just my impression. Colloquially, there probably is a lot of confusion and overlap between codpieces, jock straps, thongs, and protective cups. The official definition, though, is just a bag, flap or covering (no straps at all, technically): [9][10]. (about that tree picture, I'd make a bad joke about "wood", but it, as previously mentioned, would be bad) -kotra (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Those dictionary definitions appear to concern the 15th century codpieces, not the modern Heavy Metal. etc, colloquial meanings of "codpiece". On a related note, should we mention the Cleaver? [11] I doubt it ever caught on with anyone beyond the creator, so maybe it's too obscure. But it did get some attention. (Which is the point of a codpiece, I guess). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It looked like, based on both historic and current usage, that we could confidently say that a codpiece is always outerwear. Just to complicate matters, I found a possible exception in modern usage, concerning Labyrinth, in which the Goblin King (played by David Bowie) "sports a codpiece beneath his riding breeches." Google provided both images and discussions. There are many blogs, etc., than mention his codpiece. But the photos clearly show that he's wearing hose or tights (not riding breeches), and that under the tights he has some kind of padded dance belt, or a hard cup.[12][13][14] Whatever it is, it's not on the outside unlike the other examples. The likeliest answer is that folks have just picked the wrong name for Bowie's undergarment, and that a codpiece is still an outer garment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some mention of the slightly different modern colloquial meaning would be good, if we can find reliable sources on the subject. I don't think the Cleaver should be mentioned though, since it's so different (and as you say, perhaps too obscure). -kotra (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, comment and suggested link

Hi! I don't know whether I'm doing this correctly to add to the Talk page on the subject Codpiece, or whether it'll show up at the bottom of the Talk page as requested, but here goes:

I've made only one comment previously on Wikipedia: A request that y'all not delete the List of Male Superheroes page. Because, at the time, that I was just in the process of launching a codpiece-fanatics' Facebook page.

Well, thanks to you I got a running start, and voila: https://www.facebook.com/CodpieceWorld . Which now hosts a steadily growing (700 or so as of today) images of codpieces, that I add to frequently, and whenever I can trace them (and I work diligently on that) and photogs request it, feature copyright notices with the images.

If you hit 'Photos' and then 'Albums,' you'll see that it's a highly organized offering, with (for example) codpieces in painting, portraiture, illustration, battle and sport images, current fashion, etc. separated out into their own albums, with historical notes accompanying the images where possible.

Given that, I was going to simply add Codpiece World as an external link to your Codpiece page, and then realized that I didn't know whether that would be courteous to do so - let alone how to actually do it.

So I REQUEST that IF that would make a good addition for Wikipedia readers, please add it. It's stable, will keep expanding, and will be responsibly maintained. No link-rot involved unless I get hit by a drone.

Finally, a comment: a codpiece is from what I can tell defined as a piece of material attached on either side to leggings of some kind - even if vertically minimal ones. That's what distinguishes codpieces from pouches, which can be either attached or freestanding, as in the black leather jockstrap image on your Codpiece page that's been the source of some contention.

While it's certainly not the biggest deal in the world - and the image is a dramatic one - it would be more accurate for those new to codpieces to see an image there WITH legging material on either side. LIke this one: http://leather-men.de/buy/images/product_images/info_images/cod_piece_gay_leather_uniform_bulge.jpg .

Thanks for your time, I hope to see Codpiece World in the external links, and regardless, thanks for helping me get started on it.

Paulewagner (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi PauleWagner - I don't see how your facebook group would be considered an appropriate external link - mainly because it would count as WP:PROMO. The image could certainly be substituted for something more reflective, but someone will have to take (or track down) a free-use image to use, as we can't use just any old pic ganked off the web - it has to have clearance to be used, particularly to be used as a supporting image rather than a lead image. Mabalu (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how it could be promo, since there's no commercial aspect to it, it doesn't promote any product or service, and my name isn't attached to it in any way. It's now the largest single destination for codpiece imagery on the web. If you believe that would serve Wikipedia readers, add it. If not, well, that's why I asked.

Paulewagner (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is YOUR group, and you want to add it to the page as the creator of the group - which is a conflict of interest, although kudos to you for asking before doing so. If you look at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, Facebook pages are specifically mentioned as to be generally avoided under section 10. Mabalu (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well then, section 10 it is. Thanks for your time.75.18.207.171 (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleaver Sleeve

Shouldn't the Cleaver Sleeve be mentioned in this article? I know, we may find it funny now, but it was a real thing. Jbottero (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. It certainly has received significant coverage.[15][16][17] If anything I'd say that is more of a cock sock than a codpiece. Although Cleaver does say they were codpieces. It does seem appropriate to mention this. Actually, I didn't see any mention of Vivienne Westwood's codpieces either, and I know other designers have offered them too - McQueen, Gautier, Thom Browne.... Certainly there's scope for noting its appearances in fashion design, as it looks like the contemporary section only deals with performance wear. Mabalu (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the section should be "contemporary interpretations" or something. But the "Cleaver Sleeve" is definitely "technically" a cod piece. Jbottero (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Medical use of codpieces

I removed this material because it's totally nonsensical, and even the "reliable sources" cited are just speculative essays and, as such WP:UNDUE and not really fit for an encyclopedic article. PepperBeast (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're obviously not very well read !

I will re-post the information in the hope that historical medical information can be accessed by the General public.

Go read some books !

codpieces— Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.36.225.204 (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This is still speculative nonsense. None of the sources suggested provide any evidence of any medical use of codpieces. The closest they come to an explanation of this "theory" amounts to "codpieces got bigger after 1495, and syphilis spread after 1495, therefore syphilis must have caused codpiece growth!". This is not WP:RS, and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. Also, desist from making personal attacks. PepperBeast (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The CS Reed article is purely speculative. CS Reed was a medical doctor, not a medical historian and certainly not a costume historian. The Medieval Clothing and Textiles chapter refers to Reed. Worldhistory.us and Sotheby's are not reliable sources, nor do they name any sources for their claims. As far as I can tell, all claims of this nature are probably the result of speculation by Reed. PepperBeast (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Even though this is a sort of health claim, I don't think we can necessarily apply the higher standards of WP:MEDRS here. Nevertheless, when considering a historical subject, the work of academic historians is going to take precedence over non-historian speculations. But we don't have any sources offered from academic historians. The Sotheby's piece and the World History piece are vague or silent about their sources and the "Galaunt Tradition" article simply refers to Reed, On balance, therefore, I agree with pepperbeast that this speculation does not meet the level of support needed for inclusion in the article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Syphilis - The Medical use of codpieces

(Redacted)

Vicay argues that German mercenaries came up with this medicinal contraption by the 1510s. They were “the first sufferers of syphilis and its prime carrier through Europe.” Fashionable males, no strangers to the pox, adopted it by the 1530s.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.0.23 (talk)

Grace Vicary can "argue" all she likes, but she presents no evidence to support her fanciful hypothesis. Some of the comments in her paper (eg, that a codpiece is a "hollow penis sheath", a claim easily disproven by, say, the actual examination of surviving codpieces by real experts such as Janet Arnold) indicate Vicary's profound ignorance of the subject she presumes to speculate on. This is WP:FRINGE. PepperBeast (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for a different thumbnail image

The current "Drunkard on an egg" as the primary image that is seen in external previews of this page as well (including Bing) is not due weight I think, in the sense that the prominence of this image on this page communicates "codpiece equals ridicule", whereas the "In European fashion" heading communicates that codpieces were not "equal to ridicule" but only "excessive codpieces". Therefore I think a more neutral image should be put in its place and the current image if still considered contributing sufficient value to this article placed elsewhere on this page. Wallby (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Better now? Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)