Why the word “panties” is so awful
Sure, when said within the confines of a lingerie store, by an older saleswoman with a tape measure around her neck and glasses slipping down her nose, it’s fine: “Did you see the black underwire has the matching panty?” But taken out of this context, the word “panty” can be grimace-inducing—and there are a few possible reasons for that.
I’ve heard several people refer to the word as “infantilizing.” The addition of the suffix “-ies” (or in the singular form, “-y”) converts the word into a diminutive. Literally: “little pants.” The suffix puts it in the same category as “booties” and “blankies”—words often associated with small children. In fact, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first known use of “panties” is from a 1908 set of instructions for making doll clothes. “The undergarment is … easily made, for the little waist and panties are cut in one piece.” Women, it seems, would rather not shimmy into a garment whose name would also suggest they are shimmying into a pair of knee socks and saddle shoes and handed an oversized lollipop.
Or, on the other hand, is “panties” such a grown-up word that it’s too sexy? There’s a great scene in Legally Blonde in which a bunch of old, crotchety admissions officers are reviewing Elle Woods’s (Reese Witherspoon) law school application. “She designed a line of faux-fur panties for her sorority’s charity project,” says one, his eyes agog. “Uh-huh,” says another equally dopey administrator. “She’s a friend to the animals as well as a philanthropist.”









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Someone’s panties are in a bunch.
lorien1973 on February 16, 2013 at 10:37 PM
Compared to “knickers”, it’s a outright aphrodisiac
thebrokenrattle on February 16, 2013 at 10:37 PM
This has to be the most important issue of our time.
Mark1971 on February 16, 2013 at 10:38 PM
OK, then let’s just stick with “bloomers”.
MikeA on February 16, 2013 at 10:38 PM
My wife hates the word “panties”, too.
Count to 10 on February 16, 2013 at 10:41 PM
Or maybe the one from Larry the Cable Guy, “under britches”
MikeA on February 16, 2013 at 10:41 PM
If you don’t like what they are called then don’t wear any.
Mark1971 on February 16, 2013 at 10:42 PM
What’s wrong with panties? I like panties, especially when they’re filled with a beautiful woman.
Oldnuke on February 16, 2013 at 10:43 PM
How ’bout “drawers?” Or, rather, as various family members would have it, “drawls?”
Robert_Paulson on February 16, 2013 at 10:46 PM
I was traumatized as a child by this word. My mother would use it when referring to mens shorts, and as a young boy being told out loud by your mother that we need to get you some panties does a lot of damage. It’s the sort of thing that can shape a kid’s world-view.
sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 10:47 PM
Ok, Old School: How about drawers? Or chones? I won’t be able to sleep until we settle this.
juliesa on February 16, 2013 at 10:48 PM
Who would of thought that the elimination of words to pave the way to newspeak would start with a term like “panties”?
This is double plus un-good.
Galt2009 on February 16, 2013 at 10:51 PM
Fine! Panties are off! Happy now?
woo hoo!
rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 10:58 PM
First world problems
WisCon on February 16, 2013 at 11:00 PM
“Panties” will never go away. Porno industries make money off every word they invent/take over.
nobar on February 16, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Maybe she would prefer it if we called them “butt floss”.
Mark1971 on February 16, 2013 at 11:02 PM
Tell her you do too, “don’t wear em anymore.”
arnold ziffel on February 16, 2013 at 11:02 PM
You know, it would be a whole hell of a lot easier if we all just learned, say, French, and gave up on English altogether. Just too many bad memories and baked-in racism, sexism, homophobia and what-not. Let’s just all start fresh on something that doesn’t have any possible negative connotations, real, perceived, or invented.
TexasDan on February 16, 2013 at 11:03 PM
I’ve always been a fan of the word unmentionables.
steebo77 on February 16, 2013 at 11:05 PM
I prefer “skivvies” … although that would have the same “ies” suffix.
/shrug
Jeddite on February 16, 2013 at 11:08 PM
Panties… yep, works for me.
rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 11:09 PM
So undies must be bad too?
gophergirl on February 16, 2013 at 11:09 PM
Yes, but you have to say it while holding your hand in front of your mouth.
Funny, you don’t seem to have grown up liberal…….
GWB on February 16, 2013 at 11:12 PM
I unbunched them!
sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 11:14 PM
Taco wrapper is worse.
lorien1973 on February 16, 2013 at 11:14 PM
and I thought I knew everything. You da man.
arnold ziffel on February 16, 2013 at 11:18 PM
I never understood why it’s plural. They don’t ever wear more than one at a time do they?
They can have underpants if they want. They can use it now because men jettisoned it for boxers and briefs.
Dusty on February 16, 2013 at 11:24 PM
Underpants. I embarrass my 18 year old daughter when I call them her underpants. I called them underpants growing up.
mbteach10 on February 16, 2013 at 11:32 PM
And there it is.
BallisticBob on February 16, 2013 at 11:37 PM
Knickerbockers.
OldEnglish on February 16, 2013 at 11:37 PM
Whatever happened to the classic “Gotchies?”
UltimateBob on February 16, 2013 at 11:42 PM
Personally, I thing a hot lady in a bra and panties is one of the sexiest sights to behold.
UltimateBob on February 16, 2013 at 11:43 PM
I will stop using the word Panties in reference to ladies under garment when gay returns to traditional meaning. Then I can enjoy “West Side Story” again.
david kumbera on February 16, 2013 at 11:53 PM
Gee. How…accurate.
Ronnie on February 17, 2013 at 12:08 AM
OK, if we’re gonna get all ethnic, I recall from high school a supposed Japanese version was sakanookie.
MikeA on February 17, 2013 at 12:19 AM
Panties are for covering booties and p–wait. Anyway, I fail to see the problem.
James on February 17, 2013 at 12:27 AM
Granny Clampett had it right: “unmentionables”!!
Peri Winkle on February 17, 2013 at 12:37 AM
Does this mean that I need to stop wearing boxer briefs, lest it invoke images of pugilistic male attorneys?
Clink on February 17, 2013 at 12:37 AM
Somebody has way too much time on her hands.
mbs on February 17, 2013 at 1:01 AM
because whilst shopping for edible or crotchless unmentionables one would be aghast to be forced to use the P word in public (especially in mixed company).
mittens on February 17, 2013 at 1:18 AM
Panties. Not the best thing in the world.
But next to the best thing in the world.
soundingboard on February 17, 2013 at 2:10 AM
I always thought “panties” was one of those words that only tacky journalists use. You know, like “hubby” and “blond bombshell.”
Sharke on February 17, 2013 at 2:28 AM
Oh, yeah, I can see college kids going on a bloomer raid.
The Rogue Tomato on February 17, 2013 at 2:33 AM
Well, they certainly made me pant – back in the day.
OldEnglish on February 17, 2013 at 2:51 AM
Don’t mind the way “panties” sounds too much but I hate “thong” … graceless.
jix on February 17, 2013 at 3:17 AM
Only a socialist would be bothered by such nonsense. Chairperson was another term they invented, or making it better–a “chair” so you may envision s person turning into oh a wing chair or a ladder back chair or maybe a high stool if you wanted to infantalize them and refer also to Henry VIII’s bodily functions.
vityas on February 17, 2013 at 3:21 AM
There’s a word to ban.
Greek Fire on February 17, 2013 at 7:20 AM
Panem et circenses.
Lost in Jersey on February 17, 2013 at 7:37 AM
Come on another word to offend a women by … really?
Holy crud this chick probably didn’t put this much thought into voting for Obama.
What … was she rejected by Hugh Hefner?
kregg on February 17, 2013 at 7:45 AM
Lower innerwear?
tommy71 on February 17, 2013 at 7:45 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »