[LMB] OT: Undergarment terminology, was M/F LMB Readership

Jason Long sturmvogel66 at gmail.com
Sat Sep 26 06:28:07 BST 2015


Cottontail? Pray elucidate for us poor benighted residents of the Northern
Hemisphere.

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Gwynne Powell <gwynnepowell at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > From: mmjustus at mmjustus.com
>
> > I'm not overly fond of the word panties, either.  What's wrong with good,
> > old-fashioned underwear? (okay, under*pants*, but only if you insist)
> > Diminutives (and names) that end in the "ee" sound tend to grate on me,
> > anyway.
> > Megaera
>
> There's the problem of what term to use:
>
> 'underwear' applies to a variety of clothing items - not specific enough.
>
> 'underpants' is blokey.
>
> 'knickers' is a bit adolescent and casual.
>
> 'underthings' is like underwear - applies to a variety of items. Not
> specific enough.
>
> 'pantaloons' is way too oldfashioned and unusable (unless you're doing the
> Victorian maid thing...)
>
> 'pants' can mean trousers/slacks as well as what goes under them, it can
> be confusing.
>
> 'undies' is a bit informal, and non-specific again.
>
> 'briefs' is not applicable to all designs, and a bit blokey.
>
> We could go to specific terms - G-string, Cottontails etc.
>
> But really, the most easily understood, best applicable term is 'panties'.
>
> Gwynne (What do you mean, I've thought about this way too much? I just
> happen
> to like really nice underwear. It's fun to wear ordinary, utilitarian
> clothes through
> the day, knowing that underneath I'm glorious.)
>
> * Btw, for those Aussie listees who like Cottontails, my aunt heard that
> Bonds is
> discontinuing them, so she and my mum are stockpiling. Get in fast before
> they
> corner the market.
>
> --
> Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to sturmvogel66 at gmail.com
> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
> http://lists.herald.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lois-bujold
>


More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list