Philosophical question about women's lingerie

[Ivan Seeking]

I guess if it's below the waist, it ends in an "s".

Speak for yourself!

 

[Gokul43201]

Don't forget there are "pantaloons", "trousers" "briefs", "boxers". I guess if it's below the waist, it ends in an "s".

But for some inconceivable reason, it's 'pantyhose'

 

[Gokul43201]

Speak for yourself!

 

[Tsu]

It's just too dang confusing for me. This is why I gave up wearing underwear in the first place!

Good call, MIH! Bras especially need to be burned! The guy who invented them needs to have a scrotogram done with the mammogram machine!

 

[mattmns]

But for some inconceivable reason, it's 'pantyhose'

Hmm I always thought of pantyhose as two pieces, like socks, but according to my dictionary (webster) it refers to pantyhose as a one piece garment, and "consisting" of, I guess, two parts.
"Pantyhose: A woman's one-piece undergarment that consists of stockings and underpants."

edit... ok I did an image search on "pantyhose" and I guess they are one piece. *Continues to look at pictures: Has to go do something for five minutes*

 

[Gokul43201]

That's why he said "for yourself".

Little Kitty doesn't end with an 's'.

 

[Artman]

If I tried to sneak my Hemmi on board, do you think I'd be 'busted' for possessing weapons of math instruction?

You got a big grin out of me for that one.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Good call, MIH! Bras especially need to be burned! The guy who invented them needs to have a scrotogram done with the mammogram machine!

Yeowch!

You got a big grin out of me for that one.

Thanks! I try to recycle that gag whenever possible!

 

[BoulderHead]

I had occasion to visit a department store recently and noticed a manikin wearing butt-floss panties. I am baffled by this for several reasons. Surely it must at best be uncomfortable to have a string rubbing ones anus in such a manner. It was not a bikini to be worn for the pleasure of some viewing public and at best only a scant minimum protection for your outer garments could be provided. If panty lines are that much an issue why not simply save $14.95 and wear no undergarments at all? What is the psychological motivation ‘behind’ (tee hee hee) this?

 

[Moonbear]

I had occasion to visit a department store recently and noticed a manikin wearing butt-floss panties. I am baffled by this for several reasons. Surely it must at best be uncomfortable to have a string rubbing ones anus in such a manner. It was not a bikini to be worn for the pleasure of some viewing public and at best only a scant minimum protection for your outer garments could be provided. If panty lines are that much an issue why not simply save $14.95 and wear no undergarments at all? What is the psychological motivation ‘behind’ (tee hee hee) this?

Aww, c'mon, you're not supposed to wear them that long. If you wear them that long, then you're doing something wrong! What you described are definitely not intended to solve panty line problems (even thongs don't really accomplish that...they still leave "thong" lines instead of panty lines).

 

[mattmns]

Yes because us guys really hate those panty lines, umm yeah that's it, women should just wear no panties, to get rid of those hideous panty lines that us guys really hate.