Welcome to the famed Weekend Gene Pool, in which we ask personal questions and invite your answers, confessions, and observations, a feature for which we expect to win Substack’s first Pulitzer Prize and deliver peace in the Middle East.
Whether they were ever once separate or not, all garments that encase the legs are plural: not just pants, but shorts, bloomers, tights, slacks, trousers, boxers, knickers, breeches, pantaloons, etc.
Also, Gene, I am devastated that your article link is missing the photo. You must post it here!
The one of your second- or rather fourth-grade class. I see now there are more than one: cutline at the end says, "The author's second-grade class. He's the dork in a bow tie. The object of his affection is in the row behind his, third from the left. Clayton Landey is in the third row, next to Miss Endler. Below, Clayton's publicity photo. Gene and Shari. Together again, for the first time. PS 26, 40 years ago, where it all began." So it would be the first of those, I guess.
Yep, "hose" (whether single or panty) is plural. I grew up when there were no pantyhose, and "hose" was a common synonym for stockings (but not for socks, though all were considered hosiery).
Over all the 35+ years I have been a psychologist and working with the LGBTQ population, this is a question I ask, and consistently, it is very early in life. Definitely in elementary/middle school.
Ever wondered why people usually say “a pair of panties”? That’s because they came in actual pairs during the early 19th Century: two separate legs that were either stitched together at the waist or left open. (8)
"Trunks," "hosen" and "trews" were all separate leg coverings from the medieval and Renaissance periods that were either held up by garters or tied to the doublet or jerkin with "points."
Just to add a touch of levity to the otherwise sober (at least I assume so) discussion of pants here, the Brits not only use the term to mean underpants (also known as "smalls"), but now use it to mean nonsense (as in, "that's a pile of pants") --- taking its place alongside the traditional "rubbish."
This business of why "pair" is pretty straightforward. The word comes from the Latin meaning two similar or like things, which is what the original "pants" were: pantaloons you put on one leg at a time.
Watch Alan Bates put a picnic party into sullen silence with his extended discussion of the fig as a symbol of a woman's genitals and sexuality. From the Ken Russell film of the D.H. Lawrence novel Women in Love.
While confusing fruit with sexual organs may be a perception too far, research shows an alarming lack of scientific (let's call it "real world," shall we) knowledge of the female reproductive system by not only emerging male adults but, females as well. This has all sorts of obvious implications, not the least of which is sexual health.
I love that story, Gene - glad you linked to it. (I also remember your brief response to the lovely-sounding anonymous lady who worked with you at the Free Press - it might have been my favorite comment ever too)
Whether they were ever once separate or not, all garments that encase the legs are plural: not just pants, but shorts, bloomers, tights, slacks, trousers, boxers, knickers, breeches, pantaloons, etc.
Also, Gene, I am devastated that your article link is missing the photo. You must post it here!
i don't have access to the photos. Which one did you want?
The one of your second- or rather fourth-grade class. I see now there are more than one: cutline at the end says, "The author's second-grade class. He's the dork in a bow tie. The object of his affection is in the row behind his, third from the left. Clayton Landey is in the third row, next to Miss Endler. Below, Clayton's publicity photo. Gene and Shari. Together again, for the first time. PS 26, 40 years ago, where it all began." So it would be the first of those, I guess.
It wasn't mine. It was Shari's. Let me see if i can get her to scan it to me.
Pantyhose is plural? I guess that means there’s such a thing as a pantyho.
Yep, "hose" (whether single or panty) is plural. I grew up when there were no pantyhose, and "hose" was a common synonym for stockings (but not for socks, though all were considered hosiery).
Because--ya know--regular guys put their pants on one leg at a time.
Over all the 35+ years I have been a psychologist and working with the LGBTQ population, this is a question I ask, and consistently, it is very early in life. Definitely in elementary/middle school.
Clothing retailers aspiring to fanciness will refer to pants in the singular. Express sells, for instance, the Editor Mid Rise Bootcut Pant.
Here's a quote from https://www.givemehistory.com/who-invented-panties
Ever wondered why people usually say “a pair of panties”? That’s because they came in actual pairs during the early 19th Century: two separate legs that were either stitched together at the waist or left open. (8)
I heard this on a YouTube episode too.
Other sites refute this and say no such pants existed. I'd like to see a pair if they did.
I found this:
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/109160?ft=underwear&pos=287&pg=5&rpp=60&when=A.D.%201800-1900
Yeah but those are Victorian era undies.
The 1800s (1800--1899) are also referred to as the 19th century.
And pants are much older than the 19th century, and usually come in one connected piece. This is one example of ladies' underwear.
"Trunks," "hosen" and "trews" were all separate leg coverings from the medieval and Renaissance periods that were either held up by garters or tied to the doublet or jerkin with "points."
Just to add a touch of levity to the otherwise sober (at least I assume so) discussion of pants here, the Brits not only use the term to mean underpants (also known as "smalls"), but now use it to mean nonsense (as in, "that's a pile of pants") --- taking its place alongside the traditional "rubbish."
This business of why "pair" is pretty straightforward. The word comes from the Latin meaning two similar or like things, which is what the original "pants" were: pantaloons you put on one leg at a time.
Watch Alan Bates put a picnic party into sullen silence with his extended discussion of the fig as a symbol of a woman's genitals and sexuality. From the Ken Russell film of the D.H. Lawrence novel Women in Love.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3iL8euEvO4
Gene, I think you've found the way to elicit more comments: make your posting reference sex.
Yes, Gene, the writing was brilliant but we need the pictures!
While confusing fruit with sexual organs may be a perception too far, research shows an alarming lack of scientific (let's call it "real world," shall we) knowledge of the female reproductive system by not only emerging male adults but, females as well. This has all sorts of obvious implications, not the least of which is sexual health.
What other-worldly skill --- unconsciously using produce in a blog about sex. How good is that ! Other-worldly I tell you.
I love that story, Gene - glad you linked to it. (I also remember your brief response to the lovely-sounding anonymous lady who worked with you at the Free Press - it might have been my favorite comment ever too)
It would never have occurred to me to represent lady-parts by a split papaya. Very strange image.
I've seen the image of a peach representing lady-parts.
That makes more sense I think. It's all those black seeds inside that makes image kind of creepy.
Yeah, that was my reaction too!
Just think of them as a LOT of love buttons.
I think maybe you guys need some remedial anatomy lessons...
No, I'm pretty up on that stuff, as it were. I am just, you know, thinking hypothetically. The male member doesn't have a peel, either.
It could also represent the hole itself.
Maybe it's hair or dark pigment.
Um... that's not where the hair goes, normally, but: whatever. Not sure further discussion of the papaya/lady parts analogy would be useful.
You brought it up.
True, but I wasn't anticipating hearing about lady-parts filled with hair or "love-buttons." But you're right: I was asking for it.