This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.
  • LibraryThing
  • Book discussions
  • Your LibraryThing
  • Join to start using.

Why do retailers insist on calling them "panties"?

Feminist Theory

Join LibraryThing to post.

This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.

Nov 11, 2008, 1:31pm Top

Iʻve been surfing teh intarwebs while waiting for the IT guy to come do a system restore on my machine, and ran across this critique of the word "panties": http://fakinggoodbreeding.blogspot.com/2007/02/case-against-panties.html

I donʻt read the style mags (every single issue of every single style mag, past, present, and future, is summed up here: http://books.google.com/books?id=RGy-0uPXCFgC&pg=PA242&dq=%22what+every+...), but I do listen to the radio and watch TV and go to stores (on-line and architectural), and I canʻt think of any retailer who doesnʻt call them "panties." I find that word smolderingly loathesome, not least because, for whatever reason, it embarrasses me to say in connection with women (Iʻm less bothered using it in connection with small girls). My surface reaction is that it infantilizes women somehow, in a way that "underwear" doesnʻt.

I know there are plenty of women who share my dislike of the word, and yet itʻs still the commonly accepted term. I donʻt think "underpants" are marketed to men. So, why are "panties" marketed to women?

(On the lighter side, whatʻs your preferred term? I tend to use "undies.")

Nov 11, 2008, 1:35pm Top

I don't have a clue why they're called that. Doesn't bother me...it's just a word. But this did make me think of the That 70s Show episode where Forman uses the term 'man panties'. Never laughed so hard at a sitcom before or since.

Nov 22, 2008, 7:04pm Top

Isn't underwear generic for anything worn under clothes (as in long-johns, panties and undershirts are all underwear)?

I think I prefer panties to bloomers!

Nov 22, 2008, 7:16pm Top

Or stays. Or chastity belts.

Nov 22, 2008, 7:36pm Top

If the language of panties aims to cast women as ideal women/girls (ie. cute, frilly, thin, expensive), male terms similarly idealize an ideal image, just as alien to many of us, the he-man athlete—ie., boxers, and our friend, jockstrap.* In any case, can we agree that "tighty-whiteys," if not infantilizes, at least mocks us?

*The Wikipedia article's first image says it all, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_strap.

Nov 23, 2008, 1:38am Top

Why is "undies" less childish than "panties"?

Nov 23, 2008, 6:46am Top

I quite like the word "panties" although I never say it myself. I like the look of it, it is so wispy & feminine. I tend to say "knickers" which is a bit more substantial. If you were facing some terrible ordeal or threat I think you would much rather be wearing knickers than panties even though they are the same thing. You can imagine someone getting their knickers in a knot and this can be a good thing, there are many occasions in life where a good knot is required. Somehow I don't think panties would be quite up to the challenge...you couldn't rely on panties to do the job.

Edited: Dec 2, 2008, 9:01am Top

Ah - the nuances of language - love it!

Out of my own head and quite unofficial -

We use the terms -

Underwear - short lower body undergarment, male or female (no semantic baggage attached) - "undies" for short, which "cutsie"-fies it

Long-underwear - long version of above

Undershirt - upper body undergarment, may be found in the tank-top or thin T-shirt varieties (not gender specific)

Undergarments - the broader category encompassing the above, as well as including - slips, bras, camisoles, pantyhose, girdles
- (the women specific subset of which may also be referred to as "underthings" which implies, to us, some level of mystifying complication as to their use - hooks, straps, stays, etc - if your husband picks it out of the wash and can't figure out which way is up, it is an "underthing" - garterbelt, I'm looking at YOU)

Panties - lacy, frilly, wispy insubstantial underwear for women such as you might see in the Victoria's Secrets display window - the implication, when we use the word, is that these are impractical bits of clothing more intended for the "taking off" than practical wear.

"Underpanties" - term reserved for driving my spouse crazy with reference to men's underwear (works everytime!)

>2 Bookmarque:
I was recalled, in reading this thread, of a different "That 70's Show" episode - where the find a pair of panties in the back of the Vista Cruiser - hilarity ensues and Forman has a dream involving bushels of women's underwear.

On a different note - I was in my 20s before I heard the term "wife-beater" for ribbed white tank top undershirts for men - which I found apalling.

>7 eannie:
You get your Knickers in a knot - which might useful.
You get your panties in a bind - which is just uncomfortable.

Dec 2, 2008, 9:30am Top

Didn't those wayward panties belong to Forman's mother? Or Donnas? Good one.

Edited: Dec 2, 2008, 10:04am Top

It was...


Donna's mom ... but, of course, that's not what DONNA first thought...

Dec 2, 2008, 10:25am Top

Oh yeah that's right...and it brought a host of fantasy material from the boys.

Dec 2, 2008, 8:27pm Top

Another odd underwear thought that occured to me while driving to work after reading this thread -

It has been my observation that - when wearing long underwear - Males are more likely than Females to wear the long underwear AS underwear and Females are more likely to wear underwear UNDER their long underwear. Perhaps because tucking boxers into long underwear causes uncomfortable creases? Perhaps because having to thread through so many fly openings to pee becomes too much of a puzzle to figure out when "ya gatta go"? Perhaps because wearing under-underwear just seems redundant?

Dec 3, 2008, 12:03pm Top

> 5

Maybe I'm just not very observant, but I've never seen a sign or a commercial for "tighty-whiteys." (That wikipedia image is hilarious.)

> 6

Because it's the word I use. ;) (or maybe, given the topic, I should use this :) . Although ;} looks even more coy than ;) . {Got those punctuation marks, brackets, and smileys straight?}).

I say "undies" to mean "underwear;" I understand it as merely the diminutive of a word, whereas "panties" is not merely the diminutive of a word, it's also the actual name of an article of clothing that is the diminutive of another article of clothing (pants). And pants, for centuries, were the exclusive sartorial privilege of men (and remain so in some parts of the world). And from at least the Enlightenment, the (what we now call) psychology of adult women was generally theorized in Europe & North America as child-like.

Maybe I'll start calling them "thingies," as a diminutive of "underthings." I was going to suggest that I could then move laterally and call them "doohickeys," but when I wrote that I noticed that it's susceptible to construal as a garment worn with a particular romantic intent. Can't call them "unmentionables," because to do so would demonstrate that they clearly are not. Ah! here we go: underthings --> thingies --> doohickeys --> thingamabobs --> thingies. So I can call them "thingies" after all, as a diminutive of "thingamabob" rather than "underthings," and avoid any gender-construction implication.

>12 PortiaLong:

So, what are your sample sizes there? (The larger they are, the more I want to know about your methods.)

Dec 3, 2008, 12:11pm Top

Also, the cotton "knicker"-y ones say "panties" on the package labels. So even if most women consider panties to be a frivolous variety of posterior undergarment, underwear merchants still call *all* women's posterior undergarments by the name panties.

Dec 3, 2008, 12:27pm Top

After reading The Song of Ice and Fire, I think it's time small clothes made a comeback. OK, is the no underwear movement dead?

Edited: Dec 3, 2008, 2:28pm Top

I like "knickers" and "small clothes", but as a denizen of the US, I'm not sure how to use them without sounding affected. So I go with "underwear" almost always, because "panties" does sound little girl to me. There is a bit of linguistic awkwardness there, since "underwear" *can* also refer to bras, but *more* refers to "underpants", but "underpants" does not come readily to my tongue.

Maybe I just have to suck it up and come across as affected to the very few people with whom I have this sort of conversation. Knickers it is, then.

Edited: Dec 3, 2008, 2:31pm Top

Actually, it occurs to me that the way to deal with this whole problem is for some hip retailer / designer to have a line of stylish * called "knickers" or "knacky knickers" or something like that. "Knickers" can become the term du jour, "panties" will become passé, and then "panties" can be reclaimed as retro-chic girl power. Everyone will then be able to term their underclothes whatever they want, adding layers of significance to the layers of their clothes.

Dec 4, 2008, 1:48am Top

Oh, there are some words that should just be removed from the English language altogether. Panties and knickers top the list. The word flaccid should also be struck off. I have friends who object to 'lap'.

Any takers on words that should be banned?

Dec 4, 2008, 5:53am Top

"banned" is my word of choice.

Dec 4, 2008, 8:30am Top

After grading a few billion (possibly it was less than that, although it didn't seem so) student reviews of group interactions, I choose the word "overall." However, that one is tricky as I have no objections to it as a piece of clothing, just as a methodology for students to avoid the work of creating an argument for their point of view. Argh.

Dec 4, 2008, 12:37pm Top

>20 prairillon:
Lets resolve the dilemma this way - we'll agree to call the garment "overalls" with an "s" (kind of like pants - you never wear just one "pant" do you?).

Then you can happily nix "overall" (the lackluster argument gimmick) and allow "overalls" (the trousers with an attached front patch covering the chest and with attached galluses or suspenders (also called braces in England) which go over the shoulders).

Dec 4, 2008, 1:29pm Top

Portia, you have solved my dilemma! "Overall" will be outlawed in my class forevermore! ;-)

Dec 5, 2008, 2:51pm Top

Men are mocked and diminished without reservation or apology. Most pop culture rolls its eyes at the male perspective, considering men as less intellegent, more base, less sensitive, weaker, out of control, beer drinking, emotionless, insatiably lustful cads. Men resist objecting out of guilt and/or fear. The full grown male infant is seen as needing the self-described nurturing of mother earth, woman.

One would think that women, who claim to know how it feels to be objectified and minimized, would cry out against such behavior. But I guess it is every man for himself.

Dec 5, 2008, 2:55pm Top

>23 kaslibrary:

The Tighty-Whiteys problem.

Dec 5, 2008, 2:59pm Top

Lloyd Dobler: I got a question. If you guys know so much about women, how come you're here at like the Gas 'n' Sip on a Saturday night completely alone drinking beers with no women anywhere?

Joe: By choice, man.

Dec 7, 2008, 12:25pm Top

Marcia Johnson (Toronto comedian):
I've heard from a lot of men that their greatest fear is to be laughed at by a woman. Well, I can understand that. ... Of course, a woman's greatest fear is to be killed by a man but that's OK. I feel your pain.

Dec 8, 2008, 8:53pm Top

I hear you sister!

Dec 12, 2008, 4:58pm Top

>23 kaslibrary: "One would think that women, who claim to know how it feels to be objectified and minimized..." {emphasis added}.


{Wipes tears} Oh, irony. How I love you.

Jun 24, 2009, 9:49pm Top

If memory serves me correctly, underwear when it became popular to wear in ths U,S, were called panties meaning small pants.....Since it sounds feminine men shied away from buying them until marketeers changed the name for male's undies to short,boxers or just plain underwear...I hope this helps as its been a long time since I remember this piece of history

Jun 25, 2009, 3:27am Top

Good to see this thread revived. Anything new on the panties front?

Jul 11, 2009, 11:50am Top

Maybe because when a man spies a donned pair he may begin to pant? ;-)

Jul 11, 2009, 1:11pm Top

Here in England they're knickers, though 'panties' does creep in on the packaging. I hope it never becomes common usage because it sounds to me, too, like something very little girls wear.

Underwear, by the way, is anything we wear under our outerwear - so that includes bras, slips, corsets (for those who do) etc.

Nov 28, 2009, 2:41am Top

I'm glad the term isn't in common use in England - I really dislike it, though I can't quite articulate why.

I use 'underwear' to refer to bras, knickers, slips, tights, undershirts - anything that goes *under* my regular clothing, actually. I'd like to see a revival of 'smallclothes' though!

Apr 6, 2010, 10:04am Top

Best movie that features various knickers/panties in a supporting role throughout the movie --- "Bridget Jones' Diary"

"Definitely an occasion for genuinely tiny knickers."

Edited: Apr 6, 2010, 12:17pm Top

With a nod to "Sixteen Candles"!

"Last night at the dance,
my little brother paid a buck
to see your underwear."

Apr 7, 2010, 8:48am Top

There's the marketer's "inner wear" as opposed to "outer wear" and in the south, I used to hear "foundation garments". But that was a long time ago.

Apr 7, 2010, 11:40am Top

I think foundation garments specifically means things like girdles and corsets that are designed to hide flaws and enhance certain attributes.

I'm sure someone has already mentioned "unmentionables" as a term for underwear.

May 16, 2010, 1:08am Top

I'd like someone with good eyes for small print to see what OED has for knickers' etymology, but as far as panties go, I would, without even checking, say let us keep the word for it is sweet and English could use more sweetness. I am not big on excessive hugging or oogling or pronouncements of love, but diminuatives are terms of endearment I can live with. I love to hear people use and overuse them in Spanish.

Besides, we should have bigger fish to fry, such as why Occidental and Far Eastern women have a choice between bifurcated and open-ended clothing while men generally do not. We need to consider what I call "Redressing the World."

May 16, 2010, 1:26am Top

Has anyone mentioned 'smalls'?
I call them underpants (whether for males or females), and sometimes 'knickers' because I lived in England for some time. I think 'smalls' may refer to underpants, brassieres, singlets and slips too.
I wonder about the difference between slips and petticoats, by the way.

Edited: May 16, 2010, 2:02am Top

Completely without research, I'd think slips could be either full (covering the bust and from the waist down to almost any conceivable length) or half (and are so designated), whereas petticoats are only from the waist down and generally add fullness to make one's skirts pouf outwards (whereas slips don't).

Edited to add: the online etymology dictionary (not the OED, but I've found it generally useful) says this about knickers:

"short, loose-fitting undergarment," now usually for women, 1881, shortening of knickerbockers (1859), said to be so called for their resemblance to those of old-time Dutchmen in Cruikshank's illustrations for Washington Irving's "History of New York" (see knickerbocker).

May 16, 2010, 9:57am Top

Rather than finding the word sweet, I agree with the OP who said, "My surface reaction is that it infantilizes women somehow, in a way that "underwear" doesnʻt." "Panties" has a smarmy condescension to it that other words people have suggested do not.

May 16, 2010, 5:07pm Top

Perhaps. As mine are not called panties but, I suppose, skivvies, I treat the word as an abstraction, but I guess it is used with "smarmy condescension" and by women themselves (give me two words here!). For the sake of a short word for both sexes, I guess the way to go (for Usanians, at any rate) would be, after Kimkate (>13 KimKate:) undies, for both sexes.

As far as what we actually must wear, most stores force mean to wear either briefs with no support or groin-smashing jocky shorts and do not sell comfortable pouch-style underwear -- this is part of the general rule that men, unlike women, are usually given little choice in what they wear. In things sartorial methinks Male liberation lags female liberation by a century or so.

Jun 8, 2010, 12:33am Top

Why is it that most men find women's lingerie and underwear sexy? Is it a fetish? After all they are merely items of clothing. (Also some women find men's bikinis and speedos sexy.)
I grew up in Ireland and the word "panties" was never used; it was "knickers". I was one of eleven children and lived in poverty. When, as young children, my mother took us to the sea to swim we wore my sisters' "knickers" because of our poverty (we didn't have any male underwear). This changed very quickly in our teen years because of embarrassment. We begged pennies from uncles, aunts etc so as to buy male swimwear -- they were called "togs".

Jun 8, 2010, 1:19am Top

>43 bookmonk8888: I think it's because lingerie and underwear cover (sometimes not very well) the interesting bits on bodies. Some of the interesting bits (I'm kind of fascinated by a man's hands, I realize).

It's a theory, anyway.

Jun 8, 2010, 1:46am Top

Hence glove fetish.

Edited: Jun 8, 2010, 3:09am Top

This message has been deleted by its author.

Edited: Jun 8, 2010, 4:06am Top

>44 ejj1955: I've thought of that but there's also the fact that many men prefer frilly stuff, lace etc, as well as certain fabrics e.g. silk. Why are these more feminine, if not more sexy? Why are Victoria Secret "products" more interesting to some men?
I do not agree with message # 45. Many women seem to be fascinated by non-sexual parts of the male body. My girlfriend, for instance, notices the nose and cheekbones of almost every man she meets.

Jun 8, 2010, 3:21am Top

I tend to focus on their sense of humor.

Jun 8, 2010, 3:51am Top

Me too. And IQ.

Jun 8, 2010, 2:01pm Top

And political leanings.

>47 bookmonk8888: Silk feels nice. Lace has a peek-a-boo quality. I have to wonder, if you saw two pictures of the same attractive woman, wearing either white "granny" panties and an 18-hour support bra, versus the same lovely lady in some red or black or electric blue Victoria Secret's scanty wisps of fabric, would you really not find one more appealing than the other?

Jun 9, 2010, 12:56am Top

> 50
I fully agree about "white "granny" panties and an 18-hour support bra" although, pardon my ignorance, I don't know what an " 18-hour support bra" is. Push-ups etc yes.

While I find lace, silk, frilly stuff, bikinis, Victoria's Secret products etc arousal as a male I wonder why. Why the arousal factor of a fabric? Isn't is what's under the undies that drives men crazy?

Then there's the tight skirts that show the curvaceous body. (Some women have curves in places where other women don't even have places!) It's probably how males are wired, how nature (that wants babies) makes the bodies of males and females attractive to each other.

And then there are breasts. They're merely lumps of flesh -- some males have larger ones. Yet when I dare to look at an exposed cleavage I almost get vertigo. Silicon Valley has more than one meaning!

Women also, sometimes, find wearing "sexy" undies make them feel more feminine. My girlfriend often wears them at work, not to attract men (how would they know) but to feel good about herself.

I read that some Muslim women who wear burkas also wear sexy undies, lipstick, and make-up under their disguise. Good for them! And many Muslim males justify the burka because they find the sight of women's hair or lips seductive.

P.S. Just googled "18-hour bra". I learn something new every day!

Jun 9, 2010, 5:23am Top

#51 Feel like sharing then? I just googled it too and got nothing but very unhelpful sales - nothing explaining the concept. And I've been wearing bras for many, many years, but I've never come across that one yet.

Jun 9, 2010, 5:41am Top

>52 Booksloth: Not sure what you mean by "Feel like sharing then? " My bras? Don't have any. Except my girlfriend's. She's never heard of "18-hour support bras" either.

Jun 9, 2010, 5:48am Top

So can someone tell me what an 18 hour bra is please? Why 18 hours? Does it then turn into a pumpkin?

Jun 9, 2010, 6:03am Top

Perhaps waking hours. Just guessing. So what did you mean by "Feel like sharing then?"

Edited: Jun 9, 2010, 6:12am Top

This message has been deleted by its author.

Jun 9, 2010, 6:18am Top

#55 I was hoping you might want to share whatever information you'd found out about them. It's okay, the urge has passed.

Jun 9, 2010, 6:36am Top

#57 Though your urge has passed you might find this informative. I found it on Amazon's apparel site:

"I have memorized the model number of 4693 - a bra built for human females. The wide straps are awesome... they are tapered in such a way that they don't look like industrial strength suspenders, but they stay in place and don't flip over or cut grooves into your shoulders.

These bras do not have underwires - which means they don't get mangled in the washing machine or poke through. I have been buying this model number for almost 10 years now. Each bra has lasted me for almost 5 years with weekly washings in the washing machine and clothes dryer.

During their productive life span, they do not falter in support or comfort. I've never had a problem with hooks or eyes coming off the fasteners, or loose threads coming off after a wash.

Like any elastic garment, however, it will not last forever when you wash and dry all the time. Some people hand wash their bras and line dry them - I'm sure they would last much longer if I did this - but I just don't make the time to go through that effort.

The straps have a tiny amount of tapered padding that also helps in the comfort arena. When they call this an 18-hour bra, they are not kidding. I have had a number of situations at work where I have had to stay late - sometimes stay at work for a 24-hour shift now and then. When I've had to do this in the past w/ other bras, I thought I was going to drop dead from the fatigue and neck aches - but even after 20+ hours with this Playtex 4693 18hr bra, I am barely aware that it's even there - because it does it's job without needing constant fiddling and re-adjusting.

I don't even try on other bras anymore - this is THE best bra there is for comfort and support."

Jun 9, 2010, 6:41am Top

Thank you.

Jun 9, 2010, 3:42pm Top

I remember 18 hour bra commercials from my childhood, but they've evidently been continuing into my adult years too. Here is one on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnWoROa80rE

I thought that Jane Russell used to advertise for Platex, but there is no evidence of it on YouTube.

Jun 9, 2010, 10:17pm Top

Personally, I love the word panties.

Jun 10, 2010, 12:33am Top

>60 Nickelini: You are right, Jane Russell did advertise for Playtex--apparently she advertised the "cross-your-heart" bra.

Here's a picture of the 18-hour bra:


Jun 10, 2010, 1:32am Top

#61 Me too. And I'm male!!

Jun 11, 2010, 8:30am Top

>58 bookmonk8888: as the noted Egyptian feminist Nawal el Saadawi has said: "the veiling of women in Islamic societies and the nakedness of women in 'Western' societies are two sides of the same coin; both are a sign of the continuing oppression of women. " (quoted from charbutton's article on her in Belletrista http://www.belletrista.com/2010/issue5/features_7.php)

Edited: Jun 13, 2010, 9:22am Top

Skimming down the talk
-- last first: The link belletrista, a good name. Made me think of women East and West who had to deface themselves to be freed from the shackles of beauty.
-- on panting after panties: "the panties and the panter" might make a good book title.
-- on overalls: if only there were a German brand on sale, imagine "Deutschland, Deutscheland, overallis!" in a video add
-- on attraction of lace etc. Gauze-like underwear was associated with the sex-trade in Japan for hundreds of years. It is part of the stripping, or visual teasing of men. The odd thing today (from the 60's or 70's maybe?) in JApan is the infatuation of older men for women in white panties -- I assumed it arose because of many Japanese adopting 1940's-50's Usanian Puritanism . . .
-- on more women wearing undies un19der long underwear than men. Two things are certain. 1) More women wash clothing than men and by wearing undies under the long underwear needs to be washed much less often. 2) Men get more cramped up, are hotter and prone to fungal infections, so two layers of underwear are too much.

I have solved the last-mentioned problem. Long underwear should have the crotch cut out. Then, men prone to skin infection or worried about lowering their fertility and women liable to yeast infection can keep warm in comfort. And the long underwear would stay clean enough to wear for a week or two. I think crotchless long underwear would let us use so much less heating in the Winter that our fuel consumption would drop double decimal . . . And that would be more important than what we call what we wear, no? If anyone agrees this is important, please help me get through to Oprah or Martha Stewart or Ellen as most people will not take a scizzors to their underwear and we need crotchless long underwear to be produced and publicized. By the way, the underarms for what may be worn above also need removing!

Jul 1, 2010, 4:16am Top

Why panties at all? It's trendy at the moment e.g. photos of Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus. Same for men. Then the crotchless issue would be irrelevant. (I think over-warm undies might have contributed to the sterility in my marriage. Can't blame the woman always.)

Edited: Jul 1, 2010, 8:02am Top

#66 In case you're run over by a bus, of course - or that's what my mum always told me. (And you've clearly never worn mini-skirts!)

ETA _ If you have, please don't tell us about it;-)

Jul 1, 2010, 8:22am Top

I was in an accident and wasn't wearing panties.* My mom picked me up. Oh boy, did I hear about it. It does happen!

*I had thrown on this overall shorts thing for a quick errand. You know, you step into it then bring the top over and tie it behind your neck? Well, I got glass all over my back and of course the emergency people had to look down the inside - and well - they got an eyeful.

Jul 1, 2010, 3:19pm Top

OK, since we're confessing:

I rarely wear undergarments in summer (except with miniskirts!). I'm also a complete klutz. Both of those things are fine but in combination & with a breaking pair of sandals thrown in (watch as the picture goes wavy & we flashback to 2 summers ago)

Me, at a major city public transportation hub, flat on my back, one sandal god knows where, my legs up, my skirt blown back to my waist. It was only a split second & no one seemed to have seen, but, wow. Needless to say, I've worn very sturdy sandals ever since.

Jul 1, 2010, 8:22pm Top

re # 69

I've heard it said that a good sermon in like a miniskirt - "it's short enough to be interesting and long enough to cover the essentials". Personally I prefer miniskirts to sermons :)

Jul 9, 2010, 7:56pm Top

Bookmonk, you have a point about no undies but in #65, those crotchless longjohns are why i could live without a heater through tokyo winters until the computer age came and i had to keep the temperature up high enough not to see my breath.

I'll confess, too, SB, i tend to wear a wrap-around skirt inside as it is cooler even with undies than the trousers we men are supposed to wear and easier to put on and take off as legs need not be raised up and aimed through holes . . . (Sooner or later, we men must revolt against the tyranny of being forced to wear a single family of clothing as women did!).

Jul 16, 2010, 9:41am Top

>69 susanbooks:

one sandal god knows where, my legs up, my skirt blown back to my waist.

Sandal rhymes with "scandal". Now let me think up a Limerick:

There was a young lady without undies,
In a subway with males without grundies.
She tripped on her sandal.
They said what a scandal;
She should have shopped at Abercombie's

Jul 16, 2010, 10:22am Top

Bookmonk! I'm so proud to have inspired a poem! I feel like Laura to your Petrarch, Beatrice to your Dante. Tho I can't recall either of those women lying around pantsless in public. Nor can I recall P or D using that particular meter ;)

Edited: Jul 19, 2010, 7:59am Top

susanbooks, if you've some time to waste, you might look at one of my poems at message 41, Topic "Share your poetry" under Group "Poetry Fool'. Perhaps it might scare the panties off an adjunct Literature professor!

Group: Feminist Theory

1,066 members

6,295 messages


This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.


No touchstones


Posting to this group is subject to moderation and group terms.

Moderator: southernbooklady

Group terms: We seek on-topic, respectful, and constructive discussion about feminism. The validity of feminism is a given. Dissent is acceptable; disruption is not. Comments should pertain to the thread topic. Obnoxious, insulting, abusive, and threatening comments are unacceptable.

About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 130,724,616 books! | Top bar: Always visible