QUESTION of then Day - Ladies Panties

[satx78247]

Friends,

WHY are individual ladies underpants referred to as "a PAIR of panties??"

yours, satx

 

[TheMailMan]

Friends,

WHY are individual ladies underpants referred to as "a PAIR of panties??"

yours, satx

Why do you wear a "pair of shorts"?

 

[nlam01]

Or a pair pants

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

 

[gaines67]

Friends,

WHY are individual ladies underpants referred to as "a PAIR of panties??"

yours, satx

Stop getting your panties in a bunch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nlam01]

It's actually because pants and under garments came in in two separate pieces that had to be tied around the waist. One was pulled up over one leg and tied and the other done the same way. The term just stayed even after someone got the idea to sew them together.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

 

[JeepFiend]

It's actually because pants and under garments came in in two separate pieces that had to be tied around the waist. One was pulled up over one leg and tied and the other done the same way. The term just stayed even after someone got the idea to sew them together.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

Had to look that up to verify. Guessing that's where the saying "Puts his pants on one leg at a time" also probably came from

 

[karlac]

That's explains "he split his britches", but means britches were one piece?

 

[satx78247]

dArmi_Beretta; ALL.

SPOT ON & 100 PERCENT CORRECT.
(Since you knew that answer, "WHAT did ladies wear under outer garments before "pairs" of panties were invented?)

yours, satx

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Well, they are in her wheelhouse....

 

[easy rider]

dArmi_Beretta; ALL.

SPOT ON & 100 PERCENT CORRECT.
(Since you knew that answer, "WHAT did ladies wear under outer garments before "pairs" of panties were invented?)

yours, satx

The question is, would they be called a pair if there was only one leg hole?

 

[seeker_two]

.....but, why is it not called a pair of bras?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

That's explains "he split his britches", but means britches were one piece?

karlac,

People didn't have that "breezy" problem until the 2 pieces of (men's) trousers were sewed together.
(For some reason that I've never uncovered, "pants" in my grandmother's era referred ONLY to UNDERPANTS & she would have told you that "No decent lady would wear trousers, though bloomers are acceptable for sports like women's basketball.")

My grandmother was born in Indian Territory in 1866 & taught school in both IT & in early Oklahoma from 1880 to the 1930s. = In those long-ago days, you could TEACH any grade that you had completed yourself.= My GM started teaching "grade school" (We would call it: Pre-K to 6.) shortly after she completed 8th grade & before she was 15YO. = In those days, students in IT only attended school in the Winter, as they worked the farms, anytime it was warm enough to do outdoor things. - At other times in the year, the schoolmarm sent the students work home to do at night.

yours, satx

 

[nlam01]

dArmi_Beretta; ALL.

SPOT ON & 100 PERCENT CORRECT.
(Since you knew that answer, "WHAT did ladies wear under outer garments before "pairs" of panties were invented?)

yours, satx

Pfffft
That's easy. Women did not wear panties until the 19th century. They usually wore a smock and a corset or a "stay" under their outer garments.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

.....but, why is it not called a pair of bras?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

seeker_two

SIMPLE- because the French woman who INVENTED brassieres in the late 19th century sewed the 2 sides together. = That's why MOST bras have a seam between the breasts.
(The 2 sides were separate & then sewed together before being sold to a wholesaler.)

yours, satx

 

[pronstar]

Does a one-legged man simply wear a pant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[satx78247]

Pfffft
That's easy. Women did not wear panties until the 19th century. They usually wore a smock and a corset or a "stay" under their outer garments.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

dArmi_Beretta,

Well, you're HALF right anyway. = MOST of the year women wore nothing that resembled underpants but in some VERY COLD areas, women wore what looked somewhat like the 2-piece below the KNEE-length trousers, that men wore then, under their dresses. = AKA: KNEE PANTS, that buttoned below the knees, like AWI-era trousers.

yours, satz

 

[nlam01]

dArmi_Beretta,

Well, you're HALF right anyway. = MOST of the year women wore nothing that resembled underpants but in some VERY COLD areas, women wore what looked somewhat like the 2-piece below the KNEE-length trousers that men wore then under their dresses. = AKA: KNEE PANTS, that buttoned below the knees, like AWI-era trousers.

yours, satz

My understanding is that those were worn by noble women and the wealthy. Peasants or any woman below wealth would tie cloths around the waist and upper thighs when they were on their cycle, but they wore nothing otherwise. They wouldn't until the mid 1700s when the "pantaloons" would be extended to all women.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

The question is, would they be called a pair if there was only one leg hole?

easy rider,

An under- SKIRT. = Under-skirts were invented so "rural" women could ride astride & without wearing "trousers".
"DECENT" city women rode sidesaddle back then.
(My grandmother would have called them: Divided riding-skirts.)

Note: My grandmother was a skilled horsewoman. - She HAD to be, as she was a "circuit-riding teacher" in the warmer months to visit students & assign their schoolwork. = Her "home visit students" might be a half-day's ride apart in IT.

yours, satx

 

[easy rider]

Does a one-legged man simply wear a pant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Did he buy it that way?

 

[satx78247]

My understanding is that those were worn by noble women and the wealthy. Peasants or any woman below wealth would tie cloths around the waist and upper thighs when they were on their cycle, but they wore nothing otherwise. They wouldn't until the mid 1700s when the "pantaloons" would be extended to all women.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk

Actually even noble women seldom wore anything under their dresses until about 1815, unless it was VERY cold & they had to be outdoors.

Further, "fashionable ladies" evening-gowns were cut below the nipple-line between the AWI & about 1820 & the nipples were usually ROUGED at after-dark "formal affairs".
(Thats what rouge was first used for & generally only in FRANCE.)

yours, satx