"Panties"

A short answer is that almost all women in the U.S. use "panties" to describe our underpants. It really is the only word commonly used. Knickers is British, and undies is a somewhat unusual slang word here. Briefs is one style of panties, along with thongs, boyshorts, hicuts, etc. The word as used in the U.S. has definite sexual connotations, as in saying that someone was aiming "to get into my panties" but is often purely descriptive: "I stopped at the store to buy some panties." Some do use the word "pants" as carrying less sexual flavor. I've often heard and seen "pants" in the phrase "she was down to her bra and pants"--I guess that is pretty sexual! Interestingly, a phrase used to describe behavior by either sex is used to describe someone getting agitated or making a fuss about something (implying that they are doing that for no good reason): "getting your panties in a knot".

The British equivalent is "getting your knickers in a twist". A rough equivalent, at least. To my mind "knot" suggests a worse state of agitation than "twist" !

From the female perspective, I do personally find the word 'panties' far more alluring than knickers or pants. May just be me or a female thing.

It just occurred to me that the 'sexualised or diminished' idea might be because of the 'ies' word ending.

Words that end with an 'e' sound are often seen as feminine or child-like; this is why the American army's general-purpose (GP) vehicles became known as Jeeps, rather than Jeepies!

myrkassi Only when we decide. Skivvies, isn't thought of as diminishing and it means literally the same thing. Plenty of examples of similar cases.

The whole "panties" controversy is literally what happens when someone has a stray, idiosyncratic thought and is able to publish it. And then a few other people over think it because they have also had that thought and they try to tie it into something bigger.

Sometimes things annoy us for silly reasons but people need to build a community around it for some reason, rather than happily admit to being weird.

Nothing wrong with being weird but when you're insecure about it you have to make everyone else the weird ones. If "much ado about nothing" needed a perfect example, this would be it.

I had always imagned that in the US the word 'panties' wasn't particularly sexualised, because I thought it was just a diminutive of 'pants' -- American for what we call 'trousers' etc in Britain. It always used to surprise me a little when I came across American feminists writing about panties. Whereas in Britain 'panties' had no such reference and was therefore far more sexualised. I know it is for me! Obviously I wasn't quite right. But I can see perfectly well why some women, and I live with one, would find the diminutive infantilising, which is probably why I find it sexy.

I had always assumed that 'panties' 'pants' etc were derived from the older 'pantaloons' (reference missing) and that 'knickers' derived from 'knickerbockers', both of which are outer garments so the diminutive being used for a smaller inner garment seemed logical.
As to implications, these must surely be subjective and change through time according to how much noise is being made to alter a word's implication or meaning.

Thanks for all the replies. Such an interesting discussion.

I think the those who object to the word seem to do so because, A, it is sexualised, or B, because it is a diminutive form of 'pant' and therefore, in someway, diminishes women.

I think that the first is a little misdirected. Panties can be sexualised no matter what they are called. There is a large industry selling flattering sexy panties so we can only assume there is a market for 'sexy' panties (however that is decided on. For one person, lacy frilly panties are sexy, while for another, a sexy panties is little more than a thong) irrespective of the name.

Perhaps there is more in the second objection, that using diminutive words for women and their clothing tends to diminish women in general. I don't agree, by the way, just that I can see the argument. But if, as opb above suggest, the diminutive is used only to distinguish inner from outer garments , then the second objection is also misdirected.

Jogreenknickers, it is interesting that you feel panties are more alluring. It is very interesting to get the female perspective. Was there a reason you used knickers rather than panties in you user name?

I saw something in The Atlantic (link below) several years ago. I suggested a very old-fashioned "country" phrase . . . "step-ins."

https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/why-the-word-panties-is-so-awful-an d-what-to-do-about-it/273224/

Hi Smachtai,

Glad you were interested in the female perspective.

Jogreenknickers is explained on the Over the Desk archive - short version. I met my now husband when he was watching the end of my hockey game at uni. I was yellow carded for a bad tackle. I had ended ups in a heat with my skirt halfway up my back and my name Jo on in large letters on my back. We played all green. Whilst I was serving my time for the card, he shouted to me using my name, Jo and greenknickers which I was wearing and had been on full display. He reckoned I should have had a bigger sanction for the tackle. I asked should I have been sent off, he said he'd have spanked me. I basically said go on if you're so sure. He did, very nicely too in a store room after the match. We dated and got married and that name we still use and we still spank regularly with me still fitting that hockey strip, though the panties have been replaced through wear several times!!

However, I still use and prefer panties, it is a more feminine word. Knickers I sure to break up the usage or where 'school pants' are being described.

Hope that helps.