Doran Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 While DB in NJ and her guy were discussing cotton or silk pj's last night, my dh and I were discussing why underwear is considered a pair. (I will not divulge the specifics of why we were discussing underwear in the first place ;)). So, I just spent a couple minutes trying to find an answer to this question via Google. I think I've got it. Anyone else have an idea they'd like to share before I put in my $.02? Oh and..NO GOOGLING allowed. I'm curious about whether your ideas will be similar to what dh and I came up with on our own. Or, perhaps you folks will be ueber-smart and get it right off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3lilreds in NC Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Because they go on a pair of legs? Two holes? I have no idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybear Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Okay, I'm totally not remembering the terminology here,but maybe it's because a ways back(a few hundred years maybe??) men wore something on their legs and then a thing they tied around their crotch area. Maybe it was the pair of things on their legs? That doesn't quite make sense now that I've written it. Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracey in TX Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 LOL, never pondered this! Let's try: a pair of underwear implies that there are multiple pieces. Guess it's a package deal: bra and panties? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSMP Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Okay, I'm totally not remembering the terminology here,but maybe it's because a ways back(a few hundred years maybe??) men wore something on their legs and then a thing they tied around their crotch area. Maybe it was the pair of things on their legs? That doesn't quite make sense now that I've written it. Lol. No...but it sounds funny and the mental image.....is....interesting...:lol: Now I need some bleach for my minds eye......ewwww. My guess would have been what LilRed said......or back in the day they only had two pair of undies.....one to work in and one for Sunday best? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nancypants Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Everything below the belt is plural and everything above the belt (that is not worn on ears or eyes) is singular even if they are worn on two matching extremities or appendages. This is my own theory. :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinsfamily Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I would have to go with the fact that they go over two legs, like a pair of pants/shorts. This makes also sense since we call them a pair of glasses which go over two eyes. Although that could be referring to the two lenses... Is there a "right" answer out there somewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kay in Cal Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I believe it's because long ago trousers were in two pieces--one for each leg, and then tied around the top. Women didn't wear underwear for a very long time... there are lots of medeival stories about lady so-and-so falling down, and revealling her bottom to everyone. It was considered very funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
percytruffle Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I believe it's because long ago trousers were in two pieces--one for each leg, and then tied around the top. I have to agree with Kay. They used to be two separate legs that tied together at the top, hence "pair of pants" which gave birth to "pair of underpants" because they were worn under the pants. (unless you've had one too many Mike"s :D) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doran Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share Posted June 27, 2008 Woolybear was first to figure that the term originates from the fact that underwear was once a two part deal, one for each leg and tied at the top to keep chafing down, I suppose. Covering the crotch area was...um...optional. Not covering certainly offered ease of access. I haven't dug in deep enough to figure when the two pieces became one. Okay, I'm totally not remembering the terminology here,but maybe it's because a ways back(a few hundred years maybe??) men wore something on their legs and then a thing they tied around their crotch area. Maybe it was the pair of things on their legs? That doesn't quite make sense now that I've written it. Lol. Kay -- you and Lisa are runners up. But, Lisa, what are you trying to tell us about the position of one's underwear when one has had too many Mike's?!? :lol: I believe it's because long ago trousers were in two pieces--one for each leg, and then tied around the top. Women didn't wear underwear for a very long time... there are lots of medeival stories about lady so-and-so falling down, and revealling her bottom to everyone. It was considered very funny. I have to agree with Kay. They used to be two separate legs that tied together at the top, hence "pair of pants" which gave birth to "pair of underpants" because they were worn under the pants. (unless you've had one too many Mike"s :D) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Debbie Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Because they go on a pair of legs? Two holes? I have no idea! That was my first thought! Now I'm curious.... Deb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 This is going to drive me crazy all day!!! I'd just about settled my mind by just "accepting" Nancypant's theory (with a name like I figured she ought to be an authority") below: Everything below the belt is plural and everything above the belt (that is not worn on ears or eyes) is singular even if they are worn on two matching extremities or appendages. This is my own theory. :tongue_smilie: But then I thought of diapers :glare: Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybear Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Woo hoo! I win a prize for something. Go figure it's about underwear! The reason I thought of that is I have been reading Outlander. It's a wonderful time travel book (series actually) if you've never heard of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.