Definitely an egregious oversight! Never have more panties than any woman who is significant in your life. Either purchase relevant gifts for her (not necessarily for you) or make matching purchases (although her preferences may radically differ).
I suppose an entrepreneur might consider ‘His’ and ‘Hers’ (‘Hers’ and ‘His’?) panties. Oh! They already have them? Nah, the ‘His’ versions are too masculine. That’s what happens when you get panties backward.
Or is that ‘Hers’ and Hers’? Well that would be just two pair of the same thing (maybe differing in size) so nobody would really notice much difference. In the panties, that is.
I invented a word, ‘athenize’. Basically in means to enhance the apparent femininity of one’s self through a pallet of cosmetics, costumes, adornments, scents, behaviourial patterns, intonation, gait, etc. It is ‘sex-neutral’ in that both males and females do it with varying degrees of success and authenticity. I mention this as ‘panties’ is simply the rather infantile feminization of the word ‘pants’. ‘Pants’ originally specified undergarments as opposed to ‘triubhs’ or ‘trousers’. It seems that males and females wore similar garments or, the mention of a lady’s what-not was strictly unprintable.
So, when it became remotely acceptable to acknowledge the existence of fashion differences in a usually ignored element of clothing it appears that the word was ‘athenized’. I rather suspect that this was significant for a wider portion of the feminine (but male or female) population of the time. Perhaps they took on a more serious examination of the possibility to ‘athenized’ the actual garments. That’s why panties are so pretty.
- This reply was modified 1 week ago by Araminta Purdy.