This week we begin a new feature: Words that should be banned.Today's word: "Panties."
By "Panties," I mean those undergarments worn on the bottom by members of female sex.
I'm not calling for a universal moratorium on the use of the word "Panties." I don't object to its use when deployed to describe the undergarment worn by a girl child between the ages of 2-12.
"Panties" is a perfectly acceptable description for an undergarment worn by this age group. But when you advance the age of the female wearer to, say, 30, 48, or 73, you have to ask yourself if
it is entirely appropriate to refer to the undergarment in question as "Panties?"
"Panties" infantilizes its wearer, reduces her to a juvenile status. "Panties" lacks the authority and confidence of an undergarment which should be worn by the grown woman. "Panties" are worn by little girls, some of whom have very recently graduated from diapers.
It's not that we lack a choice of words for the undergarment worn by the mature woman. We have the muscular "underpants" and the less strident "underwear" and the slightly mysterious "underthings."
Common slang parlance includes "undies" or if you're British "knickers" or "knick knicks" although the latter term might be creeping back into the territory of juvenile. Sensible undergarment retailers refer to them as "briefs."
Romantics might define the undergarment as "lingerie" although it's unlikely "lingerie" would be worn by a woman going out to play a game of rugby, for instance. But "lingerie" while not univerally appropriate is, at least, mature and dignified.
More descriptive terms might include "thongs" or "boy shorts." I'm sure there are plenty of other descriptions for the undergarment, but it is the age-appropriateness that concerns me.
Let us embrace an appropriate term for this undergarment of bottom regions and leave "panties" to the children. If you have other suggestions please offer.
