March 12, 2008: Pairs of underpants
It’s easy to conceive of socks as being members of a pair, since we have two feet and each sock is its own separate entity. Meanwhile, I can’t say I’ve ever encountered an underpant as detached from its pair. I’m not even sure what underpants are supposed to be pairs of. Are you seriously telling me a single underpant would just be one leg hole? I’m not even going to attempt to visualize such a retarded garment.
As a rule of thumb, if you can’t separate something, it’s not a pair. I don’t really care how many sides of your ass it covers. Like we don’t call a hat a “pair of hats” just because it’s placed above both your ears. Nor should we should call a pair of underpants anything but an underpant. From now on, if you say you’re wearing a pair of underpants, you’re wearing two separate underpants, one over the other, like a little baby afraid of making an accident. Also, if you say you’re wearing a pair of hats, you’re only wearing one hat. I’m pleased to announce that hats will now be called pairs of hats.
leatherwing wrote:
what about regular pants? i think this is a much harder enemy to face, because it is more commonly accepted as a pair than underpants.
Posted on 13-Mar-08 at 12:27 am | Permalink
mykl wrote:
thank you, thank you. i’ve been concerned about the self seteem of my hats. they’ve wanted to be pairs for several years. the other day i caught one of them unraveling a seam. but now that they are truly pairs of hats, they can rejoice!
Posted on 13-Mar-08 at 2:48 am | Permalink
mykl wrote:
the word seteem = esteem. look it up. its new.
Posted on 13-Mar-08 at 2:48 am | Permalink
Brade wrote:
Maybe we could call them a “set” of underpants if people are dogmatic about having them be multiple somethings.
Posted on 13-Mar-08 at 10:44 am | Permalink
fahquah wrote:
Eric,
I stumbled across your site awhile back and I must say, good sir, that it is f*cking hilarious.
Keep up the good work.
Posted on 13-Mar-08 at 11:56 am | Permalink
Wes wrote:
And what is up with airline peanuts, I mean come on.
Posted on 13-Mar-08 at 3:17 pm | Permalink
Chris wrote:
I can buy that for pants, underpants, shorts, etc. (even maybe binoculars, given that the nature of the word already includes that it has two things) but what about glasses, tongs, or tweezers?
Posted on 13-Mar-08 at 8:06 pm | Permalink
jd wrote:
Historically, many thousands of years ago, men wore “leggings” as a pair. These individual leg coverings were then laced together with a sinew or piece of leather. In modern times these leggings began to be manufactured as a unit but retained the ‘pair’ description. The ‘pants’ is derived from the French ‘pantaloon’ which was the effect most often encounterd by French women when confronted by the new invention.
But if there are 2 involved, why ain’t it a pair of Bras?
Posted on 13-Mar-08 at 9:38 pm | Permalink
stoney wrote:
wow…jd…wow. I just…wow. You need to get…wow…
Posted on 14-Mar-08 at 7:23 pm | Permalink
mykl wrote:
LOL @ WES. ZING!
special mention goes to stoney. well done, old chap
Posted on 15-Mar-08 at 3:06 am | Permalink
Alvolio wrote:
Yet another boner provided by the writesmanship of Mr. Eric Karjala.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 11:26 pm | Permalink
Krowe wrote:
Even more perplexing is why those “pairs” of socks come in resealable ziplock style packaging now. Seriously men, take a look the next time you’re buying a six pack of Hanes or Fruit of the Loom socks. Those suckers are fresh.
Posted on 06-Apr-08 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
Ali wrote:
And henceforth a pair of sunglasses are just sunglasses. (Sunglass sounds too stupid).
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 4:17 am | Permalink
Grace wrote:
A fresh outlook on a pair of socks, undergarments, and hats.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 11:45 pm | Permalink
Crate wrote:
You can’t separate a pair (as in fruit)either so why don’t we call it an tumoured apple instead.
PAIR DOES NOT MEAN SEPARATE YOU MORON!
Posted on 28-May-08 at 7:10 pm | Permalink
Milly wrote:
OK, it’s now clear to me that I can’t read your blog at work without making it abundantly obvious that I’m not working. A) I’m laughing B) I’m at my desk for minutes at a time.
Kudos!
Posted on 06-Aug-08 at 2:32 pm | Permalink
MacFriendly wrote:
Superman
Batman
Wonder Woman…
Actually, I wonder if in fact they are wearing underwear paired, one in, one out… I hate to think not, that could be unsanitary.
;-D
.
Posted on 12-Aug-08 at 8:59 pm | Permalink