Usually, I wouldn’t bother mentioning unmentionables, but, this was too precious.
I’m guessing Valentines day didn’t go so well for her. It isn’t that the lady hates underroos, she just hates the word(s ). It seems “panty” and “panties” are equally acrimonious. And, she quotes backup for the notion that “panty” is a bad word.
Panties is the worst word ever? Really? Oddly, it is also “infantilizing“, but at the same time “it’s too sexy“. Now, that is some very disturbing imagery, but it exists only in the minds of these nutters. ….. the thinking is wrong. And, the author, Sarah Fentem provides the proof the thinking is wrong. The poor girl dances all around the truth, but, rejects the reality of the truth. Her opening paragraph…..
Every month or so, I receive a glossy coupon from Victoria’s Secret in my mailbox. “Free panty!” it beckons. “No purchase necessary!”
Later she writes this…..
Why does panties sound sexual? Many arguments could be made, not the least concerning advertising. I have a hunch that the sexualization of the word “panties” is the result of some marketing focus group grasping for a word to run alongside pictures of lingerie models in “tempting” mesh undergarments.
And, then she writes this……
However, the hatred of the word “panties” comes from how disconnected the sexy word is from the function of what it means. Women’s underwear serves the same utilitarian purpose a man’s underwear does.
u·til·i·tar·i·an [yoo-til-i-tair-ee-uhn] adjective
1. pertaining to or consisting in utility.
2. having regard to utility or usefulness rather than beauty, ornamentation, etc.
I’m wondering how she reconciles the success of Victoria’s Secret with women’s underwear serving the same utilitarian purpose as man’s underwear?