It's all pants, I say! PANTS!

Around a month ago I was commenting on something (can't remember what exactly), and I said something along the lines of 'it's pants'. 'Pants' is something that I have been saying for well over twenty years, usually to describe something that is awful, crap, stupid or pathetic. And it's not just me, a lot of people round here use 'pants' as a word to describe something that is incredibly blah.

It got me thinking though. I mean, just as there are a wide range of pants to be worn, there is also a wide range of things that could be described as 'pants'.

Over in America, pants are trousers, so I don't think the point really gets across as well as it should. But over here, pants are underwear. Generally, pants are what we call men's underwear, while the fabulous word for women's unmentionables is 'knickers'.  I love that word, 'knickers'. I use it almost as much as I use 'pants'. It's just funny to say (or it is to me, at any rate).

Anywho, knickers aside (the best thing for them, really *winks*), I'm talking about pants, so I'll get back to it. I thought I'd try to categorize real pants against the things that we use them to describe (if that makes sense).

First we have the y-fronts. Now, to me, this is probably the most commonly used comparison when we are describing something that is particularly lame, because let's face it, y-fronts are the most boring underwear on the planet. The y-front brings to mind middle-aged men with pot bellies, belly button fluff, and string vests. *shudders* At the moment, I am thinking specifically about y-fronts when I say that I think the Twilight phenomena is complete and utter pants.

Next up, we have boxer shorts. Boxer shorts are required attire for males over the age of four, but under the age of 21. They're comfortable, and don't have to be removed for various activities (great for the younger males, who may need the loo in a hurry, and fantastic for the older males, who like easy navigation for an entirely different reason altogether). Boxer shorts are, in fact, probably the perfect underwear choice for males all over the world. For descriptive purposes, I would be thinking of boxer shorts if I were using 'pants' to describe a movie or a book that perhaps used a tried and tested structure in order to tell the story (taking the easy way out, as it were).

Lastly (for the men, that is. There are probably more forms of underwear for the males of our species, but being a woman I have limited knowledge), we have briefs. Now, briefs are the choice for males past the age of getting it out for all and sundry, so it is difficult to give an age range. Some men reach this level of maturity in their early twenties, others are in their forties before they decide they've sown their final oats. Then there are the men who don't like any kind of planting at all (usually these are the men who wear y-fronts), and the men who have the need to garden for their entire lives (chronic boxer short wearers). So brief wearers are definitely hard to generalise. Anyway, briefs are the pants that I think of when I describe everyday things that are stupid/lame/crud etc. Like when I've been waiting an hour for a bus, and I say 'Cardiff Bus are pants'. Or if I buy a sack of potatoes and they boil away to nothing when I cook them (what a pants bag of spuds they were!). It makes sense that you can't generalise the items you would describe as the brief form of pants, seeing as you can't generalise the type of man who wears them, yes? (Of course it doesn't make sense at all, but seeing as this blog post is definitely pants (of the boxer short variety), then I'm not really worried).

So there we have it. A quick (pants) blog about how and why I use 'pants' as a word to describe anything from bad movies to crappy potatoes.  As a last thought though, I'd like to add that I think pants are pants too. I mean, honestly, what is the point of them? The y-front wearers would do much better without them (it would improve their image no end), the boxer short wearers don't need them (they want easy access, and surely easier access would be better achieved without wearing any pants at all), and the brief wearers are so middle-of-the-road when it comes to their choice, that surely it would suit their Not Fussy attitude just as much if they chose to go 'Commando' instead.

Pants? Why bother?