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).
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?