Saturday, October 23, 2004

The Case for Not Wearing Pants

Originally uploaded by Rozanne.
If you mention to a British person that you just bought a great new pair of pants, you can be sure that that person will politely suppress a snicker. He or she will think you are talking about these and may think you a trifle forward. Of course, this British person may well realize that you actually mean your new pair of, say, Sansabelt Slacks and not your underpants. However, that person's first reaction will still be amusement, because the first thing that comes to mind will be underpants. Think of it this way, if a British person told you that he could really go for a nice spotted dick, what would you think? Even if you know that spotted dick is suet and current pudding--come on. What American wouldn't have already played out some other sort of scenario in his or her mind after hearing the term "spotted dick"?

For the above reason, I prefer the word trousers--and not just because I want the good opinion of Brits (although I can't deny that that's part of it). Consider this. Pants is short for pantaloons, which is (are?) a garment frequently worn by buffoons. Additionally, the word pants conjures up images of overheated and/or tuckered out dogs, mouths hanging open and slobber a-dribbling. (To me, anyway, it does.) Trousers, on the other hand, were worn by the likes of Greta Garbo, Winston Churchill, Cary Grant, and Wallace. I rest my case.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I tend to refer to my leg-covering garments as "jeans." Because they are, but also because whenever I hear "pants" I think of Chii from the boy-meets-robot anime series 'Chobits' as she marches to the mall to shop for undergarments, chanting "pantsu, pantsu" as she goes.

8:42 AM  
Blogger Rozanne said...

Grey Duck,

Yet another compelling reason not to use "that word."

6:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home