Monday, December 18, 2006
I am the last person, for lots of reasons, who should be pontificating on the politics of panties. so we'll let someone else do it:
go read thishere post by my pal Bimbo:
There's a belief that thongs are products of the patriarchy's oppression of women. Or at least that a woman's acceptance of these things is capitulation. This suggests that the philosophical tenets of the radfem movement are too tentative and finespun to withstand the delicates cycle. I fail to see how this gender is so mindless, so indoctrinated, that electing to wear these things means we are falling prey to male domination. A fucking pair of panties does not decide value or dedication, intellect or awareness. The attempt to define 'good' women by the context in which the body appears is in direct disproportion to the revolution; and is in fact a patriarchal nasty habit.
really, when it comes to underpants (and I can't believe I have to say this) - to thine own self be true. find those that don't strangle you and aren't itchy and don't migrate or bother you or make you self-conscious.
because, of course, one's sexual availability is NOT determined by what one wears. remember? if that's true for low-cut blouses and short-short skirts, it should also be true for underpants.
and Bimbo further points out:
Long before the invention of judgment by camera phone women wearing corsets made it possible for us to call ourselves feminists.
um, why yes. yes they did. excellent point.
go read thishere post by my pal Bimbo:
There's a belief that thongs are products of the patriarchy's oppression of women. Or at least that a woman's acceptance of these things is capitulation. This suggests that the philosophical tenets of the radfem movement are too tentative and finespun to withstand the delicates cycle. I fail to see how this gender is so mindless, so indoctrinated, that electing to wear these things means we are falling prey to male domination. A fucking pair of panties does not decide value or dedication, intellect or awareness. The attempt to define 'good' women by the context in which the body appears is in direct disproportion to the revolution; and is in fact a patriarchal nasty habit.
really, when it comes to underpants (and I can't believe I have to say this) - to thine own self be true. find those that don't strangle you and aren't itchy and don't migrate or bother you or make you self-conscious.
because, of course, one's sexual availability is NOT determined by what one wears. remember? if that's true for low-cut blouses and short-short skirts, it should also be true for underpants.
and Bimbo further points out:
Long before the invention of judgment by camera phone women wearing corsets made it possible for us to call ourselves feminists.
um, why yes. yes they did. excellent point.
# posted by antiprincess @ 5:04 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
well. I don't like thongs for 2 reasons, and neither have anything to do with anything else.
1.my butt feels cold and
2.I spend much of my time digging my regular panties out of my crack and I see no reason why I should put something in there on purpose.
"butt floss" is just...I don't know...a concept I choose to reject.
If someone else has her very own good reason for wearing them, go for it.
1.my butt feels cold and
2.I spend much of my time digging my regular panties out of my crack and I see no reason why I should put something in there on purpose.
"butt floss" is just...I don't know...a concept I choose to reject.
If someone else has her very own good reason for wearing them, go for it.
exactly.
i can wear thongs in very particular circumstances, for very short periods. i can't imagine wearing 'em all day long.
i'd sooner go commando.
i can wear thongs in very particular circumstances, for very short periods. i can't imagine wearing 'em all day long.
i'd sooner go commando.
"i'd sooner go commando."
At which point, Paglia would write an article about how you're hurting feminism.
And we'd all laugh our asses off.
At which point, Paglia would write an article about how you're hurting feminism.
And we'd all laugh our asses off.
see, that's the thing.
on the one hand, that permanent wedgie feeling.
on the other hand, no strangly elastic around the tops of the legs.
on the one hand, that little peek over the top of the pants.
on the other hand, no aggravating lines showing through the pants.
so, you pays your money and you takes your choice. still as far as can figure it, not a political decision so much as a sensory decision. pick what makes you less aggravated, yeah?
on the one hand, that permanent wedgie feeling.
on the other hand, no strangly elastic around the tops of the legs.
on the one hand, that little peek over the top of the pants.
on the other hand, no aggravating lines showing through the pants.
so, you pays your money and you takes your choice. still as far as can figure it, not a political decision so much as a sensory decision. pick what makes you less aggravated, yeah?
i am so happy that Paglia is taking that line now, because i TOTALLY predicted that she would do. iconoclastic little blob o'grandiosity that she is.
some of us haven't worn underpants since we were fifteen years old or so.
We've still managed to find ways to "hurt feminism" just fine.
We've still managed to find ways to "hurt feminism" just fine.
I'm not at all sure women even wore underpants for much of recorded history.
Notably, in the US in the early 19th century, women did not wear underpants as are modernly conceived. (I think they might have worn some legging sort of things in cold weather.) They did wear three or four petticoats (more or less, weather permitting) under their dresses.
but underdrawers of any sort? no way. too "masculine".
which, I think, is why the whole hygenic dress thing of Amelia Bloomer never really caught on.
Notably, in the US in the early 19th century, women did not wear underpants as are modernly conceived. (I think they might have worn some legging sort of things in cold weather.) They did wear three or four petticoats (more or less, weather permitting) under their dresses.
but underdrawers of any sort? no way. too "masculine".
which, I think, is why the whole hygenic dress thing of Amelia Bloomer never really caught on.
I'm really hoping that someone who supports the anti-thong philosophy will explain it to me. I'm not being fascetious, I'm interested in their real, live (as opposed to my speculative) ideas on how panties are damaging to the feminist movement.
think about it - if it's true that most women didn't wear underpants until some time in the mid-to-late 19th century, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone, Susan B. Anthony - they may not have been wearing any underpants at all while they were doing their thing back in the 1840s and 50s...
sluts. ;)
sluts. ;)
bimbo: because thongs are uncomfortable (no, don't deny it, you MUST find them uncomfortable too, or you are in Denial) and appeal to menz' sexual fantasies.
on the plus side, you can use 'em as slingshots to thwap the Patriarchy, in a pinch.
on the plus side, you can use 'em as slingshots to thwap the Patriarchy, in a pinch.
"Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone, Susan B. Anthony"
AND! AND! I bet they were wearing heeled boots, too.
AND! AND! I bet they were wearing heeled boots, too.
I, for one, will remain pantifull. Great bloomin' drawers like your gramma wore. White ones, too. All cotton. Because it's my RIGHT and I HAVE A CHOICE! SO THERE!
(even tho the household Patriarch has, on occasion, verbalized an opinion contrary to mine,and I do, when I think he needs a pleasant surprise, sometimes wear a thong, ever so briefly..*har*)
As for feminists, isn't getting your knickers in a twist over something like undies just a tad controlling?
(even tho the household Patriarch has, on occasion, verbalized an opinion contrary to mine,and I do, when I think he needs a pleasant surprise, sometimes wear a thong, ever so briefly..*har*)
As for feminists, isn't getting your knickers in a twist over something like undies just a tad controlling?
and another thing:
Are thongs pandering to the desires of the patriarchy if only heterosexual women wear them? What if a lesbian wears them because her partner finds them sexy? what then?
I'm not lesbian so I don't know these things.
Are thongs pandering to the desires of the patriarchy if only heterosexual women wear them? What if a lesbian wears them because her partner finds them sexy? what then?
I'm not lesbian so I don't know these things.
I don't wear thongs either. I find them uncomfortable mainly for the reason Rootie said - I hate picking my regular undies out of my crack anyway, so why do I want to walk around w/ a permanent wedgie.
Also it seems a little silly to pay money for so little material. (Not that my regular panties are so damn expensive or anything, but...)
Anyway that's just me. Can't really bring myself to give a crap what anyone else wears.
Also it seems a little silly to pay money for so little material. (Not that my regular panties are so damn expensive or anything, but...)
Anyway that's just me. Can't really bring myself to give a crap what anyone else wears.
don't be silly. real lesbians don't wear thongs. real lesbians are, like Super-Feminists who never adhere to any patriarchal notions of stereotypical femininity ever, nor demand them of their partners. they also do not need to have sex; but find much more profound satisfaction in Deep Meaningful Gazes and herbal tea.
/sarcasm off
/sarcasm off
Holy shit! Why am I always so lost?! First I think that panties have nothing to do with the feminist movement and then I think that the lesbians I see in every day life are an actual representation of lesbians as opposed to the accurate (wretchedly dogmatic) version Belle's illustrated here. I hope to someday join the world according to the Wisest... but for now, fuck and alas, I'm only seeing reality.
"real lesbians are, like Super-Feminists who never adhere to any patriarchal notions of stereotypical femininity ever, nor demand them of their partners."
Are you saying that real lesbians wear boxers? long johns? some modified form of jock strap?Inquiring minds want to know.
"they also do not need to have sex; but find much more profound satisfaction in Deep Meaningful Gazes and herbal tea."
Sounds profoundly boring. I also suspect you're telling an untruth.
What kind of herbal tea? As a Christian Houswife w/Minivan and a pantry full of Celestial Seasonings I need to know if I am sending the wrong message to my impressionable children. Must find Magic Scripture Verse to counteract any unintentional Liberal vibe I may be sending out.
Are you saying that real lesbians wear boxers? long johns? some modified form of jock strap?Inquiring minds want to know.
"they also do not need to have sex; but find much more profound satisfaction in Deep Meaningful Gazes and herbal tea."
Sounds profoundly boring. I also suspect you're telling an untruth.
What kind of herbal tea? As a Christian Houswife w/Minivan and a pantry full of Celestial Seasonings I need to know if I am sending the wrong message to my impressionable children. Must find Magic Scripture Verse to counteract any unintentional Liberal vibe I may be sending out.
RT: As I have been summarily stripped (oo er missus) of my Real Lesbian status along with my Feminist card, and also i don't like tea, i'm afraid i can't say. But, if you have any patchouli in the house, i suggest you get rid of it, stat.
"Really, when it comes to underpants (and I can't believe I have to say this) - to thine own self be true."
How much do I love this?
THIS MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How much do I love this?
THIS MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ew patchouli. All it's good for is disguising the aroma of marijuana, and WE DON'T DO NONE-A THAT AROUND HERE,PEOPLE!
Antiprincess - long drawers with a split in the middle were rare before 1850 or so, and originally came in a Parisian brothel wear, only gradually gaining acceptance across the latter 19th century. By 1900 drawers were huge, lacy things with either a split or a panel at the back, but the change in clothing and attitudes during WW1 made these impractical. Between the wars was a period of evolution, leading to the large panties typical of the '50s, which have been slowly shrinking in size ever since. So yes, modern panties aren't even 100 years old yet.
Great blog, btw. You are a breath of sanity and reason in the world of Biting Beavers and ressurected Tyrannosaurs.
Great blog, btw. You are a breath of sanity and reason in the world of Biting Beavers and ressurected Tyrannosaurs.
# posted by 
: 1:21 PM
: 1:21 PM
thanks for the history lesson. I love that.
so underpants came from whorehouses? HA!
thanks for the pat on the back, anon. come on by anytime.
so underpants came from whorehouses? HA!
thanks for the pat on the back, anon. come on by anytime.
in case anyone misses the importance of this historical revelation -
this means:
as recently as 150 years ago, only BAD GIRLS wore underpants.
GOOD GIRLS went commando.
heh. I'm virtuous OLD SCHOOL.
this means:
as recently as 150 years ago, only BAD GIRLS wore underpants.
GOOD GIRLS went commando.
heh. I'm virtuous OLD SCHOOL.
I don't really like tea, period. Or any caffeinated beverage. But I do like the smell of patchouli--no, really--and ONLY ON MEN.
I know, I know: I have no place in this world.
I was going to write something else, as well, but the word "daresay" crept into the paragraph, and I think I've embarrassed myself enough at this point.
Post a Comment
I know, I know: I have no place in this world.
I was going to write something else, as well, but the word "daresay" crept into the paragraph, and I think I've embarrassed myself enough at this point.
<< Home
