English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

12 answers

Why do men have a pair of pants, but only one shirt?

2006-06-18 13:28:54 · answer #1 · answered by driababe 3 · 0 1

Umm. I am a woman and I have more than one bra and two pairs of panties. Maybe I got it wrong. Maybe whta you are trying to say is why do women buy two pairs of panties to match woth one bra? Well panties are a hell of a lot cheaper than bras. So to mix it up a little bit, we would buy two bottoms and one top.

2006-06-18 20:29:31 · answer #2 · answered by chereechanta 3 · 0 0

It relates to a man's "pair of pants". Pants were initially two separate hose or stockings held at the waist by a belt, hence a pair. When women started wearing bloomers and such, the garment was similar. to pieces worn separate on each leg cinched at the waist. These were kept separate for bathroom and sexual related issues. It was not until later (in 18th cent.--I think) that these items were joined in the middle. As the got smaller and smaller, bloomers, knickers, briefs, hipsters eventually to thongs, the use if "pair of panties" remained. A bra is not referred to as a pair, even though you have two breasts. Vogue magazine used a french word brassiere to refer to the "bra". The modern use of bra is form of the word brassiere. It is the same for shirts. Even though they have two sleeves, you don't say pair. The shirt was constructed as one signaler piece, therefore a "pair" of sleeves was not required. Although, it was common for women to wear a "pair of sleeves" called gloves.

2006-06-18 20:40:38 · answer #3 · answered by cammiellebecker 3 · 0 0

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_249b.html

Dear Cecil:

Why do we say "a pair of pants" when there is only one article of clothing involved? I have been told it's because there are two legs, but then why isn't it a pair of shirts? Shirts have two sleeves. I'm so confused. Can you help? --Rose M., Chicago

Dear Rose:

Fret not, my little anchovy. Ann Landers might puppy out and tell you to get professional counseling, but here at the Straight Dope, we deliver.

Now for the facts.

First of all, let's note there is a class of objects that are thought to consist of two independent but connected parts, usually identical or at least similar to each other. In addition to pants and trousers, there are eyeglasses, scissors, tweezers, shears, pliers, and so on.

The terms for these objects are always plural in form, and they are usually referred to as "a pair of ...." This usage goes back to at least 1297 AD, when we have the expression "a peire of hosen."

The implication is that the two parts are separable in some sense, and in fact a pair of hose can often mean two separate pieces. (True, you can't separate tweezers, but I never claimed the English language was rational.)

In contrast to trousers, a shirt is thought of mainly as a covering for the torso, and may or may not have sleeves. Hence no pair.

The "pair of ..." designation is somewhat arbitrarily applied. At one time it was common to speak of a pair of compasses (for drawing), a pair of nutcrackers, or a pair of bellows. But I would venture to say that in the U.S., at least, these expressions are dying out.

On the other hand, we do speak of a pair of panties, even though panties aren't really a pair of anything, having (usually) no legs. But clearly this is merely an extension of the expression, "pair of pants."

Further confusing matters is "a dozen pairs of rosaries," even though there are 50-some beads. This harks back to an old use of the word "pair" to mean "a set of more than two like or equal things making a whole."

A related usage, supposedly common in the theater business for many years, is "a pair [flight] of stairs." Occasionally theatrical types will say of a pair that it is "nice," and one assumes the rest of the superstructure ain't bad either. But that's a discussion for another day.

2006-06-18 20:29:26 · answer #4 · answered by ratboy 7 · 0 0

Good question but I have way more then one bra, to go with my panties.

2006-06-19 07:14:56 · answer #5 · answered by Nascar 5 · 0 0

well... why are u asking that in the first place ahaha.. anyway.. i guess its easier to lose panties than a bra.... haha... plus panties are cheaper than bras.

2006-06-18 20:31:08 · answer #6 · answered by Wen 1 · 0 0

because a decent bra that fits comfortably is harder to find. plus bras are a lot more expensive

2006-06-18 20:28:06 · answer #7 · answered by just m 3 · 0 0

George Carlin... 1986.

2006-06-18 20:28:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

its hard to find a bra that fits you right, when you do you hold on to it.

2006-06-18 20:31:22 · answer #9 · answered by bishop 2 · 0 0

lol - I have ask this question many times myself - and how about this - you write a bad check - the bank charges you a fee - they already know that you do not have any money - WHY????

2006-06-18 20:27:54 · answer #10 · answered by MS L 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers