Undergarments

[Guest]

Yep- "Jane you ignorant slut!" and since I was fifteen and my mother was sitting behind me, that was the last time (that she ever knew) I watched SNL. I think it was an episode a week later that "Bitch!" was heard on general TV for the first time ever on SNL. Roseannadanadana said it and was speaking to Jane again.

Those were the days.

MJL

Wasn't it Dan Akroid that said it in the first place?

 

[MarshAlien]

Aww you really know how to speak to a lady, Marsh baby. Now I'm all wet and panting, granted I'm coming out of the shower and running to get dinner ready but anyway .

Did you mean wet and knickering? Where's that damn horse when you need him?

Wasn't it Dan Akroid that said it in the first place?

It was. They were parodying James Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander, who use to have a conservative/liberal routine on "60 Minutes."

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I've thought about this several times. As background, I was born in the UK but grew up and spent most of my life in the US.

I don't see any difference in Knickers/Panties or Boxers/Briefs. Damn, the Aussies say "Knicks and Skids". But I still understand the meaning. That's what is important.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

IMHO, if the narrator, character and/or setting is British, use knickers--if American, use panties.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Noor]

You are the writer, say what you wish. I am sure knickers will go more smoothly with the rest of your words. The hell with culturally unobservant editors and readers! If they don't know the word, they can look it up and become less ignorant, grump, grump!~

Unfortunately this thread has reminded me of this:

Even at the Drones Club,
where the average of intellect is not high,
it was often said of Archibald that,
had his brain been constructed of silk,
he would have been hard put to it
to find sufficient material to make
a canary a pair of cami-knickers.
~ P.G. Wodehouse,
"The Reverent Wooing of Archibald"

The image of a canary in a very skimpy pair of cami-knickers keeps making me laugh.

 

[sr71plt]

I've thought about this several times. As background, I was born in the UK but grew up and spent most of my life in the US.

I don't see any difference in Knickers/Panties or Boxers/Briefs. Damn, the Aussies say "Knicks and Skids". But I still understand the meaning. That's what is important.

But it is important, isn't it, to keep the references to ones of general international understanding, at least in the narrative--and anywhere else when the plot hangs on an understanding of it--if at all possible?

"Knickers" is a problem with an American audience. The American context is a loose-fitting pant gathered at the knees and brings the 1920s into the American reader's mind. If the American reader is well set into a story having Briticisms, probably all fine with "knickers" (but not so with some terms even more remote to the American reader)--if you are into a 2007 version of a hot sex scene on the banks of the Thames during the Henley Cup Regatta, and your American reader gets kicked off the rails by a jarring reference, (A) it's probably not your intention to kick them out of your scene development, and (B) it's your problem, not theirs. When you've lost their focused attention, you've lost it--even if they are diligent and walk off looking for their Oxford dictionary. The author who has the "fuck em, I know what I meant" attitude isn't going to gather many readers.

This is a problem going the other way too, of course (Americanisms that would be remote to non-American readers).

To a large extent unavoidable, but that doesn't mean it isn't a literary problem for the writer writing to an international audience, I think--to be considered and avoided as/when possible where maintaining the story tension is important (and where is it not important?).

 

[sr71plt]

I have to work with a wrinkle of this thread issue. I have a coauthor for some of my erotica writing. He's Australian and I'm American (but raised abroad). When I read his contributions to the story drafts and he uses "arse" and "singlet" where I use "ass" and "sweat shirt," I'm thrown out of the flow of the story at least temporarily (and so is he in reverse, I'll bet).

When a character he's writing is Australian and mine is American, that seems fine--as long as we stay consistently within the characters we're writing and don't get too remote in our references. But otherwise--and wherever there is narration--it's a problem we have to work with. (This on top of the differences in U.S. and British-style punctuation, which has been discussed elsewhere on the forum). We simply have to choose one voice style for that. And, yes, we usually do pick American style, because we believe that's what the readership here predominantly is. That doesn't mean we don't try to make our stories understandable to Brits, Canadians, or Australians without interrupting the flow of their read.

Our overriding concern in this is the reader--not losing the attention/focus of the reader.

 

[BlackShanglan]

But it is important, isn't it, to keep the references to ones of general international understanding, at least in the narrative--and anywhere else when the plot hangs on an understanding of it--if at all possible?

The author who has the "fuck em, I know what I meant" attitude isn't going to gather many readers.

Hmmm. I'm with you on the latter - that is, that one really must give close attention to each word choice and consider its impact on the reader. To not consider the question at all is no better than failing to weigh the question of whether one's male lead is wearing underpants, underwear, briefs, undies, or tighty whities. They may all refer to the same thing, but the effect of each is different, and I think that to write well, one must weight those fine gradations of meaning.

With that said, I respectfully disagree with the first as a general rule. It's true that one strives make the text accessible, but then one also strives to make it authentic and lively. I'd be sad to read a story set in England that was written in straight, easiest-to-grasp American English. It would lose a great deal of its color and charm. That's not to say that one needn't think carefully about which words might not be familiar to one's audience, but rather that one must also recognize what sacrifices would be made if one was to change the voice of the piece in order to increase its clarity.

 

[sr71plt]

With that said, I respectfully disagree with the first as a general rule. It's true that one strives make the text accessible, but then one also strives to make it authentic and lively. I'd be sad to read a story set in England that was written in straight, easiest-to-grasp American English. It would lose a great deal of its color and charm. That's not to say that one needn't think carefully about which words might not be familiar to one's audience, but rather that one must also recognize what sacrifices would be made if one was to change the voice of the piece in order to increase its clarity.

I don't really see much difference in what you say and what I meant to say (although I may not have phrased it well enough). After noting the importance of "authentic" (which I'll get to), you say "that's not to say that one needn't think carefully about which words might not be familiar to one's audience," which, as far as I understand it pretty much concurs with what I was trying to say. It's a matter of balance--all with delivery to the reader as the requirement.

Now, for "authentic":

The Irish brogue you've given your character isn't authentic--it's what the reader can bear. Your German character doesn't speak German; she uses key words and sentence construction that your reader understands denotes she is German. Your beligerent teenager character doesn't just say "fuck" every second word, as you set in your dialogue. He also uses "umm," and "ya know," so overwhelmingly that no one could follow the dialogue if you included that. And none of them speak in complete sentences or without repeating their thought three times in a row.

"Authentic," no; successful fiction isn't purely authentic. The writer is constantly toning down and just giving hints of nationality and social status and language quirks and polishing up dialogue and avoiding the constant repetitious and incompleteness of "authentic" voice without being purely authentic. It's all a balance of flavoring and maintaining the reader's focus, interest, and understanding.

Go out on the street or into a bar--preferably one where patrons are of various nationalities--and record a real conversation and then transcribe it faithfully into your fiction and see how well that sells. It won't. Because fiction makes all sorts of compromises on the "authentic" scale.

And I think this thread is looking at such a "what's the balance/who's the audience" balancing problem.

Don't know if you are into the theater, but if so, go up on stage after a performance of a historical drama and then back to the dressing room and look at the costumes. It all looked authentic from the audience (because it was designed to convey so) but it ain't authentic up close. None of the painted lines on the backdrops are in plumb or in perspective up close. The colors are garish. The detail your eye was fooled to see from beyond the footlights isn't there at all--or isn't nearly as real as you thought it was. The costumes, seen up close, are not the ones at all that you thought you saw from the audience--and they are cotton, not silk. A common failing of amateur theater groups is that they put too much "authentic" crap on stage--real place settings at tables, for instance. (A) the audience never sees anything this small, and (B) it adds twenty minutes and embarrassing noise to clearing the stage for the next scene. This has its parallels in amateur writers writing fiction.

And you watched and appreciated the "authenticity" of the play--just as the set designers planned for you to in their balancing of what really to do to convey the work to you.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Yes. That's why I described "authentic" and "lively" as existing in balance with "clear" (and no doubt a host of other goals).

There is no point in absolute authenticity as a goal in and of itself.

There is no point in absolute clarity as a goal in and of itself.

That was my point.

Yes?

 

[MarshAlien]

"A Bunch o' Guys Sittin' Around, Talkin' About Women's Underwear."

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Thinking about it, 'knickers' is not strictly translatable as 'panties' in US english.

I defy you, evanslily, to find a UK shop, catalogue or website that sells British women knickers. On a trawl through the websites, all I find is 'briefs, thongs,strings, french (or cami) knickers {aren't these tap pants or directoire knickers in US speak} , G-strings (Native American male garment), shorty or boy pants'. Tried sites like figleaves UK, Ann Summers and Agent Provocateur amongst others.

On US lingerie sites, you frequently get offered 'panties', or more usually 'panty'.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the word 'knickers' a bit of a sniggery word. A word that UK and Aussie guys find exciting and girls use, a bit like pussy is less clinical than vagina. It's only on visits to the UK that I ever heard underwear referred to as the 'unmentionables'.

I know, what we over-the-ponders think of as 'knickers' is closer to the UK idea of 'bloomers'. Just a word against Shang, though. Most of the UK publishers of erotic fiction insist on editing out knickers and replacing with 'panties'. Try Black Lace/ Virgin Books/ Ray Gordon or suchlike.

Have you even considered 'stockings' and 'hose', or whether 'fanny' and 'tush' are front or back.

It's a minefield.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

"A Bunch o' Guys Sittin' Around, Talkin' About Women's Underwear."

Yeah, Marsh? So what's new?

 

[MarshAlien]

Yeah, Marsh? So what's new?

Nothin' I'm just trying to retain my position as the premier poster on a thread devoted to panties. I suppose you could call it a fetish of sorts.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the word 'knickers' a bit of a sniggery word. A word that UK and Aussie guys find exciting and girls use, a bit like pussy is less clinical than vagina. It's only on visits to the UK that I ever heard underwear referred to as the 'unmentionables'.

*nods* I agree. It has a certain laddish-down-the-pub feel to it. Good if that's what you want, but ...

Most of the UK publishers of erotic fiction insist on editing out knickers and replacing with 'panties'. Try Black Lace/ Virgin Books/ Ray Gordon or suchlike.

Indeed. It's difficult to imagine the panting heroine, just at the moment of delicious capitulation, feeling the strong, manly hands of the hero teasing softly up her thighs, gliding to the tender curves of her womanhood, and lingering in sweet, unendurable temptation along her ... knickers.

Have you even considered 'stockings' and 'hose' ...

You can't imagine how difficult they are to find in my size. It's a genuine pity.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

You can't imagine how difficult they are to find in my size. It's a genuine pity.

I guess it's probably because you want the seam and the little butterfly at the back of the ankle and ... Knowing your sophistication - anthracite and 8-denier.

Sir, we have the perfect pair of Manolo fuck-me pumps to go with that.

And the plaid micro-skirt?

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Nothin' I'm just trying to retain my position as the premier poster on a thread devoted to panties. I suppose you could call it a fetish of sorts.

Nah! Despite his four legs, Shang is way ahead of you.

Heck, just realized, he always needs 2 packs of pantyhose. What a bummer!

 

[BlackShanglan]

I guess it's probably because you want the seam and the little butterfly at the back of the ankle and ... Knowing your sophistication - anthracite and 8-denier.

It is a delight to meet an odalisque of truly discerning taste.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

It is a delight to meet an odalisque of truly discerning taste.

One recognizes a thoroughbred when one meets one.

 

[MidniteSpanker]

Knickers vs Panties Solution

I agree it is hard to choose the appropriate term for descriptions but I think I have the solution.

First "Knickers" is a term commonly used in the UK but not in the USA. Panties is term used in the USA but not so much in the UK.

In the USA panties covers a plethora of garments, full size, french cut, bikini, thong and G-string. So we in the USA have a hard time describing what a woman is wearing at any given moment.

Since we are all describing a garment but have a multitude of terms to use why don't we all agree on the same term - that keeps the UK people happy as well as the USA people happy. Since we are looking for common ground in writing for Literotica here it should be simple. After all we want the image of sexy to prevail in our stories so why not agree to a description that exudes sexuality.

I prepose that we all agree to write our stories with characters that haven't worn lower undergarments since they entered puberty. A pantyless or knickerless society might just be the answer - it certainly makes the character seem sexier from the start.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I prepose that we all agree to write our stories with characters that haven't worn lower undergarments since they entered puberty. A pantyless or knickerless society might just be the answer - it certainly makes the character seem sexier from the start.

Huzzah! I shall set my stories amongst the enlightened Houyhnhnms. They never saw the point of such silly garments.

 

[MarshAlien]

I agree it is hard to choose the appropriate term for descriptions but I think I have the solution.

First "Knickers" is a term commonly used in the UK but not in the USA. Panties is term used in the USA but not so much in the UK.

In the USA panties covers a plethora of garments, full size, french cut, bikini, thong and G-string. So we in the USA have a hard time describing what a woman is wearing at any given moment.

Since we are all describing a garment but have a multitude of terms to use why don't we all agree on the same term - that keeps the UK people happy as well as the USA people happy. Since we are looking for common ground in writing for Literotica here it should be simple. After all we want the image of sexy to prevail in our stories so why not agree to a description that exudes sexuality.

I prepose that we all agree to write our stories with characters that haven't worn lower undergarments since they entered puberty. A pantyless or knickerless society might just be the answer - it certainly makes the character seem sexier from the start.

It's been over a year since you last posted and this is the thread that attracted your interest?



Pass, friend, and enter.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Like you said Marsh, nothing like a lady's underpinnings to get yous gennlemen drooling. See we've even got dem Brokeback Mountain types joining the party.

A smell of lavender and the feel of lace and yous all go lantern jawed.

 

[evanslily]

Thanks for all your replies.

It seems there's no right answer to this--but of course there isn't, how could there be?

And elphin odalisque, you're quite right--I can't find a UK shop, catalogue or website that sells British women's knickers. Which is mighty strange as I don't agree that 'knickers' is a sniggery word here. Every girl I know uses it. Of course, the guys might snigger...

Maybe I should write a disclaimer at the top of any stories I submit.

This story is set in the UK and therefore the word 'knickers' has been used. Readers in the US, please substitute 'panties'.

Hmm. I'm aware that publishing in the States would result in the banishment of all knickers from my writing. But then I don't figure it's terribly likely I'll ever get published anywhere other than on this site, so I guess I'll not worry too much

And thanks for reminding me about the word fanny. Now that, you see, I find absolutely hilarious. Fanny means exactly the same as pussy here. So the wearing of a fanny pack--what's that? A tampon?

Before anyone rushes to tell me that it isn't, don't worry, I know...

But then UK television is awash with US television. Most films I watch are US based. So as a result, I can speak both languages reasonably well.

Give it another twenty years or so, and I guess we'll all say 'panties' too. So that'll be the end of that problem.

Until that time, knickers rule UK

 

[BlackShanglan]

"Pants" gave me no end of trouble when I lived in London. Here in the States, the word means the same thing as "trousers," whereas in England, it means "underpants." I was so ruthlessly tauted by my English friends every time I used the word that even now, years after living there, it's only just slipping back into my vocabulary.

My favorite bit of cross-cultural vocabulary, though, was the central joke of a travel agent's commercial I once saw. The agency's selling point was its experienced and knowledgeable staff who really knew the areas they sold holidays to - and the voiceover delivered this information over the intriguing image of a doctor looking in bafflement and consternation at a mostly off-camera patient, poking gingerly and evidently having no idea what to do. The commercial closes with the voiceover saying, "And they know, for instance, that in Australia, Durex [in England, a brand of condom] is a brand of tape." Cue the sound of tape being yanked from skin and an agonized yelp.