Sunday, February 21, 2010

Well she always knows her place, she's got style, she's got grace; she's a winner

I never thought I would find myself in a position to ponder the etiquette of throwing one's panties at an icon, and yet here I am.

As with many things, I have approached it as a policy analyst. After some consultation (read: girls sitting around a bottle of wine), I have teased out the following general principles:

Number one, and this should (but sadly does not) go without saying - They should not be the panties one is currently wearing. It is meant to be a symbolic gesture after all. Plus, you know, keep your knickers on in public. Please.

Further to and following on from the first point, said panties should in all events be clean. Because, ew.

On the third point there was some debate, but I believe the consensus is that they should be new. I mean, if one accepts that it is, at least in this day and age, a symbolic gesture, then one should just go ahead and buy some new drawers to throw at the man.

In addition to being polite for the recipient, it also makes good sense for the donor. Otherwise, said donor must face the impossible decision between parting (probably permanently) with a beloved pair of underthings or selecting a more easily parted with and therefore less desirable pair of panties.

In the former case, the bond between wearer and wearee will be severed (again, probably forever) and the work that went into finding a perfect pair will have to begin anew.

In the latter case, the sentiment meant to be expressed by the gesture will be somewhat tarnished by the selection of necessarily inferior knickers.

Faced with these factors, the preferred option is to buy new. I personally believe (and will disclose that on this matter there was not a consensus) that one should leave the tags on, so that the recipient can have no doubt as to their providence.

The decision to buy new, however, begets a whole new set of questions.

First, what kind? Should they be of a type the donor would actually wear, albeit on special occasions? Or should they be of the ilk commonly recognised as 'sexy' but that the donor would never actually set one leg in? In this regard, I refer specifically to the thong or, as it is known in Godzone, the G-string.

(Never mind that there is actually a difference between thongs and G-strings, the latter term has been adopted in New Zealand to refer to both types, so as to avoid confusion with footwear.)

As an aside, and at the risk of revealing too much information, the day I rejected the thong and banished them from my lingerie drawer forever was the first day of the rest of my life. It ranks among the top five best decisions I have ever made.

The reasons is this: In addition to being uncomfortable (do not argue this point with me), they just are not flattering or pretty. And for that reason, they are not, to me, sexy in the traditional sense (though I concede that for some they are sexy in the salacious or even vulgar sense).

It is true! You show me the nicest, firmest supermodel butt in a thong and I will put that same supermodel butt in a pair of lacy boyshorts and that butt will look better. And for the average non-supermodel butt, the difference is even more pronounced.

And do not even start with the VPL argument. Visible panty lines only began to arise when the onset of the skimpier and skimpier bikini bathing suit caused lingerie makers to mimic that shape for underthings. The result was lingerie that cuts across the broadest part of the cheek, creating an unfortunate line visible to all (or at least most). That this is a problem is not disputed; but the answer to this problem is not to deprive the poor cheek of any coverage at all. Nay! I say the answer to give that cheek more coverage! For this reason, I laud the recent return among lingerie makers to forties and fifties style underthings, where the prevailing goal was to outfit women of all shapes in shapes that flatter. If it was good enough for Marilyn, it is good enough for me.

Anyway, I digress. I should also note that the views expressed by the author on the subject of thong underwear do not necessarily express the views of the group empaneled to discuss panty-throwing, as this particular topic was not canvassed.

Ok, so where was I? Right. Having decided (at least in my case) to go with knickers in a style one would actually wear, the next question is size. This question is of particular significance for a woman of womanly curves. For it must be said that underthings in an appropriate size to flatter someone who is, say, statuesque are not necessarily as flattering when held by the fingertips of a music legend on stage.

Thus, on the question of size, the paramount consideration is intent. What is one hoping to convey (or achieve) through the act of panty-throwing? Put simply, is it a gesture of appreciation or invitation? If the former, it may be best to go with what will 'show' best on stage. If the latter, by all means one should go with a size easily worn in the event the invitation is accepted.

In this instance, I can confirm it is likely to be solely a gesture of appreciation and I have proceeded accordingly. I reserve the right, however, to take a different approach if I am ever presented with the opportunity to throw panties at Jake Oram, Anderson Cooper or Phil Keoghan.

The only remaining consideration is colour. While there are a number of factors to be balanced, including in particular what colour may best be seen from the cheap seats, in the end it is largely a matter of personal preference. On this subject, therefore, the panel has indicated no preferred option.

This putative panty-thrower went with coral pink. Bright, but not too slutty. They say, Hi, Tom Jones. I think you're great, so here are my panties, without saying much more.

Which, in this case, is exactly what I want them to say.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home