Underwear sociolinguistics
My posting on "Tighty-whities:
the semantics" elicited some thought-provoking e-mail about the use
of this expression and of other pieces of underwear vocabulary. A
lot of what's going on, but not all of it, turns on attitudes towards
the underwear itself -- the perceived social "meanings" of the
underwear (briefs vs. boxers, Y-fronts vs. bikini briefs, white
vs. colored, cotton vs. more exotic fabrics) -- rather than on
attitudes towards particular linguistic expressions.
1. In my first posting on this subject ("Tidy-whiteys")
I noted the disdain that some people have for white Y-front briefs, a
disdain that seems to be based on the judgment that such underwear is
conservative, unadventurous, uptight. Now Lal Zimman has written
(on 21 March 2005) to say that the negative judgments are likely to be
on both the clothing and the expression tighty-whities (or however you want
to spell it), and to offer another route to these judgments:
Personally, I have always found
tighty-whities to be a derogatory way to describe an article of
clothing that is also being judged as negative (so it would be bad if I
said "Ha ha, you wear y-fronts!" but if I say "tighty-whities", I'm
insulting you both with the fact itself and the wording), unless one is
talking about children's underpants (since little boys are expected to
wear tighty-whities.) I think the origin of the negativity associated
with tighty-whities comes from people in their 20s or younger, for whom
there was enormous pressure at a certain time for boys to switch over
from tighty-whities to boxers. Boxers were cool because of skaters,
rappers, and grunge rock stars showing their boxers, and this
desirability reinforced the separation of boxers as adult and T-Ws as
childish. So (for me and my peers at least) around early adolescence,
when a child is the worst thing you can be considered, the switch had
to be made and T-Ws were forever looked down upon.
This is briefs vs. boxers, with the canonical briefs being white and
cotton and fly-front. In the social world Zimman is describing,
boxers communicate adulthood.
Competing with this social meaning is what I'll call the "hotness
effect": briefs (of any sort) are hotter than boxers, because
briefs display your equipment (in remarkable detail, if the briefs are
tight enough and thin enough), and men are, well, vain about these
things. The package is especially important to gay men, and it
turns out that material designed for gay men portrays a world of
briefs, not boxers.
Consider the
Undergear catalogue,
which (with its big brother the
International Male catalogue)
is transparently aimed at a gay male audience. The Spring
2005 issue of the catalogue offers not a single pair of boxer
shorts. There are briefs of many varieties: bikini briefs, boxer
briefs, thongs, jockstrap briefs (essentially jockstraps with
seats). But no boxers; the occasional item labeled "boxer" is
actually a boxer brief. Now, in the real world, some gay men do
wear boxers. ( I can vouch for this, though I haven't done a systematic
study.) From what I see at my (not gay-oriented) health club,
plenty of straight men wear briefs too (probably because of the hotness
effect, or just for the feeling of support that a pouch provides), but
gay guys are in general much more committed to briefs over boxers than
straight guys are. The Undergear catalogue provides a kind of
distilled version of this commitment: in Gayworld, everybody wears
briefs.
In the Undergear Gayworld, guys wear mostly colored briefs (though
white is available as well), mostly in extraordinary fabrics (though
cotton is available as well). There's the shimmery nylon/spandex
Flawless Mesh Collection: "Super sheer, sexy mesh is virtually
undetectable beneath clothing. Soft, smooth stretch fabric
conforms to body. Available in a variety of brilliant colors...
Nude, Black, White [more like Silver, I'd say], Purple, Turquoise,
Red." (p. 22) On the facing page there's the nylon/spandex
Seamless Mesh Collection, essentially fishnet made into tank tops and
boxer briefs. All this underwear is meant to display the body,
ostentatiously.
What almost no one in the Undergear Gayworld sports is a fly
front. Only one item in the entire catalogue (boxer briefs on p.
15, available in White, Heather, Orange, and Black) has a "functional
fly", as the catalogue puts it. The word "functional" is actually
informative here, since some briefs in the catalogue have front seams
that a careless observer might take to be a fly.
On to the presentation of male bodies in gay porn. Although I
haven't studied the matter systematically, my impression is that the
underwear that these guys rush to take off one another in Porn Gayworld
is even more restricted than what's available in Undergear
Gayworld. We see almost nothing but bikini briefs of fairly
conservative cut, white, and cotton. Segment 2 of
Stone Fox (featuring Eddie Stone),
for instance, has the arrangement repeated in porn flick after porn
flick: two guys in (for a while) these white cotton bikini briefs, one
from Calvin Klein, one from 2xist. Tighty-whities in all respects
save the missing fly front. I'd expect that some men do in fact
call them tighty-whities, in an entirely positive way. [Added 28 March 2005: This speculation has now been confirmed by a gay friend, Jack Carroll, who reports that his usage of the expression, and that of at least one friend of his, is positive, even celebratory. Fly fronts, present or absent, seem to be irrelevant.]
What makes this specific sort of underwear so dominant in gay
porn? My guess is that it's an amalgam of two attitudes: the
hotness effect of briefs, already noted, combined with the high
masculinity associated with
white
cotton briefs in particular (high masculinity because these
briefs are associated, in the minds of gay men if not in the real
world, with straight men). Actors in gay porn are supposed to
project high masculinity, and the underwear is part of this display.
What I haven't figured out yet is why fly fronts get such a bad rap in
Gayworld. Maybe a missing fly front is just a missing fly front.
2. Notice that the expression
tighty-whitey
or
tighty-whities can be used
metonymically, to refer to the sort of man who habitually wears
tighty-whities. Negative attitudes towards the underwear carry
over to the man who wears it. Chris Brew wrote me (on 21 March
2005) to note a possible parallel in British English:
Apropos your recent Language Log post
on tighty-whities, I wonder how close the British term 'anorak' (=
"parka", roughly) is (cf. http://www.anorakspotters.com/). Probably not
very, but if I get the drift of what you say the strong elements of
uncool and sexually-repressed are pretty parallel.
Anyway, that's the only really culturally salient instance of British
clothing metonymy that I can muster, apart from the routine 'suit' and
'stuffed-shirt', which seem to work in the US as well.
For non-British readers: British
anorak,
referring to a person rather than a parka, can be glossed roughly as
'nerd', or in more detail (in the words of the anorakspotters site):
"any dull or immature individual, or someone who follows a hobby which
appears boring to the majority of people who find other pursuits more
attractive once they have passed the legal age for sex and
alcohol." Anoraks are usually male, and (to tie two threads
together) we can surmise that they wear white cotton Y-fronts.
zwicky at-sign csli period stanford period edu
Posted by Arnold Zwicky at March 27, 2005 03:49 PM