Categories
Ramblings

Socks: underwear, or just socks?

Hot issue of the day: do you consider socks to be underwear? I do, Abi doesn’t. Abi’s argument is that she doesn’t mind my grandmother seeing her socks, therefore they’re not underwear. My argument is that they belong to the “things that go under your main clothes” family, and thus are right up there with knickers and bras. Plus, they go in my underwear drawer. Duh.

Your opinions, please.

15 replies on “Socks: underwear, or just socks?”

The contents of my underwear drawer, in addition to the two forms of underwear I acknowledge, include:
– socks
– tights
– tank tops (worn either under clothes for warmth or outside when there’s warmth enough around me)
– swimsuits
– out of season gloves
– my (formerly) secret chcolate stash
– a rosary
(little bags of lavender will be coming when I sew the little bags.)

In other words, one’s underwear drawer may have other things in it than underwear, and keep its underwear identity. Mine does. So does Martin’s – he keeps his socks in there too.

Nah, not for me. I don’t miss an opportunity to show my red socks or my duck collection. Therefore I don’t consider them “under”wear since they are so exposed, lol. Also, for me underwear is for hiding/supporting private parts and I am not shy about showing my feet either. But it’s a good question. I’ll ask my better half for his opinion as well.

A survey of the five colleagues with whom I could bring myself to talk about underwear revealed that none of them considered socks underwear. The survey methodology was to ask “Do you think socks are underwear?”, so there was no attempt to bias the sample by telling them my view ahead of time.

I even tried the “but you wear them under you shoes” argument, and one of them pointed out that leaves only her thick winter coat as non-underwear, since you wear everything else under it.

It was asserted that putting socks in an “underwear drawer” makes it an “underwear-and-socks drawer”, but accepted that that could be shortened to “underwear drawer” if required.

OK let the shops settle it…

Best of 3!

Next
http://order.next.co.uk/page.asp?b=X35&p=454&o=1

‘Nightware and Underwear’ section contains a Socks section.

Martin:1 Abi:0

M&S
http://www.marksandspencer.com/IWCatSectionView.process?Section_Id=7

Hmmm, contains an ‘Underwear’ section and a separate Socks section.

Martin:1 Abi:1

Debenhams
http://www.debenhams.com/products/division_home.jsp?ADD_TO_LIST=false&activeMenu=MENS&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=6330643&bmUID=1106764661801

Hmmm, contains an ‘Footwear and Socks’ section and a separate ‘Nightwear and Underwear’ section.

Martin:1 Abi:2

Abi wins! Looks like the average highstreet store votes in favour socks not being underwear.

It is obviously an issue that has plagued many….there is even a song written about it…

http://www.thrinberry-frog.com/VirtualSongbook/DoSocksCountAsUnderwear.pdf

Pity that the song doesn’t actually answer the question!

Anyway, I think the argument is a tie, so far. Which definitely isn’t underwear. (Hmm..thinking about it…are ties clothes? Or should they be considered just accessories?)

You must be a fan of Red Hot Chili Peppers to know all this stuff. Alas, it looks like I am not one. I was just surprised that my google images search wasn’t conclusive. I am sure there’s more than one guy out there who took a picture of him wearing a sock. Oh well… thanks for the pics. 😉

I vote with Abi.

First of all, she’s cuter. Second of all, she’s a woman and my wife has taught me that women are nearly always right.

But, lastly, one does not *routinely* allow one’s underwear to hang out (except for gangbangers, who apparently do so because they’re too stupid to pick the right size pant, so they’re always falling off). Socks practically *always* show. They not only show routinely when you cross your leg, but sometimes just when you’re walking. And if you’re wearing short pants…well, no hiding ’em there!

Actually, if your argument had any juice, Martin, you still couldn’t call them underwear. You said they’re meant to be worn under your shoes, but they aren’t, really. They’re meant to be worn *over* your feet and ankles. And there are no socks I’ve ever seen that don’t extend past the top of the shoe opening; so that part can’t be meant to be worn under shoes.

Abi wins!

I even tried the “but you wear them under you shoes” argument, and one of them pointed out that leaves only her thick winter coat as non-underwear, since you wear everything else under it.

Comments are closed.