Every woman’s got ‘em: the panties ruined by Nature’s special, beautiful, magical gift to your ladyparts. You might be thrilled that Bingo’s tadpoles didn’t penetrate the love glove, but that still doesn’t mean you aren’t pissed your white, lacy Victoria’s Secret thong looks like a Jackson Pollack painting.
Typically, girls wear sexy underwear at all times because, even if we know no one is going to see them, we just feel better about ourselves when we know we look pretty underneath. But the three to seven days of the month when all we do is cry and eat Cherry Garcia is an exception! Whether they were formerly cute panties sneak attacked by Aunt Flo or nasty knickers you bought just to stain, here are the five types of period panties every woman’s got: Keep reading »
Maxim‘s never been known to shy away from a risque cover, and this month’s cover shot, of “Perfect Couples” star and “Daily Show” contributor Olivia Munn, is no different. The big scandal is Olivia’s see-through underwear, which some say are just a tiny toe over the edge to indecent. Dan Gainor, Vice President of Business & Culture at the conservative Media Research Center, is outraged by Munn’s bare crotch. “It’s disgusting,” he said. “Maxim has moved their magazine from tawdry to full-on pornography.” He’s calling for the magazine to be displayed in the porn section of the magazine rack, rather than the men’s interest section–far away from the prying eyes of kids. (Of course, the deep irony is that conversation around the cover has only served to give the magazine greater exposure.)
Maxim covers typically feature scantily clad girls practically shoving their crotches in reader’s faces. So we’re not sure why Munn’s panty choice makes all that much difference. Maxim‘s never been particularly prudish. And it seems even Fox News followers agree: A poll on the site found that a whopping 72 percent of people saw no problem with the cover. What do you think? Keep reading »
I read (and by “read” I mean “look,” as there aren’t many words to begin with) Lucky religiously every month. For the most part, the clothes featured in the magazine are outside my price range (at least at full price), but I always get something out of the issue. I’ll discover a cool new beauty product or get ideas for styling a new outfit out of the clothes I already have. When I cracked open the February 2011 issue of the magazine (with Nicole Richie on the cover), I learned something truly shocking: Some people actually think it makes sense to spend $40 on a single pair of cotton brief underwear. Keep reading »
So here we are again. The ever-persisting problem of men who think baggy pants are still suh-weet. Recently, we heard about a high school which has taken to “Urkeling” offending students—making kids with too-baggy pants wear suspenders and forcing them to hike their trousers up high, Steve Urkel-style. Sadly, this invention you see before you—”Subs,” or garter belts for guys—isn’t here to eradicate baggy pants. Instead the “Subs” creator wanted to give men who like the down-low style some extra security. The belt goes around the waist and then clips onto a pant waistband so that the wearer can let his jeans hang low without them falling off. Well, that’s at least something, right? [Newslite] Keep reading »
Ladies, need a quick pick-me-up? Do a panty swap. I hate the word “panty,” by the way. And “panty swap” just sounds wrong. But seriously, a new phone survey, conducted by Shop Smart magazine, found that your undies can affect your mood. Out of the 1,000 women that were surveyed, 47 percent said that they felt sexier and more confident when they slipped into a pair of “nice” or “special” undies while 27 percent felt that “unattractive” or “ill-fitting” undergarments made their mood worse. At what point do you make a decision to put on undies that don’t fit? Those poor girls. I am going to call all 270 of them and explain how to find special and nice underwear that also fit. OK, so the takeaway here? If you’re in a bad mood, you should probably change your underwear. [The Hairpin] Keep reading »
Why celebrities should never, ever accidentally leave belongings behind: they will surely end up on the internet or up for auction. That’s what’s going on with a pair of Queen Elizabeth‘s underpants—if you can even call them that—that she apparently left on a plane way back in 1968. For some 40 years, they had been in the possession of a Florida man, recently deceased. The old-fashioned panties will be up for auction at the man’s estate sale and are expected to go for as much as $9,000! This apparently happened to Queen Victoria’s underwear, which sold for the same price, reports TMZ.
OK: a) the royal family needs to stop leaving its underwear in easy-to-find places, and b) bloomers? We realize the pair is quite old, but even before the ’60s, people were wearing standard panties as we know them. [TMZ] Keep reading »