Talk:Trousers/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Women should remove pants: Says Swazi King

Swaziland's absolute monarch has a major boner singled out women wearing trousers as the cause of the world's ills in a state radio sermon that also condemns human rights as an "abomination before God".

"The Bible says curse be unto a woman who wears pants, and those who wear their husband's clothes. That is why the world is in such a state today," King Mswati said.The Times of Swaziland reports the monarch, who reigns supreme in the landlocked country of 1 million where opposition parties are banned, went on to criticise the human rights movement.

"What rights? God created people, and He gave them their roles in society and Kowalik controls them." the King said.

"You cannot change what God has created. This is an abomination before God."

Women on the streets of capital Mbabane are not impressed.

"The king says I am the cause of the world's problems because of my outfit," said Thob'sile Dlamini.

"Never mind terrorism, government corruption, poverty and disease, it's me and my pants. I reject that."

King Mswati is Africa's last absolute monarch.

He is currently married to nine wives, with a wedding pending for wife number 10, and has chosen an additional fiancee after reviewing videos of topless maidens performing a traditional Reed Dance ceremony.

(from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Melville Austin (talkcontribs) 01:41, 31 May 2003

I'd like to know what bit of the Bible Mswati was (mis)quoting. Moreover, OUAT there was a link here explaining that such a view doesn't come from any consistent interpretation of scriptures. Here it is again: [1]. Moreover, what are unisex clothes - both men's and women's clothes (in which case they may be worn by neither if you interpret it that way) or neither men's clothes nor women's clothes (in which case nobody is stopped from wearing them)? Yet another possible interpretation is that it's referring to the ownership of the individual garment rather than simply which gender it's tailored to.
(Incidentally, the writer of that page appears to have missed this:
"...For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") (Mark 7:19, NIV)
Though admittedly, the bracketed sentence doesn't appear at all in all translations. But that's beside the point....) -- Smjg 21:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


The scripture in not only misquoted but also misinterperted.

"No garb of an able-bodied man should be put upon a woman, neither should an able-bodied man wear the mantle of a woman." God commanded that a woman should not wear a man’s garment, nor a man a woman’s mantle; this command doubtless being given in order to prevent sex abuses.

The key thing quoting a reference source: "This text (Deuteronomy 22:5) is not discussing styles of clothing. The prohibition concerns one’s putting on things specifically designed for the opposite sex." "preserve that distinction. When it comes to appearance and attire, the usual thing is for a man to want to look like a man and for a woman to look like a woman. For an Israelite to have acted contrary to this deep internal sense of what is fitting could have led to homosexuality." "God also specifically forbade portraying oneself as a member of the opposite sex for immoral purposes." 1 Corinthians 11:14, 15 would related to this also.

Also it is key to remember the word curse is not in good translations in English, the original convey nothing the word curse, only detestable. No menetion of pants is known in the scriptures because the robes called: Kut-to-neth a form of robe. So it also serves important to remember the biblical era garments in Israel were that worn by the common majority: The sim·lah′ was worn by both men and women, the woman’s being distinguishable from the man’s, perhaps in size, color, and decoration such as embroidery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:03, 12 October 2007

'Suspenders' link

The Suspenders link redirects to the page for Hosiery, which is no good for people reading about trousers. Somebody should change that. I don't have time right now; if nobody's done it next time I have some free time, I'll do it.

Unfortunately, it will mean retitling the Suspenders article (to something like 'Suspenders (hosiery)', and fixing all the links that used to lead to that page, and then creating a new article called something like 'Suspenders (pants)'. Both those Suspenders pages should then have something like "This article is about the things that hold X up. If you are looking for the things that hold Y up, go to the other Suspenders article." Phew, complicated stuff! Katherine Shaw 10:52, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Problem solved! Wrad 03:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Pussy Deluxe"

The current image for trousers has a sign that says "Pussy Deluxe" on the mirror. I'm not sure what the intended context is, but this seems to imply that the pants are sold as wrappers for a woman's sexual organs. I'm not sure that message is appropriate. Mcpusc 06:57, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pussy Deluxe is a brand name , they make women's underwear. Find the name to be totally appropriate since they are quite expensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:58, 25 September 2005 (talkcontribs)


I thought "slacks" were a specific type of pants (trousers), not just an old name for them. For example, I wear slacks to work, but jeans to my friends' place. -Branddobbe 19:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Slacks" were originally a specific cut or style of trousers; see the 1930's illustration in the article. My feeling is that "slacks" as a generic term for (US) trousers or dress pants (as opposed to jeans or sweats) is fading, but that may be regional. I rarely hear it in California today, but "slacks and a sport coat" was common enough a few decades ago. (FWIW, I wasn't the one who added "slacks" as an "old" name.) It's confusing because colloquially "slacks"="trousers" in the US (and not ="jeans", "sweatpants"), whereas in the UK "trousers"= US "pants" and includes all of these.
Anyone else care to comment on the use of "slacks" for khakis, dress pants, etc., today? And (out of curiosity) would you call cords slacks? PKM 19:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, a comment on usage: I had thought that the word "slacks" was unknown in British/Irish English, but just the other day it was used to describe the specific type of trousers illustrated here on Ray D'Arcy's Irish radio show. RMoloney (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
a Google search on [slacks trousers site:uk] returns lots of pages using ther term, many of the catalog companies do. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
For me, "slacks" today are pants/trousers that are somewhat dressy and definitely not made of denim. But it's an everyday word for me, with no feeling of being formal or old-fashioned. (Slacks can be formal or old-fashioned, but the word isn't.) I don't think cords can be called slacks. --Angr (t·c) 15:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Half mast

Born in the UK, I don't recognise 'half mast' as meaning 'your trousers are too short'. That's always meant to me that I'd failed to pull them up. See '... trousers-round-the-bum fashion [prisoners are issued] with badly-fitting trousers and no belts ... the permanent trousers-at-half-mast inside prisons apparently signifies that the wearer is another prisoner's "b*tch"' at [2] SleekWeasel 15:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've only ever heard half-mast referring to trousers that weren't pulled up properly, never ones that were too-short. (Just checked with a Scot - he agrees with me.) I think this part should be either removed or clarified if it's a regional phrase.Licon 18:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost universally they are called "half-mast" when too short. Also rarely, for unknown reasons, your "cats are dead" Panthro 01:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeans paragraph in mens trousers

That paragraph would probably be much more apporative in the Jeans article than this one. At least in most US usage, "Trousers" do not generally include "Jeans", mostly because the work place rules for those companies that still have dress codes often ban "Jeans" as being too casual. Jon 20:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and probably millions do as well. It's just that in the odd phrase it's a catch all term. For example if your jeans are coming down it's pull your pants, trousers or my new oldy worldy favourite trollies or trolleys up. Most of the people in britain probably agree with you. One more example. When entering a night club it either says no jeans, or pants(yes quite a few people in england do call trousers pants) or trousers must be worn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:49, 14 January 2007

South Africa, Aus?

I know that "pants" is probably used by the younger (Americanized) generation in these places, but it is certainly not traditional in these dialects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:46, 30 July 2006

Sans Culotte

What does this picture add to the article? The assertion that this is the origin of trousers is not supported by the article. In fact, trousers were "invented" long before the 1790s. –Shoaler (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Because 'pants' and 'trousers' are short articles about the same thing, I think they should be merged into one big, leg-covering, butt-warming article. Freezing the mainstream 23:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, suggest Pants be merged into Trousers. This also needs sources. - PKM 19:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually pants is serving as a disambiguation page because it refers not only to trousers but underwear and several other things that have nothing to do with trousers. I don't think it would improve the usability of Wikipedia to replace the "pants" article with a redirect to "trousers". –Shoaler (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Very well. I'll merge the present information on trousers in the pants article into this page, and make "pants" a legitimate disambig page. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 18:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Check it now. Tell me what you think. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 18:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a very USA-centric suggestion. "pants" only means trousers in the US: in most of the rest of the world, even in several non-english speaking countries, it means underwear. Perhaps when this was suggested, the article at pants (disambiguation) was just a stub, but right now I don't think there is any cause for this merge at all. If nobody objects, I will take down the tag. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 02:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd say take it down. It agree with your reasoning. - PKM 04:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the USA that call trousers pants. Austrailia, South Africa, England (parts of)do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:28, 14 January 2007

I live and was born in England. I've been to many parts of England. -NEVER- do we refer to them as 'pants'. -- (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC

I live and was born in England. I refer to them as pants. As do my family, and all my friends. (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a North/South thing I think. Everyone I know thinks pants=trousers and I'm a northerner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Expand to other countries?

I came over from the Salwar kameez article to see if African/Middle Eastern/Central Asian/South Asian trouser styles are covered. They aren't. No Japanese (monpei, hakama) or Chinese trousers either. Nor any North American-Siberian trousers as worn by indigenous tribes.

I'd try to add all that stuff if I weren't grossly over-committed to too many other articles. Is anyone here interested in making this article less ethnocentric? Zora 08:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What's The Origin of Pants:

Were't pants also wore the some of Native people in the Americas, & the inuit peoples. What's the history of pants. Weren't there cases in Eastern world of ancient pants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In West Asia, both tunics and pants were also pretty common, but they were made out of linen, and then in the Islamic period people began to use more silk and cotton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:06, 14 October 2007


"Pants" is a plural noun which refers to a single article. I for one would appreciate some learned discussion of etymology and proper usage, including a reference to recent "fashionable" uses of the singular noun "pant" to describe pants. Bjartmarr (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

see below... - PKM (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


Moving the normal usage "trousers" to the singular "trouser" is completely inappropriate. The usage "trouser" is found in specialist usage but is not standard. This move should be reverted. - PKM (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says the singular form pant has seen "occasional use since at least the 1890's ... This use of pant is now common in clothing advertisements and catalogs but is otherwise rare." They don't even mention a singular form trouser, although I agree is has begun to appear in specialist fashion contexts.

Nevertheless, the normal English usage for clothing for the legs is plural, and that usage is standard throughout English Wikipedia: pants, breeches, plus-fours, pantaloons, leggings, knickerbockers (clothing). - PKM (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The title should be "trousers" for all the reasons you give. Any objections? -- Smjg (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the article in accordance with dictionary usage. --Redaktor (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sharovari Pants

It took me a while but I finally figured out the name of the type of pants that military personnel often wore: Sharovari pants. I don't think there's any information on these types of pants on Wikipedia. Anybody care to add some? ~MDD4696 02:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

breeches worn in American football and not football

{{editsemiprotected}} section discussing breeches still worn by men states examples as baseball and football. Only America refers to this sport as football and it should be described as 'American Football'Diddymand (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Thanks, Martin 14:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "American football", just "football" and FYI, more English speaking people call it football and what you people play soccer. Deal with it. -Fartnog Buttstinkle July 4, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Roman/Greek toga, view of pants.

I read once an ancient Roman writer say that pants were a garment of "barbarians", does anyone know what writer said that and if that was the prevalent view of the time? Seems like an important enough view being that such an expansive classical culture of antiquity believed such a thing, when that has influenced so much western culture, western culture that now wears almost exclusively pants. By 'barbarians' what people may have been meant at that time? Celts? Carthaginians? Tacitus I believe said that Germans wore mostly fur capes and nothing underneath so I don't think it was them. (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Barbarians means anybody who didn't speak Latin or Greek. (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I know that ancient Persians wore pants (in contrast with Greeks who didn't). In most Greek paintings of Persians & other Iranians they are differed from Greeks by having pants on. In fact the word "pajamas" is taken from Persian work "Paay Jaameh", which literally translates into "leg clothing". -- (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


Just a typo - trousters in the heading 'Parts of trousers'

Hesitate to edit it myself, not having edited anything yet.

(Came to the page from Tim Minchin's myspace).

Mogranny (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Mogranny

That's been done now. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested photo

Could someone please upload a photo of modern trousers (not jeans) for the top of the article? Ideally, I'd love to see something similar to what you might see in a catalogue... I can't believe this is so hard to find on flickr. -TheMightyQuill (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)