why is the g-string(the undergarment) called a g-string?
156282
Well...I have no idea! But I think this guy did:\n"Modern lexicography, believe it or not, is at a loss to account for the origin of the term G-string (which actually is often spelled geestring). One writer offers the thesis that a G-string resembles a capital G in shape. Makes perfect sense to me. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a burlesque show and thought, goodness, the apparatus keeping this young lady from getting arrested resembles a capital G when viewed from above. I must notify the Smithsonian.\n\nThe earliest known reference to G-string is in J.H. Beadles's Western Wilds, written circa 1878: "Around each boy's waist is the tight 'geestring,' from which a single strip of cloth runs between the limbs from front to back." From this we see that G-string originally referred only to the thong around the waist, which is precisely what a "girdle" was in its earliest form. Thus G-string may be an abbreviation of "girdlestring," the only difficulty being that no such word has ever come to light, that I am aware of, anyway. Alternatively, we may note that "string" was a common 19th-century synonym for "whip," which was of the same rawhide construction as the aforementioned prairie G-string, and that "gee" is an expletive frequently employed to accelerate one's horse. A "geestring" may thus have been a pioneer horsewhip later discovered to be useful in holding up one's pants, or the equivalent thereof. Finally, and rather unimaginatively, we may observe that a G-string (the string part, that is) bears a superficial likeness to the fiddle string of similar designation. However, this explanation does not appeal to me, and I trust the discriminating reader will say it pretty much eats as well."
585418
At this very moment, the question in the resolved section, has to do with a bungee cord, and the one above your question has to do with suspenders.  Neither one of them are similar to your question.
145506
Must be for style as I was noticing that each snowboarder's pants got lower the farther they were down the halfpipe.\n\nMaybe the baggy clothes act as a parachute slowing their descent allowing for more twists while in the air.
795306
I get the impression that some people get their undergarments in a wad about it, and yet most people can't resist the fun. Like a forbidden fruit.\n\nHalloween is for embracing our fears, and looking directly at them, and even walking around in their shoes, so that they lose the power to frighten us. It's 'enlightenment' - taking the darkness and bringing it to light.\n\nIt's a celebration of victory over fear and death, of hope of an afterlife.
976952
It is called either a yarmulka or a kippa. It represents that a Jewish man is under the covering of G-d; that we are submitted to Him. It's a sign of submission.
319888
Just to add to the first answer above, medieval trousers were actually two separate legs, hence a pair and probably the source of the plural.  NOT your legs.\n\nYou can dig around a little bit on the web and find patterns from recreation societies for the medieval trousers if you're curious to see what they looked like.\n\nThey probably evolved from the "barbarian" practice (according to, of course, the "we do everything better" Romans) of wrapping cloth around the legs.  By the middle ages, however, they were shaped and laced pieces of cloth with a specific purpose.\n\nBy the by, when I lived in England as a child, I wore pants but my brother wore trousers.  "Pants" was the polite term for knickers and trousers were what Americans call pants.    \n\nIt's funny the lingual shifts that happen. I just wonder what effect the Internet and corporate television has had on dialect and language patterns?  Eventually, will the English that I learned as a child sound as archaic as writings from the 1800s sound to most people today?
1057018
i agree, but the reason is mostly that an open zipper is symbolic.\nesp for girls its no big deal, for boys...it might depend on what kinda undies they are wearing...
33558
Pair, pare, pear. LOL....language is a mystery.\n\nPeople want to know why we don't say "a pair of bras." Also, it's strange that the phrase pair of pants is the only way to refer to one such item, since the word pants is always plural. This explains why the singular pant is sometimes used, especially by the clothing and fashion industry. Though jarring to some people, singular pant has been in use since the late 19th century. \n\nPants is an Americanism first recorded in 1840, and was considered a vulgar term for at least a century afterwards. It is a shortened form of pantaloons, from Pantalone, a stock character in Italian commedia dell'arte, who wore a combination of loose breeches and stockings. The term pantaloons is first recorded in English about 1600, and was applied at different periods to leg garments of different styles. \n\nSo why do we say "pair of pants/shorts/trousers/slacks?" Until the late 17th century, leg garments were made in two parts, one sleeve of fabric for each leg, so calling them a "pair" made perfect sense. The two pieces of woven cloth (or animal hides) were tied to a belt to hold them up. Supposedly the resulting indecent exposure made the "codpiece" a useful invention. From the Columbia Encyclopedia I learned the history of pants: After the Middle Ages, a loose trouser, bound at the ankle, was worn. Then the lower legs became more fitted, and these "breeches" were shortened to the knee and worn with fitted cloths called "hose." Breeches grew shorter and hose became longer; by about 1450 the hose reached the hips and were attached by points (laces) to the doublet. Later the breeches and hose formed one garment, like tights. As the upper part of the hose became more puffed out, a separation occurred: the upper part was called "trunk hose," and the leg coverings were called "stockings." Trousers grew longer and stockings shorter. In the early 17th century, men wore pantaloon breeches, but a tight-fitting trouser was introduced in the late 18th century, eventually superseding knee breeches, or knickers. The so called "trunk hose" evolved into what we now call "pants," and the so called "stockings" are what we now also call "hose."
171614
They are the same thing..in Australia we call them G strings because we use the word thong to describe rubber flip flops.
54917
There is no reason, it is just an idiosyncrasy of the language.  If memory serves, this is called a plural tantum (sp?), a strange type of noun which is always addressed in the plural, yet has no singular. Scissors, shorts and clothes are other examples of this bizzare phenomeneon.   Regards :)
926481
the loser should wear only a g-string \nand run around the block....
536746
*finds a g-string* hmm...wonder who's is this...I proably should put this on e-bay...
784402
In camping, a 'guy rope' is used to peg down the tent so I suppose a guy line would be the same.\n\nguy1 (gī) \nn.\nA rope, cord, or cable used to steady, guide, or secure something.
179992
Awesome!  lol\n\nBut to try to avoid the ridge across the back of your pants, sometimes they are necessary.
1049976
Another string theory, \nG – hmm, \nwhy not then a G-string theory?\n\n\nCurios question it is. Let us as assume that you will put a geosynchronous satellite at about 300km from the center of the Earth. Since it is a geosynchronous satellite it will stay with the same point on the Earth say over your house.  The air resistance will be minimum as I‘ll assume that the planets atmosphere stays with the planet. Here are some numbers:\n\nEarth rotates at Ve= 1,700 km/hour (diameter ~13,000 km)\nOur geosynchronous satellite Vs= ~40,000 km/hour (at 300,000 km above center of the Earth)\nThis was just to show off, now let us do some serous computation.\n\nAnd the weight of the string say at 1gm/meter will weigh …. will weigh about 126.87 kg by employing the inverse square law of gravity.  (These were very tough computations).\nThat will apply a force of about 1,300 N on that satellite.  Why apply a steady pull? The weight of the string will bring the satellite down.\n\nThe daunting question is how are we are going to attach one end of that string to the satellite in the first place and then getting the other end to your house ;)? Or perhaps…\n\nThanks for all the fish
26055
Pants only became a single garment late in their history. Until the late seventeenth century, the garments used to cover legs (most often called "hose") were two sleeves of fabric, tied to the belt with laces (usually called "points")and open at the crotch, which was covered by the tunic, breeches, a codpiece, or not at all. In the high middle ages, only the men of the nobility were allowed to wear short tunics which exposed their genitals -- commoners had to cover up. In the eighteenth century, there was quite a bit of migration in the names of garments, and we ended up calling hose "trousers" and stockings "hose." Pants, short for "pantaloons" and named after a stock character of the Commedia dell'Arte, is an American expression which until recently was considered quite vulgar by the Brits. In any case, whether pants, trousers, breeches, britches, knickers or shorts, the concept has always remained plural even though the garment became singular.
1005706
The only  "unsolved"  issue in your Question seems to be about underwear.  I think that when women wear panties that say  "Princess"  (or whatever), they  wear them as a form of subliminal entertainment.  Both for themselves,  and for their boyfriend/husband/lover.  Kind of like,  "I'm wearing these and nobody knows about it, except for me and him (or her)".  It's sort of a romantic/erotic secret.\n\nAs for the other locations  (on shirts and on the back of pants):  I'm all for it.  If a woman's got the word  NIKE  across her bottom,  I'm probably gonna read it.  That's what it's there for.  I like them too,  and I cannot lie.