Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT - Apr 11th to Apr 15th, 2022 (#4761 to #4765)
Farideh:
Could... could they at least be NEW underpants? Technically, if I buy a pair of underwear, never take them out of their packaging, and then lend them to a bride-to-be, it still counts as 'underpants from a woman who has had children'.
If the bride uses the underwear for its intended purpose, I don't want them returned though.
_Islanio:
--- Quote from: Farideh on 13 Apr 2022, 20:15 ---If the bride uses the underwear for its intended purpose, I don't want them returned though.
--- End quote ---
Gross
...but wouldn't it defeat the whole "borrowed" stuff?
Also, if you gonna borrow something, let it be power tools.
Gyrre:
Wait, for the fertility itself or for having to ask?
EDIT: correcting punctuation
Farideh:
Borrowed indefinitely
ihaveavoice:
I love Pintsize's happy little smile, like he's thinking, "I am! I am blue!"
If the "something borrowed" tradition is old enough to have been about conferring fertility originally, then the undergarment in question would have been a shift/chemise rather than underpants - women didn't wear bifurcated undergarments in the region this came from before the introduction of crotchless drawers in Victorian times. That to us would basically be a borrowed dress, which has been laundered before being lent to us, and that the lender just didn't happen to wear underwear with (which could always be the case with any clothes you've been lent, and again, laundry). IMO, doesn't really have the same modern yikes-factor as if it was underpants from some married mother in the village.
Hedgie, I want to go back in time and be your coworker. Not for the heartstopper, which might actually stop my non-coffee-drinker heart, but for the cast of characters.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version