Girls who don't

[mawilson 2,133]

From Paris Hilton to Helen Mirren, it's an epidemic: female celebrities going out

without their knickers. Is it a bid for affection? A cry for help? Or just the latest

rule-breaking craze?

By Zoe Williams

Thursday March 1, 2007

The Guardian

Heat magazine probably has it snappiest when it calls them, in its cover story, the "no knicker girls".

They are describing famous girls who go to parties without knickers on, see. They go out, get

photographed by the paparazzi, usually as they are getting into a car, and reveal everything.

I always smell a rat when someone remarks on a trend, and it turns out that this trend amounts

to Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan. I hope I won't hurt their feelings if I say this,

but Hilton and Lohan are attention-seekers. Nothing they do will amount to a trend because the

only reason they are doing it is in the hope that nobody else will do it, and then they will get more

attention. Britney, meanwhile, is going through a vulnerable time. She will do anything Hilton

tells her is cool.

However, the commando business is not limited to this garish trio. Jemima Khan and Kate Moss

were both snapped getting into a car. Helen Mirren also let the air in under her Oscars dress,

for reasons of line, probably. I do not find this information titillating. It reminds me of the weird

tights my mum used to wear, with hoop-like holes round the top, to overcome her feelings of

pantyhose-claustrophobia without running the risk of being at all sexy. You probably think this

is an age thing, and I can no longer conceive of Mirren as a sexual being simply because she's

not 25 - but before you put pen to paper, yes, she is a million times sexier than I will ever be,

and this is not an age thing, it is an English thing. English people don't need air, for heaven's

sake. They would catch a chill. They have no understanding of the line of a couture gown.

They are doing it for other reasons, probably related to Greenham Common. Maybe they burned

their knickers while they were doing their bras.

There is another brand of English pantlessness, epitomised by Kate Beckinsale, who once said,

"I don't take drugs, and I've never been drunk. But if you were to ask me if I were wearing

knickers, I would have to say 'no'." The woman makes me actively nauseous, but I don't think

that is tainting my judgment when I say, doesn't this say it all? About that coy, boarding-schooly,

"Ooh, sexy? You mean me? Little tiny me, a riot of sexy mischief? But I don't understand, I'm

such a good girl! Ooh, ooh, except naughty too!" Oh. An unbidden wave of nausea. I am going

to have to put my head between my legs. Don't worry, I do have knickers on. And tights.

Anyway, Beckinsale, Mirren and my mum are variants of the English way, and they have been

doing this for years. No, the nouvelle vague of American under-nudes is altogether different.

I have read sundry American bloggers taking this as a straightforward come-on - especially in

the case of Britney. They claim she is "advertising her single status". Hilton and Lohan, meanwhile,

are purportedly doing that postmodern slag-signifier thing, where you pretend to be entirely

available to absolutely everyone, and yet at the same time pretend to hate promiscuity and all

it stands for, though you would not for a second want to be pinned down on what it did stand for,

and the entire stance plays against women in every conceivable aspect, but let's not worry about

that for a second. I do not buy this - I think the missing undercrackers signify something more

than "I like the waft of air", but I do not think they signify "Come, take me, take me."

For a start, they have all had a lot more than a discreet Brazilian ladywax, these women - they are

not even porn-bald, they are coot-bald. Sure, they were not expecting anyone to shove a camera

up there - although some claim that the whole trend was premeditated attention-seeking - but still,

if you were simply looking to put out a sexual message, from "I'm up for it" to "I'm sickened by it,

but I take a curious pleasure from simulating engagement", I don't think you would do so looking

so raw. It is too gritty; you can see Britney's caesarean scar, for God's sake. This is sex-kitten

as rendered by Ken Loach; it is hard to look at, and there are dark times ahead.

And yet at the same time, I don't really see it as subversive, and certainly not as a feminist

statement, not least because Hilton would sue this newspaper for suggesting she was a feminist.

So I wonder if it is just an extension of the back-message, sorry, the message, as originated

about six years ago by the red-carpet hegemony of the backless gown. It is not an erogenous zone,

the back, or if it is, it is pretty special-interest. It is not really sexy at all, especially on the incredibly

skinny individual, whose back view puts you in mind of the sad dog that ruined your holiday the time

you went to Madagascar.

The message of this was asexual: it was "I am now so thin that it doesn't matter which bit I show you.

There's no deliberation! Every bit is as thin as every other bit! It doesn't matter if the whole lot falls off,

I shall have no shame, since the last thing you'll see is a rogue fat bit!" The no-knickers thing could be

more of that - I am so fleshless that I need no girdling. Ha, you over there, you with the pants on!

I'll bet you have support tights, also. You cannot be in my gang!"

In tandem with this, it could be a move farther in the thong-direction. Once upon a time, the thong

was a big thing. You flashed it over the top of your jeans, you were cool; now everybody's doing it.

To stay ahead of the curve, your thongs have to get either bigger or smaller. Bigger, and it's all too

easy to mistake you for a square. Smaller, and they will eventually just disappear up somewhere.

What a waste of cash and Canesten. You can see how the smart opinion-former might dispense with

them altogether.

Or it might be standard-issue rule-breaking. What's the first rule of getting dressed? Start with your

knickers and bra. These people have not worn bras for years. The pants are the first and last rule

left to break. I wonder if rule-breaking this determined and anti-authoritarian actually makes up,

fleetingly, for not being a feminist. Of course not. And Helen Mirren, besides ... what would the Queen

say! After all that gushing! She thought you two were friends.

[bucknekkid 0]

Panties did to finger fcuking what Nixon did to America....

[pedroh 21]

LAW : Only hot chicks are allowed to go commando and get caught

if u're not hot and are caught.. iughh

if ur not caught.. meh who cares

[bucknekkid 0]

LAW : Only hot chicks are allowed to go commando and get caught

if u're not hot and are caught.. iughh

if ur not caught.. meh who cares

Honestly, when your taking a peek down there do you really look at the face it belongs to as well?

[pedroh 21]

LAW : Only hot chicks are allowed to go commando and get caught

if u're not hot and are caught.. iughh

if ur not caught.. meh who cares

Honestly, when your taking a peek down there do you really look at the face it belongs to as well?

i said hot lol, not pretty, there's a biiiiig difference if ur looking down there if its a hawt toned body than a saggy belly cellulite legs.. iugh.. it looks ugly as fukc

[wasino 0]

3 years ago, i was going out with one of my roomates. she was trying to decide what to wear. she finally decided on an outfit, and declared, "panties don't match this outfit," and went out without them. she was wearing a short, tight dress too. she also had a habit of pulling up her skirt (in clubs and bars) after too many drinks.....

one of my friends still talks about it and thinks it's the funniest thing.

[bucknekkid 0]

I'm not a Gynecolgist, but I'll have a look...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

3 years ago, i was going out with one of my roomates. she was trying to decide what to wear. she finally decided on an outfit, and declared, "panties don't match this outfit," and went out without them. she was wearing a short, tight dress too. she also had a habit of pulling up her skirt (in clubs and bars) after too many drinks.....

Thank God for women like that.

[Alex+R 0]

I hate the word "panties." Ugh. Shudder. Can't we use "knickers" too? Or at least just underwear or something?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When did T-backs become popular? (I sure as hell would've remembered them in HS) I would think going without undies would be the next logical step? It's not like a woman is wearing much of anything when she wears a T-back and I've been told that anything more covering than a T-back is called a granny panty.

[mawilson 2,133]

When did T-backs become popular? (I sure as hell would've remembered them in HS) I would think going without undies would be the next logical step? It's not like a woman is wearing much of anything when she wears a T-back and I've been told that anything more covering than a T-back is called a granny panty.

What's a T-back?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When did T-backs become popular? (I sure as hell would've remembered them in HS) I would think going without undies would be the next logical step? It's not like a woman is wearing much of anything when she wears a T-back and I've been told that anything more covering than a T-back is called a granny panty.

What's a T-back?

I used to call them thongs (but before that thongs to me were flip-flops aka rubber sandals) - they are shaped like a 'T' from the rear view.

[mawilson 2,133]

When did T-backs become popular? (I sure as hell would've remembered them in HS) I would think going without undies would be the next logical step? It's not like a woman is wearing much of anything when she wears a T-back and I've been told that anything more covering than a T-back is called a granny panty.

What's a T-back?

I used to call them thongs (but before that thongs to me were flip-flops aka rubber sandals) - they are shaped like a 'T' from the rear view.

G-strings?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When did T-backs become popular? (I sure as hell would've remembered them in HS) I would think going without undies would be the next logical step? It's not like a woman is wearing much of anything when she wears a T-back and I've been told that anything more covering than a T-back is called a granny panty.

What's a T-back?

I used to call them thongs (but before that thongs to me were flip-flops aka rubber sandals) - they are shaped like a 'T' from the rear view.

G-strings?

That's it...sorry. I doubt many American kids would know what a knicker is...