Who wears the pants in your family?

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » July 21, 2004, 5:24 pm

Straight men in relationships only question because the variables get too long to add everyone, but I've added an NA option for females or gay men or single men just so you can view the results without clicking that silly link everytime.

Edit: if you are single, but recently out of a long term relationship where you were living together, post who wore the pants in that relationship.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » July 21, 2004, 5:27 pm

I live for the women of my life, always have. They ask, I do. They tell, I do. I suggest, they do if they wish. I have a bit of space to do what I want, but I always respect my lady's decisions and her requests.. rarely do I do something she asks me not to.

Pussywhipped? Yeah, but I know where my bread is buttered.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 21, 2004, 5:41 pm

I put NA but I should have put the woman does because I'm Lala's bitch

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » July 21, 2004, 5:44 pm

I wear the pants in our family.
Just don't let Sirensa know I said that.

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » July 21, 2004, 7:46 pm

Sylvos wrote:I wear the pants in our family.
Just don't let Sirensa know I said that.

lol that's the biggest crock of shit I've ever read. It's ok though, no one believes you.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 21, 2004, 8:04 pm

Isn't "wears the pants" a sexist remark to begin with? Why not use "has the facial hair in the family"?

I move to use "makes the decisions" instead! Isn't "wears the pants" more related to who earns the bread and butter? You can have a situation where one person earns the money but the other person makes the decisions. (I'm not referring to pimps)

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » July 21, 2004, 8:20 pm

Winnow, last time I checked women wear pants too.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 21, 2004, 8:37 pm

I guess it works.

WHO WEARS THE PANTS?

Have a Nice Day, A Dictionary of Clichés,by Christine Ammer (Dutton Press,1992), 402-- "wear the pants, to." To be boss. This term was long applied to women, particularly wives, who assumed the domineering household role that was believed to belong to the husband. It dates from a time when only men wore pants or breeches and women wore skirts exclusively, at least in the Western world. Times have changed since the sixteenth century, yet although women's apparel has included both short and long pants for many decades [tens of years], the phrase still means to assume authority that is properly masculine. It reflects, of course, an indelibly sexist attitude.

Dictionary of Slang & Unconventional English, by Eric Partridge (Macmillan, 1984), 1313-- "wear the breeches." (Of women) to usurp a husband's authority, be 'boss'. From ca. 1550, though the idea is clearly indicated in 15th century Colloquialism. until ca. 1700.

Slang and its Analogues, by J. S. Farmer and W. E. Henley (Arno Press, 1970), 324-- "Breeches" To Wear the Breeches, phr. (common). -- A phrase said only of women; and signifying to rule; to usurp a husband's prerogative; to be 'master.' An analogous phrase is 'the gray mare is the better horse of the two.' [The derivation is obviously an allusion to breeches as the symbol of authority, i.e., of manhood.] Murray traces the expression back to1553, but it is, in reality, much older. It is found in French as early as 1450.

... Cady Stanton's father, mortified at her adoption of bloomer dress, wrote that she had made a 'guy' of herself. The New York Herald found the attempt to introduce pantaloons for women so outrageous that it predicted the bloomer women would soon "end their career in the lunatic asylum, or perchance in the state prison."

.. ."Pants are allied to power," asserted dress reformer Mary Tillotson. So strong was the identification of trousers with masculinity that not until the early nineteenth century had women worn divided undergarments, in the form of "drawers," as they were called. Long pantaloons as undergarments had a brief vogue in the first decade of the century, but the opposition to them on the grounds of their resemblance to male trousers was so strong that they had disappeared by the 1820's, surviving only as attire among dancers and prostitutes and in the form of the pantalettes that young girls continued to wear as a way of covering legs under short dresses. Thus, pantaloons were highly suspect, and even drawers were not universally accepted. Catherine Beecher, for one, remembered that in her youth in the 1810's and 1820's she had worn nothing but petticoats under her outer garments. One dress reformer speculated that the major problem with the bloomer was that it brought into plain view a garment women had only recently begun to wear as underclothing.

Post by **Xouqoa** » July 21, 2004, 9:41 pm

Both of us have one leg in the pants.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » July 21, 2004, 10:37 pm

I'd say it's pretty mutual here in our batcave.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » July 22, 2004, 6:41 am

I'd wear your pants Truant

rawr

Knibble · Post by **Knibble** » July 22, 2004, 7:47 am

You forgot the option..I am a female and I wear the pants in the family.

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » July 22, 2004, 8:22 am

i don't wear pants. i h8 pants.

unless they're pajamapants.

i looooooove pajamapants.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » July 22, 2004, 10:13 am

I would say there are different realms of responsibility in my house. I handle the finances and my wife handles most of the domestic duties. She doesn't do all the cleaning but she does serve as the manager for who is doing what. My duties lie more in the repairs and remodeling department. If we want something that costs more than $100 then we discuss it. They say 90% of marriages break up because of money. I am glad to say that my wife and I have never had that problem.

Here is a followup question: How much did people spend on their weddings and are you still paying for it? My wife recently saw an episode of Oprah that was talking with a couple that spent $50,000 on their wedding. Six months later they are still in debt and pondering divorce because of it. My wife and I paid about $3500 of our own money and her parents paid about $1500 for the food. We had a great wedding for on the cheap!

Llaffer · Post by **Llaffer** » July 22, 2004, 10:40 am

I wear them in my family (seperated from wife) -- but the kids think they do.

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » July 22, 2004, 10:49 am

Deward wrote:Here is a followup question: How much did people spend on their weddings and are you still paying for it? My wife recently saw an episode of Oprah that was talking with a couple that spent $50,000 on their wedding. Six months later they are still in debt and pondering divorce because of it. My wife and I paid about $3500 of our own money and her parents paid about $1500 for the food. We had a great wedding for on the cheap!

My wedding dress - $600
Hubby's new uniform - $40
Cake afterwards - $20
Phone bill telling parents, family, and friends we got married - $100

We decided to forgo inviting anyone to our wedding - it was perfect. We were married on hubby's (Navy) ship 6 days before he left for a 6 month Med cruise. Everyone wore white - his department all showed up in dress uniform. We then had cake and punch afterwards in the mess deck. I wouldn't have changed a thing!

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » July 22, 2004, 10:51 am

I always thought the couple with no pants are the happiest ones

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 22, 2004, 11:06 am

My wedding this coming November is looking like it's going to cost about $14000US all told depending on final numbers.
That's all inclusive (ceremony, reception, rings, dress, flowers, photos, EVERYTHING).
And it looks like about $10kUS of that is coming out oy my pocket.
WTF though. She's worth it and I'm only going through this hassle once

Post by **Sylvus** » July 22, 2004, 11:50 am

A friend of my dad's spent $120,000 on his daughter's wedding. It was a pretty big event, the governor of Michigan (at the time) was there with secret service in tow.

They ended up getting divorced like 3-6 months later.

Dups. · Post by **Dups.** » July 22, 2004, 1:26 pm

I wear the pants around here!!!... well... If my wife says it's ok

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » July 22, 2004, 1:48 pm

Sionistic wrote:I always thought the couple with no pants are the happiest ones

They are, in more ways than one

Lynxe · Post by **Lynxe** » July 22, 2004, 6:45 pm

I think it depends on what you mean by "wearing the pants". If it is financial vs domestic then we both do. My hubby and I make about the same amount, split the house-hold chores, I manage the finances and he takes care of the taxes.

I'd prefer to say we both wear shorts!

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » July 22, 2004, 6:47 pm

Knibble wrote:You forgot the option..I am a female and I wear the pants in the family.

I created NA because I wanted this a male-only question. Its to see what males have to say about their household in an anonymous poll. Its imspired by a comment masteen made in current events.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » July 22, 2004, 6:50 pm

Sirensa wrote:
Sylvos wrote:I wear the pants in our family.
Just don't let Sirensa know I said that.
lol that's the biggest crock of shit I've ever read. It's ok though, no one believes you.

WTF, I AM THE MASTER OF THE HOUSE. LORD OF THE MANOR, KING OF THE CASTLE.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » July 22, 2004, 6:51 pm

Settle down or I'll have Stragi sick Africanu(i)s on you.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » July 22, 2004, 6:53 pm

don't make me get a wet hand towel, twist it up and land a jagged ZAP welt on your buttocks!

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » July 22, 2004, 9:25 pm

jeebus tanc - ten thousand quid? are you flying all of birmingham in?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 23, 2004, 6:18 am

It's a fair bit less than that - Sterling is mighty against teh dollar at the mo.
But fuck me I did not realise how big my family is and what a political minefield it is deciding who to invite. Shower of bastards ><
So I was basically faced with inviting no-one - sneaking off on holiday and coming back married - which would have made me the unforgiven black sheep of the family (again, sigh

) or just biting the bullet and inviting everyone. So I'm looking at ~100 guests for the main event and 100-150 for the evening alcoholocaust. And cos I don't want to get married in some shithole it's going to cost a few quid

I am considering seeing if I can get away with the greek tradition of pinning cash to the wedding dress instead of wedding gifts though. . .

Karae · Post by **Karae** » July 23, 2004, 6:57 am

This poll is sorely missing an "I love Karae" option.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 23, 2004, 9:30 am

$10k for 100 guests seems a bit steep. I think when you include everything, we got out with about $12k for 300ish guests. We did get some pretty good prices because of knowing a lot of people that provide services.

I will forever regret not taking the $5000 cash her father offered us to just elope.

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » July 23, 2004, 9:38 am

vn_Tanc wrote:But fuck me I did not realise how big my family is and what a political minefield it is deciding who to invite.

The main reason we did not invite anyone to the wedding!

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 23, 2004, 10:05 am

$10k for 100 guests seems a bit steep

The $14000 is for EVERYTHING to do with the wedding.
Dress
Suit
Photographs
Ceremony
Wedding Breakfast
Evening Reception + Catering
Rings
Transport
Flowers
Cake
Printing invites
PA Hire for the evening
Honeymoon Suite

But yeah the breakfast and the evening reception are eating up most of the costs. But we're having the whole day in a hotel built in 1632 and it's close to $100 per head for an adult. Fortunately ~30% of the guests will be kids. Who eat less

Cracc · Post by **Cracc** » July 23, 2004, 10:53 am

So who wears the kilt in salis family?

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » July 23, 2004, 11:59 am

Most people you talk to (especially men, who haven't been conditioned to require the big expensive wedding) who have been married for a couple years or more wish they had taken the money and ran instead of blowing it on an expensive wedding. Weddings can be done affordably with just as much sentimentality. In fact, I find smaller simpler weddings more romantic than big garish ones.

I regret the money spent on my wedding even though it wasn't near the tacky messes most chicks have. But then I'm not a materialistic twit like most women.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 23, 2004, 1:27 pm

Lalanae wrote:Most people you talk to (especially men, who haven't been conditioned to require the big expensive wedding) who have been married for a couple years or more wish they had taken the money and ran instead of blowing it on an expensive wedding.

You can put up another poll to see if this is true, but I don't think many men at all desire an expensive wedding. That falls mostly on the woman and also on the mutual pressure on both man and woman to please their extended families.

The wedding is one of the rare events that brings extended families together but that's the only redeeming quality I see for large weddings. I feel they are a colossal waste of money. If you absolutley have to spend thousands of dollars, blow it on a honeymoon. Marriage is about the two individuals getting married and not about how fancy it is or what the anyone thinks of the process. It's a scam for everyone as the wedding gifts suck money from the guests as well.

When it comes down to it, it's probably a combination of all the bullshit you go through for a big wedding along with the cost. It's unnecessary stress for the couple getting married and whoever ends up paying for it...especially if it's the father of the bride trying to make his daughter happy. They're going to spend away wanting everyone to be happy when the case is probably that the future married couple doesn't really want a big wedding and the father is doing it thinking it's what the couple wants.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » July 23, 2004, 1:38 pm

Winnow wrote: You can put up another poll to see if this is true, but I don't think many men at all desire an expensive wedding. That falls mostly on the woman and also on the mutual pressure on both man and woman to please their extended families.

Not arguing with you there, but some men will lie about it (or talk themselves into "liking" it) for the sake of their fiance/newly-married wife. Give em a couple years to settle into reality and they will recant. People get married too quickly these days (myself included) before they've had a chance to really prioritize within the relationship. There is a lot of waste on the front end in the name of idealized romance.

Xyphir · Post by **Xyphir** » July 23, 2004, 7:01 pm

We're coming up on our fifth year of marital bliss ('together' for over ten years) and I'm not sure I know how to answer this question. Neither one of us carries the burden for making the heavy decisions that effect our lives, and if one person in a relationship does it would be destined for failure. I can't go my whole life trying to make other people happy, I don't care how much I'm in love. Marriage is about comprimise.

When it comes to serious life decisions, we do the things we need to do without being told to do them. I don't tell my wife what to do, and she doesn't tell me. We're both pretty strong willed people and are in tune with one another.

As for the cost of our wedding, my in-laws shelled out about 8k, and we chipped in about 2k. They covered the food/drink/dress/cake, and we paid for all the extras (horse drawn carriage, harpist & flutist, live butterfly release, DJ, invitations, etc.). My father-in-law offered us a bribe to elope, but I knew my wife would want a wedding with our families and friends. Her happiness is worth that much to me and I don't regret for a second not taking the money. My only regret is not hiring a videographer.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » July 23, 2004, 9:57 pm

Lalanae wrote:
Winnow wrote: You can put up another poll to see if this is true, but I don't think many men at all desire an expensive wedding. That falls mostly on the woman and also on the mutual pressure on both man and woman to please their extended families.
Not arguing with you there, but some men will lie about it (or talk themselves into "liking" it) for the sake of their fiance/newly-married wife. Give em a couple years to settle into reality and they will recant. People get married too quickly these days (myself included) before they've had a chance to really prioritize within the relationship. There is a lot of waste on the front end in the name of idealized romance.

I'm outright and honest about it. I think all the materialistic traditions of engagement and weddings are fucking horseshit. Growing up, my parents also taught me, I have absolutely no say in anything at all to do with my wedding. The bride and her parents will have everything their way, no matter what.

However, I'm just stubborn enough to fight for my wedding.