A question seeking an answer

[Cole Parker]

You're being too literal. Getting dressed has nothing to do with donning a dress.

C

[JamesSavik]

This may be silly, but it has me wondering. Can anyone tell me why we say, 'a pair of underwear'?

I mean, it's one item, whether it's a pair, ahem, of boxer shorts or briefs. So, why a pair? A pair of socks, sure. But briefs? Why?

C

Because there are two legs and two balls so the pair of underwear is just an extension of the theme.

[Lugnutz]

What if they have one ball?

[Merkin]

Perhaps contributing to the notion of wearing a paired undergarment was the 14^th century noble and knightly practice of tying full-length hose, still constructed to be separate and fitted to each leg, to the bottom of the jacket worn under armor, which later evolved into the doublet. The gap left in the middle was covered by the codpiece. Later in the 15^th century hose was joined and evolved into tights. I suggest that the notion of wearing a "pair of" rather than a single undergarment may have carried over from this evolution.

[Cole Parker]

Until a better explanation comes along, I'll buy in on that one.

C