this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
584 points (99.7% liked)
Tumblr
146 readers
1053 users here now
Welcome to /c/Tumblr
All the chaos of Tumblr, without actually going to Tumblr.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Cursed
This isn’t your personal call-out post.
- No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
- Keep it fun and weird, not mean-spirited
Rule 2: No Forbidden Posts
Some things belong in the drafts forever. That means:
- No spam or scams
- No porn or sexually explicit content
- No illegal content (don’t make this a federal case)
- NSFW screenshots must be properly tagged
If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can handle it. Otherwise just reblog and relax.
founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That’s going to be me and my peeve regarding the malapropism “assless chaps”.
Chaps with asses are PANTS!
(Turns back to manual typewriter and resumes typing furiously.)
To me when someone says assless chaps it refers to the configuration of wearing chaps without anything underneath. Similar to "going commando" being a configuration of clothing meaning pants with no underwear.
Yeah, but I’m still gonna be salty about it.
In that case, I feel like the correct phrasing should be pantsless chaps.
Indeed, chaps by definition have no ass.
They’re assless pants, really.
Tangentially, I hate it that pulling someone’s pants down became popular and was called “pantsing.” You’re not putting pants ON the person…
My (completely un-researched, straight from my ass) hypothesis is that the term comes from British English and not American English. In the UK "pants" are your underwear, so "pansting" somebody is exposing their underwear.
Weird, I thought they were called bloomers or knickers.
Those are girl's pants.
Do you feel similarly about shelling peanuts?
Oh excellent point, I hadn’t thought about it.
I think it’s different for parts of living things.
Shelling is removing the entire shell. “Peeling” something doesn’t mean adding peel, and “pitting” means removing the pit.
However, for bodies, removing skin in general is “skinning,” but if you lose the skin of just your hand it’s called de-gloving. Removing the bowels isn’t called “boweling,” but “disembowling.”
If I said someone did a “shirting,” maybe I’m weird but I’d think of getting hit with a shirt before removing someone’s shirt. And in hockey, a “jerseying” is more about pulling the jersey over the head than removing it.
But the synonymous process of removing the guts is called gutting.
That’s true, but I would argue “gut” is more colloquial.
Like, to “behead” someone means to remove their head, but it’s also colloquial. Whereas decapitation is the more medical term.
Should it be de-pantsing, or disempantsing, then? I think it'd be the former, but I want it to be the latter
I think most people would say “de-pants” but I agree with you that it SHOULD be disempantsing.
Though I’m worried the “em” implies the pants are being extracted.
“Dis-pantsing” is also really good though. Then when it happens people can be like “Jimmy got a dis-pants-ation”
The difference between pants and chaps is more than just the presence or absence of an ass. There's the whole area between the legs. You can have chaps with an ass in the same way you can have a shirt with sleeves.
Counterpoint, saying "assless" is fun, and saying "assless pants" would probably make most people confused
That depends on who is wearing them
Chaps with asses are gentlemen.
Everything must have the Oxford comma! reeeeeeeeeee