I was talking to a clothing/costume designer who told me that slacks and pants mean different things, especially when talking about women’s clothes.
I had to dash, and couldn’t finish talking with him.
Any thoughts?
I don’t know what the clothing designer had in mind, but to me, pants are a general term for the garment. Slacks are only the more formal type, that you would wear to an office job or a nicer party. Jeans are pants, but not slacks; same with sweatpants, yoga pants, and so on.
Perusing various online resources, I find no common agreement of what slacks are compared to pants and trousers. The sources contradict each other when they get specific, or, they just equate slacks with pants and trousers.
The way I understand ‘slacks’ coming from the greater NYC area is that they are pants (which I use as the most generic term) which are loose fitting but straight and they go down to the ankles. They are generally a light-weight fabric that flows when you walk. They generally have a permanent front seam. IOW, the kind of pants you wear with a suit, although, incredibly, one online definition called ‘slacks’ a casual pant. Perhaps casual in the sense that you can wear them without a suit jacket in non-traditional colors. Women’s slacks generally have no pockets, though the current trend is to give women pockets more so than in the past.
This definition leaves out shorts, capris, jeans, flared pants, work/construction/painter pants, or anything tight or skinny.
$100.
Generally, the snootiness level of the one so wearing.
My grandma calls all pants “slacks”. I use that word a lot less, only for your most formal pants, like something you would wear as part of a pantsuit.
Pants are underwear.
In my mind, slacks are not casual wear. You wear jogging pants, jeans, and khakis when you’re hanging out and chilling. But you lay out the slacks for work and church.
Unless you’re of a certain age. Then you wear slacks all the time.
Let me guess… are you in the UK?
No.
Pants are underwear in the UK, in some Commonwealth countries, and some former colonies. Think of it as being short for underpants. In fact the word pants is a mild negative in UK usage: “This is a bit pants, isn’t it?”
Cue Americans being amazed that the rest of the English speaking world doesn’t just slavishly adopt American usage.
ETA: I’m not in (or from) the UK either.
Can you give a quick context or dialogue using “that’s a bit pants?” Also, is it a newish expression?
Signed,
A Yank
Poor, poor parts of the English-speaking world that hasn’t yet completely sexualized underwear as a fetishistic device and still thinks of it in its utilitarian role as covering up the dirty bits.
In the US, underpants are hot. Its only until they’re soiled that they become ‘dirty underwear’ and even then, for a few, that’s hotter.
This. In my family, slacks are to pants what dungarees are to jeans or what a victrola is to an ipod.
So you wear pants under your pants?
Yo dawg…
To go back to the OP, one thing to consider is whether or not they are lined. Lined pants are always slacks. I’ve had non-lined pants I would also call slacks, but if someone told me “Go get me the slacks out of that pile of pants”, the first thing I would look for is one lined pair.
I wear pants under my trousers, which is where they’re supposed to be, unless you’re a superhero.
Here’s the difference:
I wear pants. My dad wore slacks.
In addition:
My grandfather wore trousers. My great-grandfather wore britches.
In Bananas, the Generalissimo declared everyone shall change their underwear daily, and will wear them outside their pants (American style) so the authorities will know.