MovieChat Forums > Friends with Benefits (2011) Discussion > Why would not wearing pants be bad?

Why would not wearing pants be bad?

posted 12 years ago by polos_are_minty
7 replies | jump to latest

The film made a big deal about his father not wearing pants, but as far as I could tell he was never shown without his pants off. So I don't get it, was this supposed to be some kind of joke, with them telling him he wasn't wearing underwear or something? I saw he had his trousers off but that's a different matter, someone please explain?

[–] Val-El 12 years ago

Would you wear underwear in public?

[–] polos_are_minty 11 years ago

No I wouldn't, but why are they calling his trousers pants?

[–] changedname 11 years ago

Maybe because nobody under 70 calls them trousers anymore?

[–] polos_are_minty 11 years ago

I've never heard anyone call trousers pants before. Pants are underwear and to call your trousers those sounds idiotic. And by the way, I'm 26

[–] oranges3 11 years ago

Are you possibly from England? Here in the states we call "trousers" pants.

[–] Helenlaurence 8 years ago

In America they call trousers pants

[–] !!!deleted!!! (54383477) 9 years ago

He was wearing boxer not shorts