• Thu, Jan 13 2011

See-Through Underwear Is Totally Pointless

The Daily Show‘s Olivia Munn is on the cover of this month’s Maxim. However, some people are asking that the magazine be shelved in the “adult” section (that means with the porn) instead of men’s. Though the magazine is known for their sexy photoshoots, the thing that apparently took this one too far is Munn’s see-through underwear. Which brings me to another point: why is see-through underwear a thing? I mean, either you want to wear underwear or you don’t. If you do, I assume that means you feel like having your ladybits covered up at this particular moment and aren’t in a hurry to show them off. Which is why see-through underwear makes no sense to me. You can’t be naked and not-naked at the same time. If Olivia Munn’s ladyparts wanted to be on the cover of Maxim, then she should have let them be on the cover of Maxim, instead of doing this whole I’m-clothed-except-I’m-not business. See-through underwear is for people who think they can have everything. WELL, YOU CAN’T HAVE EVERYTHING, Olivia Munn. You can’t have everything so hard that you’re making me shout. And that’s not very nice, is it?

What We're Reading:
Share This Post:
  • Eileen

    I can only see the point of see-through underwear if you’re wearing it under your actual clothes. Otherwise, it is a waste of money and see-through fabric.

    • Eileen

      Wait, I just looked at the cover, and they’re not see-through. They’re lace. In fact, (TMI alert) they’re almost identical to the panties I have on right now. You can’t actually see anything, and given how (comparably) modest her top is, it’s not really that bad.

  • Joe Commenter

    You’re either single and have no idea why or have no idea how disappointed the man in your life is right now with your coldly scientific approach to romance, which is all about the translucent grey areas of life. Unless you’re a lesbian cuz we all know how they’re all heartless bitches without even the foggiest notion romanticism still exists in this day of digitalized socializing.

    Fail, Lilit, total fucking fail.

    • Me

      Let me guess, Joe hates women. Or rather, women who aren’t perpetually aroused and ready to serve his every man need.

    • L

      Troll harder and put on your translucent boxers, Joe. And make me a steak, I’m feeling famished. Don’t argue with me, who is wearing the opaque panties?!
      And @Me, he’s just being inflammatory, pay him no mind.
      Personally, I find any kind of fancy underwear (lace, bright colors, see-through, embroidered) frivolous.

  • iheartellegirl

    If you have a problem with lace underwear then I pity you. This post comes off as ignorant, not feminist… which I think is maybe what you were trying to go for? Not sure, this post just seemed totally pointless.

  • Lindsay Cross

    That’s right, we pity you Lilit, because you don’t wear the right underwear. It’s sad really. No one can ever love you if you don’t wear the right underwear. Who knew it all came down to this?

  • megan

    Sexy underwear is fun. Even if no one sees them. Plus they keep your vagina from rubbing on jeans? Hello…very uncomfortable.

  • A Man

    see throught undies are not pointless. Its great to see them under a womans skirt or dress … yea I’m upskirting her.
    It’s like she wanted to wear something and not go commando, but let who ever might look the chance to see the goods. Awesome!!!

    as for what this girl is wearing on the cover. I love the comment from eileen who states “they aren’t see though, they are lace like mine”. funny is most women i have asked feel that way. Lace is lace, see through is something else.

    I love’ all. as long as i get to see the goods one way or the other.

    Yum