In the UK, I've heard pants being used as slang for underpants (or was it in Bridget Jones' Diary?), whereas in India it almost exclusively means "trousers".

Describing the meaning of "put your pants on one leg at a time", this link says:

To say that someone puts their pants on one leg at a time means that the person is a human being no different from anyone else.

The idiom's origin seems to refer to trousers but I'm wondering whether someone reading this might think "underpants" rather than trousers?

  • 1
    Another interesting question is why "pants" has always meant "trousers" in India, given that Indian usage typically follows/followed British English… has there been a change in British English? Jan 28, 2011 at 6:04
  • @ShreevatsaR : exactly - which i why i mentioned India - we usually speak/follow UK and not US English
    – JoseK
    Jan 28, 2011 at 9:03

8 Answers 8


In the UK "Pants" typically refers to underwear.
(Where it is also a slang term for "bad". As in "That's pants".)

In other parts of the world, notably the USA, "pants" refers to trousers.

  • Ok, so any Brit would think "underpants" even for the phrase?
    – JoseK
    Jan 27, 2011 at 10:27
  • 9
    No, any Brit would think trousers. Generally underpants don't have legs.
    – user3444
    Jan 27, 2011 at 10:32
  • 4
    @josek with regards the phrase, it doesn't matter which meaning of "pants" is used, the implication is that the person has 2 legs and that they put one of their legs in to the article of clothing at a time. (Variations in ways of getting dressed notwithstanding.)
    – Matt Lacey
    Jan 27, 2011 at 10:37
  • Ha, that's weird. I've never thought of it as referring to the person's legs, only trouser legs. I wonder, would you say 'He puts his jacket on one arm at a time' or 'one sleeve at a time'...?
    – user3444
    Jan 27, 2011 at 10:41
  • @ElendilTheTall I put the jacket ON one of my arms at a time. Or I put my arms IN one of the sleeves at a time.
    – Matt Lacey
    Jan 27, 2011 at 11:06

In US usage pants means trousers.
In UK usage pants means underpants.

The popularity of US films and TV programmes means that most English speakers are likely to have some awareness of the US usage and will correctly understand phrases that use pants to mean trousers.

  • Yes, most people will understand the US usage in context but it can cause hilarity - such as when an American girl tells a Scottish guy he has nice pants.
    – neil
    Mar 16, 2012 at 11:04
  • 1
    And a disaster when an Am. guy tells a Scott. girl.
    – Kris
    Apr 21, 2012 at 14:41
  • 1
    @neil Especially if he's wearing a kilt!
    – WS2
    Dec 13, 2014 at 15:21
  • Once when I had green paint on the arse of my trousers, an American exclaimed 'you've got green paint on your fanny! I looked down, suddenly, horrified...
    – Jelila
    Sep 7 at 14:19

In British English, pants means underpants or, informally, nonsense. In American English, pants means trousers; the singular form is used as adjective.

[BrEn] He thought we were going to be absolute pants.
[AmEn] His pant leg was broken.

  • 1
    Not so much "nonsense" as "dreadful". I remember very clearly the first time I heard this piece of slang (around 1996), and while in context I understood what was meant, I found it very strange.
    – Colin Fine
    Jan 27, 2011 at 15:32

I'm English and I've never called underpants "pants" this is a relatively recent use of the word from about the early Nineties. I went to 8 different schools around England, north and south, in the Seventies (don't ask) no one ever called underpants "pants".

  • 1
    Certainly growing up in the eighties, I never heard "underpants" used in ordinary speech. When I did come across it it seemed pretentious - why would you call them as "_under_pants" when there is no other sort of pants (in BrE).
    – neil
    Mar 16, 2012 at 11:00
  • 1
    I went to fewer schools in the Seventies although we did move around the country, but "underpants" was hardly ever used. The early-Nineties phenomenon is the pejorative use of "pants" as "dreadful" (which does mean that the word itself is more common since then).
    – Andrew Leach
    Apr 21, 2012 at 14:27
  • 1
    Very odd. I went to fewer schools but had relatives all over and all the children I knew (born in late 60's) used "pants" for underpants almost universally. What else would you call them? Oct 23, 2014 at 16:13
  • 2
    I went to school from the late 1940s and I have never described my lower underwear as anything other than 'pants'. Nor did anyone at school with me refer to their 'underpants'. I did know one person at school who used to refer to his 'underpants', and others used to look at him a bit strangely when he did so. I have never heard 'pants' used to mean 'dreadful'. Perhaps I am too old. By the 1990s I was a highly stressed manager working about 12 hours a day. I lost that decade completely so far as popular culture went.
    – WS2
    Dec 13, 2014 at 15:27
  • I went to school in the 80/90s in northern England and the word pants meant trousers, get your pants on and get to school. Over the last 10 years, people saying things are pants and implying they are bad has never made sense to me Aug 19, 2016 at 7:46

In Australian usage, 'pants' usually (but not always) refers to 'trousers'. From the Macquarie Dictionary:

  1. trousers.
  2. underpants, especially women's.
  3. (phrase) be caught with one's pants down, Colloquial to be caught unexpectedly and ill-prepared.
  4. by the seat of one's pants, Colloquial a. without the benefit of prior instruction. b. deprived of the technical aids usually available, as in the case of an aircraft pilot with faulty instruments.
  5. get into someone's pants, Colloquial to have sexual intercourse with someone.
  6. ... the pants off someone, Colloquial (humorous) used after a verb, as an intensifier: that lecturer bores the pants off me; this'll scare the pants off her; I'll sue the pants off him!
  7. wear the pants, to be the dominant partner in a relationship. [abbreviation of pantaloons]

Interestingly, the loan-word 'pantsu' (パンツ) in Japanese suffers from the same conflicted identity - it can mean either underpants or trousers (though perhaps the former is more common).

  • 1
    '... it can mean either...' That would be even worse, actually.
    – Kris
    Apr 21, 2012 at 14:49

In Britain, pants almost always refers to underpants (and more specifically men's underpants). 'Trousers' is used everywhere 'pants' is in US English, including the idiom you refer to.


In the UK, I've heard pants being used as slang for underpants (or was it in Bridget Jones' Diary?), whereas in India it almost exclusively means "trousers".

First of all, that is not slang. Pants is the normal word in the UK. There is a difference in use of the word in different forms of English. In American English, it means what is known as trousers in the UK. If pants is used in India with the American definition, that suggests an American influence on the English learnt there.

This page explains it: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pants_1?q=pants


Nonsense! "Pants" are definitely not underwear exclusively in the UK. Maybe it's a regional thing. Where I live in North West England, pants is a general name for all types of lower outer two legged garments and has been since I grew up in the early seventies! Trousers are just a formal pair of pants. Boys wear underpants and girls wear knickers. I found out recently that a large proportion of the country call their underwear "pants" and it makes me wonder how over the years we have all been misunderstanding each other. Interesting how Australia/India use nearly always follow the UK rather that USA but still use the same dialect as my own region in the UK. I wonder how long the word "pants" to mean underwear has been around in the UK and which came first. And how we all got so muddled!

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.