Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

bdrwr t1_j8ff0t1 wrote

But they're made using way less material

81

RacoonSmuggler t1_j8fsryw wrote

>he estimated that the current US tariff system adds about $1.10 to each pair of women’s underwear and about $0.75 to men’s.

About 35 cents a pair more.

43

timeforaroast t1_j8h9cxk wrote

There’s a joke here somewhere but I’m probably not the best person to go about it

13

QueensOfTheNoKnowAge t1_j8syf3j wrote

This doesn’t even take into account how long the underwear lasts. My ex-wife wasn’t a fan of my hole-y boxers. It’s possible that there may have been a free ball mishap with an unfortunately placed undie hole.

Men are gross and cheap and we’re aware of that privilege.

Edit: And those that aren’t need to embrace the cheap grossness

2

Fake_William_Shatner t1_j8fmukb wrote

Let's not ignore what this underwear issue is all about. The butt it goes on. This is perhaps the only area of economics where I'm for a supply-side approach and that we should not be having a booty tax -- even on the people who have ALL the booty.

This is an investment in America's happiness. Subsidize the good underwear and all the other things will fall into place.

27

strawbennyjam t1_j8had4g wrote

I will gladly accept the US government providing literally any social program at this point as long as they just shut up and do it.

I wanted healthcare, I really really wanted trains, education would be nice, but if it’s underwear…..then beggars can’t be choosers I guess.

18

I0A0I t1_j8fv0lk wrote

Doesn't it already? I'm sure there a Walmart value pack for the panties, but aren't bras stupid expensive? Then it gets worse the deeper you get into the nicer shit.

27

SmackEh t1_j8fjqvb wrote

Women underwear is (can be) very luxurious, compared to what's available for men.

That being said, if underwear is expensive then it would be effectively taxed more simply by how percentages work...

10

SelectiveSanity t1_j8fm0ey wrote

Keep in mind, government officials also thought that tampons were luxury items.

68

gophergun t1_j8hmfbm wrote

That link doesn't actually say who those officials are. I'm guessing it's just them being subject to sales tax in the same way that toilet paper is.

−2

davewhitebarber t1_j8gkgj2 wrote

The luxury is being able to throw them away vs washing out a diva cup

−28

Gh0stMan0nThird t1_j8h26a7 wrote

I am forever traumatized by those cups because of the time my ex left one in the trash and one of her dogs found it.

I thought it was a yogurt lid or something when I got it away from him.

2

Uturuncu t1_j8hgzl8 wrote

I'm really not sure what you wrested away from your dog, but if it was able to be confused with a yogurt lid it probably wasn't a diva cup.

Diva cups are a full silicone cup, about an inch across and a couple inches deep, and they really shouldn't be going in the trash; they're reusable.

Mine did come with some special 'sample' disposable silicone rings with plastic over them that were one-and-done called menstrual discs which might be what you're thinking of? Their big advantage is not taking up much space in the vagina for mess-free sex during a period.

3

Gh0stMan0nThird t1_j8hhhxd wrote

It was whatever is in the bottom left corner of this picture

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/ut-dms-prod-uthealth-s3-bucket/general/_1200x630_crop_center-center_82_none/Blog_social_menstration_2022-03-11-222519.jpg?mtime=1647037519

1

crippledjosh t1_j8hi1ki wrote

Pretty sure that's a diaphragm, which is a form of contraception.

2

Gh0stMan0nThird t1_j8hiirg wrote

Well it was covered in blood, or at least what the dog left on it :(

I touched it with my hands and held it up to my face to smell it because I had no idea what it was

0

Uturuncu t1_j8hjflm wrote

Not a diaphragm, that absolutely is a menstrual disc. Do not expect them to provide contraception, but they're disposable, low footprint, and apparently comfortable. They unsettle me, I haven't tried them. The menstrual cup is in the bottom right, reusable, but the size makes them uncomfy for some folk.

Edit; Also sorry you had to deal with that. These things really should be less taboo so it's not such a baffling 'what the fuck is this shit?!' surprise when a product ends up somewhere it shouldn't.

Dogs and trashcans I am so familiar with, 'cause a dog I lived with managed to get a tampon string wrapped around her teeth and was choking on it in her throat after she got in the trash.

3

GinnyMcJuicy t1_j8gdbjj wrote

If you read the article, the cheap stuff is taxed more than the high end stuff.

24

9month_foodbaby t1_j8fqjdp wrote

Sorry bro. Granny panties for all. If we have to pay more than we will buy less. Victoria's secret is now that high waisted cotton with a stupid floral print.

7

nooshaw t1_j8ioi1n wrote

Then why aren't men's underwear luxurious? I'm envious, we should all be able to have such luxuries.

1

ivapeooo t1_j8h2ll9 wrote

arent they already?

7

joleme t1_j8i7y6e wrote

The US government says a lot of stupid shit on an hourly basis. The majority of which are crusty old morons who barely know how to use a smartphone. They have almost no knowledge whatsoever and just pass on prewritten bills to be passed. I doubt most of them could even tell you how much a pair of regular underwear costs.

3

Midian1369 t1_j8h4em5 wrote

I really want to put a gif of Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes here, because that's how I feel almost everytime I read or hear what my government thinks....

2

sharksnut t1_j8hln85 wrote

Down with panties!

1

Armitage1 t1_j8ud5gf wrote

>Tariffs on US underwear are regressive

I don't even know what I'm reading. Enough internet for today.

1

ChristyNiners t1_j8ukmfn wrote

Treating women differently? That’s par for the corset.

1

Sasquatch_butt6162 t1_j94bzcy wrote

Safes are something men use to keep valuable items in. They know other men want what's in it and that some will take by force. Men protect its contents vigilintly by allowing only themselves to have access and strictly prohibited others access unless indisputable, absolute consent is given by the owners to do so. Safes are solid, heavy and nearly impenetrable therfore making them very expensive, but the protection it offers to its valuable contents justifies the cost to these men.

So why in hell should women pay more than men do to keep their valuable possessions in flimsy, delicately fragile safes made of a few millimeters of fucking cotton?

1

capGpriv t1_j8kaqq1 wrote

This is all very simple

The republican politicians want regressive taxes on luxury women’s lingerie, because it’d cost them less when they want to go cruising in women’s underwear

And the democrats want high prices so women will go commando, therefore it’ll be less effort to get in an interns pants

Either that or a significant proportion of politicians are incompetent sexist unaware fools, who place an unnecessary burden on poorer people and women

−1

lumberjack_jeff t1_j8ig4ji wrote

Men's underwear is cheaper because, to men, cheap is considered a feature.

There's a reason that there's no such thing as Victor's Secret.

−2

not_a_gumby t1_j8gpncg wrote

thats why my girlfriend never wears panties, they're too expensive .

−7

HoppityHooper t1_j8fzj48 wrote

Many men, meanwhile, would love seeing women's underwear come down.

−15