Talk:Panties

Undated section

In Japan, panties (pantsu) are commonly depicted as being a highly flirtatious, naughty element to a female's persona.

I thought it was pronounced "pantii".

"In Europe, panties are called knickers"... shouldn't it be "are also known as"... firstly there is more than one language in europe, but also in brittish english they are called knickers among other things, such as panties or pants (confusingly for americans)

"pantii" may exist but it isnt the most common form of the word. Japanese doesnt usually have /ti/ anyway. —Soap— 17:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that I was wrong, I found "pantii" in a paper Japanese dictionary I have at home. (100 million Japanese could probably have told you the same thing, but this page doesn';t seem to be watched very much.) —Soap— 11:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

This article needs some pictures of women wearing panties. Not only for plain enjoyment, but because it makes sense to show the reader how they're actually used and how they look when being used. For every article, it is best to create the page as if your explaining the topic to aliens. In other words, create the article so someone who has no idea what the topic is can understand completely once he/she is finished.

I totally agree. I don't mean to offend, but people should be able to see how they look like. Some freely distributable and sharable pictures could be included. Gentlelife (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, perhaps some pictures of those plastic store display models wearing them.

I agree that pictures of models wearing panties do liven up and make the page look nicer, but the picture provided by Gentlelife in file 20pantyo.jpg is, IMO, inappropriate because of the wet spot on the front of the panties. We need standard pictures, not those displaying some type of deviant behavior or someone's personal medical problems. It would be better to request permission to use some company's advertising photos with acknowledgement of their credits than to use photos of that nature. There must be a large number of open source photos available on the web that can be used without resorting to using any which reflect aberant behavior.--Rob7713 (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Knickers vs Panties

Knickers vs Panties: I maintain that there is a difference. THEY SHOULD DO AWAY WITH THE WORD "PANTIES"

Though (in Britain) the term < Knickers > has remained in fashion to describe female underwear, including modern brief styles such as thongs, the term stretches backwards in time and generally has the "feel" (no pun) of a fuller garment with considerable weight and looseness of fit (hence the somewhat sexually-loaded "ring" about this term, when spoken).

The term < panties > is generally more modern and describes briefer garments that became fashionable circa the 1960s. In fact, this term has run out of date in Britain and is more associated with the USA and elsewhere. Fetishists possibly use this term, more than do modern wearers.

Note: for Britain, I preferred the term < pants > (before its use became corrupted as a modern slang adjective), as I find the -ies ending somewhat familiar and twee.

Signed

81.109.65.216 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Nicholas P. Anstis

The knickers article has a fair amount on usages other than as a synonym for "panties" so I think that keeping it as a separate article is better than merging. 86.129.152.82 10:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What Nicolas says is true. Knickers are just general women's underwear. Panties has connotations of sexy underwear. Anyway, don't merge knickers into panties at all.--Him and a dog 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A Billion People in India think Knickers refers to a boy or a mans shorts. You cannot merge knickers and panties, panties is only for women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.31.109.1 (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a merger, the word 'panties' imho would generally denote more sexual, modern, youthful, connotations and associated more with newer fashion and newer undergarments rather than Victorian 'knickers', they have different connotations. --Irishman76m (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As for those who think that "panties" only refer to women's underpants, they should do their research. In fact, according to Biblical Dyslexia [1] the word was first used in reference to men's underpants, NOT women's underpants. It was only somewhere between 1910 and 1925 that the word began to be applied to women's underpants. Therefore, knickers and panties are effectively synonymous. Thus, these two sections should be merged.--Rob7713 (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I cede to you sir. This article has been in this state of proposal for far too long. A vote needs to be called asap and I would give a yes vote after reconsidering the matter at hand.Irishman76m (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Knickers is not just the same as panties, just as thongs, g-strings, briefs, shorts, tangas are all different (and thus have their own pages).  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Panties" is certainly an American idiom to describe female underwear. "Knickers" is still in common use in my areas (Devon, Sussex, London, Glasgow). "Pants" is used to refer to female underwear in the UK, but the general association is surely with male underwear, of any kind. ++++

Another attempt at USA cultural and linguistic hegemony? Even for young, fashionable British girls, their underwear is 'Knickers', not 'panties'. What a dreadfully twee, saccharine word 'panties' is. So 'knickers' to a merger, and knickers to the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.184.88 (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Knickers is definitely not used in Canada to refer to female underwear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.48.143 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

References in popular culture

This section seems to have been written by a fan of asian culture. Seems out of place in this article and should be removed. Anyone opinions?

No objections.213.48.73.89 19:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re Asian culture - agreed, fwiw. Leegee23 (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't merge the two words... Whilst they might be synonomous, they have completely different usages.. Panties is an almost exclusively American term, and Knockers is used in the UK, and UK derived English speaking countries. To merge the two words would be like stating that American English is the same as UK English, which it's definitely not.. I don't want to see my language lost to ..ize and I certainly don't want to start talking about panties. I'm sure that our American cousins are just as precious about the spelling of colour without a U.. These are separate languages, let's keep the two separate please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.22.29 (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you should merge Knickers and Panties, though Knickers does give the idea of frilly, old fashioned, baggy female underwear, whereas Panties gives the idea of soft, cotton, triangular, tighter female underwear. Like, you wouldn't call boxer shorts Panties, or call thongs Panties or Knickers. But, Knickers and Panties may have contrasting meanings, though Knickers is more commonly used in Britain, and Panties is used everywhere (I come from a former British colonial country in Asia and we don't ever use knickers, but we clearly know Panties refer to women's triangular underwear). Gentlelife (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Disposable panties

I followed Disposable panties from an article about Postnatal, thinking I will see something about baby diapers instead it directed me to ladies panties. Is that right?--TheEgyptian 17:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's confusing why there's a link to "Disposable Panties" since there is no such article. It just redirects to "Panties". In the past, there wasn't even an article called "Panties" which existed, only "Knickers" and "Lingerie". The link called "Disposable Panties" should be edited leaving it as Disposable "Panties" so that the part 'Disposable' is left out of the link. Gentlelife (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Panties in the 21st century

Panties is generally referred to in the 21st century as a way of describing female underwear, not both male and female so merging it to include it in a unisex general article is not accurate. (♠Taifarious1♠) 08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Most commonly worn?

"String bikini panties are the most commonly worn type in the United States"? I doubt that. This may refer to thongs, which are popular among young women, but I would guess some type of brief is the most common overall. I'll try to research, maybe there are some sales figures by type somewhere. Gr8white 23:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the market research figures are available only at a price of $2000 or so. All I was able to find was a couple of informal web polls which though not definitive certainly don't support the contention above. e.g. http://www.misterpoll.com/results.mpl?id=2239242001 - thongs most popular among younger women, briefs among older - string bikinis at bottom or next to bottom for every age group. Gr8white 05:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Types

The section on types could use a major overhaul. There isn't even a mention of the classic brief, which has fallen out of favor but is still advertised extensively (and probably worn mostly by older women). Also, "high-cut" is not the same as "control top" as implied; "high-cut" usually refers to a type of brief that is cut higher on the sides than the classic brief (roughly equivalent to "French cut"). This is one of (if not the) most popular styles in the US and elsewhere, and has nothing to do with hiding obesity. (Control-top briefs are usually considered shapewear.)

Basic types IMO:

Brief

Classic (Full)

High-Cut (French-Cut)

Boyleg

Hipster

Bikini

String?

Tanga

Thong

G-String

These may overlap to some extent. Gr8white 01:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote the part describing the various types. Gr8white 05:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Celebrities who wear briefs

I can find no evidence to support the claims made in this section. To me it looks like vandalism and as such I am going to remove it, if anyone can find sources you are free to put it back in.

---

Many female celebrities wear briefs; for instance, Paris Hilton wears plain white hi-cut Hanes briefs. In an interview she said, "Somtimes I wear thongs or bikinis, but I mostly wear briefs, because they are so comfortable, in all honesty, I have mostly either "Hanes" or "Fruit of the Loom" plain white hi-cut cotton briefs in my undies drawer. people think if your [sic] a celebrity your undies have to be thongs or something, but my undies are about comfort, I don't care if they come up to my belly button when I wear them, I like my undies."[attribution needed] Angelina Jolie also said that she wears hi-rise briefs for comfort regularly.[citation needed] And Jessica Alba said she wears Fruit of the Loom briefs much of the time, even pop star Pink said all she wore were plain white Hanes cotton briefs: "They are comfortable and I like white undies; I won't wear any other kind of undies."

---

Irishman76m (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not merge into Knickers and French knickers-- -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

---

• No they shouldn't be merged together as panties represents thongs, knickers, g-strings etc whereas knickers are just knickers. Panties is an americanism whereas knickers is britsh and europeon. --Scorpio95 00:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• In the USA "knickers" doesn't generally mean "panties" (although I've heard it used this way a little recently). To an American it more generally means "knickerbockers" or "plus-fours". Eastcote (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that they should not be merged. Knickers with it's source name knickerbockers has a heritage of its own, and while knickers should remain as an abbreviation to indicate slang for panties, the current link to panties seems to be the best of both worlds. BobH007, 17 Sep 2009 17:11 UTC

• They should not be merged. Whatever the origins of 'Knickers', it still being widely used to refer to a wide range of underpants, underwear, lingerie and sportswear (shorts, cut-off pants). Panties is a very specifically a North American womans or girls underpant, though of many styles. EditorReWriter (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Panties...

Is panties an encyclopaedic term? Hakluyt bean (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Open Drawers?

This picture is one of three types of drawers that the 1919 book Garments for girls [2] shows how to sew (the other two types are bloomers and closed drawers). Wikipedia doesn't seem to currently discuss open drawers.

open drawers

open drawers 3105

open drawers 2302

A manual of needlework, knitting and cutting out for evening continuation by Elizabeth Rosevear page 62 has this:

Open Drawers. -- Girls generally begin to wear open drawers when they are about nine or ten years old. Open drawers are not cut down at the hips, and the band is made all in one piece of the material. The backs and fronts of the legs are not joined together, but hemmed separately, or lined with false hems. The fronts, in children's sizes, are seamed together for about 2 inches, in women's sizes a little more. A button and buttonhole are placed at the ends of the bands, or two tape strings. The legs may be constructed as for closed drawers, i.e. as knickerbockers with bands, or they may be made up with a deep hem, and narrow tucks above. The drawers are gathered or pleated into the bands at the waist and legs. Women's drawers are very seldom made up as closed, but nearly always as open.

The American practitioner, Volumes 13-14 1892 http://books.google.com/books?id=X4BYAAAAMAAJ pg 335-336 Dr. E. R. Palmer Article: Kentucky State Medical Society Stated Meeting, Louisville, May 4, 5, and 6, 1892 has this:

I saw in a paper the other day that ladies in a Canadian city had a grand convention, and had celebrated their magnificent resolve by building in a public square a bonfire, being fed by the corsets they had been wearing. It was a revival of the old tirade against the corset. I have not forgotten what Thomas said, that women should burn their open drawers instead of their corsets. The idea of a beautifully dressed woman with trail sweeping the streets! The idea of that mode of dress being countenanced by the profession!

While the profession are warring against corsets, is it not ridiculous, not to say criminal, for us to take the position that the corset is harmful and the open drawers is not? The knights of old used to protect the genital organs of their wives from receiving germs during the day when they had gone to business. If it is gonorrhea, it is due to external infection, and I hold that infection takes place as frequently in this as in any other way on account of the delicate organ being unprotected.

For girls: a special physiology : being a supplement to the study of general physiology E. R. Shepherd http://books.google.com/books?id=Up0MAAAAYAAJ 1882, pg 145 has:

Many physicians oppose the wearing of closed drawers by women. In bad cases of leucorrhoea the odor arising from the discharged confined from the air in this way becomes extremely offensive to the patient at least, and may extend beyond the confines of the dress, and when she comes near the stove or register, if at no other time, to be detected by the bystanders. A free circulation of air by open drawers is wholesome to the parts, as well as a deodorizer. It is well enough for little girls, and even advisable for them to wear tight drawers, but it is probably best for young ladies and women to wear them open.

(As well, The psychoanalytic review, Volume 6 By National Psychological Association for Psychoanalysis http://books.google.com/books?id=Qp1IAAAAYAAJ July, 1919 pg 248 mentions open drawers and far too much information on the mechanics of urination and clothing for females)

John doe 758 (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Added a new article Open Drawers. John doe 758 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This article combines Knickers and Panties. It states Knickers are underwear.

Knickers are primarily defined as 3/4 length pants which extended to just below the knee. Golfers, Boy Scouts, football players and men in sports have worn knickers. Most often they have an elastic type bottom. Entering "Knickers" as a search item brings up dozens of images. Ron 74.32.241.154 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

History

Revamped the History section, as it cited conflicting (and, I suspect, amateur) sources of information. Also removed references to Catherine DeMedici as an early inventor of women's underwear, as all I could were either uncited information or links leading back to this article (Catherine's own article makes no mention of what I assume would be considered a momentous invention), I'd consider it folklore until shown some actual proof. 24.96.254.10 (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Undies in Australia?

Apologies gents (and I'm assuming it's gents who've been working on this article), but where did the second paragraph "In countries such as the United Kingdom (UK), Ireland, South Africa, and occasionally in other Commonwealth countries such as New Zealand, panties are often referred to as "knickers" or "undies". In Australia, they are usually called "undies"." come from? I'm tagging it for a citation as, being Australian, I can assure you that "knickers" is used far more frequently than "undies". "Undies" (or under-chunders) is typically used for the male equivalent, as is jocks. Try googling "Don't get your knickers in a knot". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

the first picture

Unproductive discussion started by blocked editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
i want to remove panties in different colors titled picture , it has already been used in Lingerie article.Farzana zardari (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose removing this image, which does an excellent job of illustrating this article. There is no good reason why an informative photo cannot be used in more than one article. I also oppose use of photos that show a woman more than the garment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose also. The images should be clear and illustrative. The multi-colored one was superior to the replacement. Grayfell (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Closing discussion, as it's a waste of time started by a blocked editor. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

G-String Photo's Alternative

Unproductive discussion started by blocked editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
G-string panties expose buttocks so I think we should give an alternative photo of G-String photo, Tanga Panties photo can be given.Farzana zardari (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Okay, why? Did you have a specific image in mind? Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC) dear Grayfell , i want to include that photo which was removed by ARR.The main reason is the photos which are currently attested have become old.Farzana zardari (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose That is a mildly erotic photo of a woman and you can barely see the garment she is wearing. One editor's perception that photos are "old" is not a good reason for removing an image. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Grayfell and Jim ,Wikimedia commons include so many good photos (illustrative and informative, showing back sides also) .Will you please add a photo from there.Farzana zardari (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Grayfell and Jim , I had given another photo contains no woman, just a panties. can't we use this .Farzana zardari (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Still oppose. That photo is terrible, and starting new accounts to try and add it to the article is sock-puppetry. Stop pinging me about this. Grayfell (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Closing discussion, as it's a waste of time started by a blocked editor. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Fangusu

Please leave my edit alone. I was NOT adding original research. I was trying to rearrange the information that was already there. Fangusu (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As I've already noted on my own talk page (where you left the identical comment), what you are stating is incorrect. You are changing definitions and reworking already unsourced content. All of the content in question needs to be reviewed in light of the fact that it can't be attributed to any sources. The definitions for cuts of garments are not likely to be consistent from country, hence trying to create a single definition per cut of garment is WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Which definitions are changed? Fangusu (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

For goodness sake, any contributor would be able to discern the changes to definitions. I'm not going to indulge WP:TEDIOUS questions with a point-by-point analysis. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I've tagged the section you worked on, as well as the following section, as needing more references and just needing references (in that order). The article isn't up to par outside of personal understandings of styles, nomenclature, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge Boyshorts to Panties

I think that Boyshorts should be merged to Panties. The former article, while not shabbily written, is a stub, and I do not think it is possible to expand it. More importantly, there are only two references. DJ Autagirl (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support merge: There isn't enough history to develop it beyond a stub. I really can't see a stand-alone article as being warranted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge as nominator. DJ Autagirl (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge: as Iryna Harpy pointed out, the topic of boyshorts is not significant enough for its own article --Macks2008 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done Klbrain (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Underwear vs underpants

@SteelKalu: There seems to be some disagreement about whether the lead should describe panties as "underwear" or as "underpants". The article underpants cites Collins Dictionary which says that underpants is only used for men's underwear in British English, but can also mean either men's or women's in US English. Since Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, MOS:COMMONALITY suggests using "underwear" or "undergarment", since that is agreed on by sources as appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:ENGVAR, "underpants" doesn't accommodate Australian and New Zealand English as the term is fairly much exclusively used for the men's variant, unless in reference to the generalised concept of all undergarments (i.e., "Have you packed enough underwear [singlets, bras, long johns, thermal vests, etc.] for the trip.") I would suggest sticking with "underwear", although I'd be okay with "undergarment" if other editors deemed it to be a better choice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

So this seems to have surfaced again Blu Moon (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

There's an IP hopper who has been pushing this (and something similar on Camisole for years. Meters (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I can possibly see where this is coming from as there may be the beginning of something of a language drift in American English, at least colloquially - “underwear” is a general term including tops (undershirts, bras) and bottoms (underpants) while excluding socks and stockings; and often enough I’ll see “bra and underwear” somewhere. I suggest that all the different terminology should be listed in the beginning of the article, and for the rest, use the common vocabulary that accommodates all types of English speakers. Compare to the Terminology section the Briefs article in relation to the rest of that article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briefs Blu Moon (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Blu Moon I keep forgetting how to reply properly to create a proper thread. sry Blu Moon (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

OK there *is* a Terminolgy section… I’ll be sure to spruce it up then Blu Moon (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Indian English

@Iryna ,in Indian English women's underwear is called Panty. References are : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senthoora poove (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

References

@Senthoora poove: Per my edit summary, even referenced it is WP:UNDUE for the lead (and fairly much irrelevant anywhere else in the article). This is English language Wikipedia, meaning that it is an encyclopaedic resource for Anglophones. India is not an exclusively Anglophone nation-state, therefore it serves no DUE purpose to elaborate on what an English language WP:COMMONNAME usage of a word is in countries where it isn't the native language. For that matter, it is just as significant to represent Singapore, the Philippines, Hong Kong, etc. It's WP:OFFTOPIC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Which kind of panties are also called "culottes"?

Which kind of panties (Panties#Styles) are also called "culottes" (Culottes#Contemporary French under-pants)? --5.170.9.126 (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2016 (wikilink adding)

Please add the following wikilinks in 'Wearing style' section:

• [[Foundation garment|shapewear]]
• [[Girdle#Undergarment|girdle]]
• [[tap pants]]

5.170.9.126 (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Panties. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829022738/http://lingerie.lovetoknow.com:80/Women's_Panties to http://lingerie.lovetoknow.com/Women's_Panties
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ebooks.lib.ntu.edu.tw/1_file/etana/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No real help: history

Etymologically, this word is a clipping of "pants" with a feminine ending. As with "pants," it is virtually always plural. In the case of trouser/pants, this is likely due to confusion with the pre-existing verb pant (to breathe raggedly) and/or due to a derivation from a Comedia del Arte character (the Pantelione). What would be helpful in an article on the, erm, article, would be the introduction of the term.

I would suspect this is a classic bit of euphemism, probably due to a retailer. Prior to the wearing of reduced pants, women celebrated the bloomer as liberating. Earlier, the basic "shift" (something akin to a tunic/slip) might be a foundational garment. This means that the introduction of the term/article is probably quite, quite late in the west.

I have no access to an online OED, but I'm sure someone does. It's a simple matter of combining that with etymologies found at AHD (Am. Heritage). Unfortunately, I cannot sofixit. 173.186.127.134 (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

15 girlsare a couple days and times of India cm 216.59.130.83 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)