A new study from the University of Maryland shows that for young women, the effectiveness of the abstinence-only sexual education programs favored by the Bush administration pale in comparison to another approach: wearing granny panties.

Well, no, I made that up. But there’s some anecdotal evidence!

In honor of Little Miss Know-It-All’s political panties post, Blue Gal’s granny panty party graphic (one of many Blue Gal panty posts), Bridget Jones and the Blue Herald thong (not to mention the BH ads!) - and in honor of Hilzoy and HTML Mencken’s recent posts on a conservative blogger’s fear of the vagina - I offer the following.

The Washington Post’s humor columnist Gene Weingarten returned to his weekly chats this week, and one of the hot topics, besides the Virginia Tech shootings (really), was, um, panty shame. Weingarten writes:

I learned from a friend of mine of the following true anecdote, which he contends is the greatest test for whether a person is male or female. I think he’s right.

Many years ago, in Washington, at a fancy party, a young, dashing, married United States senator was hitting on a woman. She was extremely flattered, and definitely interested. He invited her up to his hotel room, right then. It was clear that this was to be a one-night thing, maybe even a one-hour thing. She wanted to do it.

But she declined. She declined because she was wearing really bad underpants.

Now, I have this story on unimpeachable authority. It’s true. My friend contends that every woman understands this woman’s decision entirely, and no man does. So far, my testing of this story has confirmed this view.

Ladies? Guys?

The response was swift:

Definitely female: Yep, I absolutely believe the panties story. Heck, I’ll even hide bad undies from my husband of several years!

Gene Weingarten: Right. Is there any man out there who understands this?

Yes, in fact there was:

Under the pants: Am I disqualified on the underpants question if I’m a gay guy? Because I’ve had that issue.

I’m a fairly big, masculine, built kind of guy, and sometimes when I’m in a situation where there is the possibility of some, ahem, quick action, the reason I’m being hit on is because I’ve created an image of being a he-man sort of person.

However, on occasion, usually for athletic reasons, I will wear “tighty-whities.” I feel being seen in them immediately prior to a sexual situation risks destroying the image I’ve created in my potential, um, “friend”’s, head and precipitating an embarrassing disillusionment. This has actually caused me to decline full, um, activity.

It turns out, however, that cooling the ardor is in some cases - intentional!

Granny Panties: Your theory is correct. I actually have had friends that purposefully wore the “Time O’ The Month Panties” (ladies - you know what these are) when going on a date with a new guy. That way they were guaranteed not to sleep with him on the first date.

Gene Weingarten: Hahahahaha.

But - but - what if she changes her mind? A solution:

Commando girl: It wasn’t a senator and he wasn’t married, but I was in a similar situation. I am, however, smart. So I excused myself, went to the john, and threw my drawers in the garbage.

Gene Weingarten: Oooooooh. Thank you.

Meanwhile, an understanding gentleman will always oblige a woman suffering from panty shame:

Just a Guy: Gene,

College one-night stand — young lady seemed interested but didn’t want to take off her pants — finally admitted [with TEARS IN HER EYES] that she was wearing ugly underwear. I told her I would turn around and she could take them off without me seeing them — AND IT WORKED!!!!

An hour later she thanked me for being so understanding.

Sigh.

Gene Weingarten: You are a very, very noble young man.

Gene Weingarten: And yes, aren’t women GREAT?

The religious right would do well to take note. Rather than trying to keep condoms off college campuses, they would be better served in trying to get granny panties on. Um, on campuses, that is.

Of course, there are those who feel a special allure: