Common Bonds

I have a confession. I have a fascination with a certain Australian product which I have been researching/admiring for the past several months.
This product- or line of products- is none other than Bonds Underwear.
Given the nature of my job, I see anywhere from 15-25 pairs of underwear (in use) a week.... after my first month working full time in this country, I couldn't help but notice that although I cater to a broad array of clientelle (men, women, children (!!) hippies, bankers, sophistocates (sophistocates??), students, grandmothers, sexy marathon runners- you name it, I touch it) the elastic "Bonds" marked rim circles nearly every belly and set of thighs I encounter. To spice up my "winter", I spent the month of June collecting statistical data on this matter. The results: 94% of people living in Australia (who also like to get massages) wear Bonds underwear.
94%!! Incredible!! Bonds are a national sensation!!
This data combined with the fact that I love new underwear and hadn't purchased any in MONTHS, led me to my nearest Target outlet where I was confounded by the selection. It turns out Bonds are a mid-range pair of knickers, affordable (and worth it) enough for those of lesser resources to partake, and high quality enough for the big-wigs out there to rely on as their old hold steady. And they do. They do hold it steady. (I'm told. I asked. It is part of my "data".)
I'm emerging into this new world from a long history with Victoria's Secret whose construction is, lets face it, shit. Victoria may boast a name synonymous with sexiness, but her "secret" happens to be that she is very poorly proportioned. I recall several girls in high school who appeared each day in carefully put together outfits, accessorized with a meter of bunched up panties bulging from their ass. Is Victoria's secret that her cheeks transcend the border between butt and back? Gross, Vickie. And not sexy. I avoided the bunched up ass-attack of the "rio brief" by supplying myself with the low-rise which, in an opposite manner, barely covers crack and holds too low at the legs.
"But she is Victoria!" I told myself. "She is hot pink and famous!! My preferences must be wrong! I must learn to prefer her and not for a second entertain the idea of shopping at somewhere like... like Target."
Poor me, I think. All the comfort I've been missing. Although I don't think America has a Bonds equivalent. Hanes couldn't possibly feel this wonderful. Even if Michael Jordan insists. (PS.. how did he make the decision to disappear COMPLETELY from public life except to show up in American living rooms in his whitey tighties in 30 second increments? Whattup MJ??)
Anyway.
Bonds.
They Are. Just. Right.
The range of colors and styles are enough to fill the entire wall of Target's (huge) "Intimate Wears" section.
I have taken to collecting these vibrant little ditties like pretty cotton flower petals that fill my drawers and strew themselves about my (our) laundry room. "BONDS" they say, every chance they get. Around the waist, across the ass. Metallic, rainbow, enbroidered, spelled out in vines. Lovely.
Men in Bonds: Sexy. (when not so small or bright that they belong at mardi gras)
Children in Bonds: Adorable.
That's just how I feel.
Anyway, What made me think of this was a recent CNN article titled:
"Australian Minister Resigns Over Semi-Naked Dance"
Of course, I read on.
Turns out he was drunk. (huge surprise there, Australia) and livin it up in his parliament house.
CNN tells us:
"The resignation came on the eve of an unsourced report in national newspaper The Australian that Brown danced in "very brief" underpants to techno music on a leather couch during a drunken late night party in his Parliament House office three months ago. He was then housing minister."
....sounds about right....
I'm willing to bet they were Bonds.



A side anecdote on Australian culture:
Wikipedia tells us about Bob Hawke, Australian Prime Minister in the 80's.
" His academic achievements were possibly outweighed by the notoriety he achieved as the holder of a world record for the fastest consumption of beer: a yard glass (approximately 3 imperial pints or 1.7 litres) in eleven seconds.[2] In his memoirs, Hawke suggested that this single feat may have contributed to his political success more than any other, by endearing him to a voting population with a strong beer culture.)"

1.7 LITERS?!? 11 seconds?! seriously. wow.