Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Double Shudder

In praise of boxer briefs. By Seth Stevenson

This is one of the great pieces of Slate journalism--the sort of thing you'd only find there.

It's also dead-on accurate. Few things can ruin a day like the wrong undergarments. Heck, I reviewed undershirts on Amazon.com. I take these things seriously.

And boxer briefs are serious underwear. They are not, as their overpraising advertisers would have you believe, the "best of both worlds." They are neither as supportive as tighty-whities nor as liberating as boxers. But then, isn't that the trouble? Briefs are so "supportive" that they practically crush your genitals into your body. Boxers are so "liberating" that at the end of a long day walking around in them you want to put your feet up just to give your balls a break.

Stevenson goes through all the reasons boxer briefs are superior: "cuppage," the way they don't shift around all day long like boxers do or ride up like briefs, the way they look, how they prevent what he terms "flop out" while still allowing quick access in times of need. But I have a perspective Stevenson does not: I know what looks hot to me. And while all three options have their allure, boxers on anyone who isn't "perfect" tend to look like they're being used to hide something and briefs, as Stevenson notes, make a man look like a seven-year-old. The boxer brief offers more curves than the boxer, a bit more modesty than the brief--and it doesn't make the wearer look like a seven-year-old. I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there with a fetish for men wearing superhero underroos, but I'm not one of them.

Do you agree with Stevenson (and me)? Or is there something I'm missing?

6 comments:

McKenzie said...

I guess I've been ahead of the curve on this one. I've been wearing boxer briefs for a year or two, so its not that new to me. They are superior to boxers and I haven't worn briefs in at least 3-4 years. While not all boxer briefs are created equal, they are my preferred choice of underwear. Just experiment with brands and styles, because many of them ride up on the legs and are little better than briefs, while others have so little shape and support, you're almost at boxer status, but without the free-flowing up side.

Richard said...

You're definitely right about the brands and styles. Hanes, for instance, makes boxer briefs so formless that they may as well be mini-boxers, with no support but also no coverage, so to speak. Stafford, I find, makes a more reliable BB, with a more attractive waistband and doubled-over leg openings to ensure that they don't ride up your legs (as well as providing a "handle" to grip with your thumb through your pants and pull them back down if they do). Is there another brand that's even better?

Michele said...

I find it funny that you two are talking underwear as seriously as you do with politics. Hee hee.

Richard said...

I find it funny that we talk politics as seriously as we do underwear--we can do a lot more about underwear, and it has a much bigger impact on our lives!

Jonathan said...

I cannot agree more with Brian's comment more!

McKenzie said...

I would steer clear of Jockey. At least the ones with the shorter legs. They lose shape easily and fit about as well as briefs. I believe Jockey also has some I've tried that instead of a vertical running opening for easy access, its a line that runs horizontally about midway down. So you get a whole new kind of flop out if you aren't careful.

I'm currently particular to a Champion brand pair I got at Target. They are made of material that's like finely holed mess material, designed for coolness during athletics. But they fit securely and have very long legs, so they stay in place. I little more restrictive than most, but have a very solid and secure feel to them.