Talk:Boxer shorts/Archive 1

Revert

Why was the information reverted?

Becuase you deleted a vast amount of information however if you like it the way it is i will leave alone. Maybe you could include some of the information you got rid of. 578

Please provide the links where I deleted information. 172.192.245.106 22:02, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ok http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Boxer_shorts&diff=6808322&oldid=6808307 578

I believe you are reading it wrong. I added information. 172.192.245.106

I am deeply sorry for that misunderstanding, I have dislexyia, once again i am very sorry 578 22:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, it's okay. no problem. 172.192.245.106 22:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sperm count?

Does anybody have viable proof that wearing boxer shorts increases sperm count? (In context from article: 'The temperature inside boxer shorts is much cooler, which is better for a higher sperm count.') From what I understand, this is just an urban myth, and there's no real difference either way.

• There have been some studies done, but I don't believe that they found any difference in temperature between briefs and boxers. Perhaps that should be edited to 'some people contend' or something. -Fipe 02:10, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a nice compromise. 172.193.235.223 05:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If this is discredited or non-verifiable, I suggest deleting it rather keeping it and compromising its factuality. Or perhaps insert statement like "no verifiable research has been done". See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Tache 15:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Pros and cons

The genitals are not supported and tend to move around a lot. - That's a disadvantage? Who the hell needs genital support?? -Branddobbe 19:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

To some people that is certainly a disadvantage. Genitals moving around can be pretty distracting. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally find it annoying to have my genitals bouncing around with each step I take... feels like I have nothing on. That's one of the reasons I switched back to briefs. Obviously, many guys don't care or it doesn't bother them. Here's another disadvantage: I find it harder to put on pants with boxers, especially jeans (even if they're loose or relaxed fit). With briefs or boxer briefs, you can just slide your pants on, but with regular boxers, you have to stuff the boxer legs down so they sit flat (just like tucking in a shirt). I find that annoying, but again, I guess it doesn't bother most guys. --Birdhombre 21:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the information that most men like to have sex with boxer shirts on. I doubt that very much (I personally don't know anyone who has ever done it). Lenineleal 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"I personally don't know anyone who has ever done it." Have you asked? TRiG 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Pros & Cons no.2

"The wider and thicker waistband found on most boxer shorts compared to other types of underwear has a higher chance of irritating the skin. This can be avoided, whether you wear briefs, boxers, boxer-briefs, or trunks, by tucking your undershirt or any shirt inside your underpants. However, this leads to possible waistband visibility and the increased likelihood of receiving a wedgie. The advantages include: keeping the skin warmer, a neater appearance, and the avoidance of waistband indentation on the skin."

I'd consider removing this bit from the pro's and con's, I cant say I've heard of anyone that has experienced irritation from the waistband of their underwear. More importantly, I cant think of anyone that would tuck their shirt in to prevent it. The easier solution is of course to go commando... JonEastham 10:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Pros & Cons no.3

"An erection is much more noticeable when wearing boxers," says the article. A mildly amusing misrelated construction (surely it is the man, not the errection, which is wearing the boxers). In any case, I'm not sure if it's accurate. If you get an errection in tight briefs, the whole front of the underwear can move away from your body, and the genital area can become quite exposed through the leg holes and the top of the underwear. I suppose the solution is to wear briefs with stronger elastic and looser cloth. On the other hand, an errection in flyless boxers may also be quite obvious!

If the article was referring not to wearing only underwear, but to wearing underwear as underwear (below trowsers), it is probably correct. But it should be made clearer.

TRiG 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of generations

http://www.slate.com/id/2143313/nav/tap1/ : "Compared to my briefs—which revealed my pale and scrawny pre-teen upper thighs—those modest, roomy boxers looked positively dignified. And cutting-edge, too: My father didn't wear them, thus by definition they were modern and stylish. (I didn't realize at the time that baby-boomer men had switched to briefs in large part to tack away from their own boxers-wearing fathers.)" Is there a serious study on this issue? Apokrif 18:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

advantages and disadvantages

One advantage is actually for women. They provide a comfortable compromise in outerwear to the short tight styles currently available everywhere and the "granny style" kulots. They are comfy over a bathing suit, doing chores, protecting the "lower buttocks" from sunburn and various other uses. Many stores carry plaid or other "feminine" versions of boxers in the ladies undergarment sections.76.2.209.25 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Elizabeth Andrews

This page seems to be concentrated solely on sex. When reading an article about a piece of clothing, metioning how easy it is to see the 'genitalia' is ridiculous. I would expect this to be seen on such websites as 'uncyclopedia'(no offensive, but at the end of the day it is meant to be a humourous website).

Surely the articles advantages and disadvantages should be about how comfortable they are etc. Not how easy it is to have sex with them on!razza 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I am finding myself in agreement. Although these are valid points, I do not feel that they are suitable for wikipedia.Lofty 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is wikipedia. Please make the artical less sexually orientated. Some users may find this offensive.--Chickenfeed9 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just silly, how can anyone find an underwear entry as too sexually orientated.

Exactly, the content in that section was in no way encyclopedic. I removed it, but feel free to add back if there's a consensus. Corpx 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Some men prefer to have sexual intercourse while wearing boxer shorts on their head. ? What's that about? Maybe that should be deleted?

image

The current image of the kickboxing boxing trunks used for the sport doesn't match the article about the underwear. Are the boxing trunks used in the sport serve the same purpose as the underwear?

The images

I too, disagree about the images on the page. One or the other needs to be chosen, we shouldn't have both, and we should have a picture of the item the actual article is about.

My point is one or the other of the images please, and can we have the image of the model in the Boxer Shorts back again? That picture made much more sense. Thanks.

• Unfortunately we cannot: the fine model picture was deleted for lack of copyright release - an equivalent replacement could solve the problem, but is still lacking Fastifex 13:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed Image

I removed an image from this page because it was of... me. I'm new to wikipedia and I don't know how to get into contact with whoever posted the image. Some help would be greatly appreciated. Until then, I feel very uncomfortable with the image on the page. 68.148.60.48 02:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think the person who posted the image has been banned, although I may be wrong. Someone else want to check it out? Fair enough that you don't want your image on the page. (Maybe this would be a good time to get a decent picture of an actual pair of boxers rather than a pair of kickboxing shorts?) Fipe 13:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a Pub Domain Pic of a man in boxers on the Underwear page, but I'm not sure how to add it here if we wanted to use it. Just figured I tell someone Sagittarius Flame 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)