Talk:Boxer shorts/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Oh, it's okay.  no problem.  172.192.245.106 22:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sperm count? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: "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)
thread_title: Pros & Cons no.2

message: "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)
thread_title: Pros & Cons no.3

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conflict of generations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The images 

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed Image