Talk:Boxer shorts

message: I'm wondering why this section is included in the article.  Almost all the statements are unsourced, yet clearly need to be.  Also, most of the claims are simply hearsay and I would argue that most of the points have absolutely no basis in science.  For instance, why are boxers easier to use at a Urinal than Briefs?  They both require the same movement to pull down the waistband, and can it really be said that having to reach through the fly to extract the penis is really easier than just pulling down the waistband?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ペコペコ (talk • contribs) 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to briefs

message: There are boxers made for women. Someone stop trying to delete such a fact on this article every time I try to add it. This is already a non-NPOV article without more stereotypes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soporaeternus (talk • contribs) 22:10, 31 March 2008 
:YOU TOO? I have added the women's boxers as well only to have it deleted. And for clarity we are NOT talking about women's Boxer Briefs! But rather Boxer Shorts specifically for women in addition to the fact many women wear men's boxers. This whole article is a classic case of why Wikipedia is just as bad (if not worse)as it is good.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.201.100 (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You gotta source things you add. Keep your comments on this page, not on the content. This page is for comment, the article page is for content. If you want to add stuff, find an article talking about a line of women's boxers. —Peco! Peco!TALK 03:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Women's boxers

message: This article was a travesty. I went through and deleted most of the Original research and WP:TRIVIA, including the entire "Comparison with Briefs" section, which was a train wreck of opinions and unverifiable claims. I did some copy-editing, but the article really needs to be entirely rewritten, with references to reliable sources, and better photographs than those currently in place. I'll see if I can come up with something better over the weekend. Horologium (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Is there any reason why we need 3 pictures of boxer shorts being worn? I think 1 picture would be just fine. --Mjrmtg (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  1 or 2 at most.  Let's stick with standard boxers too, since there are separate articles on boxerbriefs, etc. —Peco! Peco!TALK 04:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks much better with just 1 image, Thanks :) --Mjrmtg (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Does anyone know what notable movie featured these? I seem to recall a character was wearing them on the poster. I know this was a popular trope in animation also and may well have originated there... Walkersam (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Boxers w/ Red Hearts? 

message: "The compression of the genitals in briefs may cause the temperature to rise and sperm production to fall. There is a similar theory regarding testicular cancer risk.[4] Other sources dispute this theory."
Some clarification here would be nice and/or additional citations. What are the "other sources", and which theory do they contradict: reduction in sperm production or increased testicular cancer risk?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.228.101.152 (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fertility section clarification 

message: According to this article, 424 million pairs of briefs were produced in 1988 vs 62 million pairs of boxers. NemesisAT (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production in 1988