 |
|   | Subject: Pants V. Boxers
Posted Apr 2, 2000 by Anzie | | Post: 1
|
To add a new angle to the pants discussion I would like to bring in the Pants Versus Boxers conundrum. Is the common 'Pant' really more comfortable than the slightly more trendy 'Boxer short'? I have heard from those who favour boxer shorts that pants are just too restrictive, too tight, and far too likely to give one that sweaty unpleasant feeling which comes from fabric too close to the skin, but how can they be right when so many men still favour the pant option? Many say there is an age barrier, that older men prefer the closed-in pant, and younger men prefer that 'swing-free' feeling which only a pair of boxer shorts can provide. I have found this to be untrue. As an 18 year old female I have discussed these ideas with my male associates of a like age, plus those of a slightly older vintage. Although there are a few more older men who favour the pant over the boxer short, there is still a large number of younger men who instead of making what some would term 'the right choice', choose pants as their favourite option. So boys, what do you prefer? Lets clear this up once and for all; pants or boxers, what's it to be? Oh, and girls, what do you like to see on your modern man? I myself am a boxers girl, I find the pants option just a little too wienerish, but hey, that's just me!
Well I have whittled out any sign of pants in my collection over the last 14 years. So boxers all the way, some are lycra though for gym use and running etc, but the rest all it all to dangle freely and breathe. v. important the breathing bit.
|  | Subject: Pants V. Boxers
Posted Apr 9, 2000 by Anzie
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 3
|
Didn't know that stuff had a respiratory system......you learn something new every day...
Stuff pants and boxers: going commando is the way forward. It's far more comfortable than the other options, provided you're not wearing trousers with a metal zip (ouch!). Free and easy, and that's the message you send if you're only wearing flimsy shorts (mmmm). Incidentally, the *least* comfortable bit of kit in creation is the Y-front.
Are boxers pants pants or boxers?
Boxer shorts (boxers) are a form of underwear. Does that clear it up? 
| | Subject: Pants V. Boxers
Posted Jun 3, 2000 by Pthag
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 7
|
I have tried "going commando" today and have found it quite comfortable...
| | Subject: Pants V. Boxers or Nothing at all?
Posted Jun 3, 2000 by Yelbakk
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 8
|
Well, whatever you do, just don't try to get on your bike too quickly when you have decided not to let the Boxers vs. Pants discussion bother you and do the Dangling Man instead.
personally, i like to see a bit of a cling.
an observation;
men with boxer shorts have very little to 'swing free' or they have a tendancy to be very free with the number of girls they let into their boxers.
men with pants or those calvin klein type tight boxer-pants - supporting a bit more with that clingin fabric and in my experience - more faithful.
Boxer shorts are one of the few garment varieties that would make Adonis look ridiculous. The only thing more ridiculous than a man wearing only boxer shorts is a man wearing only socks.
Not if they are tight ones. 
Yum.
Does anybody wear loose socks?
Please note that Not Panicking Ltd is not responsible for the content of any external sites listed. The content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. Unlike Edited Guide Entries, the content on this page has not necessarily been checked by a h2g2 editor. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please
click here
.
|
