Directors, Pants

[kingandy]

This morning our company director returned from talking with one of our clients, with a whole load of extra work to do. This work had already been transcribed and emailed out to the team. So one of the first things Director Len said, naturally, was "We've got a lot of work to do - let's have a meeting about it." Luckily I think he's been distracted by something shiny and hasn't come back for us yet. (He said 'in half an hour', two hours ago.)

Bought new boxer shorts at the weekend. I'm not sure, but they might be a size too small. They're definitely a bit snug, but I don't know if they're supposed to be or not... they're stretchy, so they could be those figure-hugging elasticated type. Must pay more attention when buying underwear, I suppose. I bought 'medium' - the label says '33-35" waist', and my jeans are 34". The jeans are a few years old and might have stretched, though, so I could be larger than I thought in the trouser department. I'll have to have a measuring session.

Ho-ho.

Comments

[arwel.livejournal.com]

Burn your boxers. The only good underwear is the figure hugging jockey short type. There's nothing like the sense of security that comes from having your bits all cupped and contained by a good set of pants. Mmmm.

[kingandy]

I've never been exactly sure on the difference between boxers and jockey shorts. In my own personal vocabulary, jockeys are a subset of boxers; I use the word "boxers" to describe any underwear that goes further down the leg than Y-fronts. (Which, in fact, describes all my underpants.) These new pants are probably jockeys, though as I say, I don't know if that's intentional or because they're too small... either way, there's not quite enough room in the front.

Do you have any brand recommendations?

[arwel.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what the technical term is for my favoured underwear, there seems to be several varieties on the theme of stretchy cupping type, but you can't really go wrong with any of them. I tend to go for ones without any buttons or holes in the front as they tend to offer more security. I just don't like to dangle.

Marks and Spencer can't be beaten for quality.

Do women get to try on their underwear before buying? Are paper underwear involved in this process? I'm pretty sure I recall something like this being true, but I'm unsure that I didn't dream this. I can't imagine men ever trying on underwear before buying, despite the probable usefulness of such an arangement.

[renniek.livejournal.com]

I don't try on underwear before buying, but I do remember years ago trying on a swimsuit and it had a plastic strip stuck over the gusset "for hygiene". Personally I'd just buy it and return it if it doesn't fit.

[renniek.livejournal.com]

Oh, should probably add, women can try stuff on, but I think most women only try on bras.

[pkgem.livejournal.com]

I only try on bras. You can usually tell by looking whether knickers are gonna cover your ass or not.

[kingandy]

A lot of places say they don't take returns on underwear and swimsuits. "For hygiene."

[pkgem.livejournal.com]

I think it's a good policy. I don't like the idea of a swimsuit that has been worn by someone else. They could have genital issues I'd rather not think about (eugh - too late - just did...)

[renniek.livejournal.com]

Agree it's a good policy. But if you buy pants from somewhere and it's obvious that their sizing is way too stingy or way too generous so the pants don't fit - take them back and complain. If you harass them enough you can probably get your cash back even if they say they don't do returns on underwear.

[jfs.livejournal.com]

Boxers don't support, jockeys do - the names come from the sporting professions. If you're bouncing up and down upon a horse, I'm guessing you want your family jewels close in to the protection of your body.

This is a bad thing if you're thinking of having children, by the way. Apparantly sperm don't like the heat. That means that Lester Piggott might not have reproduced because of his underwear, rather than his being an ugly twat.

jockey shorts recommendations

[pkgem.livejournal.com]

I buy Paul's underwear for him. If you are looking for decent quality yet cheap underwear - go to Primark. I know, they are not renowned for high standards but they sell packs of two "jockey shorts" (recommend the type without the buttons and with the shaped crotch area because you'll look better in them naked) for a fiver. They come in various manly shades of black or grey. Or they certainly used to.

Re: jockey shorts recommendations

[kingandy]

Looking good naked (or, in underwear) is not a primary concern of mine, though would probably be a bonus. I think I'm more concerned with easy access though. Having to hoist the waistband down sort of defeats the object of having flies on the trousers. Wouldn't be so much of a concern if one wore a button fly, I suppose, but I never could stand those.

Re: jockey shorts recommendations

[pkgem.livejournal.com]

I always thought the flies on trousers were designed so I could hoist them over my hips...

Re: jockey shorts recommendations

[kingandy]

Hmm, I suppose there's that. And that's probably what button flies are designed for. The traditional button-zip combo offers a convenient entry point for men, though; the button keeps the trews up, while the zip allows manual access for doings. Most often in a urinary sense, of course, but there are other possibilities.

Re: jockey shorts recommendations

[pkgem.livejournal.com]

Indeed, there are "other possibilities" but this is an open forum and there may be children reading... ;-p

[renniek.livejournal.com]

I could be larger than I thought in the trouser department. I'll have to have a measuring session.

Fnar, fnar...

Sorry, couldn't help it.

[ed-fortune.livejournal.com]

Surely if you've put weight on the waist, other things in the trouser department are also likely to be more bulky?

[kingandy]

I remember an article somewhere that suggested a layer of fat can actually make things appear smaller. Like piling more topsoil around a tree. I don't think it's liable to make things very much bulkier either, there aren't many fatty deposits in, hmm, ha, that area.

[kingandy]

Any double entendres were purely intentional. ;)

[ed-fortune.livejournal.com]

Now I was talking about bums, I don't know WHAT you where talking about

*looks all innocent*

But, yese, the whole topsoil thing is true. Also something to do with blood flow or some such.

[ubernils.livejournal.com]

This is the longest and most involved conversation pertaining to underpants I've ever seen.

[kingandy]

Underpants are a very important topic! More thought should be given to the contents of people's trousers.

[wulfboy.livejournal.com]

I abandoned underpants about five years ago. Surprisingly, it hasn't made me especially happy.

[kingandy]

The reasons for pants are twofold. Firstly, support and comfort. While this first is subjective, and many claim to be more comfortable without, this does not negate the second: it's so much easier to wash underpants than it is to wash trousers. It's not just hygiene, it's the smell.

True

[pkgem.livejournal.com]

You can wear your trousers for multiple days as long as you change your underway everyday.
Of course I'm not willing to go as far as my Nanna who once proudly announced that she had had the dress she was wearing for 6 years and never needed to wash it once... According to my Nanna, sweat doesn't smell (she does).

Intrigued

[jewelstar93.livejournal.com]

I have to post here, because I am very intrigued by 25 comments about underwear. I try them on over my panties. Bras I try on over my shirt out in front of the whole world. I am not a fan of shopping. I try to get it over with as fast as possible.

I have hear that men should wear boxers. Brief and other types might make you sterile. Men who are having trouble having kids are told to wear boxers.