Talk:Briefs/Archive 1

Pictures
Really, two pictures of guys wearing briefs? LOL @ exhibitionist Wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.200.29 (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree... I hardly think two is necessary. I think one of the briefs and one of someone wearing them is plenty.... Jabberwockgee (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To the extent that there are significantly different kinds of briefs, then a photo of each type would be appropriate. The two major variations I'm aware of are different flys (Y front vs. horizontal) and different waistband heights (low rise v. regular).   Will Beback    talk    00:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We could do with some female equivalents. 88.105.19.199 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Far too USA-centric, these photos. USA briefs have far more fabric and sit higher on the torso compared to those of other nations. Briefs are what they word says - brief. American briefs aren't very brief at all, generally. Nor do other nations call them 'regular' and so forth.

Fixed. I agree with Jabberwockgee. The images of the models were removed because the male briefs depicted are less known/used and the picture did not focus more on the brief itself, same for the female picture because it was a picture of a full lingerie set and again not centered on her briefs. Basically, these pictures were too much and not central to the topic. I took the liberty to add a picture in the men's section depicting a more traditional and famous type of brief being worn. The picture of the skater may also be changed to focus more on the garment as well. If anybody else can do that it would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjoseoc (talk • contribs) 16:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Material

 * "cotton jersey": isn't the material they're made from part of the basic description? --Wetman 02:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Advantages/Disadvantages
An Advantages/Disadvantages section should be added to make the article similar to the boxer shorts article. 70.111.251.203 15:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In regards to both sperm quality as well as skinn rashes and other heat related issues. Breifs has always been to blame. But since no there is a company that solved this problem. FriGo Ltd ( I think..) They have made a very simple and effective solution, separating the genitals from the rest of the body, just put the genitals in the ventilated pocket, and a cooler and healtier sensation will occur. FriGo comes, as far as I know in breifs, trunks and boxers.

These are tested and aproved for underwear, swimwear and sportswear. Militaries are testing as well as hospitals. The least important for most of us, but not to forget FriGo entertains the user ( and his closest ) by cosmetical favours, such as increasing the looks. A whole lot.

There are confilicting statements on the boxers page regarding effects on fertility. One viewpoint needs to be proven or removed. Johns568 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

US-centric or source needed
"Briefs were first sold on 19 January 1935" According to fr: they could be found in France before that date. Apokrif 19:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Lowered Sperm Counts
Odd that there's no mention of this popular myth. Does anyone know if there is any truth to the story that briefs can cause lowered sperm counts? I'm watching an episode of Seinfeld about it right now! As a fellow whose boys need a house, I'm somewhat concerned! 24.62.27.66 23:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just an old wives' tale -- I don't have a source for that handy, but everything I've seen says that Liamdaly620 00:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not just an old wives' tale. Research has demonstrated that if a man wears tight-fitting briefs for an extended period, his sperm count will decrease. It is theorized that this will occur because the temperature inside the scrotum will increase by a few degrees, which will inhibit the production of sperm. This makes sense, as the temperature inside the scrotum has to be somewhat lower than inside the rest of the body; that is why the scrotum was designed as an outpocketing of the body wall, so that the sperm could be manufactured and stored at a temperature slightly lower than inside the body. However, if I recall correctly, the effect is reversible, when tight underwear is replaced by looser ones. That is, it is tight briefs which lower sperm count, not briefs per se. Particularly if the briefs are made of a non-porous material, like a synthetic nylon, etc., which used to be non-breathable, and kept the scrotum at an even higher temperature. Today's wickable fabrics like microfiber etc. have eased this difficulty somewhat; I'm not certain, tho'. 66.108.4.183 08:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Nash's Companion


 * I've read about such research too in a Flemish quality newspaper, but also that later studies came up with the inverse result; as neither was reported with a statistically significant test group, I fear definitive results aren't yet abailable; and possibly the explanation just doesn't make sense without some third factor. Fastifex 08:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

White most common?
Is white really the most common colour in the US? While I don't have any surveys or sales figures to back me up, I would say based on the availability and other factors that darker colours are more common here in NZ. This isn't that surprising to me since darker colours reduce the visibility of staining... Nil Einne 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually saw a documentary on underclothing which said white underwear was in the minority at  present BlackAdvisor (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

'Uncool'
I added United States to the trivia:
 * In the 1990s, briefs were seen as uncool in the United States, especially among teenagers. In cartoons, usually the victims of wedgies wore "tighty whities."

I have no idea whether the above is true but I think we can safely say it wasn't universally true. Perhaps it was in much in the Western world or the anglophile world or something (although I doubt that) but it seems unlikely it was true in large parts of the world Nil Einne 21:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is why I want something talking about the pejorative use of the term TWs. BlackAdvisor (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Y-shaped?
How the hell can briefs be called "Y-shaped"? Huuuuuh?

Perhaps a simple descriptor, comparing to "M-shaped" for boxers. And note that many Britons call briefs "Y-fronts" based on the inverted Y-shaped fly on the first popular briefs, Coopers Jockey brand classics. CoppBob 16:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * maybe but they are known as Y-fronts in the U.K. and they do look like Ys if you use your immagination the two bits coming down from your legs over your dick are the top two branches of the Y and your legs make the stem Charlieh7337 (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Briefs and Y-fronts are related, but different. Y-fronts is used ONLY for Y-fronts. Briefs refers to non-Y-front styles. And they must be BRIEF. Not minuscule - they're slips - but brief nonetheless. Y-fronts are generally not very brief. American Y-fronts are even worse in that regard. The main point is that in the UK Y-fronts and briefs are distinct - y-fronts are sometimes 'y-front briefs' or 'y-fronted briefs' but briefs and y-fronts aren't synonyms, they're not interchangeable terms. This article has been written mainly by USA residents, clearly.


 * "And note that many Britons call briefs "Y-fronts"" - only if there's a Y! Y-fronts are a very specific design. If there's no Y, anyone calling them Y-fronts is just acting from their own personal mental lassitude, not following a cultural pattern!

In the original model you don't have to use your imagination to see the Y. Note that this picture has no opening. For an inverted-Y-shaped fly see. Turesable (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular culture
The entire "popular culture" section should be removed. It is inherently unencyclopedic. -Branddobbe 11:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep I favor keeping the section, but urging critics to improve it to make it more "encyclopedic." I'm 86 years old, and I recall these social tensions, which are worth recording. CoppBob 16:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How do we decide what references to briefs to include and what references to exclude? Having this list makes about as much sense as starting "List of references to jeans in popular culture" and listing every jeans-wearing character in every TV show, movie, and cartoon, because that's what we're doing here in this article. -Branddobbe 04:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How about crafting a three- or four-sentence summary of pros and cons of briefs in popular culture? Then drop specific paragraphs. CoppBob 02:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Millions and millions of men wear briefs. Just because a character on TV or in a video game can been seen wearing them, does not mean that they should be mentioned.  I think this section should be trimmed to only the most famous instances of briefs-wearing, and characters whose identity is primarily related to brief-wearing (such as Captain Underpants). -- Beland 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Revise This section needs to be revised. These types of things are complete useless: This section needs to be revised. Only films where briefs are the main topic of the film, should be included. --Dan Leveille (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actor Zach Galligan is often seen in briefs in the movie "All Tied Up".
 * Actor Seth Green's character in the film Without a Paddle is stranded in the wilderness wearing nothing but briefs.

stretch marks
There's a statement that a certain type of elastic in briefs can cause stretch marks. This is ridiculous. Stretch marks are not caused by clothing. I will delete this section unless someone posts credible information to support this clam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone affected by stretch marks caused by both rapid childhood weight gain and brief-wearing, I disagree. The difference between the two types is definitely noticeable. I cannot say that it's caused by "certain types of elastic," but more due to overly-tight briefs. No one can seriously suggest that average-paced outward growth being limited by anything for ~23.5 hours a day won't cause stretching of the skin. 129.15.131.246 (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you really just admit to having stretch marks? Caused by really tight briefs? Tighty-whities: by any other name... את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Whity Tighties
Shouldn't something about this be said in the article? I mean I really don't prefer using ths term but, a lot of people do and is fairly common in middle schools all over the United States. --Whitestorm2 (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

2nd
Is the second paragraph correct? It seems like it needs a reference. Pass a Method  talk  11:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Tighty-whiteys"
It strikes me as strange that this term is referred to as a mere nickname. When I was growing up, it was used as a derogatory word for briefs by (some) males who wore boxers. (Boxer briefs had not become popular yet.) What makes it so vulgar is that it refers not to the overall tightness of the garment but specifically to the snugness in the genital area. (This is a bit off-topic, but also, isn't "whitey" a racial slur?) I think that its use as an epithet should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.30.150 (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Is there a reason my post is being virtually ignored? The only reason I don't edit the article itself is because the portion in question has a source and I don't want to get in any arguments over that sort of thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.30.150 (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC) I was actually able to edit this article to include information on how this is not just a harmless "nickname". However, very soon afterward some sicko changed the page back to its previous state. I think this is very wrong. I don't see why no one else on this site is taking my side on this issue. Wikipedia has great potential. Don't let it be something bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.30.150 (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That was me above. I really wish someone would give me feedback as I'm a novice here. Maybe "tighty-whiteys" has been 'reclaimed'/'appropriated'/whatever since it's introduction, but I still think it should be noted that was once derogatory vulgar slang. Seriously. BlackAdvisor (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I'm talking about: http://mirror.uncyc.org/wiki/Briefs Look under "briefs in popular culture". It's the first item. BlackAdvisor (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Big guy, Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia. Nothing in it should be taken seriously; it would be like citing The Onion. If you can find something in a reliable source which addresses this, feel free to add it. FWIW, my personal opinion is that it is not as derogatory as you are trying to portray it, it was never vulgar, and the idea that it is racist is beyond absurd.  Horologium  (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I never said it was racist. I mentioned that an element in the name resembles a racial slur. I find it odd that such a coincidence did not deter its usage at all. I was not there when the term was birthed; maybe it did have a racial subtext. Also, at one point elements from the uncyclopedia page did in fact appear on this very page, including the potion I brought up. I thought some people who've been here a while would notice that. I was very deliberate in doing that. And we are dealing in facts, not opinions on Wikipedia. That's whole point. And I just noticed the "big guy" term of address. That is maddeningly unprofessional and inappropriate, as well as patronizing. BlackAdvisor (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seething in anger, merely quite frustrated. BlackAdvisor (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Briefs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221194803/http://www.jfeconcepts.com/en/service/underwear-abc/y-front-fly.html to http://www.jfeconcepts.com/en/service/underwear-abc/y-front-fly.html
 * Added tag to http://www.brucegilbertmd.com/uploads/assets/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Functional Windshield
There is a variant of briefs (and snug fit boxers as well) offered for the use with cycling and running in modest warm or cold weather, which have a windproof second layer that covers the front in the pubic area to beware the penis of the cooling effect of wind chill. --Helium4 (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A quick Google search shows that these are available certainly from Amazon, and probably other retailers. I suppose the question is though - despite them existing, are they notable?


 * Saucony Men's Windproof Boxer Brief


 * As it's Christmas day I don't really want to spend it looking for references about pants - so I'll leave this comment here as a reminder to do so later. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Finally got round to this, and my previous comment still stands I think. Yes, there are plenty of retail outlets that will sell such clothing, but I can't find any reliable (or unreliable for that matter) sources that make the style notable in any sense other than they exist.  Furthermore they seem to be for such a niche that they don't warrant inclusion in this article.  I'm not even sure that they would fit (no pun intended) over at Sportswear (activewear), Cycling etc.  There seems to be no article that covers cyclewear in anything other than a passing mention.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

One Opinion
Though this isn't a factual statement, timspalding's aside in this discussion on the use of the word "panties" is quite undeniable: http://www.librarything.com/topic/49439http://www.librarything.com/topic/49439 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAdvisor (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

AskMen poll
The new addition fails to acknowledge that this was not a worldwide poll. And personally, AskMen people are probably not a good representative sample. BlackAdvisor (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)