Boxers or Briefs by party

[angus]

opebo,

I didn't vote in the poll, because I wear neither.  If I did vote, I'd vote for briefs (R).  Actually, I wear jockey shorts, as I expect most normal people do, but given the choice between briefs and boxer shorts, I'd choose briefs.


Just so we're clear,

These are briefs (worn by porn stars and those stuck in the 80s.  In the 80s I wore them):



These are jockey shorts (what I wear):




These are boxer shorts (what really old people and, apparently, most forumites wear):




There is also some weird stuff like this (I'm not sure what that's called, but I see it in stores):

[angus]

I suspect this mostly all comes down to social class

Could be.  Then again, you may be misinterpreting the results.  First, very few people on this poll actually wear briefs.  I suspect they wear jockey shorts.  Second, the boxer/brief ration is 3/2 among Republicans and 7/4 among Democrats.  Not a huge difference, so it's not like all the plutocrats are wearing boxer shorts and the great unwashed masses are wearing Homer Simpson underwear.  Also, if I were voting in the poll, and the only choices I had were boxers or briefs, I'd vote for briefs, which would make it 3/3 for the Republicans.  Pretty well distributed for a party long associated with plutocracy and paranoia.

Still, I wear regular underwear because that's what Daddy wore, and that's what my parents bought me.  My son will likely wear regular underwear all his life.  That's all he will ever have been exposed to on a daily basis.  Therefore, you could conclude that the phenomenon is based upon some family values system. 

I used to see those things that looked, to me, like swimming trunks, on TV and such, usually worn by old men, and it seemed weird.  My son will likely consider them to be "old man" underwear as well.  I didn't even know they were called "boxer shorts" until about the 12th grade, to be honest, when my girlfriend commented that I wore "jockey shorts" instead of "boxer shorts."  I remember asking her what "boxer shorts" were.  She explained.  I then thought of all those TV shows where they show people in "boxer shorts."  Two things become apparent:  (1)  That particular girlfriend had been around the block a few times.  (2)  The FCC probably had quite a bit to do with popularizing "boxer shorts" during the 80s.  

One thing is for certain:  I still find the "boxer shorts" hard to take seriously as a pair of underwear.  They seem like old man underwear to me.  On weekends, I roam about al fresco very frequently.  And in the evenings.  In fact, right now I'm just wearing a regular pair of gym shorts, sans underwear.  Nothing between me and the rest of the world except a thin layer of gabardine.  Al fresco is the norm, in fact, if I'm not working or attending a seminar or shopping for pants.  However, if I actually have to go somewhere, I'll definitely wear a pair of underwear, and by underwear I mean jockey shorts.  (I only ever use the term "jockey shorts" in conversations like these, since "underwear" is, by default, understood to mean jockey shorts among us common laborers.)

[angus]

That's funny, angus, I always thought of those tight things as 'old men's underwear'.  I'm loath to admit it, but those are the garments which my father and his generation did wear, and when I was a small boy those are what my mother bought for me.  But the moment I could buy my own clothes in my very early teens I switched to boxers and have never looked back.  Hate those things - tacky and uncomfortable.

Then you have refuted your point about class.  I also don't think it's a partisan thing.  

Apparently, it has nothing to do with family values, either, so I'm wrong about that.

Maybe it has a different explanation.  You commented in another thread about bicycles, and how strange they are for you.  I, on the other hand, ride daily.  I find myself riding to the store, even if I have to buy a relatively large amount of items, on a bicycle.  I almost always prefer bicycling over any other mode of transportation when possible.  Of course, winters are long and harsh here, so about 4 months per year I drive my car, but whenever possible I prefer to ride.  

Maybe your poll should be "by preferred mode of transportation" rather than "by party"

[angus]

Angus, I am disappointed.  You don't remember when Steve, Snot, Toshie and Barry went to camp and got picked on for wearing the very un-cool jockeys.  Only to then be fooled into the pant.., er briefs by the lecherous underwear salesman.

Ha!  So it's just me, Cosmo Kramer, Snot, Toshi, Barry, and Steve, is it?  That would make it six votes.  I'm assuming that briefs and jockey shorts are being lumped together here.  I think what Kramer and I wear are much less revealing than those skimpy briefs that the Smith boys were wearing.

Hey, panties reminds me of another good poll.  For swim, do you prefer jammers, racers, square cut, or board shorts?

I wear something that is slightly longer than a racer, but shorter than a jammer, for pool and boat.  It looks vaguely like that fourth pair of underwear I posted--perhaps that's the elusive "boxer-brief" that I've been reading so much about on this thread?  Such a thing also comes in durable, form-fitting, black lycra and has a drawstring waist and is meant for swimming.

For the beach I prefer a looser-fitting garmet, but not so long as a board short.

[angus]

13 of us now.  (I ended up voting Briefs - other.  Again, I do not wear the skimpy Toshi briefs, but rather jockey shorts.  And I wore them when I was a Democrat, I wore them when I was unaffiliated, and I still wear them now that I'm a Republican.)  14 if you could Trondheim. 

We're outnumbered by the 18 who claim to wear boxers.  I suspect boxer shorts also includes various categories.  In that sense it's a misleading poll.  (Dividing all underwear into boxer shorts or briefs is like trying to divide all Christians into Roman Catholics and Protestants.)

I'm sure that there at least 5 types of underwear for men:  the four I posted plus diapers.  Of course, for women there are 10 types.  The difference is that whereas most men settle into one preferred type, all women need all 10 types to be truly effective in their roles.

[angus]

...underwear... for women there are 10 types... all women need all 10 types to be truly effective in their roles.

Really?  I confess I don't know all these types.  I would just think perhaps of bra and panties.. are you talking about corsets and garters and this type of thing?

oh, heavens no!  I mean ten kinds of panties.  There is the bedazzled.  Bedecked with semi-precious stones, they can leave scars, but they do spice things up.  There's lace.  Nothing says, "Do me now!" like lace.  There's the sports logo underwear.  No tailgate party is complete without a Go Hawkeyes underwear set.  There's the Period Panties, with extra large pocket.  These are also known as the "Feed me chocolate and stay the hell away from me!" panties.  Those are best in darker colors.  Burgundy or black.  There are also the big, comfy old lady ones, for when she's just feeling flatulent.  Then there are the cartoon-inspired ones.  I see little batman and spiderman underwear for women on sale regularly.  There's the thong, with or without leopard-print it's usually a hit with the guys.  There's the "hook up."  This is what men call boxer shorts, but women call them "the hook up" because they generally acquire them one morning when their own underwear were too nasty to even think about wearing home.  There are a couple more, but I forget what they are. 

[angus]

It is disturbing that nearly as many Democrats wear the vile briefs as wear the proper boxer.  Perhaps my theory of class-based-underpants is valid after all?

Republicans: 7 to 2
Democrats:  9 to 8

Clearly the lower castes prefer tight-fitting drawers.  Right.

Er, I'm not a pollster, but I'm thinking that a self-selected sample of 26 people in a society of 300 million might not be the best sample to base your case on.

[angus]

With 17% of precincts reporting, we have 24 votes for boxer shorts, and 19 for briefs.  That's 56% for boxers, 44% for briefs.  Too close yet to make a call.  We expect the returns to be delayed in the boxer-adverse inner suburbs near the factories, so this could go either way.  Back to you, Wolf.

[angus]

I fought jock itch (or something) for most of my 7 weeks in basic because of those snug and overly bleached underwear.

Dude, you brought that in with you.  Blame the skanky whore you were with the night before you enlisted, not the bleached cotton undergarments that your Uncle Sam provide you.