Talk:Briefs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Material 2 Advantages/Disadvantages 3 US-centric or source needed 4 Lowered Sperm Counts 5 White most common? 6 'Uncool' 6.1 Y-shaped? 7 Popular culture 8 stretch marks

[edit] Material

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

Because, when the pouch is warm, it's sagging out. When using this FriGo, the pouch contracts, as if you were naked outside at wintertime. This make things look more presentable, to everyone. Nevertheless, it's the comfort they provide, that realy matters. Because, when the pouch is warm, it's sagging out. When using this FriGo, the pouch contracts, as if you were naked outside at wintertime. This make things look more presentable, to everyone. Nevertheless, it's the comfort they provide, that realy matters.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] '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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

• 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.

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)

[edit] 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)