or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Sexy underwear
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sexy underwear

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 
What is wrong with the New York Times? First a front page article on July 20 about shirttails hanging out, then this one yesterday about sexy men's underwear. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/fashion/01SKIV.html The first article was stupid; this one is disgusting.
post #2 of 41
I missed the one on July 20. As for this one, I had no idea there was such a thing as "push up" skivvies... I think I could've lived without ever discovering it.
post #3 of 41
I advocate Polo boxers. If I were any sexier my wife wouldn't be able to stand it.
post #4 of 41
For years, I thought I was being "sexy" by wearing skimpy underwear. Until I found out that I almost couldn't have children because the tight constriction has significantly reduced my "count" (I'll spare you all the details). I started wearing boxers, and now have two adorable kids. Hey, maybe if I don't wear ANYthing, I could have ten kids and be incredibly sexy. (Er...make that "have ten kids and never have sex again. )
post #5 of 41
Quote:
What is wrong with the New York Times? First a front page article on July 20 about shirttails hanging out, then this one yesterday about sexy men's underwear. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/fashion/01SKIV.html The first article was stupid; this one is disgusting.
I am afraid I have to disagree with jerrysfriend -- I found the men's underwear article mildly curious. It's not so much about underwear as it is about the way that advertising and packaging can change society's perceptions of what is commonplace and what is not. It's a fascinating topic, I think. An argument can be made that the idea of underwear designed to project the wearer's manhood so that it appears more prominent illustrates the fact that our society's objectification of male sexuality is catching up with our objectification of women's. If you are interested in such topics, the article is some grist for the mill.
post #6 of 41
Quote:
What is wrong with the New York Times? First a front page article on July 20 about shirttails hanging out, then this one yesterday about sexy men's underwear. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/fashion/01SKIV.html The first article was stupid; this one is disgusting.
Guy Trebay is certainly no Cathy Horyn. but I think this is one of his better articles and a topic that deserves coverage. Exactly what is disgusting about the article? I just don't see it?? The fact is many men are now embracing thongs and *fashionable* underwear. I like how the article talks about how historically the objectification of women sexuality was manifested through lingerie and men now are going through the same thing. There is clearly a market for these goods.
post #7 of 41
Thread Starter 
What is disgusting? What about the (so called) nation's leading (and supposedly most serious) newspaper writing: "There are briefs and boxer briefs and 'action bikinis' and 'athletic strings' and shorts with breathable mesh pouches or waistband condom pockets, and even a new brand called C-IN2 with patented 'sling support' designed, in the words of its manufacturer, to 'lift, project forward and improve the wearer's profile.' And, alas, there are thongs. "That the men who model for the packages containing these garments seem universally blessed with the proportions of pornographic film stars suggests that there may be more customers than one had imagined for those e-mailed spam messages offering 'masculine enhancement.' "The proliferation of new products not only from upstarts like 2(x)ist and Baskit but also more traditional brands like Hanro and Hugo Boss compete furiously to pitch their goods by using voluptuous lighting and moody graphics to delineate men's behinds and other anatomical contours as though they were features in a heroic landscape. It is no exaggeration to say that there are underwear boxes out there that make a man's crotch look as monumental as an Ansel Adams picture of El Capitan. "Mr. Klein first hired Bruce Weber in 1982 to take the American Olympic pole vaulter Tom Hintnaus to the Greek island of Santorini and photograph him posing in a pair of white briefs against a white wall, his legs spread wide.. "Such people probably do not remember that before Mark Wahlberg became a mediocre film actor, he was a mediocre crotch-grabbing rapper whose Calvin Klein billboard in Times Square presented him as a himbo Colossus of Rhodes. "According to a survey conducted by Freshpair.com, an online retailer of undergarments, 82 percent of women have tried on men's underwear, 31 percent of men have tried on women's and married men change theirs twice as often as single guys. "There are no statistics, really, to quantify our cultural obsession with male genitalia. But if anything can be extrapolated from the recent Internet frenzy surrounding nude scenes from Colin Farrell's new film, 'A Home at the End of the World' "” apparently excised because the actor's member distracted from the narrative flow "” it is that the percentage of people who dwell on these matters is considerable. " 'When I started 2(x)ist, the selection of what people were provided was really basic,' said Mr. Sovell, whose new company is C-IN2, which sells briefs with extra-low waists, high-cut legs and an adjustable elastic strap in the crotch designed to do for male genitals more or less what the Wonderbra did for breasts. "So luxuriant and glossy is the packaging for Adam + Eve, which is sold at 60 specialty retailers and at department stores like Saks Fifth Avenue and Bergdorf Goodman, that a consumer might become seduced by the box's unorthodox oblong and fail to notice the cover models are posed, on certain products, wearing no underpants at all. "The Adam + Eve packaging is so ostentatiously tasteful that one almost forgets what's inside. "There's a quality about it, something that turns you on but you can't exactly say what it is," said the former Calvin Klein art director, Mr. Shahid, who also designed the Adam + Eve campaign. 'You see these kids [young men] on these boxes, and you can't touch them, but you'd die to kiss each one.' " What is so newsworthy about this story? And should we be charmed by Mr. Shahid's lust for young men?  
post #8 of 41
since when is being newsworthy a prerequisite for being printed in the Times? I thought it was interesting. It's a report about an emerging market. I learned some things. It didn't disgust me. So what if 'Mr. Shahid' appears to be homosexual. If you're shocked by his innocuous comment, IMO you should really get out more. That said, I prefer the WSJ anyway. /andrew
post #9 of 41
Quote:
It's a report about an emerging market.
Great choice of words, my friend.
post #10 of 41
In the past I have made boxer shorts out of cotton voile. A very light weight and almost sheer fabric. Either you get or you don't, but the ones who do think they are very hot. Men and women. Mind you they are not as durable as a brodacloth, but...
post #11 of 41
jerrysfriend, I don't beleive "disgusting" is the right word for this "news item" (from NYT, go figure. ). I find it rather disheartening.
Quote:
I found the men's underwear article mildly curious. It's not so much about underwear as it is about the way that advertising and packaging can change society's perceptions of what is commonplace and what is not. It's a fascinating topic, I think. An argument can be made that the idea of underwear designed to project the wearer's manhood so that it appears more prominent illustrates the fact that our society's objectification of male sexuality is catching up with our objectification of women's.
You do have a point here. I'm afraid many people are too easily influenced by marketing. But the fact that a vice is becoming equally commonplace among both genders isn't what I'd call "fascinating." It's disturbing.
Quote:
Exactly what is disgusting about the article? I just don't see it?? The fact is many men are now embracing thongs and *fashionable* underwear. I like how the article talks about how historically the objectification of women sexuality was manifested through lingerie and men now are going through the same thing. There is clearly a market for these goods.
I know it's trite and rather adolescent, but have you ever heard the phrase, "what's right isn't always popular, what's popular isn't always right?" I suppose if enough members of society were to embrace and accept child molestation as a "normal" sexual behavior, you and your ilk would say "my, isn't it fascinating." Perhaps a market for children's lingerie would open up.
post #12 of 41
Quote:
I know it's trite and rather adolescent, but have you ever heard the phrase, "what's right isn't always popular, what's popular isn't always right?" I suppose if enough members of society were to embrace and accept child molestation as a "normal" sexual behavior, you and your ilk would say "my, isn't it fascinating." Perhaps a market for children's lingerie would open up.
It's more than a bit trite and certainly adolescent to make this statement. I don't understand how any sane, intelligent, thinking person could make such a comparison - yet many often do. There is an extreme difference between the actions of consenting adults vs. abuse of a minor. The whole argument is flawed on so many levels.
post #13 of 41
Thread Starter 
What about comparing homosexuality to S&M (between two consenting adults); or sex with the deceased or an animal (no adult objects). It is currently popular to think of homosexuality as an acceptable "alternative" life style, but it was not always so. Morals can be looked upon as timeless and universal, such as the views that the Catholic church has had for hundreds of years about homosexuality, abortion, sex outside marriage, etc. Or we can follow what is fashionable at the moment for our morals; for example, during some periods in history feeding Christians to the lions, owning slaves, etc., was commonplace and thought to be perfectly acceptable. At other times, homosexuality, 12 year-old girls dressing like trollops, tattoos, etc. were looked down upon. The Times knows that sex sells; hence the article. However, it will offend many people, was overly salacious, and is not worthy of a great newspaper.
post #14 of 41
Quote:
What about comparing homosexuality to S&M (between two consenting adults); or sex with the deceased or an animal (no adult objects). It is currently popular to think of homosexuality as an acceptable "alternative" life style, but it was not always so. Morals can be looked upon as timeless and universal, such as the views that the Catholic church has had for hundreds of years about homosexuality, abortion, sex outside marriage, etc. Or we can follow what is fashionable at the moment for our morals; for example, during some periods in history feeding Christians to the lions, owning slaves, etc., was commonplace and thought to be perfectly acceptable. At other times, homosexuality, 12 year-old girls dressing like trollops, tattoos, etc. were looked down upon. The Times knows that sex sells; hence the article. However, it will offend many people, was overly salacious, and is not worthy of a great newspaper.
Comparing homosexuality to S&M (between two consenting adults ) is valid, necrophilia and beastiality are not, actions between an adult and an unwilling (or unable - the dead and animals) to consent cannot be intelligently combined. Your arguments are still flawed. Additionally, one third of the world is arguably Christian (and losing ground to Islam steadily)- a minority, and just because you believe something is wrong or immoral doesn't make it wrong or immoral. And just because something is popular, doesn't mean it isn't right. Major Religions Ranked by size http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
post #15 of 41
Quote:
Morals can be looked upon as timeless and universal, such as the views that the Catholic church has had for hundreds of years about homosexuality, abortion, sex outside marriage, etc. Or we can follow what is fashionable at the moment for our morals; for example, during some periods in history feeding Christians to the lions, owning slaves, etc.,
(*sigh* how many times has this issue been rehashed on the internet. i bet this is the number one topic of flame wars.) ...as if my only choices were the dogmatism of the church or the nihilism of following the zeitgeist. how about just using logic and common sense to determine your morals? think for yourself, man. the church knows no more than the mob, nor no more than the new york times. in fact i would posit that some papal nuncios are more offensive to those who value their individual humanity than anything published by the NYT. it's the times' job to report. however 'salacious' you think it is, there are many who think it is not. i think it might be worth asking yourself just why you are so offended in the first place. your rhetorical questions do more to reveal limitations in your own worldview than to provide any reasonable argument. let me be so bold as to paraphrase your analogy, by saying that to revert to the time of looking down upon your 'Trinity of Evil' - homosexuality, abortion, and sex outside of marriage - would be akin to reviving slavery, feeding folks (not just christians, by the way) to the lions, hunting witches, etc. ...in fact in looking at the upturned analogy i would conclude that you have already refuted your own argument. furthermore, the morals of the catholic church are hardly timeless and universal. the christian church is an upstart in the history of the world's mythology, and the specifics of its belief system are geared mostly at developing an 'us against them' mentality. one of the hallmarks of cultish mind control. do as we say, or you will die and burn in hell. again i say, think for yourself. or if you won't do that, at least leave bigotry out of your public criticism of a news article about the fashion world. /andrew - trying to think for himself since 1988
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Sexy underwear