Boxer terminology

Briefs are pretty straightforward. While bikinis and tangas are similar to true briefs, each of those has a fairly distinctive feature that separates if from being a brief (e.g. bikinis are nothing but waistband at the hips). Thongs, g-strings, and jockstraps are all similar to briefs in front but very different in back. The only real grey area in brief-adjacent things is the existence of jock-briefs; there’s a sliding scale of brief/brief-with-a-hole/jock-brief/jockstrap, but it’s also a fairly straightforward continuum there, so not a ton of confusion.

Boxers though? Holy hell, that’s a mess!

There’s little to no standard as to what brands call their underwear with legs. Before I started ordering lots of underwear, this is what I thought we had:
—Boxers: long-ish legs, completely flat front, has a fly that’s usually buttoned but sometimes just open, and fairly loose (though not always)
—Boxer briefs: long-ish legs, some attempt (even if minimal) of acknowledging anatomy e.g. nice pouch and/or fly (like traditional briefs), and usually somewhat skintight
—Trunks: shorter than the others occasionally to the point of approaching briefs, usually have a good pouch, usually do *not* have a fly, also fairly skintight

Is that how men’s underwear these days actually works? Not in the slightest! I’ve seen long, Y-Fly pairs advertised as “trunks”, I’ve seen tight, square-cut pairs advertised as “boxers”, and a ton of craziness in between. That’s not even mentioning the “midcuts” that come up – basically my idea of “trunks”, but longer.

Does anyone else want to try making sense of all of this? Because I’ve mostly given up at this point. X’-D I still have to categorize things on the blog here, so that’s why this got on my mind.

No clue at all what brand these boxers are, but I think they look nice! They’re a very traditional look, with a simple pattern on what appears to be a slightly stiffer, sheet-ier kind of fabric – definitely not the traditional briefs-style fabric or a super-soft, almost-formless cotton. I imagine it’s almost a little slick to the touch, in a way. The waistband also looks like it could be a little on the crinkle-y side, especially with the kind of fabric I’m thinking of.

I have a pair of boxers myself from Jockey that I think are comparable to this pair in terms of fabric, but it’s just a guess. It’s the kind of boxers you might think of for a 9-to-5 office-worker kind of stereotype. (My Jockey boxers even have a button-close pocket in back! A bit weird, but kinda fun.)

Even if the fabric is a little on the stiffer side, these boxers were apparently designed with enough of a front to give a fairly good look to the pouch here as this daddy is wearing it! He definitely seems to be providing a nice shape up front, and he looks comfortable wearing it too, which is of course always the most important part. It kinda looks like the pair has a fly, but it’s hard to tell exactly; between the angle and the lighting, I can’t see an obvious button, and the fly isn’t obviously semi-open either, which can often happen with boxers and similar things when the way you’re standing causes the two halves of the fly to fold differently.

2xist – Pima Knit Boxer – White – M

067

(I seem to have misplaced the pictures, but what they hey, I’ll take more soon and pop ’em in here)

Material: 100% Cotton, and it feels so good =-) Nice and soft, exactly what you’d expect of 100% cotton, with a good thickness to match. Comfortable but not extensive amount of stretch to the fabric itself, but you don’t expect that for true boxers anyway, nor of 100% cotton; it’s exactly what it’s supposed to be.
Aesthetic: Hard to get more classic and simple than unadorned white. The only semi-noticeable feature is the logo on a small loop of extra fabric at the belt-buckle position on the waistband, which is a classy, reserved touch. With nothing else to look at, it’s worth pointing out that the button of the fly is simple as well, just a small disc of white plastic, which is good because anything bigger, more shaped, or colored would not look like a match to the rest of the pair.
Waistband: Great stretch, good height, and very soft and comfy with a thin layer of sort-of-pleated fabric covering the actual waistband itself. The tag at the back of the waistband is very soft as well, so this pair is all about comfort.
Pouch: NA, since it’s a true boxer. While I would consider this a traditionally loose true boxer versus a more modern tight-fit true boxer, there is definitely an element of keeping the front relatively flat, i.e. it’s not as incredibly loose as it potentially could be. That said, the fabric is so soft that your junk will love the feeling.
Backside: Also NA since it’s a true boxer. While it is a traditionally loose pair, there is a hint of shape back here as well. The “side” seams are actually a little to the back, which provides a nice framing to your ass in these boxers.
Legs: I do rather like the length on these, and again these are somewhere in between a really loose traditional boxer and modern tight one, so the legs aren’t constraining at all, but they also aren’t likely to bunch up in your pants.
Other: I liked this pair so much when I got it, I ordered a second white Pima boxer and a blue Pima boxer. For the life of me, I can’t find the blue pair anywhere, and that makes me sad. That said, the boxers currently for sale on 2xist’s site are slightly different that those I have – notably the placement of the brand name.
Overall: 5/5 – as far as boxers go, I think this is about as good as you can get, which is why I’ve bought three of them. That said, boxers aren’t for everyone, and some people like the tighter boxers – but if you like traditional-fit boxers, these should be your go-to.
Great for: Loungewear, Sleepwear
Good for: Everyday wear

Thirsty Thursday 2

As mentioned in my previous post, BIKE (and GYM) are largely known for their jockstraps. Even though I haven’t posted many of either line before, I’ve seen a TON of them on Tumblr and Twitter. I had no clue until just as I was reviving this blog that BIKE made more than jockstraps!

And this boxer… IDK how it would look in other poses, but GODDAMN this look here is hot. There’s a bulge for this guy’s balls and a separate bulge where his dick is. Those thighs are thicc, too, and I have a bit of a weakness for the arms-up position on top of all that… *sweats*

rufskin:

gregorynalbone

usually wear briefs but thought these looked hot

@mattlian

I’m not sure what style of boxers these are, which makes me somewhat sad because searching on Rufksin’s site and not finding some other pairs I’ve previously reviewed leads to the realization that Rufskin, like many other designers, simply doesn’t carry any given design for very long. They make some of it, they sell it, and then it’s gone forever. For an underwear fan like me, that’s sad – if you don’t see an image of a pair soon enough, or see it but don’t purchase it soon enough, you’ll never get it.

Alright, with all that depressing note aside, this pair looks really comfy – at least as much as a tighter-style true boxer can. (If I get a boxer, I usually like it the more traditional loose style.) The waistband here is bold and looks very soft, and the material might not be quite as cushy but still looks very soft, smooth, and forgiving (even if the pair overall is on the tight side). Tighter flat-front boxers can be nice, even without giving you much support, in the fact that they make you show off quite a lot, which can be very fun, as seen with the nice VPL above =3

Utility – Striped Boxers – Blue – Medium?

041

Material: So old that the tag is unreadable and the brand doesn’t seem to exist anymore, but I’m guessing it’s close to 100% cotton.
Aesthetic: A little loose from its age, but I do generally like the look of boxers with relatively fine vertical striping. It’s a nice color combination too, and even when the fabric wasn’t loose with age, it looked as soft and breathable as it felt.
Waistband: Also loose with age, but overall a really nice, soft, relatively thin waistband, especially as true boxers’ waistbands tend to go.
Pouch: NA, since it’s a true boxer. In terms of your junk, thankfully it’s a loose boxer instead of a tight boxer, (by design this time, not just from age,) so everything hangs pretty freely.
Backside: Relatively flat since it’s a true boxer, (and not like a modern one that’s designed to be more form-fitting,) but it’s incredibly comfortable.
Legs: Could maybe be a bit longer, but are wide and non-restricting like you would expect from traditional true boxers.
Overall: 4/5 – despite being older than my high school degree and stretched loose with age, I do love this pair. At some point, I’ll need to find a good successor pair.
Great for: Sleepwear, Loungewear
Good for: NA

2(x)ist – Pima Cotton Boxer – White – Medium

021

Material: 100% pure cotton, and boy does it show! It’s comfy enough that I’ve bought two other pairs of this, one another white and one a blue.
Aesthetic: Honestly, probably some of the least exciting-looking underwear I own. Someone who wears this has to be really confident to sell the look well. I generally think solid colors can be good since they let other aspect of a pair stand out – but when you’re talking about true boxer shorts, the general looseness means nothing stands out unless you try drawing attention to it.
Waistband: A bit bunch-ier than all of the other waistbands I’ve seen. Not really uncomfortable in any way, but if you don’t like any more material than necessary, you might not like it. Still, great sizing, and sits on the waist.
Pouch: Or, rather, the lack thereof. It’s a true boxer, so it’s entirely loose and flat. The material is super-soft, though, so it’s still a great feeling against your junk nonetheless.
Backside: I mean, it’s a true boxer, so there’s not much to write about here either. The seam just on the sides of the back panel look very nice, though, a good frame for your backside.
Legs: Good length and moderately loose – not so tight that it stops feeling like a true boxer, but still slim enough that it won’t feel bulky in your pants.
Overall: 3.5/5 – as an average. If you like true boxer shorts, then I could see this as a 4.5/5, but if you don’t, then I guess it’s a 2/5. All depends on the kids of support and breathing room you like in your underwear. Either way, I definitely love the material (hence having three pairs).
Great for: Sleepwear, Loungewear
Good for: Everyday wear