Man’s Underwear for Woman
I guess I have been living under a rock lately, I just found out there’s boxer-type underwear for women being sold out there. Not those sexy ones made of satin/silky material with ruffles on the edges from Somebody’s Secret. I’m talking about the cotton, manly ones like Michael Jordan the guys wear. Hanes called it ‘boy shorts’.
What’s this? Do we women not satisfied with ‘briefs’, ‘bikinis’, ‘hi-cut panties’, ‘hipsters’, and ‘thongs’ anymore? But wait a minute… aren’t there lots of guys (gay men, mostly) now wearing thongs? Even in a public beach and swimming pools (yes, what a scary thought). Who’s the pervert who woke up in the morning one day and thought, “Hm, I like seeing a woman in a man’s underwear. Maybe I should pitch that idea to an undergarment business owner.”
So yeah, I bought a pack of Hanes’ ‘boy shorts’ to try. I thought, “Hm… with winter coming, maybe this will help me to be warmer.” The reason I was thinking that way was because both my husband and my son do have boxer-type of underwear. They are a few inches longer than the brief ones. And they did say they’re a bit warmer. But guess what, after I try them on, it only covers my butt cheeks and probably just below them. “This is not going to help me warm at all. Longjohns (long underwear) would be the only answer,” I thought. Plus, they’re not very comfortable. The seam that goes in the middle on the front and goes down almost to the private area is really not a 100% crotch-friendly. If you know what I’m saying. It kind of gives you ‘camel toe’ impression. Yikes!
So functionality was not the legitimate reason why boxer-type panties were introduced. Practicality? Well, an underwear is an underwear. It goes under your clothes anyway. I could see why hipster panties are practical. For those girls who like to wear hipsters (pants that sit on your hip rather than your waist), of course. So panties won’t peek out. Thongs, I could also see the practicality. If you’re wearing a skirt or pants and don’t want the lining of the panties showing from outside.
Another theory. If the ‘founder’ was not the pervert guy, it was probably a feminist bitch. After all, we women have been wearing pants for centuries, and a group of these feminists had come up with another way of wearing something that men usually are. And they were the ones who pitched the idea to the fashion/undergarment industry.
Which theory would you go with? Or do you have your own theory?
17 comments so far
Leave a reply





I think you’ve gotta show your pictures in those underpants first before we throw fair judgment! *grin*
screenshots please
hahahaha, camel toe! Nice description LOL
about the male underwear for women, some women say that it’s much more comfortable – I figure it’s the types that are a bit loose not all tight like boxer briefs.
I personally like the plain old tanga / hipster.
The topic of underwear may look boring at first sight. But it’s not if the material is in the hands of a gifted writer. She will send our fantasies where they should not go this time of the day and turn some boxer-shorts into collector’s items.
Now, after a period of chilling and being my old cool self again, I can answer the question: it must have been one of those former unisex advocates; so probably a feminist.
Ehem… bingung mo ngomong apa
*lihat rapor nilai bhs inggris 6…*
Agree with Finally-woken, you have to show us the photo first!
Are they exactly like Men’s Y Fronts, except for female?
Because I can never figure out what the pockets in the fronts are for. To keep money? drugs? condoms? What?
@therry: the pocket is holey, right? I thought it’s meant for shortcut for peeing?
hey, i didn’t know such panties exist…. perhaps i’ll get one for myself, so i can walk around in the neighborhood wearing only panties and thank-top, without putting extra pants….
very practical! as long as there’s no middle holey pocket!
I cannot picture myself wearing boxer panties underneath my jeans … they will look like extra fat around my waist and hips ..no way!!
PR sudah dikerjakan, buk!
@thewriter:
Is it? I haven’t the slightest idea. My boy wears the one that does not have pockets and it comes with various colors and I should really stop spilling personal information at this very second
@finallywoken, ecky & itikkecil: ain’t gonna happen, dream on :p
@eva: i like the hipsters too, and no idea about that ‘pocket’ idea. what’s it for really?
@colson: this was a result of a curious mind. and yes, thank you very much, finally somebody did answer my question! i was too, leaning towards the ‘feminist’ answer.
@maskoko: udah dibilang, komen pake bahasa ngoko juga gapapa…
@therry: what a keen observation! spent time too long folding those undies, eh?
@mer: do that and people would start calling you, “yo mama!”
@santi: ok ok :p
I wear these.. dulu sih sukanya thongs, but since they’re a pain in the ass (pun intended) jadi skrg pake yg ginian.. enak and very comfortable..
Hi Din, I have that “boxer” :-p
I wear it almost everyday especially if I have to go to gym, no panties line at my bicyle pants *grin*.
But I still love the hipster and the thong, especially if I have to wear my hipster jeans
LOL, I think that boxer were invented by a woman a.k.a with a man’s heart inside :-p
Miss you though, and I do understand your hubby decission. Hope we still can meet at your next visit
I love the stretchy boy cut (that’s what they’re called) undies.
Not too high cut, bit of a leg. I never call female undies “panties”. That is such a girly pissweak word. In Australia, I grew up with the word undies (as in underwear) and only heard this “panties” word recently – it even sounds pissweak.
It’s seems like it’s a mixture of pants and undies, but to me . . . sounds dreadful, somehow condescending.
@Diny:
When the maid’s gone, I’m the one doing the laundry so I got acquainted not only with himself’s underwear but also my dad’s. Which explains the Y-fronts questions. LOL.
I found them quite comfort, din. but i think its slightly different with your description. though, I still prefer the more lady-like garment and style