undies

whats under your pants?

  • ladies:boxers
  • ladies:thong
  • ladies:low rise undies
  • ladies: boyshorts
  • gentlemen:breifs
  • gentlemen:boxers
  • gentlemen:thong
  • gentlemen: tight boxers
  • ladies/gentlemen: NONE
  • ladies:breifs
0 voters

just curious… :stuck_out_tongue: :wink:

There’s no option for ‘commando’, which is my preferred clothing arrangement.

Good poll, tree hugger.

Boxers.

W.C.

I prefer boxer-briefs, which is what I think you meant by “tight boxers” so I checked that.

Though, sometimes I don’t wear any underwear at all.

How about you, embracetrees?

Us Brits tend not to wear anything under pants, but we do wear pants under our trousers.

And we’ll never know what them Brits wear under their trousers, it’s not very British to tell. :wink:

A

galoshes

-Imp

Of all the threads I thought I’d see this morning, this was not on the top of my list.

Very amusing though. It’ll be interesting to see.

Thanks, Embracetrees

boxer briefs… I like boxers but my mommy/daddy button flies around too much when I play b-ball in loose boxers

um…that would be the “ladies/gentlemen: NONE”
read closer silly someoneisatthedoor :wink:

wouldnt you like to know… :stuck_out_tongue: :evilfun:

read below… makes no sense but I feel silly discussing my underwear in public. :blush: I, after all, am a philosopher.

lol…thats funny. …sexy thong ads…lol
anyways, im a philosoper too, but you must see my collection of undies! after all, it is a big part of your everyday life :wink:

every philosopher needs a nice well-rounded collection of underwear…

You are right, embrace. Thong all the way. :laughing:

No pants for me - I’m a Buttless Red PVC chaps man myself - apparently… :astonished:

[size=75][Guys - don’t believe the hype… The ladies - sooner or later - start waltzing around in big, roomy white cotton bloomers, as soon as they’ve caught their man… :evilfun: ][/size]

I must amdit I’ve notice a huge expansion in the area (of her) covered by my girlfriend’s underwear since it became clear we were both in it for a while. The relationship, that is, not the underwear. Security of a love interest means the abandoning of the skimpy underwear that achieved that love interest.

As to the ‘none’ option - there’s a difference. There’s not wearing underwear and then there’s not wearing underwear, if you catch my drift. Some simply don’t wear underwear, others just don’t wear underwear.

Tabula Rasa

This is not altogether true. Actually it was true for awhile. A few years back, I was wearing ripped underwear, a corduroy jumper with little ladybugs on it and sporting sensible shoes until my mid-life crises set in. Now I’ve lost 30 lbs, got my leather whip attitude, been wearing my lacey thong and, honestly, what difference does any of this make? I’m in in a band.

([size=75]actually, isn’t that last paragraph a bumper sticker?[/size] :sunglasses: )

hehehehe

thats a very funny thing. some men, once “caught” have the effect of women migrating from thongs to cotton bloomers. HOWEVER, there does exist the rare species that has exactly the opposite effect. it’s not intentional, mind you, just, i suppose, the nature of the beast.

Ahh - SIATD, you forgot the third and most important ‘none’ option.

There’s not wearing underwear, then there’s not wearing underwear, and then… Well, then… There’s not wearing underwear…

:laughing:

Shyster and Vortical…if they get lucky.