What Not to Underwear...

This is not necessarily about what not to wear as underwear, but it is more a way in which one should never wear their underwear. This is a pet peeve of mine that was just brought to my attention again after seeing it TWICE in one day in the same place and after that I just had to say something here. Now I don't mind seeing another guy's underwear in public (as long as it's not one of those ridiculous sags where they can barely walk), but seeing a guy's underwear while his shirt is tucked in looks just ridiculous. You may be thinking to yourself, how could this possibly happen? Why would anyone do this? But I've seen it quite a lot. After thinking about it, my only solution to how this could happen to a guy is they put on their shirt and then put on their underwear and pants. Now it works fine when you first put it on, but as your pants slip during the day and your underwear rides up, they eventually become visible and it really just looks stupid. What is the point of "dressing up" by tucking in your shirt if you are only going to "dress down" by exposing your underwear. Now don't get me wrong, seeing a little bit of underwear over pants can be sexy, but seeing a bit (or a lot) of underwear over pants and a shirt is just gross (especially when one of the guys in question had his underwear on inside out). So what's the solution? Well here's the order in which you should dress if you are going to tuck in your shirt:

1. Put on your undershirt (if you wear one).
2. Put on your underwear. You may tuck the undershirt into the underwear, or you may choose not to (tucking the undershirt into the underwear is only an option if you are going to tuck another shirt into your pants).
3. Put on your shirt.
4. Put on your pants in such a way that the shirt is automatically tucked in.
5. Voila, there is now no way that your underwear will stick out!

So there you have it folks. Now you know what not to underwear.... If you like this idea, I could continue on this concept with other ways one should not wear their underwear.

PS. The photo is really just here as something to look at. I couldn't find a photo to illustrate what I am referring to.

Boxerbriefs vs. Trunks - what's the difference?

One of the most common inconsistancies that I've seen in the men's underwear world is the use of the terms 'trunk' and 'boxerbrief'. Brands often use these terms interchangeably, however they refer to entirely different things. They are similar, but still very different. I may have this wrong, but as I see it the terms are defined as follows. If you disagree with these definitions please call me on it because these are the definitions that I go by when writing posts.

Boxerbriefs:
-usually has a fully functioning front fly
-has two back seams "framing" the ass.
-generally legs are a longer than trunks (hits mid-thighish)
-Elastic waistband and legbands




Trunks:
-usually has no fly
-usually no seam in back or one seam down the middle
-often they are "seamless"
-legs tend to be shorter than trunks (hitting just low enough to cover)
-often has elastic waistband
-usually does not have elastic legbands

Hope that clarifies the difference. It is very confusing. So let's not even talk about hipsters, or low-rise trunks, or any other similar terms that are also tossed around.

And don't even get me started on the punctuation of boxerbrief (boxerbrief, boxer brief, boxer-brief). I just tend to switch it up the punctuation because the idea is always clear.

Look at the photos for further clarification.

Poll of the day: What are your thoughts on this? Do you go by a different definition? What is that? Is my definition incorrect?