| Author |
Message |
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:56 am
Post subject: Jockstral and box (was: line 7 too long) |
|
|
| Quote: | hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) writes:
On 06 Nov 2004 01:25:32 -0500, Jeff Urs <stalky@prodigy.net> wrote:
Well, cricketers certainly use them. I believe the term they use
is "box".
A box is not a jockstrap.
Yes, but try using the first without the second...
|
You just stick it down your underpants.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:24 am
Post subject: Re: Jockstral and box (was: line 7 too long) |
|
|
Steve Hayes wrote:
| Quote: | hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) writes:
On 06 Nov 2004 01:25:32 -0500, Jeff Urs <stalky@prodigy.net
wrote:
Well, cricketers certainly use them. I believe the term they
use
is "box".
A box is not a jockstrap.
Yes, but try using the first without the second...
You just stick it down your underpants.
|
Wouldn't work with those horrible "boxer" things the boys wear now.
My son and I are amused to see that I wear briefs becaue my father
wore those baggy things, while he wears baggy things in sharp
contrast to his father's skintight underkegs.
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Jockstral and box (was: line 7 too long) |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:24:32 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Steve Hayes wrote:
hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) writes:
On 06 Nov 2004 01:25:32 -0500, Jeff Urs <stalky@prodigy.net
wrote:
Well, cricketers certainly use them. I believe the term they
use
is "box".
A box is not a jockstrap.
Yes, but try using the first without the second...
You just stick it down your underpants.
Wouldn't work with those horrible "boxer" things the boys wear now.
My son and I are amused to see that I wear briefs becaue my father
wore those baggy things, while he wears baggy things in sharp
contrast to his father's skintight underkegs.
|
I don't know of anyone who wears those baggy things. At least I've never seen
them on sale in clothing shops.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:44 pm
Post subject: Re: Jockstral and box (was: line 7 too long) |
|
|
"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41905070.82756656@news.saix.net...
| Quote: | On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:24:32 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Steve Hayes wrote:
hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) writes:
On 06 Nov 2004 01:25:32 -0500, Jeff Urs <stalky@prodigy.net
wrote:
Well, cricketers certainly use them. I believe the term they
use
is "box".
A box is not a jockstrap.
Yes, but try using the first without the second...
You just stick it down your underpants.
Wouldn't work with those horrible "boxer" things the boys wear now.
My son and I are amused to see that I wear briefs becaue my father
wore those baggy things, while he wears baggy things in sharp
contrast to his father's skintight underkegs.
I don't know of anyone who wears those baggy things. At least I've never
seen
them on sale in clothing shops.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop
uk |
I'd like to point out that in the US the word "boxers" is also used for a
type of underpants which are, like briefs, skintight. Imagine a pair of
briefs with two short legs added and you have this other sort of boxers.
Presumably, the fertility problems which briefs are suspected (by some) of
causing would also occur with these skintight boxers.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Jockstral and box (was: line 7 too long) |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | "Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41905070.82756656@news.saix.net...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:24:32 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Steve Hayes wrote:
hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) writes:
On 06 Nov 2004 01:25:32 -0500, Jeff Urs <stalky@prodigy.net
wrote:
Well, cricketers certainly use them. I believe the term they
use
is "box".
A box is not a jockstrap.
Yes, but try using the first without the second...
You just stick it down your underpants.
Wouldn't work with those horrible "boxer" things the boys wear
now.
My son and I are amused to see that I wear briefs becaue my
father
wore those baggy things, while he wears baggy things in sharp
contrast to his father's skintight underkegs.
I don't know of anyone who wears those baggy things. At least I've
never seen them on sale in clothing shops.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org
full
stop uk
I'd like to point out that in the US the word "boxers" is also used
for a type of underpants which are, like briefs, skintight. Imagine
a
pair of briefs with two short legs added and you have this other
sort
of boxers.
Presumably, the fertility problems which briefs are suspected (by
some) of causing would also occur with these skintight boxers.
|
I'm pretty sure of it. The bagginess of my son's boxers, on the other
hand, is relative both to my habitual briefs _and_ to those tight
ones; but not to the kind of thing my father preferred (at that point
I was exaggerating the looseness of my offspring's unterkrackers for
rhetorical effect).
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in