Boxer Rebellion

Surely I've blogged about this topic. I mean it has such an obvious title. Yes, I want to blog about boxers.

To put things into perspective, once upon a time, boxers were the norm. Men from the 1950s wore these mini shorts which we call boxers. I remember as a little kid, that I wore them. Then, sometimes during the 70s and 80s, guys went to briefs. In fact, in the 1970s, there was a trend towards more open displays of male sexuality.

Understand the difficulty, compared to women. The most sizable woman's bosom far exceeds the volume of the most sizable man's penis, except for those that have some sort of disorder. This means, for the most part, that women have a more challenging time hiding their chestage than men do hiding their boys. Of course, many women, especially in non-conservative societies like the US, do choose to flaunt what they have, wearing form fitting clothing, as opposed to loose clothing, which virtually tell straight guys and lesbians, look, I have a huge chest.

Women who lack in that department have a more challenging problem of wearing looser fitting clothing to give some hint that maybe somewhere, somehow, there is substance behind the wardrobe.

But, in the 70s, there was a huge attempt at trying to level the playing field. Tight jeans were the fashion. While it was more effective to show off one's derriere, if a male were suitably equipped and possibly suitably aroused, tight jeans would give the hint of what a man could provide. Those who have, could afford to wear such clothing.

The 70s were also a period where men, especially male basketball players, wore short shorts. If these shorts were any shorter, men would be wearing mini-skirts. You could determine a man's religion if shorts were any shorter. And, underneath all that, men typically wore briefs. More effective than tight pants, briefs also showed a male off to best effect, especially if his ass were substantive, and his endowment too.

Then, the 80s rolled around, the Republicans came into power, and along with a wave of political conservatism also came a wave of conservative clothing. As basketball lead the trend to short shorts, it too also reversed the trend. Shorts began going southward, Where the bottoms of shorts used to be mere inches from one's organs, now they were sitting on top of one's knees, or further below.

This trend to longer shorts extended to swimwear. No speedos for males. Guys were ready to add a little more mystery to their attire. There's a large number of undersized (relatively speaking) males who probably mark the day when they did not have to be put in competition with others. Women, alas, did not follow suit. While skirts disappeared, tight jeans were still common enough, as were a revealing knit shirt.

With singers like Christine and Britney, a little navel was also a possibility. Women still could titillate with their, er, titillators. Men, on the other hand, strived for more is more, as in more clothing. Briefs, which always had the danger of treadmarks, and were too revealing, and unflattering to some, were now seen as old fashioned. Boxers had more colors, more varieties, and depending on how it was made, it could offer its fair share of hintage.

Despite a generally greater acceptance of gay male lifestyle, which has as much to do with ad campaigns by Calvin Klein, and then by Abercrombie and Fitch, who sold a nirvana of white flesh (colored males need not apply), engaged in quaint sports like lacrosse or rugby, and oh yeah, occasionally selling shirts and jeans and such, a change that has made men of the new millenium just as concerned about their waistline and figure as their female counterparts, the trend has not yet reversed itself. Clothing that revealed a little too much were still considered "way gay".

As with anything that deals with fashion, perhaps this trend too shall pass. MC Hammer once seemed destined to dictate clothing where the divide of the pants were nearly to the ground, facilitating side to side movements, followed by utterances of "can't touch this". Yet, sartorial sage he was not.

Are men simply more insecure and less sexual than women? Do women value such things as pretty clothing and pretty bodies because they still value ensnaring men, and impressing other women? Are men still in a state of gay panic, worried about what people will think of them should they be so vain, or perhaps they've simply woken up, and realized there's no reason to be sexual, by showing off what they had little to no control over.

Why have I devoted this entire blog to the superficial, to the body, instead of to the mind. It shows that we are slaves to our genes, which command us to reproduce, even though the act of reproduction itself scares the bejeezus out of most of us, while the act of trying to reproduce is exciting. We should be seeking ways to enrich ourselves through more cerebral means, and yet, this too, is a form of conservatism, and many a conservative religion posits a libinous male unable to control his urges on a frail female. Veils and burkas are to protect men from themselves, as women, surely are not that kind of creature who would ravage a man with her intense desire. It's not becoming of a gentlelady to behave in such a untamed manner.

We shall continue to have an affair with our clothing, to send messages to others, intentionally or otherwise. Would it be no be more valiant to do write a poem or a song or a program or a building?

In any case, I better get to the Gap before they close. (I know, so passe!).