Author Topic: Non-Mustachian Underwear?  (Read 5700 times)

RetireOrDieTrying

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 166
  • Age: 55
  • Location: United States
  • Gallivantin' across the US
Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« on: February 13, 2025, 06:25:06 PM »
Is this where I report myself?

As cheaply as I live (and I live *VERY* modestly), I have a weakness - Dang Soft underwear with Bull Pen option from Duluth Trading Co. They feel ridiculously good, they last well, and the Bull Pen design really works as advertised to, er, keep things located.

Even though these things are STUPIDLY expensive ($30 per pair), I find myself indulging in them as my secret vice. As I don't drink, smoke, gamble, do drugs, strippers, hookers, gaming or soda, I keep trying to rationalize the guilt of this luxury. I keep thinking of how much $30 would be compounded over the next 15 years to my retirement age. One side of my brain says "seriously, d00d, you have to wear clothes, and it's just $30", and then the other side of my brain does a bitchslap with the rule of 72 and says "NO, dingbat, that's $120 over the next 15 years for a single pair of underwear!"

First world problems - I know. When is Mustachianism a sickness? LOL

obstinate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2025, 09:15:03 PM »
Synthetic underwear are not cheap. I use ex officio briefs. They probably wear out at a rate of 1-2 pairs per year. I keep nine or so in stock. Forty bucks a year for underwear vastly more comfortable than cotton is a price I gladly pay.

lhamo

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3821
  • Location: Seattle
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2025, 10:08:57 PM »
For a long time my little saying at the end of my posts here was:

Life is too short for ill-fitting socks.

Personally I’m fine with pretty mainstream/low cost undies, but you do you and if you love a more expensive brand and can afford them, live your richest expensive underwear life! Cheaper than a sports car

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4195
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2025, 10:25:10 PM »
I like the Puma Sport Lux boxer briefs.  Good breathability, tight-ish compressed fit.  I like them better than the Ex Officio, which are my second fave.   Five pair for $20 at Costco. 

For base layers, 32 Degrees from Costco can't be beat.  Equality in quality to any other brand and are ridiculously cheap.  Like two pair for $10 or something.  I've skied a bunch in them this season, they work great. 

crocheted_stache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2025, 10:59:09 PM »
A few years back, I got myself a week's supply of Darn Tough socks, inspired by the BIFL thread elsewhere on this forum. They're $20-$25 per pair, which is about 20x what I'd ever paid for socks before. I then went back and got rid of most of my pre-Darn Tough socks, and especially anything too large, stretched out, or droopy. I've never looked back. I do not miss wearing out socks every few years, nor walking around on lumpy, crumpled sock layers.

I would gladly pay full fare for bras that fit and that I liked so well (she says, scooting the straps back up her shoulders for the nth time tonight). Perhaps it's time to try again.

Choosing to spend money on something you can comfortably afford that improves your quality of life is a perfectly mustachian choice. If you were derailing your whole retirement plan for some kind of designer drawers to impress your date with the fancy logo, or if they were an impulse buy during a late-night online shopping binge that you'd come to regret, we'd be here to line up the face-punches.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20612
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2025, 03:08:02 AM »
No one is going to give you a medal for choosing to have less comfortable testicles so that you can be ever so marginally richer.

It's simple. Do the math. Calculate how much sooner you could retire if you bought cheaper underwear, and then ask yourself if working that length of time if worth the sensation of cozy genitals.

Also, just FYI, there are plenty of brands of soft, microfiber underwear that are a lot cheaper than $30/pair. But if there's a reason you want to support this particular company, them again, run the math and see if it feels worthwhile.

The bigger issue here is the guilt over spending. Guilt over spending is irrational. These are decisions about your quality of life. They impact you. So feeling guilty about them makes no sense because you are the one who is in charge of determining what is best for you.

It sounds like you struggle to judge what is intuitively best for your overall quality of life though, and that is an issue. Because you have to be the one who makes ALL of the determinations of what is worthwhile to invest in, whether that investment be money, time, energy, or attention.

The only way to live well is to deeply understand the best uses of all of these resources for optimizing your overall well being.

Remember that money isn't anything in and of itself, it's just a placeholder for time and energy resources, whose value change over time. So it's up to you to understand what exchanges of resources are most valuable.

Is comfy underwear worth the time/energy exchange they cost? It's a yes or no question, no guilt involved.

If they are clearly worth it, then why would you feel guilty about them? Do you feel guilty about other things that are clearly worth it? Like, do you feel guilty buying food that tastes better than cheaper options that meet your nutritional needs?

Where is the line where something unnecessary is worth the it?

I applaud you for questioning if the underwear are worth it, but not for feeling guilty over a decision that impacts you and your quality of life. So what if you choose to work longer for underwear?? Who cares?? Why would you feel guilty about that? Who are you harming??

And what purpose does the guilt even serve??? Who is it for??? Who is being harmed by you deciding that any given thing is best for your quality of life??

Sure, if something could be found more ethically be going cheaper or used, then some guilt for spending for luxury might make sense. Or if you could just go without and you have a strong anti-consumerist value system, but you can't go without.

A quick look at the company website shows a huge amount of marketing around ethics and sustainability, so it's arguably that you should actually feel more guilty about not buying their underwear just to hoard more wealth for yourself. My DH's underwear is cheaper and probably made in Bangladesh. And somehow you should feel guilty for your purchase from an ethical company and he shouldn't feel guilty about his???

Make it make sense!

There is zero reason to feel guilty over this, so I encourage you to reflect on what the fuck the purpose of the guilt is and where it comes from.

Examining purchases critically is absolutely of vital importance for determining how to optimize your use of resources, but if something is a good value trade, why the fuck would guilt come into play??

funobtainium

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2025, 06:18:49 AM »
Ha...I saw the title and thought, "oh, that would be me with my Duluth Armachillo lady briefs." I got my husband the boxers and they were nice, so I got those. Love them.

They're good!

Life is honestly too short for terrible underwear.

uniwelder

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2081
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Appalachian Virginia
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2025, 07:22:16 AM »
For a long time my little saying at the end of my posts here was:

Life is too short for ill-fitting socks.

I'm all for comfortable socks.  In the past few years, I've completely switched to knock-off Injinji toe-socks, as I'm still too cheap to pay full price.  It takes a minute to put on, and they're $7/pair, but so great to keep some separation between toes.  My feet have never felt better.

Same sentiment for toilet paper.  We do use a bidet at home, but the Charmin has its place in the bathroom.

Turtle

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Pencil Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 822
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2025, 08:26:17 AM »
Duluth Trading is generally really good quality that last a long time.  If it makes you feel better, watch for the sales and coupons and take advantage of those.  Some of their stores will also give an in person Veteran’s discount, but you have to remember to ask for it and show ID.

GilesMM

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2538
  • Location: PNW
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2025, 08:57:06 AM »
Cheap socks and underwear are a false economy.  Get the best you can find.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 21086
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2025, 11:07:53 AM »
As a mustachian my only comment is, look after your investment.   Look at the care label and follow it.  Proper water temperature and amount of agitation.  Air dry insted of using the dryer.  Every bit of lint in the dryer filter used to be clothing.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20612
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2025, 11:16:21 AM »
As a mustachian my only comment is, look after your investment.   Look at the care label and follow it.  Proper water temperature and amount of agitation.  Air dry insted of using the dryer.  Every bit of lint in the dryer filter used to be clothing.

This. I dislike wearing slippers, but I dislike destroying my ice breaker socks even more as they no longer honour their lifetime guarantee without a receipt, and of course I never kept my receipts because they had a no-questions lifetime guarantee.

So now I wear slippers.

Sanitary Stache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2025, 11:47:24 AM »
I buy $45 dollar wool boxers. These wear out fairly quickly. DW and I repair them. Three will last about a year with one being used for material to repair the others. I can’t wear synthetic fiber. It causes pimples to form on my upper legs. I also prefer the natural fiber which won’t end up as plastic in my brain (or the river most likely).

RetireOrDieTrying

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 166
  • Age: 55
  • Location: United States
  • Gallivantin' across the US
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2025, 11:55:55 AM »
It's simple. Do the math. Calculate how much sooner you could retire if you bought cheaper underwear, and then ask yourself if working that length of time if worth the sensation of cozy genitals.

Interestingly enough, I already consciously do this when it's not for myself. Take my widowed sister out for a Sunday lunch? You betcha. Take my disabled cousin Sue to the wildlife park? Without even a moment's consideration. I know that these expenditures are also subject to the option of compound earnings, but I'm tee-totally happy to pay that piper in order to do nice things with them which they ordinarily wouldn't get to enjoy.

It's when it's for myself that I tend to be ultra-cautious of lifestyle creep. "Guilt" is the word I used, but I could just as accurately have used "anxiety." I did a VERY hard financial turnaround by being ruthlessly diligent with my personal spending, and it's not the easiest to come back from that mindset to where the pendulum is a little more in the happy middle. I'm always on guard to ensure I don't return to the Pit of DespairTM The Princess Bride whence I gained my very hard-fought escape.

I just did the math. Even with the Rule of 72, and calculating the value of an entire wardrobe of these underwear - at my current earnings I'd have to work 5 additional hours to make up for it. I feel silly now.

Quote
Like, do you feel guilty buying food that tastes better than cheaper options that meet your nutritional needs?
...
Examining purchases critically is absolutely of vital importance for determining how to optimize your use of resources

I absolutely buy tasty, quality food even though it's less budget-friendly. I rationalize it as a health thing - I might be able to survive biologically on kale paste and raw tofu, but I won't stay with it, and so the war will be lost due to the battle won, as it were. I therefore buy organic berries, nuts, vegetables, quality proteins, etc. They're excellent for me, and - MOST importantly - I like them, and will continue on that path.

Thanks for the thoughts. Trying to feel out where the line is between "reasoned discipline" and "paranoid adverse reaction" is sometimes less obvious to me at this stage of my turnaround journey.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2025, 11:57:45 AM by RetireOrDieTrying »

RetireOrDieTrying

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 166
  • Age: 55
  • Location: United States
  • Gallivantin' across the US
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2025, 12:00:02 PM »
Life is honestly too short for terrible underwear.

THAT is a great motto! LMAO

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25563
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2025, 12:22:13 PM »
Given that synthetic underwear causes a significant decrease in your sperm count (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8279095/) it might be a long term cost savings move.

couponvan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9530
  • Location: VA
    • My journal
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2025, 01:29:20 PM »
Given that synthetic underwear causes a significant decrease in your sperm count (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8279095/) it might be a long term cost savings move.
Damnnnnnnnnnn.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25563
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2025, 01:50:29 PM »
Given that synthetic underwear causes a significant decrease in your sperm count (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8279095/) it might be a long term cost savings move.
Damnnnnnnnnnn.

It was only irreversible sperm damage for one in six test subjects.  :P

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 21086
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2025, 05:35:20 PM »
Cotton is much healthier anyway it breathes.  Or linen.  Historical, in northern European countries where cotton didn't grow, undergarments were linen, not wool.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20612
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2025, 07:09:55 PM »
Given that synthetic underwear causes a significant decrease in your sperm count (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8279095/) it might be a long term cost savings move.
Damnnnnnnnnnn.

It was only irreversible sperm damage for one in six test subjects.  :P

To be fair, that's polyester, and I don't think any company makes boxers out of polyester due to the heat retention properties.

If the OP is buying ultra soft underwear, they're probably modal, which is on the list of recommended fabrics for sperm health.

RetireOrDieTrying

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 166
  • Age: 55
  • Location: United States
  • Gallivantin' across the US
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2025, 08:55:05 PM »
they're probably modal

Website says modal from wood pulp.

Sanitary Stache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #21 on: February 15, 2025, 06:08:21 AM »
Core spin wool, which I don’t like but is more durable than just wool, is wool spun around a polyester filament.
Most synthetic thermal underwear or sport underwear uses polyester.

Is fabric from wood really considered synthetic? I would call wood derived fabric or thread a natural fiber.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20612
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2025, 06:12:43 AM »
Core spin wool, which I don’t like but is more durable than just wool, is wool spun around a polyester filament.
Most synthetic thermal underwear or sport underwear uses polyester.

Is fabric from wood really considered synthetic? I would call wood derived fabric or thread a natural fiber.

Modal is classified as semi-synthetic, just like bamboo rayon

Sanitary Stache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #23 on: February 15, 2025, 06:20:30 AM »
Cotton is much healthier anyway it breathes.  Or linen.  Historical, in northern European countries where cotton didn't grow, undergarments were linen, not wool.

I operate under the belief that modern technology has made it possible for wool fabrics to be super soft, while historically wool has been a scratchier fabric. In my understanding, which I have never verified, is that wool fibers have scales that can be burned off with chlorine gas or maybe another process and then the fiber becomes smooth. Though maybe it also becomes more fragile.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20612
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2025, 06:22:55 AM »
Cotton is much healthier anyway it breathes.  Or linen.  Historical, in northern European countries where cotton didn't grow, undergarments were linen, not wool.

I operate under the belief that modern technology has made it possible for wool fabrics to be super soft, while historically wool has been a scratchier fabric. In my understanding, which I have never verified, is that wool fibers have scales that can be burned off with chlorine gas or maybe another process and then the fiber becomes smooth. Though maybe it also becomes more fragile.

Wool is much softer, but it's still generally a bit scratchy.

Modal is unfathomably soft.

Sanitary Stache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2025, 06:26:21 AM »
Cotton is much healthier anyway it breathes.  Or linen.  Historical, in northern European countries where cotton didn't grow, undergarments were linen, not wool.

I operate under the belief that modern technology has made it possible for wool fabrics to be super soft, while historically wool has been a scratchier fabric. In my understanding, which I have never verified, is that wool fibers have scales that can be burned off with chlorine gas or maybe another process and then the fiber becomes smooth. Though maybe it also becomes more fragile.

Wool is much softer, but it's still generally a bit scratchy.

Modal is unfathomably soft.
Im looking at how modal is made and the google ai is saying the wood pulp needs a chemical process to be used as a fiber for clothes. This makes me think that the chemical process make the wool less scratchy would put these versions of wool fabric into the “semi-synthetic” category.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20612
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2025, 06:34:08 AM »
Cotton is much healthier anyway it breathes.  Or linen.  Historical, in northern European countries where cotton didn't grow, undergarments were linen, not wool.

I operate under the belief that modern technology has made it possible for wool fabrics to be super soft, while historically wool has been a scratchier fabric. In my understanding, which I have never verified, is that wool fibers have scales that can be burned off with chlorine gas or maybe another process and then the fiber becomes smooth. Though maybe it also becomes more fragile.

Wool is much softer, but it's still generally a bit scratchy.

Modal is unfathomably soft.
Im looking at how modal is made and the google ai is saying the wood pulp needs a chemical process to be used as a fiber for clothes. This makes me think that the chemical process make the wool less scratchy would put these versions of wool fabric into the “semi-synthetic” category.

Possibly, I don't know much about wool processing, which is kind of funny for someone who wears almost entirely wool. 😆

sonofsven

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2634
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2025, 07:47:27 AM »
"Nothing gets between me and my Calvin Kleins"
I buy new three packs at Ross every 4-5 years for around twenty bucks, "whether I need them or not".

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2025, 10:41:52 AM »
No ones mentioned the expensive bane most women everywhere suffer from in the underwear word? Ill fitting, painful, expensive bras. I'm fairly small so easy to find some relativly cheaper good fitting supportive bras but I don't know how some larger breasted women did it!

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20612
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2025, 10:51:35 AM »
No ones mentioned the expensive bane most women everywhere suffer from in the underwear word? Ill fitting, painful, expensive bras. I'm fairly small so easy to find some relativly cheaper good fitting supportive bras but I don't know how some larger breasted women did it!

I am very well endowed and I don't wear uncomfortable bras. I switched to Puma sports bras years ago except when I dress up.

I just accept that my breasts don't always exist in their most esthetic, sexually appealing position the majority of the time.

But as someone who has been objectified for my breasts my entire life, I'm A-OK with that, lol!

Sandi_k

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
  • Location: California
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2025, 12:31:55 PM »

I would gladly pay full fare for bras that fit and that I liked so well (she says, scooting the straps back up her shoulders for the nth time tonight). Perhaps it's time to try again.


I still don't understand how straps continuously slide off shoulders, and it's still considered a design that everyone buys.

Are there bras that have more inset straps? I cannot wear racerback bras, because I've had a spinal fusion, so racerback designs tug on my spinal-fused neck and impart real pain.

I've seen clips that hold the straps together, but I cannot see how to add that clip and still get a bra on!

For my bathing suit (when on our boat), I literally use a shoe string, and have DH tie my straps together at the top of my shoulderblades to avoid the straps falling off my shoulders.

crocheted_stache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #31 on: February 15, 2025, 02:22:22 PM »

I would gladly pay full fare for bras that fit and that I liked so well (she says, scooting the straps back up her shoulders for the nth time tonight). Perhaps it's time to try again.


I still don't understand how straps continuously slide off shoulders, and it's still considered a design that everyone buys.

Are there bras that have more inset straps? I cannot wear racerback bras, because I've had a spinal fusion, so racerback designs tug on my spinal-fused neck and impart real pain.

I've seen clips that hold the straps together, but I cannot see how to add that clip and still get a bra on!

For my bathing suit (when on our boat), I literally use a shoe string, and have DH tie my straps together at the top of my shoulderblades to avoid the straps falling off my shoulders.

Years ago, someone with a startup was marketing a bra they claimed was designed by people who designed bridges. I'd really have liked to know whether any of their technical/structural design team members were women. (I suspect not.) I was tempted to contact them with my comments, including a diagram of the forces acting on bra straps. (Some women are engineers!) The basic solution is to anchor closer together and/or higher up. I suppose a T-back or "racer"(?) back would do the job, but that seems to be a feature mainly of sports bras. At a minimum, they'd need to anchor closer to the middle, both front and back. They probably don't do that more for fashion reasons. Some shirts have scoop necks, etc.

The worst strap-sliding culprits I've ever worn came with a hang tag proclaiming that their straps were not going to slip. Grr!

This is an entire TED talk about why and how bra sizes are so screwed up. Enlightening chart at about 13:50.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrxJ-9_qXeM

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #32 on: February 18, 2025, 11:05:13 AM »
No ones mentioned the expensive bane most women everywhere suffer from in the underwear word? Ill fitting, painful, expensive bras. I'm fairly small so easy to find some relativly cheaper good fitting supportive bras but I don't know how some larger breasted women did it!

I am very well endowed and I don't wear uncomfortable bras. I switched to Puma sports bras years ago except when I dress up.

I just accept that my breasts don't always exist in their most esthetic, sexually appealing position the majority of the time.

But as someone who has been objectified for my breasts my entire life, I'm A-OK with that, lol!
I guess I missed the bra posts by @crocheted_stache but my problem is I like underwire bras (even if I don't really need to have them) and the damn things are constantly breaking. I tried hand washing but doesn't matter. Work out bras don't feel supportive enough and get too smoshed. So I end up spending way too much money on underwrite bras that don't last. I do buy better quality name brand ones (Bali etc) at a discount at places like Ross or TJ Maxx so not terrible and they carry my size but larger breasted women friends are dropping $50 for one bra at regular stores.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25563
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #33 on: February 18, 2025, 11:14:59 AM »
Prefacing this with the fact that I'm a guy and have limited understanding of the problems of boobs . . . but I always figured if you could just get a wide tensor bandage and wrap it tight enough a few times around to snug them in that would seem like a good solution for exercise needs.  No?

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20612
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #34 on: February 18, 2025, 11:18:01 AM »
Prefacing this with the fact that I'm a guy and have limited understanding of the problems of boobs . . . but I always figured if you could just get a wide tensor bandage and wrap it tight enough a few times around to snug them in that would seem like a good solution for exercise needs.  No?

No.

Sandi_k

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
  • Location: California
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #35 on: February 18, 2025, 05:20:20 PM »
Prefacing this with the fact that I'm a guy and have limited understanding of the problems of boobs . . . but I always figured if you could just get a wide tensor bandage and wrap it tight enough a few times around to snug them in that would seem like a good solution for exercise needs.  No?

Nope. Sweaty mess, under synthetic bandages. Plus uniboob, and flattened.

Finally - you'd have to tape the first piece of the bandage to your skin, and then how do you pass it under the arm and across the back, to under the second arm?

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 21086
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #36 on: February 18, 2025, 08:25:04 PM »
Prefacing this with the fact that I'm a guy and have limited understanding of the problems of boobs . . . but I always figured if you could just get a wide tensor bandage and wrap it tight enough a few times around to snug them in that would seem like a good solution for exercise needs.  No?

Did you pass this idea by your wife?  How hysterically did she laugh?

Ps. I have the impress you are married.  Maybe not?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25563
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #37 on: February 18, 2025, 08:27:45 PM »
Prefacing this with the fact that I'm a guy and have limited understanding of the problems of boobs . . . but I always figured if you could just get a wide tensor bandage and wrap it tight enough a few times around to snug them in that would seem like a good solution for exercise needs.  No?

Nope. Sweaty mess, under synthetic bandages. Plus uniboob, and flattened.

I feel like we have the technology with synthetic materials that it would be possible to make one that wouldn't be too sweaty . . . and flattened was actually the design I was going for.  if it's flattened it shouldn't bounce around so much, which I figured was the main problem.  Is uniboob a problem?


Finally - you'd have to tape the first piece of the bandage to your skin, and then how do you pass it under the arm and across the back, to under the second arm?

This is a potential design flaw.  I feel like I have the shoulder flexibility to do it, but now I want to mock up prototypes to be sure.

Did you pass this idea by your wife?  How hysterically did she laugh?

Ps. I have the impress you are married.  Maybe not?

Patience of a saint, that woman.  Although when she said it wouldn't work, I didn't push the idea.

crocheted_stache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #38 on: February 18, 2025, 09:28:57 PM »
No ones mentioned the expensive bane most women everywhere suffer from in the underwear word? Ill fitting, painful, expensive bras. I'm fairly small so easy to find some relativly cheaper good fitting supportive bras but I don't know how some larger breasted women did it!

I am very well endowed and I don't wear uncomfortable bras. I switched to Puma sports bras years ago except when I dress up.

I just accept that my breasts don't always exist in their most esthetic, sexually appealing position the majority of the time.

But as someone who has been objectified for my breasts my entire life, I'm A-OK with that, lol!
I guess I missed the bra posts by @crocheted_stache but my problem is I like underwire bras (even if I don't really need to have them) and the damn things are constantly breaking. I tried hand washing but doesn't matter. Work out bras don't feel supportive enough and get too smoshed. So I end up spending way too much money on underwrite bras that don't last. I do buy better quality name brand ones (Bali etc) at a discount at places like Ross or TJ Maxx so not terrible and they carry my size but larger breasted women friends are dropping $50 for one bra at regular stores.

You can have all the underwires. I prefer wireless. But maybe that's because I've rarely found bras that really fit, and because I don't tend to need a whole lot of support. Anyway, wires always seem stabby to me. 

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20612
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #39 on: February 19, 2025, 03:35:13 AM »
Prefacing this with the fact that I'm a guy and have limited understanding of the problems of boobs . . . but I always figured if you could just get a wide tensor bandage and wrap it tight enough a few times around to snug them in that would seem like a good solution for exercise needs.  No?

Nope. Sweaty mess, under synthetic bandages. Plus uniboob, and flattened.

I feel like we have the technology with synthetic materials that it would be possible to make one that wouldn't be too sweaty . . . and flattened was actually the design I was going for.  if it's flattened it shouldn't bounce around so much, which I figured was the main problem.  Is uniboob a problem?


Finally - you'd have to tape the first piece of the bandage to your skin, and then how do you pass it under the arm and across the back, to under the second arm?

This is a potential design flaw.  I feel like I have the shoulder flexibility to do it, but now I want to mock up prototypes to be sure.

Did you pass this idea by your wife?  How hysterically did she laugh?

Ps. I have the impress you are married.  Maybe not?

Patience of a saint, that woman.  Although when she said it wouldn't work, I didn't push the idea.

Smart.

Just no man, don't try to argue any reason why it could work, it wouldn't work, it's a horrible idea that wouldn't work even remotely as well as a much more comfortable, light support sports bra.

Just no.

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #40 on: February 19, 2025, 09:52:03 AM »
No ones mentioned the expensive bane most women everywhere suffer from in the underwear word? Ill fitting, painful, expensive bras. I'm fairly small so easy to find some relativly cheaper good fitting supportive bras but I don't know how some larger breasted women did it!

I am very well endowed and I don't wear uncomfortable bras. I switched to Puma sports bras years ago except when I dress up.

I just accept that my breasts don't always exist in their most esthetic, sexually appealing position the majority of the time.

But as someone who has been objectified for my breasts my entire life, I'm A-OK with that, lol!
I guess I missed the bra posts by @crocheted_stache but my problem is I like underwire bras (even if I don't really need to have them) and the damn things are constantly breaking. I tried hand washing but doesn't matter. Work out bras don't feel supportive enough and get too smoshed. So I end up spending way too much money on underwrite bras that don't last. I do buy better quality name brand ones (Bali etc) at a discount at places like Ross or TJ Maxx so not terrible and they carry my size but larger breasted women friends are dropping $50 for one bra at regular stores.

You can have all the underwires. I prefer wireless. But maybe that's because I've rarely found bras that really fit, and because I don't tend to need a whole lot of support. Anyway, wires always seem stabby to me.
I like wireless but I found most are the moulded slightly padded thicker types of bras which I don't like. I do wear non-wired sports bras a lot but too smooshy uni-booby for regular clothes. I can technically go braless (small chested, never had kids) but don't like too. I just bought a bunch of discounted name brand underwrite bras at Ross and they are really nice but I don't think I'd be willing to pay full price for them.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20612
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #41 on: February 19, 2025, 10:57:00 AM »
No ones mentioned the expensive bane most women everywhere suffer from in the underwear word? Ill fitting, painful, expensive bras. I'm fairly small so easy to find some relativly cheaper good fitting supportive bras but I don't know how some larger breasted women did it!

I am very well endowed and I don't wear uncomfortable bras. I switched to Puma sports bras years ago except when I dress up.

I just accept that my breasts don't always exist in their most esthetic, sexually appealing position the majority of the time.

But as someone who has been objectified for my breasts my entire life, I'm A-OK with that, lol!
I guess I missed the bra posts by @crocheted_stache but my problem is I like underwire bras (even if I don't really need to have them) and the damn things are constantly breaking. I tried hand washing but doesn't matter. Work out bras don't feel supportive enough and get too smoshed. So I end up spending way too much money on underwrite bras that don't last. I do buy better quality name brand ones (Bali etc) at a discount at places like Ross or TJ Maxx so not terrible and they carry my size but larger breasted women friends are dropping $50 for one bra at regular stores.

You can have all the underwires. I prefer wireless. But maybe that's because I've rarely found bras that really fit, and because I don't tend to need a whole lot of support. Anyway, wires always seem stabby to me.
I like wireless but I found most are the moulded slightly padded thicker types of bras which I don't like. I do wear non-wired sports bras a lot but too smooshy uni-booby for regular clothes. I can technically go braless (small chested, never had kids) but don't like too. I just bought a bunch of discounted name brand underwrite bras at Ross and they are really nice but I don't think I'd be willing to pay full price for them.

These are great, and you can take the thin pad out.

I'm a 30-32F and my sister is a 34A and we both wear them 99% of the time.

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #42 on: February 20, 2025, 09:33:53 AM »
No ones mentioned the expensive bane most women everywhere suffer from in the underwear word? Ill fitting, painful, expensive bras. I'm fairly small so easy to find some relativly cheaper good fitting supportive bras but I don't know how some larger breasted women did it!

I am very well endowed and I don't wear uncomfortable bras. I switched to Puma sports bras years ago except when I dress up.

I just accept that my breasts don't always exist in their most esthetic, sexually appealing position the majority of the time.

But as someone who has been objectified for my breasts my entire life, I'm A-OK with that, lol!
I guess I missed the bra posts by @crocheted_stache but my problem is I like underwire bras (even if I don't really need to have them) and the damn things are constantly breaking. I tried hand washing but doesn't matter. Work out bras don't feel supportive enough and get too smoshed. So I end up spending way too much money on underwrite bras that don't last. I do buy better quality name brand ones (Bali etc) at a discount at places like Ross or TJ Maxx so not terrible and they carry my size but larger breasted women friends are dropping $50 for one bra at regular stores.

You can have all the underwires. I prefer wireless. But maybe that's because I've rarely found bras that really fit, and because I don't tend to need a whole lot of support. Anyway, wires always seem stabby to me.
I like wireless but I found most are the moulded slightly padded thicker types of bras which I don't like. I do wear non-wired sports bras a lot but too smooshy uni-booby for regular clothes. I can technically go braless (small chested, never had kids) but don't like too. I just bought a bunch of discounted name brand underwrite bras at Ross and they are really nice but I don't think I'd be willing to pay full price for them.

These are great, and you can take the thin pad out.

I'm a 30-32F and my sister is a 34A and we both wear them 99% of the time.
Was there a link or picture attached? It's not showing up if so. Someone said I should look into Pepper Brand bras as they make them for smaller women but they are all over $50 and some for $150!! YIKES! My favorite bra is just a plain underwire bra from Hanes made for tee shirts (thinner  material but with those "petals" for extra coverage). It was like $6 at a discount store. I actually tell that bra I love it (seriously) and even though it not "sexy" it's the only bra I really like. And of course I can no longer find it.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20612
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #43 on: February 20, 2025, 05:09:07 PM »
] Was there a link or picture attached? It's not showing up if so. Someone said I should look into Pepper Brand bras as they make them for smaller women but they are all over $50 and some for $150!! YIKES! My favorite bra is just a plain underwire bra from Hanes made for tee shirts (thinner  material but with those "petals" for extra coverage). It was like $6 at a discount store. I actually tell that bra I love it (seriously) and even though it not "sexy" it's the only bra I really like. And of course I can no longer find it.

Dammit, here's the link

https://www.amazon.ca/PUMA-Womens-Seamless-Sports-Black/dp/B079K98S19/ref=asc_df_B079K98S19/?tag=googlemobshop-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=706833214052&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=3128814589699529698&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9000004&hvtargid=pla-567827340453&psc=1&mcid=b51d035718c73ecdb2d02f0bd0c699e3&gad_source=1

spartana

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1373
  • FIREd at 36
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #44 on: February 20, 2025, 09:27:22 PM »
Thanks^^. I do have some of those (but not Puma brand) and they are a bit too much fabric for me - especially the thicker band at midriff level. Plus the length causes them to ride up under my arms and aren't quite as supportive as I'd like. I have a bunch of smaller sports bras called sports sharks bras I think and they work good for me. Would be WAY to non-supportive for women with your size.  I think that's why I like underwrite bras - the thin wire is very supportive so the bras can be physically smaller overall compared to other non-underwrite bras that have thicker bands and/or thick (longer) sides that dig into my arm pits (pain and rash!!).  Of course hate underscores due to breakage and the need to replace more often.

ETA: they are called Gym Shark minimal sports bras. Expensive (of course).
« Last Edit: February 20, 2025, 09:30:28 PM by spartana »

Sandi_k

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
  • Location: California
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #45 on: February 20, 2025, 10:47:52 PM »
I have underwire Wacoal bras - I've only ever had one where the underwire broke. They're $50 each, but they last for 2-3 years.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20612
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #46 on: February 21, 2025, 04:38:59 AM »
I have underwire Wacoal bras - I've only ever had one where the underwire broke. They're $50 each, but they last for 2-3 years.

Yeah, I have never had an underwire break ever, even with cheap bras. There just be some ribcage shapes that put strain on them because I've heard of some people who regularly have them break.

Turtle

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Pencil Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 822
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #47 on: February 21, 2025, 07:47:27 AM »
For any guys skim reading this thread - the TL;DR is that even pricey men’s underwear is still cheaper than a good bra. 

Sounds like yet another form of pink tax to me.


Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 20612
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #48 on: February 21, 2025, 08:00:00 AM »
For any guys skim reading this thread - the TL;DR is that even pricey men’s underwear is still cheaper than a good bra. 

Sounds like yet another form of pink tax to me.

It is.

The pink tax comes from the problem that breasts don't just need support, there is a social expectation that they will be supported in a way that is sexually appealing esthetically.

And that requires extremely precise, customized engineering for the enormous range of breasts that exist in the world, to a point that the metal foundations will fracture for some women because of the angles of forces involved.

The dreaded uniboob was mentioned, which is a common phenomenon of breasts being compressed in an unflattering manner with most bras that are more comfortable.

If men's testicles needed to be lifted and separated at all times when in public, then men's undergarments would also be heavily engineered and customized. But dudes just get their sacs gently cradled in modal and call it a fucking day.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25563
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Non-Mustachian Underwear?
« Reply #49 on: February 21, 2025, 02:22:24 PM »
I don't get why uniboob is considered unflattering.