WTF does 'Boy-leg' even mean?
You've all seen it; right next to the bikini, full brief and the hi-rise wedge-ette 'thong'. The Boy-leg is among the newest trends in women's Reg Grundies. In Oz, a thong is a completely different thing and it's worn on your foot.
Why should boys be the only ones entitled to knickers that don't leave them with a flayed groin and a host of unmanageable irritations? Why are comfort and practicality the exclusive domain of males when it comes to underwear and most other garments?
And more importantly, why don't women speak up about this idiotic travesty, vote with their wallets and boycott flimsy and uncomfortable garments? Yes, some do but there must be a majority of women supporting the fallacy that females need 'delicate' feminine clothing otherwise it would not be marketed.
Are we dealing with the 21st Century's version of plump bodies, white hands and asphyxiating clothing that ultimately killed women? Or is it the fantasy of a tiny-footed woman who can neither fight nor flee from their master?
Back to the Boy-leg. They didn't even have the decency to call it a Man-leg. Pre-pubescent males apparently are accorded a set of comfortable, practical undergarments that women didn't deserve until recently. Go figure.
If anyone's wondering, I used to buy men's trunks or boxers, sew up the fly and walk the walk in comfort. I often have an unplanned dip in the ocean; shorts and a singlet make an OK swimsuit. A fancy bra and tight knickers - not so much.
And don't even get me started on women's shoes......
= new reply since forum marked as read
