Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

341

It's so obvious. All of you wearing underwear are conforming to the tranny agenda by tucking your dick away.

The tranny thing and also seem like tip-of-the-spear phenomena but they are really just continuations of a de-masculisation process that has plagued humanity ever since the dawn of industrial society. The explosion of textile manufacturing and its self-promotion via "marketing" gave rise to the need for new products. One of them, male underwear, has the function of padding the area around your genitals and tucking away your masculinity.

Requiring undergarments for females, of course, makes sense for a number of reasons. In fact, the need for this is most likely where the concept originated. All the more laughable, then, that "modern men" are saddled with this "necessity".

Besides the obviously humiliating nature of this, underwear isn't good for your nads. Like so many "conveniences" of industrial society - microplastics, porn, "vegetable" oil, refined sugar and corn syrup - it just so conveniently happens to be a direct affront to male biology. You pay a lot of money for this privilege, too.

So what's the purpose for it, then, if the cost of it is lowering your sperm count and testosterone levels? What is the benefit?

You could argue hiding your dick is good. Oh, maybe it would make some woman in the workplace feel uncomfortable if she could see your rod swinging around in the left leg of your slacks. Everyone should be considerate, right?

Better just tuck it away and admit industrial society has made you its bitch.

What a humiliation so many men endure.

It's so obvious. All of you wearing underwear are conforming to the tranny agenda by tucking your dick away. The tranny thing and also [heterosexual tucking](/s/tucking) seem like tip-of-the-spear phenomena but they are really just continuations of a de-masculisation process that has plagued humanity ever since the dawn of industrial society. The explosion of textile manufacturing and its self-promotion via "marketing" gave rise to the need for new products. One of them, male underwear, has the function of padding the area around your genitals and tucking away your masculinity. Requiring undergarments for females, of course, makes sense for a number of reasons. In fact, the need for this is most likely where the concept originated. All the more laughable, then, that "modern men" are saddled with this "necessity". Besides the obviously humiliating nature of this, underwear isn't good for your nads. Like so many "conveniences" of industrial society - microplastics, porn, "vegetable" oil, refined sugar and corn syrup - it just so *conveniently happens* to be a direct affront to male biology. You pay a lot of money for this privilege, too. So what's the purpose for it, then, if the cost of it is lowering your sperm count and testosterone levels? What is the benefit? You could argue hiding your dick is *good*. Oh, maybe it would make some *woman in the workplace* feel uncomfortable if she could see your rod swinging around in the left leg of your slacks. Everyone should be considerate, right? Better just tuck it away and admit industrial society has made you its bitch. What a humiliation so many men endure.

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts

What is this faggot nonsense? Everyone should wear undergarments. I don't tuck my dick into my boxers or briefs. It's visibly there behind the cloth and swinging low like a sweet chariot. I don't pretend to be something I'm not and am a biological male so I have no issues.

[–] • 3 pts

> biological male

using the language of the enemy, I see. Is there any male other than a biological one?

Anyway, what's the point of underwear if it's so important?

[–] • 0 pt

According to the LGBTQASJW clownworld there is. Even men can become pregnant now according to these nutcases.

[–] • 0 pt

Why go along with it, though? You're not the LGBwhatever community so why use their language? Biological male? Just man.

[–] • 4 pts

I'm just here to drink and follow this thread

[–] • 1 pt
[–] • 1 pt

Now now, let's not get carried away

[–] • 4 pts

Thinking about other men's dicks is gay. Change my mind.

[–] • 5 pts

Predictably some weaker men will find this thread offensive and respond with insults.

We can't be too hard on them though, because they are at the mercy of an imbalanced endocrine system resulting from underwear-constricted genitals.

[–] • 2 pts

Predictably some weaker men will find this thread offensive and respond with insults.

I merely stated that spending time thinking about men's dicks is gay. I can see why that offends you.

[–] • 6 pts

See his shame? His denial? This is what underwear does to a man's psyche.

[–] • 4 pts

The underwear shills came crawling out of the woodwork for this. Really odd that grown men would get so defensive over clothing.

[–] • 2 pts

The underwear shills came crawling out of the woodwork for this. Really odd that grown men would get so defensive over clothing.

Please tell me why you think the statement "Thinking about other men's dicks is gay. Change my mind." is representative of me shilling for wearing underwear? Anticlutch did say to wear boxers, but I made a completely distinct statement not related to underwear at all. I find it interesting that you conflate my statement with shilling for underwear. That's very much like the language manipulation that tribe members do when they attack people who they disagree with. That's as fair a statement for me to make as your statement towards me. Anticlutch and I were the only non-OP (or you) commenters so you definitely aimed it at the two of us and complete hyperbole since two commenters is somehow a huge number to you.

[–] • 4 pts (edited )

Anticlutch did say to wear boxers, but I made a completely distinct statement not related to underwear at all. I find it interesting that you conflate my statement with shilling for underwear.

Notice he won't just plainly say what he thinks. He sees their side is losing ground on the point of underwear being tucking and switches to their only other viable response - insults. He doesn't want to think about what he's done to his testosterone levels or sperm count by wearing underwear all these years. So like a woman he uses emotiveness to try to shift focus to something insubstantive.

[–] • 3 pts

Notice he won't just plainly say what he thinks. He sees their side is losing ground on the point of underwear being tucking and switches to their only other viable response - insults.

I plainly said you are gay for thinking about men's dicks. That's what I think.

But if you insist, I believe it is for each man to choose for themselves whether they wear underwear or not. Your interpretation is juvenile and simplistic because it does not take into account the multitude of variables each man faces in his choice of clothing for his line of work or lifestyle. You make an assertion that is a dichotomy when the the reality of the situation cannot be boiled down to only two options.

You gave women wearing underwear a pass without explaining how it benefits them, but you also failed to realize that there are also benefits to men wearing the types of garments they choose. Why you have so much concern for what is inside a man's pants is beyond me. You are just coming off as either gay or a concern troll here.

He doesn't want to think about what he's done to his testosterone levels or sperm count by wearing underwear all these years.

Why are you assuming I wear underwear?

So like a woman he uses emotiveness to try to shift focus to something insubstantive.

I called you gay. Like a woman you are reading into that statement many things that were not said at all. You're just cunt-hurt that I called you gay instead of playing along with your men's underwear fetish. Show me where in my first comment I say anything at all about underwear. You can't do it because it's not there and you then resorted to insulting me. You did what you accuse me of. How very (((gay))) of you.

[–] • 1 pt

I support this message

[–] • 1 pt

wearing anything but boxers

Congratulations on lowering your test.

[–] • 5 pts (edited )

This is the standard cuckservative response. They seek not to conserve human dignity but to moderate it's decline under industrial society by making rules for it.

The fact that Science™ has made an allowance that a certain type of underwear might not reduce testosterone as much as others, gives this pedestrian an excuse to ignore the absolutely humiliating nature of underwear as a whole.

It's "as long as they come here legally" energy. "As long as you wear your boxers and not briefs"... then what? Then it doesn't count as tucking (which is what it is)? Then tucking is ok? What?

[–] • 0 pt

(((morbo))) already dealt with you. Faggot.

[–] • 3 pts

Look how mad they get once confronted with reality.

[–] • 2 pts

our dicks live rent free in Ivan's head

[–] • 1 pt

Some of us swing lower than others. Proper underwear keep the chafing low and minimize the necessity of constantly repositioning. Those of you who don't have low hanging fruit will never understand.

[–] • 2 pts

Sounds like a cope but at least you gave a reason for it. The first 12 hours of replies were just angry NPC soyjaks.

[–] • 1 pt

Yes some of us swing low. Really low. It’s why I hate urinals..that water is cold.

[–] • 1 pt

When I was young I read alot of viet nam war books. When I found out you could go commando I never looked back.

[–] • 1 pt

use the flap to keep your cock and balls outside of the underwear so you aren’t tucking.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Wait wait wait…are you talking briefs in particular? Or do you consider all underwear, including boxers, to be faggy?

If boxers are also “tucking” in your opinion, then how is wearing boxers really any different than just wearing pants? And if you’re against boxers, then you should also be against pants. And if you’re against pants, it means that you wish men would..not wear pants? Or should we be wearing kilts? So many questions…

I sometimes go commando, sometimes wear boxers.. it’s probably 80% boxers, 20% commando. But the difference between the two is fairy negligible..negligible enough, in fact, that’s it’s not even really a variable from a “tightness” or “squeezing my junk” standpoint. All the boxers really do is soak up sweat and provide a smoother, more comfortable material for my boys to rub against. But they are certainly no more restrictive than going commando.

[–] • 0 pt

Pants.

[–] • 1 pt

That doesn’t answer the question. At all.

[–] • 0 pt

From the hygiene perspective underwear makes a lot of sense. Now you change my mind. Also, what's your opinion on socks? Does wearing them also confirm the tranny agenda?