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

©2025 Poal.co

1.5K

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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (50).
[–] • 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.

[–] • 3 pts

>Why are you assuming I wear underwear?

He can't just say "I don't wear underwear".

Instead he femininely tries to throw doubt that the exact reason he's attacking me isn't as obvious as it seems.