If you wear regular boxer short as underwear, are you not freeballing? Granted you are wearing underwear but they have the same fit as just regular shorts. I for one have never worn boxer shorts as underwear. I have been brief guy most my life. cheap fruit of the loom. To me underwear is just that. unless you are going to the doctor or plan to get lucky out on a date who is ever gonna see it?? As you all know I have been a regular here since about 2005. I freeball about half of the time. depending on weather. I hate to freeball in hot humid weather. my testicles tend to get very irritated rubbing against my inner thigh I like the felling of having everything in check and not flopping around. Love to freeball in my 501s levis specially on cool days but its harder to hide you are freeballing than in other pants and shorts because if your penis is to right or left and the rubbing of the demin or somthing you see get you aroused it is there for everyone to see. It happened the other day but I was wearing my shirt out and it was long enough to cover it. my wife hates it when that happens, says it does not look good. sure feels great though.

This question comes up from time to time- exactly what is the definition of "freeballing"? It is true that when you are wearing boxers your balls are hanging free, but I think for the purpose of this forum, it also includes the requirement that there is only one layer of garment between you and the outside world. It's as much psychological as physical- going against conventional norms.

Underwear is first something to keep your pants and shirt cleaner from the inside, especially your underpants. But I am no purist on the matter either. I mostly wear underwear, mostly bikini briefs and often thongs. I actually find (some) thongs more comfortable than anything else. Yet under some things I wear nothing--sometimes. I generally do not wear underwear under most shorts, especially gym or knit shorts, and sweatpants, which of course are also knit. Sometimes not under jeans.

I do not wear boxer shorts as underpants because there is too much bulk there, mostly. It seems like boxer shorts are made much fuller these days. Jockey, for a while, sold a trim cut boxer short and it could be had in nylon. But I was already wearing only briefs then. Nylon briefs, as well as other variations, used to be more widely available, or so it seems.

I do not understand where so called boxer briefs came from, which are something like truncated long johns. But anyone can wear them and it won't bother me, as long as no one cares what I wear or don't wear.

I have mentioned in another post about my wife not wearing underwear for a while to avoid the dreaded panty line (called the visible panty line by some authorities) but I guess it turned out not to be so important. While she never really like my wearing bikini swimwear, she never expressed much of any opinion on my underwear (which I guess turned out not to be so important). But she was pleased to learn, first hand, that tight underwear did not necessarily affect your sperm count or something like that.

These days I take every opportunity not to wear anything below the waist and above the ankles but, alas, it has been below freezing all day. Besides, I have been in public all day, too.

I've visited the 24 hour supermarket before at about 9pm at night wearing a T-shirt, boxer shorts and trainers. I was wearing the first two anyway in the house whilst watching TV after a shower, and I really couldn't be bothered finding anything else to put on, so I just grabbed the trainers and went. The store was well lit, and it was 47F outside. Other people were walking around, but no one seemed to care. Quite suprising I thought as normal shorts don't normally have the make spelled out across across the wasteband. They were black however.

Your wife is totally wrong about the outlines of your cock showing. It's totally kewl. Luv it!

Freeballing is what it is. It is a natural lifestyle based on one's choice and comfort. I am a fulltime fb and I have to agree with the others on this one. Your wife, though I am sure intending good things, is not correct on this matter. Maybe some more of the dudes on here would ring in on the discussion and offer additional insight for dialog. My vote is with my colleagues, if things show up, it is just natural...

Thanks for your post!

I think that the offense is mostly in the mind on this point. It is a funny thing, this semi-exposure of body parts. It is entirely possible to be on display, so to speak, no matter what sort of underwear you are or are not wearing. Yet at the same time some sort of display is almost expected, though that seems to apply more to women than to men. The (unwritten) rules can be conflicting at times, but what else is new.

For instance, a woman has breasts and is expected to make the most of them. That is, she is expected to do whatever is necessary, and something usually is necessary, to insure that her breasts are of the correct shape and in the right place and preferably immovable. Size is less important but larger is usually desirable. But on the other hand, evidence of erect nipples is considered objectionable most of the time, as if the existance of nipples were somehow a secret.

These rules change from time to time, not surprisingly, and the folks who make the rules--that is, enforcing the rules, that someone else made 40 years ago, are, well, 40 years behind the times.

In older photographs it is often obvious that men have "things" between their legs, in that there is often a noticeable bulge at the top of one of their trouser legs. Do you suppose their women objected? Such an appearance would probably be objectionable these days, yet it is perfectly natural and almost unavoidable if you are wearing suspenders (braces) and not wearing brief-type underwear.

I recall a funny moment from a few years ago. We had a small one-man print shop where I worked. The printer, who happened to be black and bore more than a passing resemblence to Mister T, dressed very casually most of the time, wearing sweat pants. There was no dress code for him but in any event, sweat pants can be very revealing. I recall sitting in a meeting when a middle aged woman (younger than I am now) commented on the bulge in his pants, how it bothered her a little but entirely in a humorous way. I don't think she was particularly disturbed but I was surprised at the time that she actually mentioned it in mixed company. Hard to write a rule about something like that.

Wives write all their own rules anyhow.

Interesting observations NRT. Yes, it weird how styles and taboos change through the years. I been around some six decades now and watch dress change from very conservative in the 1950s to very revealing in the '60s and '70s back to conservative now. But it doesn't necessary change in unison, for example sagging pants would have never been tolerated in the 1950s, and yet boys and men wore very short snug swimsuits then that would be unthinkable in today's era of long baggy swimwear. Likewise, I never saw sagging and butt cracks in the 1970s, yet conspicuous genital bulges were normal in that era of skin-hugging pants. Other things like going barefoot in public was common in late '60s and 70s but almost never seen today and it was common for young women to go brafree in casual wear which today is considered very slutty. So one can only wonder what the next turn in fashion will be.

That which is unthinkable just hasn't been thought of yet.

I'm one of those gay guys that as a youngster used to avidly look at the pics in National Geographic Magazine. I recall that Cretian women exposed their breasts while covering everything else in their classical period. And of course, I admired the cod pieces worn by men that added quite a bit of emphasis to the male genitals in days of yore. And then there were penis gords and penises tied in an upward position to men's waists.

Yes, fashion comes and goes. We're sort of living in one now that says men's cocks must be hidden - luckily not so much so in the gay world I inhabit.

I was also a devoted reader of the National Geographic. Although the Geographic still manages to get in a little gratutious bare flesh from time to time, I don't think they are quite as generous with it as they used to be. I recall an issue, probably from the 60's, that was about a young German boy (grade school age) that was spending time with some local African (I believe--maybe South Sea Island) youth and believe it or not, he was totally naked in many of the photos. Nothing like that would be published these days, I imagine.

Overall, I don't find the magazine nearly as interesting as it used to be. Their focus is less positive, more negative and they don't seem to find as many interesting places to write articles about as they once did. But maybe it's me. I do know that their presentation of things was often fairly posed but then I expect that the presence of a camera would always change things.

I remember seeing a photo in an article from the 1950's about Emily Dickensen's home in Amherst, Mass. It so happened that I had a summer job there after I finished high school--in 1964. So one Sunday I went to visit the house and was invited in by these two little old ladies that were living there then. I mentioned the photo and they said, "Oh, yes, they moved furniture around" and so on. The photo was definately posed.

Another article was about Northern Virginia from an issue around 1960. I live there now and recognized everything in most of the photos. Boy, were the photos ever posed, with people having the goofiest smiles.

Sometimes in more recent issues some of the less than fully dressed subjects have been shown in less than flattering poses but I guess photo styles change.

I might also add that depicitions of nudity in the National Geographic was, at one time, mostly limited to "natives," at least in photos. There was a series of articles on life in Ancient times in the 1950's that naturally had a great deal of nudity, mostly "non-native," and some was, well, very good looking. The same with more recent illustrations. There was a period in the 1970s and 1980s when there were more illustrations with the odd nude person, usually on the beach or in a hot spring. But there have been fewer such illustrations lately. In a way, I expect they may be reflecting that there is (apparently) less public nudity than there was 20 years ago.

Magazines in general became more free about nudity during the 1970s. Even "general circulation" magazines like Newsweek and the women's magazines my wife got often showed bare breasts in ads and article illustrations. I thought US was finally become mature in regards to the human body like European magazines had been for years. But alas, this ended in 1984 when conservative religious groups like the so-called "Moral Majority" began picketing stores that sold magazines with "nudity" in them. After this bare breasts disappeared from American magazines- accept for the porn ones ofcourse.

There was a time in the late 1950's and early 1960's when general interest magazines like Life and Look frequently published pin-up style photos and frequently "art" type photos that included nudes, sometimes (I think I recall) with full frontal nudity. I'm quite sure about the nudes because I specifically recall a spread on Imogen Cunningham, a well know photographer of years gone by, which included a female nude. Nude boys seem to have shown up fairly often, too, though I don't think nude girls had equal exposure. Regarding the full frontal, my memory of things in detail from 40 or 50 years ago is sometimes selective and sometimes inaccurate.

Even earlier nude males sometimes appeared in advertisments, usually as artwork as opposed to photos. I don't believe they were ever what you might call common.

I think something happened once full frontal nudes began appearing in magazines like Playboy and Penthouse, which I believe happened around 1970 or 1971. It isn't easy to put in words but before full nudity began appearing those magazines, there were lots of other magazines of pseudo seriousness like nudist magazines or body building magazines that were bought chiefly for their pin-up value. A surprising number of these magazines featured children, too. Although these publications had a serious side, their photography was something else. Anyway, I believe there was both a loss of innocence and at the same time a dropping of the facade of hypocrisy that allowed such things to exist. Or rather, allowed people to pretend such things did not exist. The conservative (read: reactionary) element of society saw the 1970's (rather than the 1960's) as going too far, especially with sexual things. Now pornographic magazines are available that hide nothing and make no pretentions about anything but they aren't available at the corner drug store anymore.

On the other hand, Like and Look have disappeared. And perhaps there just aren't any topless natives left anywhere for the Geographic to photograph.

Your mention of nudist magazines brings back memories. As you say- before 1970, magazines couldn't show genitals unless it was for "instructional" or "educational" purposes. Well some court ruling said that magazines about nudism were for "educational" purposes and exempt from the ban so 1960s magazine stands were full of big glossy nudist magazines which would make you think that half the people in America were nudists and most of them beautiful young women! Anyway- after the Penthouse ruling these nudists magazines practically vanished overnight showing what they were largely being bought for. Nevertheless, they had inspired many young people to become interested in nudism which was very popular in the late 1960s and '70s but now that these magazines are gone this valuable recruitment tool has been lost so nudism is literally dying from old age now with hardly any young people entering to replace the old ones.

While there were a number of glossy nudist magazines on (some) newsstands in the 1960s and on into the 1970s, I wouldn't say there were really all that many. It is so easy to exaggerate things and come away with a false picture of the way things really were. But I take your point.

I think nudists may have been a little embarassed about some of the magazines but put up with them because they got the word out. There were genuine advertisments and listings of clubs, which is how I ended up visiting one. I remember a stack of old nudist magazines lying on a table in the clubhouse. Clearly many were just a way to publish photos of naked people, mostly young women, but there were a lot of good articles. The attitudes and thinking reflected in the articles seems to have vanished along with the magazines. I keep wondering what most nudist looked like before, say, 1970.

Another thing is that photos were heavily air-brushed in nudist magazines in the 1950s and 1960s. If there was any educational value to the magazines, that pretty much eliminated it. And speaking of air-brushing, "men's" magazines like Playboy do not air-brush photos to eliminate any flaws a model may have. Aside from the fact that there are a lot of nearly flawless young women (sometimes medically assisted), the air-brushing is done on the model, not the photo. It's called makeup. Flaws in the photofinishing is, or used to be, done with paint brushes.

One thing that happened to the nudist resort business, if you can call it that, was that along came a new generation that were not "joiners." There's more to it than that but young people wanted to go nude at the beach rather than at a pool. They didn't even want to pay to park. They took the idea of a "free beach" very literally. And I guess I'm part of that crowd. Then that crowd started having their own children and the world changed again.

None of this had anything to do with freeballing, except the free part.

Well true, I didn't mean that nudist magazines socked you in the face at every newsstand, ofcourse they were kept in a discrete section so kids and prudish people wouldn't likely see them. It was kind of funny, the magazine store I frequented was a long narrow enclave sandwiched between other small stores, the general interest magazines like Life and Newsweek were near the front then the farther you went back the kinkier the magazines got, I don't think I ever had the nerve to go all the way to the back!

Anyway- I'd say the nudist movement really began a decline in the early '80s when Reagan was president and there was a real shift to conservatism in the country. I was hearing about one nudist beach or park after another closing- either from legal action or lack of business. Some years ago I read an article about one of the first and most famous nudist resorts closing it's gates- saying they couldn't afford to stay in business anymore because the current generation had no interest in nudism. It reminds me of drive-in movies- they were everywhere when we were young- today you can hardly find one.

And what does this have to do with freeballing? Well I think nudism is the ultimate in freeballing!