I’ve never seen men’s underpants with pockets. But I’m also not researching the topic extensively, so it’s possible this is a development in undergarment tech that I’m not aware of.
I dated a girl once who was amazed by the “pocket” in my boxer-briefs until she found it it was actually just the weird hole thing they put in the front that acts as a fly.
I think she found some sports underwear with a pocket to put a cup in
I have compression shorts that I run in that are the closest thing. Otherwise, if I’m just in underwear, or maybe a pair of gym shorts with no pocket, just throwing the phone in the waistband is sufficient. Just need something better for running.
I wonder if it’s talking about the fold in the front to piss through
Picked up a pair at American eagle that did without even realizing it. Best pair of underpants
Skill issue. Buy men’s clothes. Problem solved.
Why should women have to buy clothes that fit poorly and are uncomfortable just to get functional pockets?
To tank sales of women’s clothing without pockets? 🤷♂️
And uncomfortable? Please. Our clothes are comfy af. Even when I order online, comfort is never a complaint. I’ve had problems with fabric, size, colour, stitching etc but never about feeling comfortable.
Our clothes are comfy af
Not if you have curves, unfortunately. You can size up and belt down, but then you’re left with a ton of extra fabric wadded up around your waist and the belt buckle will ride up and pinch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket
In medieval Europe, early pocket-like openings called fitchets appeared in the 13th century. These vertical slits, cut into the outer tunic, allowed access to a purse or keys suspended from the girdle beneath.[3] Historian Rebecca Unsworth notes that pockets became more visible in the late 15th century,[4] and their use spread widely in the 16th century.[4]
Later, pockets were often worn like purses on a belt, concealed under a coat or jerkin to deter pickpocketing, with access through a slit in the outer garment.
By the 17th century, pockets were sewn into men’s clothing, while women’s remained as separate tie-on pouches hidden beneath skirts.[5][6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reticule_(handbag)
A reticule, also known as a ridicule or indispensable, was a type of small handbag or purse, similar to a modern evening bag, used mainly from 1795 to 1820.[1]
The reticule became popular with the advent of Regency fashions in the late 18th century. Previously, women had carried personal belongings in pockets tied around the waist, but the columnar skirts and thin fabrics that had come into style made pockets essentially unusable.
Sure, sure, but women get two prison pockets.
With enough cleavage, women get other places to stash stuff too.
Just buy the pants that have pockets then, problem solved.
I remember watching this TV fashion contest thing quite a long time ago. The host of this contest was this old, wrinkly French lady who was a long time veteran in women’s fashion (apparently).
So in the episode the upstart designers had to create… I think… Three fashionable pants for women. One of the contestants created all three of her pants with pockets, and I think one of them had some excessive pockets.
She was dismissed by the host immediately, before the model even wore any of the pants. Basically the episode was already decided, as that contestant got eliminated on the spot.
The reason? Well, that veteran fashion designer stated something along the lines of; “The female form is the most beautiful and powerful thing we have, and we can’t have pockets ruin that. It’s for women to accessorise with a handbag”.
This stuck with me for all these years, because I was so revulsed when I saw that. What a load of bullshit. A load of pretentious garbage.
Is she getting mixed up with the fly? I’ve never seen a phone pocket, or any pocket, and don’t quite see the purpose
They exist!
I don’t think they’re overly common but she must be referring to men’s underpants like this:
👅
That seam right down the middle doesn’t look like it would be comfortable
Yeah, but that’s the only way to get such hammock-like cupping around the boys. And apparently I don’t notice it. I had to check and it turns out all mine have them.
Cope and seethe women!
What is up with the influx of misogynistic rhetoric on Lemmy lately? We don’t support that here.
Its tongue in cheeck. Of all the inequalities between women and men this is super low on the list. Have you heard how actual misogynists speak?
honestly, among other things, they say things like “cope and seethe” lmao
I get that you were being satirical but it didn’t translate well to me either haha
“Haha I was just kidding” is precisely what people say when called out on insults like this.
It’s not funny, and yes, it’s exactly the type of things misogynists say.
If someone is unironically basing a sense of gender superiority on having pockets I feel bad for them.
Old hag shouting at clouds.
Considering the amount of complaints about this issue, wouldn’t there be a screaming demand for them in clothing stores?
THERE IS! We complain and cry and scream but nothing is done because it’s rarely a woman deciding that. It’s men. The few that DO have decent pockets are always sold out.
And a woman is less sexy if you can see the outline of something in her fucking pocket, so of course, like always, a woman’s comfort must be sacrificed.
Then there you have a once in a lifetime opportunity to get rich. Go get and put your money where your mouth is.
I have a feeling that it’s not quite as popular as you might think.
Every woman I’ve ever known has complained about this when brought up.
Then fix it. Put your money on it if you’re sure about it. I know I’m not.
This is basically an “I can’t have my cake and eat it, too” complaint. If none of your pants have good enough pockets, it’s either because someone else is buying your clothes or because you didn’t prioritize having pockets when you bought them.
When buying women’s pants or shorts (and even dresses and skirts), you have the choice between a pair that has decent pockets and a pair that doesn’t, generally because the designer chose to prioritize aesthetics over pockets. If you buy the cuter pair, despite their lack of suitable pockets, you’re reinforcing the designer’s decision.
Even leggings / yoga pants and short running shorts / leggings have versions with pockets. Not every brand, sure, but enough.
With men’s pants and shorts, there’s much less variety. You have to go out of your way to find pants without decent pockets, but at the same time:
- Your pants and shorts are all bulkier and thicker than the equivalent women’s style
- Your shorts all come down to the knee, if not a bit further
- You don’t have the option of skirts, dresses, capris, leggings, etc…
- You don’t get the same options within a given style, i.e., far fewer embellishments, less stretch (in, e.g., jeans), often fewer colors, and most cuts are looser
Now, maybe the store you’re shopping at or the brand you love doesn’t sell women’s pants with pockets. I’m sure there are many like this. If it bothers you, find another store that does. Buy from a different brand.
Every single pair of women’s pants I have bought in the past four years, regardless of brand or store have had no pockets at all, or pockets so small you could only fit a quarter in them.
Please fuck off with this shit.
To be clear, I’m not saying most women’s pants have pockets. I’m saying that there are options, and I’m of the opinion that if you care about something enough to complain about it, you should also care about it enough to do something about it.
I own dozens of pairs of women’s pants and shorts with pockets large enough to comfortably fit my cell phone. Several pairs where I can not-so-comfortably. Probably a dozen each of dresses and skirts with decent pockets, too.
Would you like some recommendations?
