Talk:Jockstrap

Shape

Cups currently are available in two basic shapes. The classic shape is approximately rectangular when viewed from the front. The much newer shape is more like a long skinny triangle. This shape is also known as a banana cup after the brand that specializes in the shape. The banana shaped cups are by far the more comfortable to wear.

Cup protectors that don't use a pouch are also available. The waist band and straps attach directly to the cup often in a one size fits all fashion. These are designed to be worn over briefs, especially if the cup has holes in it. Otherwise the scrotum can be painfully pinched in the cup hole.

I've added links to all the brands of jockstrap. If you know more, change the redirect pages into articles about these things. Scott Gall 11:40, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

24.251.84.221 06:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC) This article is humourous and quite informative. Well done! :)

Ice hockey

Why is this article in Category:Ice hockey terminology? This appears to be the only element of clothing or safety gear that is in there. Helmets are also worn, but they too are just general sports gear. -Will Beback 19:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to move it to Category:Protective gear, which is under sporting goods. -Will Beback 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would a jockstrap be disposable?

I'm not quite sure I understand why there are a few sentences that state how jockstraps should be thrown away for sanitary reasons and that major sports teams sometimes use them once, then toss. A jockstrap is like any other garment, if it is put in the washing machine with hot water and detergent it is perfectly suitable to wear for years, as long as the elastic is still good and it fits the athlete.

History

The first two paragraphs seem to be contradictory. Bitbut 02:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The first two paragraphs of the History section are in DIRECT CONTRADICTION. I am tagging contradict as of today 66.108.207.217 01:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening statement

The into ends with this line: "They are sometimes worn by some people as general, everyday underwear." Is this a joke? It seems like a bit of an outlandish statement for an encyclopedia. I'm removing it until further discussion can show it aught to stay. Leekohlbradley 08:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wear them as regular underwear all the time. I don't like the feel of briefs or bikini underwear. I'm sure this is probably more common among gay men, though. Theygoboom13 08:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Jockstrap styles - Narrow waistband

"Since there is no material in the back, the waistband has no anchor causing it to roll and bind which makes it uncomfortable for long duration activities." I removed this observation from the sub-heading, on grounds of it being distinctly anecdotal. Extenebris 06:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved "posing" image further down the page

It seemed a little scrunched at the top, and with its weird aspect ratio, being right-aligned scrunched the text. Plus, it seemed more fitting in the "how to wear" section. Cheers. --slakr 03:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Added {{citations missing}} tag + some {{fact}} tags.

A quick note, I added a missing citations tag due to a bunch of facts and semi-statistics being stated without source. Please help add these sources by checking out Wikipedia's article on citing sources for the format and use of inline citations. Cheers. =) --slakr 03:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

UrbanDictionary

I question the relevance of including the fact that Urban Dictionary has multiple definitions for jockstrap.

Unnecessary sections

I feel that the following sections should be removed from the article:

• Wearing a jockstrap
• Laundering and general care
• Replacement and disposal

These seem unencyclopedic, and look like something more appropriate for an instructional website. It would probably be better if we provide links to this information instead. 156.34.224.202 (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed the sections, there are already links providing such information. 156.34.224.202 (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Taking out the "wearing instructions" again. It reads like softcore porn. There aren't instructions on how to wear a shirt, for example. PacificBoy 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many images

Has anyone noticed the major difference in this article from last year http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jockstrap&oldid=93652070 to today? It looks like Times Square for jockstrap fetishists. This isn't a fetish site but an encyclopedic site. While "jockstrap sniffing" may be a paraphilia I don't think it's worthy enough to warrant an image. The bear (big guy) with bad lighting??? Come on... That doesn't focus on the jockstrap! Now while I happen to HAVE a jockstrap fetish I just don't think it needs to be the focus of this article. My solution? We spin off the whole "subculture" of Jockstrap Fetish so we can split these articles apart... It's kinda looking like a low budget porno right now 67.162.197.186 (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. While the page was too plain last year, it now feels a bit inappropriate. I think the image with the bear, the sniffer, and maybe even the top image need to go. I'd replace the top one with something less sexually charged. The page is about the garment, not the fetish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.199.247 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the jocksniffing image as I thought it was unneccesary-besides the image is found in the jocksniffing article if anyone wishes to see it-

Articles should be illustrated. There isn't TOO many images in this article. Too many images would be when they outweight the text. The images are fine, and the guy wearing one is okay. It's good to have someone wearing them so readers can see what they look like. I agree that it may not be the best photo, but until we find a better one, it might stay. The image about jock sniffing is fine. It has to do with jock straps and It's related to the article. Also, I encourage you all to create accounts. Please remember to use edit summaries when editing articles, and signing you comments on talk pages like this one. Thanks. --Dan Leveille^TALK 17:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. It was better a year ago. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jockstrap&oldid=233804813] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.245.60 (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I expnaded the design section with a reduced, edited version of the styles section from this older edit. 75.60.193.248 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lolz. Nice Article.

Jock-Sniffing? Thats hilarious! Lol. Nice article. But arent encyclopedia articles not supposed to make you laugh? Shouldnt Jock-Sniffing belong in paraphilia (aka Fetish) section? Just wondering. Cheers,71.76.153.217 (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've declined the suggested speedy deletion of this article and removed the tag. The reason given was that the more appropriate name of the garment was "athletic supporter"; a disambiguation page exists for that term, this one has ample references and citations, etc. If the tagger truly believes that this detailed and thoroughly referenced article should be redirected, this would be a good place to discuss that. Accounting4Taste:talk 06:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of why we shouldn't have all the information in this article that's available, relevant, referenced and well-illustrated. If a paraphilia makes people smirk and snigger, well, Wikipedia is not censored. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for this article to be deleted. Why can't encyclopedia's be funny? It's the topic that's making people laugh. It's meant to be informative, we're not trying to be funny. --Dan Leveille^TALK 01:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain Mr. Garrison would agree 100% Jtdunlop (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete

An encyclopedia shouldn't feature an article the title of which is slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.192.118 (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless whether your premise be true (far from obvious), it does not apply here anyway: the term jock strap is NOT slang, only its first component in the phallic sense. Arcarius (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge swimming jock?

• YES, since that item is defined as a variation of the jock strap for aquatic sports and the article far too short to need even a full section. Arcarius (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

medical reasons for usage missing

I recommend adding or expanding the article to explain the medical reasons why a male should wear a jockstrap during exercise. Chafing and the ability to hold a cup were mentioned, but the medical reasons why the genitalia should be supported were not adequately discussed. Rearden9 (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this needs mention. 71.123.109.211 (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC) John S.

Like any article, we can only add what we've got sources for. If anyone happens to find a reliable source for medical issues relating to this topic please add it, or at least post a link here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This Slate article [1] suggests that wearing a jockstrap has no discernible medical benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.199.131 (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

sexual usage

lots of gay dudes use and gay porn shows, men having sex while wearing a jockstrap. this is done as a sexual fetish with regards to athleticism and machoness in addition to what it termed easy access to the receptive partners anus by the active partner. i will add a short statement to that effect.^MY♥_INchile 07:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if the information you add is verifiable and comes from reliable sources WP:V WP:RS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.6 (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering also, perhaps, if jockstraps are sometimes used in gay porns where the top is heterosexual so that he does not have to see the male genitalia of the person that he is fucking? Deusveritasest (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

....oh....my...god.... please find verifiable sources. --Dan Leveille^TALK 03:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that when straight guys fuck gay guys in gay porn the gay guy has to wear a jock strap so the straight guy doesn't have to see the gay guy's garbage. So I agree with the previous insertion. TimmyTruck (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

If verifiable sources are added, I think it would be important to add the use of jockstraps in sex and sex appeal, since now-a-days they are not just for sports. Tarheelz123 (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Gallery of jockstraps and jockstrap-related material

Does the article benefit from the extensive gallery of images? 207.69.137.26 (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No. There is no need for a request for comment either. I've trimmed it down, this really looked like a sandwich case. WLU (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Butt Pic

Is the pic of the dude from the rear necessary?Rs09985 (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The jockstrap is one of the very few types of underwear that is not connected centrally in the rear, and this image shows that clearly. +Angr 15:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Box (cricket) - suggested merge

I don't think this is the place to merge Box (cricket), beyond the sentence that already exists. Would suggest perhaps merging into a general article about Cricket equipment if it must be merged at all. Markhh (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• They are not the same thing and the articles should not be merged. If the editor who placed the merge tag on the article doesn't come here and argue for the merge, the tags can be removed.--Michig (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)