Slate Article: Why Are Guys Afraid to Wear Speedos?

[Byron]

Seems to me hard to determine who has what slant where - a bunch of journalists with space to fill and nothing interesting to say as usual, employing the
old and very boring trick of just rereporting on each other.

[Byron]

http://www.fighters.com/wp-content/u...man_b1_576.jpg

Wrong name - it was Dennis Hallman in Philadelphia August 2011.
Dana White most upset and speedos now banned in UFC.

[Lap Counter]

The vision of Chris Christie in a Speedo might inspire the NJ legislature to ban them for everyone. But there's a happy medium between racing briefs and ankle length male burkas. I've got a pair of swim shorts that are liner-free (like board shorts, so you can wear a Speedo under) with a 5" inseam that are practical for a poolside BBQ where hanging out (literally) in a Speedo would be a bit too much.

It was a lot more fun a few years ago when Speedos were considered to be bold but acceptable generic beach wear. Now you practically need to be wearing your Olympic medal to show up in one anywhere but a lap pool.

[Lap Counter]

To claim that Speedos are practical for activities like UFC is analogous to the NRA line-in-the-sand that kids should be able to bring their guns to middle school.

UFC fighters have to hide a lot of protection under their shorts, and a cup under a Speedo is just not a good look.

[Lap Counter]

Maybe 3 posts on the same topic is too many, but...

It's always fun to read the comments following the annual ritual-of-spring anti-Speedo articles. Most fall into the "women don't want to see... eew" theme. But occasionally one provokes thought:
"Considering that male genitalia are called "junk" in American colloquial parlance, is it really any wonder that American men are a bit modest about calling attention to that part of their anatomy?"

[Byron]

Yes - never could understand why important parts of the male anatomy should be unwanted rubbish to go in the trash can.
Plenty of examples of usage to be found but no indication of this particular derivation (it being also heroin and a chinese boat of course).
Middle English jonk had a particular nautical definition - it was old rope or cable being reused on a ship - but again something worn out and useless for original purpose and so inappropriate for its frequent use now in the anatomical sense.

[Torchwatch]

When I lived in High Wycombe I discovered a community of Indians whose men wore trousers (pants) with loincloth flaps over the front and back, providing greater modesty for the private parts. This attempt of modesty actually drew attention to what it was attempting to hide.
Those that swim in huge baggy shorts in an attempt to modestly hide their junk, actually draw attention to it through false modesty.
Go swimming in Speedos and after a few minutes you will forget what you are wearing as you concentrate on gliding smoothly through the water. Those watching may assess your figure and costume, then concentrate on your swimming style.

[singletlover]

I repeat: I cannot understand why we call it junk. I throw out junk that I do not want anymore.

My penis and testicals have been with me a long time and would never throw them out.

[Byron]

Certainly NOT junk - but as an aside , what happens to ejaculate after a vasectomy?

[kumu]

On the topic of the word "junk", people often use the names of body parts we truly treasure and adore as insults. Names like "You toenail!", or "You spleen!" are never used. At least that I've ever heard. Its "You dick!", or "You asshole!". Yet we treasure these body parts. You could get by without toenails easily enough, getting by without a spleen would be difficult but still theoretically possible, but getting by without a penis or an anus might make life not worth living if not downright impossible. Its so strange that names for such areas that we treasure so much are used to demean and insult. The same applies to female regions but we don't need to go into that here. WHY, is the question, WHY debase our most beloved body parts.

I think it was George Carlin who observed that when somebody says "f*** you!!", or "get f****ed!!" its actually kinda nice. I mean, we do enjoy it, don't we. In telling somebody to do that you are actually telling them to go experience ecstasy. That ain't bad. So why is it about the most hostile insult? It might have been from Carlin's bit about 7 words you can't say on the air. Its funny but there's a lot of truth in it.