this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
301 points (94.1% liked)

Comic Strips

19149 readers
2608 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 34 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] scratchee@feddit.uk 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well now I have rage directed at some ancient French lady that I really don’t know what to do with.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

She's probably long dead. But her out-dated idealogies are probably still alive everywhere in fashion.

Not that I think she created that ideal. But she certainly did her part in propagating it.

[–] tamal3@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Fucking scabs, I feel a similar sense of disappointment that I felt talking to women who said they didn't vote for Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton because their voices were too shrill.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FosterMolasses@leminal.space 7 points 3 days ago

What's hilarious is I was just laughing at a comment thread about someone sharing the "boxers are good for 4 days" flipping method lmao

Just seems unsanitary tbh

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

We do? Since when? Where can I buy it?

[–] limelight79@lemmy.world 49 points 4 days ago (13 children)

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.

[–] absentbird@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

They exist, I've seen them at the store. Here's a picture:

Hanes underwear with pocket

[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 22 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I have a theory that that's not actually what that's for. Like, men's briefs are sort of double-breasted, there's one flap that comes from one side almost all the way across, and then another outside of that that goes from the other side almost all the way across. It's not really positioned or shaped in such a way that makes digging your dick out for dick-related activities easy or comfortable. But it does make for a functional expansion joint that allows a 100% cotton garment snugly house a bulge that changes size and position throughout the day.

There often is a pocket-like area between the layers where they're both attached to the sides down to the cross-ass seam, but I'm confident in saying men don't store things there. You look REALLY STRANGE accessing that compartment, and objects placed there will rest uncomfortably against the scrotum, and come out smelling of taint sweat.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I once came across a pair of some kind of synthetic silk man thongs. That had three pockets. One for your junk, another for your phone and the third for your dick and balls.

They were like 90 dollars a pair.

I guess it's for when you need to be sexy and functional.

One for your junk … and the third for your dick and balls.

It took me a moment to realize you first meant “junk” as in “belongings.”

My first thought was, ”His junk’s so big it needs two pockets? Brag.”

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] shaggyb@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

Truly the devil's panties.

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I've started wearing molle pouches on my belt, so I have pockets wether I'm wearing pants or not.

I'm currently carrying 2 water bottles, my phone, my work phone, sunglasses, and several tools that I need constantly.

highly recommend, just wish they were available in fun colors and designs instead of exclusively tacticool bullshit.

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago

I've seen a few molle pouches in bright colors, but not too many styles.

If you can sew, I think you could have a hell of a time on Etsy until Vera Bradley releases a Molle collection, lol.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 5 points 3 days ago

A “cell phone” still sounds like something you’d have hidden up your bum to me.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Skill issue. Buy men's clothes. Problem solved.

[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 11 points 3 days ago (3 children)

All clothes are gender neutral clothes if you're not a little bitch about it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] munk@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Why should women have to buy clothes that fit poorly and are uncomfortable just to get functional pockets?

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] munk@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

Fine. Wear cargo pants and rock the Kim Possible look.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 24 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Sure, sure, but women get two prison pockets.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Please tell me those are not a real thing.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Hi. Person who has identified male my entire life here.

I have no idea what this "cell phone pocket" in underwear thing is about. Sounds like lunacy to me.

That said, give pockets to women who want pockets. It is baffling to me that this is still a thing.

[–] Bluewing@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Lots of pants out there that have pockets. They often choose not to buy them. And when they do, they put nothing in them.

For what it's worth, according to my wife and 4 daughters it's because it's because if you put things in your pockets like guys do, it ruins the lines and look. And according to our oldest daughter, it's why cargo shorts and pants look bad on men. And should never be worn.

[–] OlPatchy2Eyes@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 days ago

I think I've seen them in some compression shorts so that you can run in loose mesh shorts. Can't run with your phone in those.

[–] burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 days ago

I've been given gifts of underwear with pockets. They might hold one of the old style cell phones, at the peak of 'small is best.'

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago

Just buy the pants that have pockets then, problem solved.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 15 points 4 days ago

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_%28handbag%29

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.

[–] murvel@feddit.nu 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

This is like the tap water of comics, yum!!!

edit: lukewarm tap water

load more comments
view more: next ›