>>5282
Go to Sports Direct, and buy whichever ones you fancy in your size. Keep them for 7 or 8 years, until the elastic waistband becomes no more, and holes appear everywhere.

If you fancy yourself a posho, then head to Primark and buy yourself some from there.

An underpants thread seems like the perfect place to vent my frustration at the weird secondary-school logic that briefs are for children and that you somehow graduate into boxer shorts when you become a man. My thighs, which are overwhelmingly large much like the OP's knob, tend to mean that as soon as I put a pair of trousers on, any boxers just ride up and become briefs anyway. I switched to briefs and my life is fucking fantastic, lads.

>>5284

Short-leg boxer briefs, the best of all worlds. Three for a tenner from H&M in organic cotton.

Go to TK Maxx and pick and mix until you find something comfortable.

Also you should clearly be buying boxers with no hole in the front, or at least better made ones.
Sizes vary quite a bit too, try the same size in a different brand.

>>5285
I don't understand what you mean by the best of both worlds, though, as there's nothing at all that I miss about boxer shorts. And I have some of those too, but they also ride up and become briefs.

It would probably be pretty easy to sew the hole closed, or maybe wonder web / hemming tape could work. It's meant to be for turning up trousers and you just melt it with an iron until it sticks the fabric together.

I have never worn boxers in my life. What's the point of them? Doesn't your junk just dangle around in them?

>>5289

Studies have shown that chaps who wear loose boxers rather than tight undies in their adolescent years end up with bigger knobs. Food for thought.

>>5289

Studies have shown that chaps who wear loose boxers rather than tight undies are less prone to Betty Swollocks, which in turn means less chance of whiffy gonads and willy spots.

>>5289
Studies have shown that chaps who wear loose boxers rather than tight undies are more likely to end up with penile chafing due to their member swinging around like a metronome. This reduced sensitivity means they can last longer in the sack than those wearing tighty whities, meaning more chance of gratifying their ladyfriends.

I just wear what I think are called "briefs". They aren't that tight or loose. I am your God now, bow down to me.

>>5293

They are meant to be tight, m8. Sorry about your little widgey.

>>5294

They're supposed to be snug, actually.

R-right?!

For what it's worth, I often rely on Uniqlo for underwear. I often tend to go for the tight, seamless versions, but there are many other types that I have had good previous experience with.

One of my favorite things about them is that they don't say "URBAN SPIRIT" or anything fuck silly over them.

Armani actually make really comfortable boxer-briefs or whatever you'd call them. Finding out how much better slightly higher quality underwear feels was a revelation for me.

>>5297
>Finding out how much better slightly higher quality underwear feels

Slightly better?

>>5298
More than slightly. Significantly.

Good quality underwear feels great, but I have had supposedly good quality underwear (pringle & bench) which even after mostly washing at lower temperatures, they haven't shrunk as such but have lost a lot of stretch and become less comfortable very quickly.

Linen boxers are also lovely, but due to the loose fit they're not really a good match for jeans or close-fitting trousers as they tend to bunch up.

>>5296
In theory, I completely agree with you, in practice I'll wear anything because no one ever sees it. I think those obnoxious logos go hand-in-hand with the trend of jeans getting lower and lower.