Jump to content

Talk:Jockstrap

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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! :)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

Too many images

Has anyone noticed the major difference in this article from last year http://en.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 LeveilleTALK 17:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. It was better a year ago. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jockstrap&oldid=233804813] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.245.60 (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 LeveilleTALK 01:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain Mr. Garrison would agree 100% Jtdunlop (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Merge swimming jock?


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
....oh....my...god.... please find verifiable sources. --Dan LeveilleTALK 03:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
That's a big "if". The material you added does not have verifiable, reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the need for "sources" in most cases, but sometimes it's just too obvious. The sheer prevalence on the internet of modern jockstraps being sold on online gay sex shops is all the proof you need. Do we really need a scholar to spell it out in an academic paper? Maybe adding a google search result for "gay jockstrap" should do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.40.10 (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
wow.... just.... wow... this was probably one of the funniest things i've read on wikipedia... just saying... --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Butt Pic

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

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)[reply]

I don't really think it's necessary to have a pornographic-style depiction of the rear. Not that I'm offended or complaining; it's a nice image. But probably not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Why? The image helps inform people. The omission of the image would not illustrate the subject as well. Though it may not be the most professional looking photo, we don't have any other image to work with. As far as not being appropriate, of course it is. It's not pornographic. And Wikipedia is not censored. --Dan LeveilleTALK 05:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Actually, the box in cricket is the same thing as a protective cup that is sometimes used in conjunction with a jockstrap. The editor did suggest that the Box (cricket) article should be merged with the section about protective cups in the jockstrap article. The reason for this is because the logical merge candidate is protective cup, but that article was also merged with jockstrap. No matter what I think the Box (cricket) to be removed and any relevant no repetitive content moved or merged (if any exists). Vivaldi (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cricket clothing and equipment completed. All content was already duplicated there. Markhh (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How international are they?

Good article, but does not make clear whether they are common outside the US. I dont think I remember ever seeing a pair [?] / one [?] worn in years of football or general life in Australia. Cricket cups and the like work just as well with underpants.115.128.4.241 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen them in Myers in Sydney. I'd say they're pretty international. —Peco! Peco!TALK 09:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen any in Europe- I would not consider them very international at all. It would be interesting to see some source confirming or disproving this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.246.135 (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my honest opinion from my experience in dealing with copyright law, having a look at the original article and doing a compare and contrast on both, the best anyone could claim is an interpretation of the original article as the is enough of a difference between the articles. I wouldn't worry about it. Now if you are an 18 year old or younger admin read on. I have been dealing and working within copyright law for as long, and longer in some cases that you've been alive. Just because an article looks similar to another does not mean that it is in breech of copyright. If there are enough differences between the two articles then no claim of copyright infringement can be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.63.188 (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the content was placed, the external source included the following text:

In 1867 a Chicago sports team refused to take the field while wearing "modesty" girdles and forfeited the competition. A riot ensued. In a newspaper story about the event a Dr. Lamb was quoted as "having recognized a medical benefit to males by the wearing of a protective girdle." The jock's journey into the world of sports continued in 1874 in response to a request by the Boston Athletic Club to design apparel that would provide comfort and support for bicycle jockeys riding the cobblestone streets of Boston." Traditional undergarments of the day (union suits) were uncomfortable and the rubberized girdle used by some caused chafing and blistering on the bicycle seats.

This is an example of the content placed in the article:

In 1867, a Chicago sports team refused to take the field wearing "modesty" girdles and forfeited the competition. A riot ensued. In a newspaper story about the event, a Dr. Lamb was quoted as "having recognized a medical benefit to males by the wearing of a protective girdle." In the 1870s, the Boston Athletic Club sought an undergarment that would provide comfort and support for cyclists (or, bicycle jockeys as they were then known) riding the cobblestone streets of Boston. Traditional undergarments were uncomfortable and the rubberized canvas...girdle caused chafing and blistering on bicycle seats.

Emphasis has been added to draw attention to particularly close passages. Perhaps comparing the content as it was placed to the text source may clarify the concerns. Under the U.S. laws that govern Wikipedia, substantial similarity is, of course, a matter to be defined by the courts in each specific case, but Wikipedia's policies are not designed to push the envelope. Given that derivative works must be authorized by copyright holders, we are not permitted to create them, but must instead write all content based on non-free sources in our words. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20070522205359/http://www.shockdoctor.com/news/cpHistory.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ass picture

Do we really need as the main lead image, a guy's ass? Can't the image just be the front part of a jockstrap rather than a dude's ass? Caden cool 20:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, if anything the lack of dude's ass is the main issue with this article. Currently, jockstraps are part of gay male culture, and this article does a poor job of representing that Gangweedersriseup (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jockstrap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move The "Cups" Section To A New Article?

I think that the section on cups should be moved to a completely different article. I play baseball and know that you can also put a cup in slider shorts and the like. I think that having the cups section here is misleading, making people think that only jockstraps are used with cups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseballhockey5 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jockstrap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wearing a cup .. NFL players generally don't

Article says that cups are mandatory in several sports, including "football". (Which kind of football?)

This link https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nfl-players-dont-wear-cups-2012-12 is one of many from a web search. This article explains why NFL players (United States) do not wear cups. Many other search results say the same thing.

I haven't learned references yet or I would add this.

Suggested change: Add "However, many NFL players (United States) do not wear cups." with the reference (or a couple of references). Thanks.

73.127.147.187 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I suggest that you try adding the information yourself, even if the references are not formatted perfectly. If something is incorrect, another editor will come along and fix it. For more information on how to format references, please go to Help:Footnotes. Questions can be answered in the WP:HELPDESK or at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Thanks and happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Female genital protector

Recently had to remove content claiming the female "jillstrap" or pelvic protectir was designed by a USA Miami man named Ronald Paramore, in the United States. This information was originally from the wiki article "Jockstrap".

[1]

There is evidence, though currently not accessible online, that female pelvic protectors were available for female broomball and ice hockey players, as well as ringette players, in Canada by the late 1980's. Until this is sorted out, I think editors should refrain from giving credit to Paramore since this doesn't appear to be the case. CheckersBoard (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The hyperlink to jockstrap for women (currently points to jockstrap for females, which doesn't exist) is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.20.115.59 (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "What Did The Media Say?". Femalejockstrap.com. Archived from the original on 2012-03-22. Retrieved 2012-02-23.

First sentence

There’s no reason, as far as I can tell, to attribute genders to genitalia as seen in the first sentence: “…for protecting the testes and penis (for boys and men), and female genitalia (for girls and women) during contact sports or other vigorous physical activity.”

Why have the statements seen in the parentheses? They add no additional information are arguably transphobic, which would be adding bias to the article. Explaining which genitals belong to which *sex* might make more sense, but certainly not gender. 147.161.4.13 (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jockstrap&oldid=1247893346"