Slickdeals is community-supported.  We may get paid by brands for deals, including promoted items.
Heads up, this deal has expired. Want to create a deal alert for this item?
expired Posted by babgaly | Staff • Jan 26, 2024
expired Posted by babgaly | Staff • Jan 26, 2024

Jockey Men's Underwear Stretch Briefs: 4-Pk Active or 3-Pk Organic Cotton

+ Free Shipping

$18 each

$36

Amazon
49 Comments 24,780 Views
Visit Amazon
Good Deal
Save
Share
Deal Details
Jockey via Amazon has Select Packs of Jockey Men's Underwear Stretch Briefs on sale below for $17.99. Shipping is free.

Thanks to Deal Hunter babgaly for finding this deal.

Available:Jockey via Walmart has Select Packs of Jockey Men's Underwear Stretch Briefs on sale below for $17.99. Shipping is free.

Available:Features:
  • Low rise and moderate coverage
  • No-fly design
  • Tag-free design

Editor's Notes

Written by megakimcheelove | Staff

Original Post

Written by babgaly | Staff
Product Info
Community Notes
About the Poster
Deal Details
Product Info
Community Notes
About the Poster
Jockey via Amazon has Select Packs of Jockey Men's Underwear Stretch Briefs on sale below for $17.99. Shipping is free.

Thanks to Deal Hunter babgaly for finding this deal.

Available:Jockey via Walmart has Select Packs of Jockey Men's Underwear Stretch Briefs on sale below for $17.99. Shipping is free.

Available:Features:
  • Low rise and moderate coverage
  • No-fly design
  • Tag-free design

Editor's Notes

Written by megakimcheelove | Staff

Original Post

Written by babgaly | Staff

Community Voting

Deal Score
+22
Good Deal
Visit Amazon
Leave a Comment
To participate in the comments, please log in.

Top Comments

Please get some psychological help
I'd invite yourself read the academic peer reviewed studies to determine what was actually being used as proof for this article.

First, the whole list of his link for proof is from one author. One author, and no others, so no, not "those Ph.D. researchers". And besides, the author is an M.D., not a Ph.D. (us Ph.D.'s don't like being brought down to the likes of M.D.'s... that's joke...maybe).

I clicked on the the first link in the search, which was about about using a polyester sling to suspend scrotum together in a set of men, disrupting thermal regulation of the balls (an bodily function meant to regulate the scrotal temperature to keep sperm in the "sweet spot" without dying) and causing INTENTIONAL infertility. The men wore the sling all day and night for an entire year. He argues something about electrostatic potentials but has no proof of said electrostatic potential. Clearly the bodily function of thermoregulation was disrupted.

Another link is a follow on-study author did the same but this time on dogs, attempting to explore differences in material (cotton vs polyester) which saw an effect with cotton but not polyester. Dogs. Which have entirely different thermal regulation and which likely have different temperature ranges for optimal sperm than that of men. Besides, he already "proved" in another experiment that polyester affected sperm quality in men, but in this case of dogs, now the polyester has no effect on their sperm quality. So if you you want to make the case against polyester and for cotton being safer, you cannot use this study because the effect was opposite and the physiology is different.

And to point something else out, in the first study above on actual humans, there was no other control against the polyester sling. You should ask yourself why. If a researcher chooses to omit something or provide a control, then there's something else going on in the background that letting a narrative or bias creep in.

Lastly, the seminal (pun intended) study in electrostatic potentials causing infertility written in 1993... it has 15 citations. Fifteen... in thirty years. Clearly, this was a well accepted and received theory. Or not.

To bring it back to the commerce aspect of this site (because you know, I just wrote a whole bunch of words about scrotums...): The papers above were written between 1991-1993. Have you seen a contraceptive polyester sling here on Slickdeals? One would stand to make a fortune on this product if it were a reality. Yet, thirty years later, here we are, still using condoms.

This is why science reporting by non-scientists (and teenagers who need to be taught how to read science) needs to stop.

48 Comments

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Jan 26, 2024
7 Posts
Joined Dec 2021
Jan 26, 2024
SiennaCircle524
Jan 26, 2024
7 Posts
I appreciate the deal, but I don't know if these are sporty enough for wife approval.
6
Jan 26, 2024
1,133 Posts
Joined Dec 2016
Jan 26, 2024
davekkk
Jan 26, 2024
1,133 Posts
My wife would try to wear these. Then it would be awkward. On top of it, she would be so mad if I wore hers.
3
6
Jan 26, 2024
374 Posts
Joined Apr 2011
Jan 26, 2024
andyroberts
Jan 26, 2024
374 Posts
Now I don't have to line my non-organic underwear with organic cabbage leaves to protect my parts!
5
6
Jan 26, 2024
3,256 Posts
Joined Aug 2006
Jan 26, 2024
jottect
Jan 26, 2024
3,256 Posts
I do not like Style 9534 better than 6969
1
Jan 27, 2024
1,128 Posts
Joined May 2010

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users.

Jan 27, 2024
8,910 Posts
Joined Nov 2008
Jan 27, 2024
Lanmanna
Jan 27, 2024
8,910 Posts
Quote from BuyMoreChuck :
Boy these would never get off the ground in my house .... they are the no-fly zone.
Just go over the fence?
Jan 27, 2024
500 Posts
Joined Apr 2016

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users.

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Jan 28, 2024
195 Posts
Joined Jun 2018
Jan 28, 2024
Beavertrap
Jan 28, 2024
195 Posts
Hopefully the buldge is not so noticeable when my girl walks around the house with these on. I'm in for 2!
5
2
Jan 29, 2024
624 Posts
Joined Jul 2016
Jan 29, 2024
thischris
Jan 29, 2024
624 Posts
Quote from grampyjoe :
That would be preferable to polyester underwear, which can be used to sterilize men:

https://thehollyspirit.org/6915/s...-clothing/

Most people are completely unaware that synthetic underwear has proven deleterious effects on both men and women (because skin is an organ which both excretes and absorbs)
The student journalist? I'm not saying I disagree with this finding just curious about this particular link you chose to use. I like cotton or wool as it lasts longer, is more comfortable and doesn't create electrostatic buildup.
Jan 29, 2024
2,232 Posts
Joined Jul 2018
Jan 29, 2024
HelloClemFandango
Jan 29, 2024
2,232 Posts

Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank HelloClemFandango

Quote from grampyjoe :
That would be preferable to polyester underwear, which can be used to sterilize men:

https://thehollyspirit.org/6915/s...-clothing/

Most people are completely unaware that synthetic underwear has proven deleterious effects on both men and women (because skin is an organ which both excretes and absorbs)
Please get some psychological help
1
2
2
Jan 29, 2024
2,232 Posts
Joined Jul 2018
Jan 29, 2024
HelloClemFandango
Jan 29, 2024
2,232 Posts
I've lost 50lb doing Intermittent Fasting. I think I would look great wearing this.
2
Jan 29, 2024
1,069 Posts
Joined Oct 2013
Jan 29, 2024
saving2bankruptcy
Jan 29, 2024
1,069 Posts
Now, when my wife tells me to take off her panties... I'll have something to put on.
4
4
Jan 30, 2024
500 Posts
Joined Apr 2016
Jan 30, 2024
grampyjoe
Jan 30, 2024
500 Posts
Quote from HelloClemFandango :
Please get some psychological help
Multiple academic peer reviewed studies are linked in the article. I guess those PhD researchers are just crazy
2
Jan 30, 2024
500 Posts
Joined Apr 2016
Jan 30, 2024
grampyjoe
Jan 30, 2024
500 Posts
Quote from thischris :
The student journalist? I'm not saying I disagree with this finding just curious about this particular link you chose to use. I like cotton or wool as it lasts longer, is more comfortable and doesn't create electrostatic buildup.
I used that article because it both summarizes the problem and cites and links to multiple academic peer-reviewed studies. I thought the PubMed links would be too hard to digest for light reading
4

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Jan 30, 2024
149 Posts
Joined May 2013
Jan 30, 2024
ThatDarnLobster
Jan 30, 2024
149 Posts
Quote from grampyjoe :
I used that article because it both summarizes the problem and cites and links to multiple academic peer-reviewed studies. I thought the PubMed links would be too hard to digest for light reading
I just hope there are photos somewhere from the 12 month study where dogs wore different types of pants.
1

Popular Deals

View All

Trending Deals

View All