Purpose of a Jockstrap?

pdxman

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Posts
356
Media
0
Likes
34
Points
163
Age
34
Well, that makes sense considering that underwear were quite different 100 years ago. Maybe modern undies were inspired by jockstraps? However, with the good support of underwear nowadays, is the wearing of jockstraps still necessary? And if they are different from other underwear in regards to support, why still make them without backsides?


UH..have u tried running in your underwear with running shorts? Your dick and balls bounce uncontrollably and its hard to concetrate on running. One day at the gym i ran on the treadmill with just my gym shorts and I got some pretty good once overs. A few times I ran without a jock outside I had at least two people yell at me "wear a jock!!" LOL You need a jock to pull all the stuff in real tight and keep it from bouncing.
 

comically

Experimental Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Posts
39
Media
11
Likes
4
Points
43
Location
Western Australia
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
As a young kid competing for YMCA in athletics (or track & field) I can recall our coach informing us we had to wear "athletic supporters" (old-speak for jockstrap) or he wouldn't let us compete. Most of us handed in the money and he purchased them for us. The big day came. I received my jockstrap. I was not yet eleven years old and was somewhat disconcerted by how little I had to pack in to the damned thing!
Still wear one when playing tennis, but I think that's just a habit I grew into. I agree they're not strictly necessary nowadays - there are so many alternatives available that don't involve having an elastic strap in your arse crack! Living in a country where cricket is played, and having once played it myself, I notice that the old jockstrap plus a plastic cup (called a "box") is still in vogue for many batsmen and the wicket-keeper. I also agree they can look sexy on a tanned & toned body.
 

bigonepleaser

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Posts
91
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
43
Sexuality
No Response
I see the jockstrap as strictly a "sports thing" w/a cup. To me, they are not comfortable enough for all day wear. In my experiences, they are either too tight; and my cock and balls are being shoved back up into my body.... or too loose- so when you look down, there this ill-regular (pointy) deflated bulge action going on.
It's possible that I just haven't put in enough time to break one in or found the right brand. But currently not a fan.
Don't get wrong, I think they look hot on those guys that can pull it off.
 

cofrader

Superior Member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Posts
1,669
Media
3
Likes
2,643
Points
368
Location
Earth(mostly)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Thanks Mastur you asked all that i wanted to ask about them.
I never saw someone wearing one and the first time i saw one on internet i said ok for the support but what is the propose of the free butt?
Now that i read all the comments i understand. Pragmatic design + works for sports + socially accepted = no change nor question on the original design.
 

zpacifico

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Posts
266
Media
0
Likes
77
Points
113
Sexuality
No Response
I think of jock-straps as a fetish thing only, it might have had some sport purpose at first but today we can hardly imagine 50% of gay porns without them. made in all possible color code ways, we can choose leather, rubber, vinyl or cotton ones. what a treat.
 

lgtrmusr

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Posts
406
Media
38
Likes
1,245
Points
373
Location
Baltimore (Maryland, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
For people who don't understand why anyone would ever want to wear a jockstrap, some of the history in this thread is useful, but a few other points may also help.

First, you will have read from the Wikipedia site that even before jocks there was a similar garment to wear for "modesty's" sake under the long, woolen bathing suits that men wore, from neck to knee. Since these suits were not lined, everything could show, and that was considered immodest. After all, men were wearing a nearly head to toe garment to avoid even having their chests visible.

The actual jock strap, short for jockey strap, had to do with bicycle jockeys, that is, bicycle riders, who found it comfortable to have their genitals tucked up against their bodies when riding bikes with really poor suspension and flex on typical rough roads. As it happens, a jock is still good for this purpose today, if you're not wearing a high tech pair of bike shorts. If I'm wearing my usual summer baggy shorts and, maybe, loose thin boxers under, putting a jock on can make a ride more comfortable with less danger of things getting caught, unexpectedly, against the seat.

But in school gyms and on basketball courts and among swimmers and runners, jocks were very common from the 60's until fairly recently. Again two reasons. One major one is that gym shorts that guys wore as part of school expectations were quite short. Same with jogging shorts, basketball shorts and bathing trunks. All these had fairly short legs below the crotch, and they often had slits on the outside of the legs to provide more flexibility as you were running. If you wore nothing under them, you would likely have your penis or nuts on display part of the time, and, at that time, this was kind of shocking or embarrassing. Things are different now, but that was then. Also, if your dick or balls are bouncing around, as on a long run, your nuts, at least could get kind of sore. Still true now. Guys could wear Y type briefs under their shorts and that would address the gym short or running shorts problem, but was a kind of wet mess under swim trunks, which often had a liner that made wearing anything underneath, including a jock, unnecessary. The jock, however, was the common thing to wear. Everyone did, and one advantage was that the thing stayed in the locker until your next workout, while your underwear, if you wore it during sports, would be wet and clinging to your just showered body for the rest of the day, possibly sweat soaked. Maybe not a great idea unless your colleagues or your girl really liked the sweaty smell.

So now, with modern fibers like microfiber and polyester, you can have briefs, or compression shorts, or boxer briefs, or the great UnderArmor boxer jock, wear it under your workout gear (which probably hangs down to your knees anyway) and be perfectly comfortable. You can leave it in the locker until the next time you need it. And, with shorts down to your knees, going commando works too, unless your junk bounces too much jogging on a treadmill or a stationary bike and things get uncomfortable.

So why does a jock have no backside? I don't think, from the sports view, this has anything to do with showing off your ass. You always wear something on top of a jock when playing sports or working out. But the lack of a backside is a bit of an issue for someone putting a jock on for the first time. The straps feel strange. But why no back? I think it's because, at the time they were first designed, there was no comfortable thin stretchy material that you could wear over your butt, and when you were running, pivoting, jumping or whatever, you didn't want extra stuff pulling tight against your your butt and hips, like pants that are too small do. At the same time, you didn't want to be playing ball with cotton underwear briefs under your short that were soaking with sweat. And you didn't need extra clothes that wouldn't dry for hours under your quick drying swim suit. The original design let the jock do it's job -- keep your stuff tucked in comfortably, and out of sight -- without dressing you in another sweaty layer.

So why would anyone wear this thing today? Well, in sports or working out, it's just a matter of comfort, and jocks can be substituted with all manner of underwear. It all works fine, and the high tech fabric types, like with UnderArmor, make a true jock unnecessary. Unnecessary but optional, and a fine choice.

The other feature of jocks, very erotic for many, has to do with people who enjoy wearing them to be seen, with eye catching colors and designs. These guys are enjoying them as garments for show. And, for many men, seeing a man in a jock is something of a turn on. But that's been discussed in other entries.

Hope this helps...
 

Mickactual

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Posts
3,585
Media
1
Likes
15,015
Points
518
Location
New Jersey (United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
At the small gym I go to now, I notice only one other guy (overwhelmingly straight, btw) who changes to a jock to work out. The younger men just keep on their street underwear - they seem afraid to get naked in a men's locker room - god forbid. But that's another thread.
Another thread indeed...but I just have to add my 2¢. That's mostly all I see in gyms with younger guys nowadays. VERY frustrating & disturbing trend! :no:

As for the purpose of jockstraps: Gee - I always thought it was intended as a convenient way to be wearing an undergarment (for front-end support & modesty), while keeping the back door accessible, should a handsome and randy young gent happen along (condom & lube in hand).
:biggrin1:
 

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,734
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
at work we call them "jewel cups"....lol


I am expecting some family to gather around my pool this week and so to prevent either balls or cock from slipping out of my swimsuit (see one of my gallery pictures), I shopped for a jockstrap. The one I just bought is a Franklin, waist size 34. The waist fits ok, but who designed the skimpy crotch :confused: I wore the darn thing yesterday and all it holds in is my cock.....both balls dangle out of the bottom and sides of the crotch and I feel like I am being castrated! The crotch is a V wedge and balls do not hang shaped like a wedge!:frown1:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allan S.

luka82

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Posts
5,058
Media
0
Likes
44
Points
193
Age
41
Location
somewhere
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I understand if someone has to wear them, but as a sexual fetish thing- no thank you.
Just ain`t my cup of tea.
 

lgtrmusr

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Posts
406
Media
38
Likes
1,245
Points
373
Location
Baltimore (Maryland, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I am expecting some family to gather around my pool this week and so to prevent either balls or cock from slipping out of my swimsuit (see one of my gallery pictures), I shopped for a jockstrap. The one I just bought is a Franklin, waist size 34. The waist fits ok, but who designed the skimpy crotch :confused: I wore the darn thing yesterday and all it holds in is my cock.....both balls dangle out of the bottom and sides of the crotch and I feel like I am being castrated! The crotch is a V wedge and balls do not hang shaped like a wedge!:frown1:

Franklin brand has a pretty stiff pouch. The knitted elastic pouches from, say, Bike or other manufacturers would likely mold to your very generous package much better. A jock should not be uncomfortable for you in that way. Bike brand on the net or in sporting goods stores.
 

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,734
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Franklin brand has a pretty stiff pouch. The knitted elastic pouches from, say, Bike or other manufacturers would likely mold to your very generous package much better. A jock should not be uncomfortable for you in that way. Bike brand on the net or in sporting goods stores.

Thanks for the recommendation! I did see Bike in an athletic shop, but the only sizes in stock were juniors. I will check the internet!:smile:
 

wrestlecoach

Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Posts
443
Media
0
Likes
1,041
Points
113
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
So now, with modern fibers like microfiber and polyester, you can have briefs, or compression shorts, or boxer briefs, or the great UnderArmor boxer jock, wear it under your workout gear (which probably hangs down to your knees anyway) and be perfectly comfortable. You can leave it in the locker until the next time you need it. And, with shorts down to your knees, going commando works too, unless your junk bounces too much jogging on a treadmill or a stationary bike and things get uncomfortable.

So why does a jock have no backside? I don't think, from the sports view, this has anything to do with showing off your ass. You always wear something on top of a jock when playing sports or working out. But the lack of a backside is a bit of an issue for someone putting a jock on for the first time. The straps feel strange. But why no back? I think it's because, at the time they were first designed, there was no comfortable thin stretchy material that you could wear over your butt, and when you were running, pivoting, jumping or whatever, you didn't want extra stuff pulling tight against your your butt and hips, like pants that are too small do. At the same time, you didn't want to be playing ball with cotton underwear briefs under your short that were soaking with sweat. And you didn't need extra clothes that wouldn't dry for hours under your quick drying swim suit. The original design let the jock do it's job -- keep your stuff tucked in comfortably, and out of sight -- without dressing you in another sweaty layer.

So why would anyone wear this thing today? Well, in sports or working out, it's just a matter of comfort, and jocks can be substituted with all manner of underwear. It all works fine, and the high tech fabric types, like with UnderArmor, make a true jock unnecessary. Unnecessary but optional, and a fine choice.

.

Hope this helps...[/QUOTE]

I stumbled on this old thread while looking for one that might address another question i have that i will make a new thread for. But i felt a need to comment on this, as an athlete and coach and jockstrap wearer for at least 25 of the 36 years of my life.

A jockstrap doesn't have a backside for a few reasons. Yes originally there was no wicking material to add a backside to a jockstrap and that played a part. And now a thin wicking material could be added making it a jock brief, but those came available and just didn't fly for the most part. One reason there is no fabric that can match the stretch of the leg straps. Also if you use fabric you have to have some type of an edge to that fabric like a binding found on brief underwear, but no matter how stretchy that edge is it has to be sewn on and the thread and binding combo just don't stretch equally with the fabric or comparable to the leg straps of a jockstrap, thus forming a tighter almost binding outline of the garment and making them much less comfortable than a jockstrap even if initially more user friendly to the somewhat shy guy needing to choose a similar garment and put it on in front of his peers in the locker room for the first time before he has a chance to mature into a more confident athlete that is not ashamed of showering with his team and changing into and wearing a jockstrap in the locker room. this transition of confidence happens as late as mid college for some. in the meantime they now get in the habit of wearing compression shorts or just stick with whatever underwear they already wear all day.

Beside all that briefs are just not acceptable to young athletes now days, even less so than a jockstrap. This leads to the inherent problem with compression shorts. Anything with a leg on it and attached to the pouch that should be snug and supportive to the testicles cant function right. The movement of the wearers leg tugs the pouch out of position constantly allowing the testicle to no longer be held up and supported but instead allowed to fall down lower and into a more dangerous position and less supportive position. A position that if they even take a slight blow can smash them up into the pelvic bone. That is why they must be kept pulled forward for maximum blood flow and safety.

Reason 3 is simply to reduce another layer of insulating fabric. While all the new wicking fabrics do a wonderful job, layering them negates their benefits, especially in hotter weather such as for football. Now most uniforms are made to fit snug and made of wicking polyester and spandex, the same material as compression shorts only a little thicker. So to add additional material, even the most modern material, starts to insulate and raise core body temperature thus reducing the performance capabilities of your body since it goes into protect mode to get your core cooled off. I have seen results of several small studies that show athletes who choose a jockstrap over compression shorts have a higher testosterone level than their teammates. Now i guess the question is, did they get the higher T level because they wear a jockstrap, or is it something about the guys who have a higher T level that instinctually make them more prone to wear a jockstrap? Guys who layer less and tend to wear a jockstrap for support normally have a lower core temp and thus less heat stress during their athletic activity. A guys body generates more testosterone and adrenaline when it is cooler and operating more efficiently.
So to rebut the previous poster's statement, it is not just a matter of comfort and NO any matter of other underwear cannot replace a jockstrap.
and a true jock is very necessary or the serious athlete or any athlete serious about his performance and safety and reproductive future.