SEEMS TO US YOU'D HAVE TO CHANGE MORE THAN THE UNDERWEAR
Changing underwear style could improve a man's chances of having a baby.
(Thanks to Jeffrey Brown)
« Previous | Main | Next »
June 17, 2012
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
"But chillax: This Maine coon cat is more likely to curl up in the chair next to you than attack." Clearly, they never had a cat. If I were the neighbor's dog, I'd head for the hills.
Posted by: Elon | June 17, 2012 at 12:34 PM
"Sperm count study confounds conventional wisdom"
Say, what? There've been studies pointing out the negative effects of tightie-whities for years.
Oh, Elon, I think you were aiming for the post next door?
Posted by: Richard the Weasel-Hearted | June 17, 2012 at 01:53 PM
So ... according to this "research" (which as RtW-H correctly describes as "not news"), goin' commando would seem to further increase one's chances of producin' yet another octomom?
Posted by: O the Umanity | June 17, 2012 at 02:14 PM
Yes, I believe Seinfeld covered this research when I was 5 or 6.
Posted by: Elon | June 17, 2012 at 02:43 PM
Does it work with other things besides babies? Is there an underwear style that increases your chances of having, oh, say, your own surplus A-10? I'd make the change. Or hows about your very own state legislator?
What? Oh, you just have to change parties to get that? Hmmm. No, not interested, thanks.
Posted by: Omniskeptic | June 17, 2012 at 03:02 PM
So now there's a theoretical scientific reason for changing your underwear, instead of the old "What if you get into an accident" argument. I suspect a hidden agenda.
Posted by: Ralph | June 17, 2012 at 03:03 PM
I would have to change my body for someone at least thirty years younger.
Posted by: oldfatguy | June 17, 2012 at 03:38 PM
I expected something totally different from the article I got. I assumed it was going to tell the little lady she needed to wear something sexy if she was going to motivate me for a romantic interlude.
Posted by: wingnut | June 17, 2012 at 03:46 PM
Brown or black because the skidmarks don't show. Much better impression.
Posted by: Loudmouth | June 17, 2012 at 04:18 PM
Not to mention hot tubs and step down transformers
Posted by: MikeyVA. | June 17, 2012 at 05:15 PM
Uh wingnut,
You are a a guy right?
Okay here goes.
SEX with nakedness of persons.
That ought to do it
Posted by: MikeyVA. | June 17, 2012 at 05:17 PM
Wasn't this one of Ann Landers' favorite subjects? Or her sister's, I forget.
Posted by: Dmentd | June 17, 2012 at 05:40 PM
Back in the day, I'd have been more interested in the underwear that causes infertility.
I think some women wear those, anyway.
Posted by: Steve | June 17, 2012 at 07:17 PM
wait. i thought it was another pregnant man....
Posted by: queensbee | June 17, 2012 at 08:52 PM