New Tiger Underwear Web Site for Double-Seat Briefs

[clickhappy]

Major concerned this weekend when my only source for double-seat briefs was gone. I had been shopping for Tiger Briefs at TigerUnderwear.Com, however that site is now gone. I did receive an email from the owner yesterday that the site has been moved to www.TigerUnderwearStore.Com

This site is even an improvement over the last one. That is, more models of both men and boys showing off their Tiger Briefs!

I believe this message pertains only to the baby boomer generation who remember how hot these briefs looked back in the 60's and 70's.

Love to hear from other guys who appreciate this style of underwear!!!

ClickHappy

[Whitestatue]

This site gets better and better. It now has an archive section with underwear cataolgues from the 60s and 70s for those whose underwear tastes run to the retro:

http://www.tigerunderwearstore.com/MensUnderwearCatalog.html

[deusex]

I'm not sure why, but that store always creeps me out with all the children in underwear. Does anyone else feel this way?

[sam]

I'm not sure why, but that store always creeps me out with all the children in underwear. Does anyone else feel this way?

I do agree with you, same feeling here... Even the models of the men's underwear section look a bit young too much....

[The Bondsman]

I'm not sure why, but that store always creeps me out with all the children in underwear. Does anyone else feel this way?
Hey I loved it! SO nice to see someone selling and maintaining a great range of underwear with a history.
Surely, surely we are not all so intent on seeing paedophilia EVERYWHERE that we forget that kids wear, ..and need, underwear too?
I wore underwear just like that as a kid, ....and I wanted it to be "just like the big boys wore" too.
The catalogue brought back great memories for me.
Don't tell me you can't look at those ads and just see ...well, just kids in undies really. NO SUB-TEXTS or creepy thoughts, ....just kids wearing a particular style of undies that's functional and practical.
In movies set in the period such as "Stand by Me" you see kids wearing just the same style.
Have all those imbeciles who will insist on equating homosexuals with paedophiles got to you too by brainwashing you about any photographs of young kids being paedophile fodder?:mad::mad::mad:
It's bad enough listening to them spouting off their dirty minds, ....let's not start seeing ourselves as paedophiles because we happen to see a pic of a kid in his tighty whiteys. I think it's great that kids are given a chance to enjoy this style nowadays.
And the reason they use very young men for the adult models is obvious.
It's to try to combat the common misconception these days that those styles are only associated with "old men", which would be re-inforced had they used more mature models.
They are trying to sell to the younger guys!
I will admit I'd have liked a bit more hair on the bodies, (well, even SOME would do!)...but the highly regrettable Ken-doll thing is still found in advertising even these days.
I did find it coy that they were a bit reluctant to show the full front of the adult briefs, ....choosing to cover them with semi-dropped jeans and cargo pants(ugh!), but I suppose that could increase the erotic potential for some of us.
Thoroughly enjoyed the site, ...and will probably even order for my collection.

[Whitestatue]

I'm with the Bondsman here. Perhaps I am innocent but I viewed it just as a site for fun retro briefs.

[The Bondsman]

I'm with the Bondsman here. Perhaps I am innocent but I viewed it just as a site for fun retro briefs.
Yeah me too! I simply refuse to be brainwashed into seeing myself as what so many portray us as with their homophobia.
Kids in briefs? Yeah, ...so what? Do you go through self-censorship if you happen to see babies in diapers?
It's certainly not "kiddie-porn", ....or even in any way suggestive of such.
They can keep their own "see evil in anything" mindset; but internalised homophobia is the very worst kind.
As I said, I'm glad kids still have the chance to wear the style of underwear I, and many others here, grew up with.
And there's 25% 0ff at the moment!
Definitely got to have some for my collection, ....only decision? Double seated or not?

[u_neek_sa]

I'm new here, but I have to agree with the other guys that say the site was kind of creepy. I know that it reminds others of what they used to wear but it has a creepy vibe to the site

[deusex]

You guys are gonna love this one:

http://underwearnewsbriefs.com/?p=3933

Personally, I love all sorts of underwear, but I'm pretty sick of the silly Ginch Gonch stuff. It was interesting at the start, but it's tired now imho.

[The Bondsman]

Well seeing as Ginch Gonch have taken to giving my favourite "tighty whities" a serve, I'll return the intent with some hard cold facts about Ginch Gonch.

Number 1/ As has been mentioned here by others, they are WAY overpriced, AND VERY poorly constructed.
2/ The prints, lurid though they may be, are NOT thermo-fixed and fade like buggery after even ONE wash. It's obviously too much to expect this company to actually "fix" their screen printing as you would expect at this price, ...hence it fades and quickly looks worn out. The design you paid for just goes......
3/ The elastic is just plain crook, and goes typically crinkly very soon. Really dodgy for this price guys!!
4/ The waistband on some has this curious furry appearance that acts like velcro that I think is SUPPOSED to hold your shirt in place, BUT it only attracts fluff like a magnet.
5/ The designs are for prize wankers, ...who assume that wearing this stuff will somehow ensure them of cool status, ......remember, any company that has to stoop to putting other products down is so bloody unsure of it's own goods.
6/ This product is a total rip-off aimed at cashed up label-queens and "metrosexuals" (UGH!) who can be fobbed off with any inferior merchandise as long as the "image" is bright enough.

PONIT TO REMEMBER, esp. about Ginch Gonch:
You can't gild a turd, but you CAN roll it in glitter!
And boy, have they applied the bright, shiny veneer.
Buy at your peril, ...and see if all I've said above isn't true.

[The Bondsman]

I'm new here, but I have to agree with the other guys that say the site was kind of creepy. I know that it reminds others of what they used to wear but it has a creepy vibe to the site
A few people see this now , ....I would very much appreciate hearing from any of you just what it is you're seeing that's SO "creepy", ............that I'm obviously missing altogether! "creepy" to me would be where the kids were overly exposed nudity-wise, placed in sexualised positions, and otherwise given adult nuances designed to arouse.
"Creepy" was some of the early Calvin Klein campaigns, ...if you can all remember that far back. Tweenies pouting at camera saying "Nothing COMES between me and my Calvins"??? Are you "kidding", ...pun fully intended!

The Tiger kids here are NOT in sexually provocative poses, or overtly sexualised other than showing ......well really only waistbands. No pouting or "come-hither" looks etc.
There's not even a hint of any genital bulges, .....in adult or child.
If "tasteful" is the criteria you're all so worried about, the site couldn't be any more so, ...especially when compared to the soft, (and not-so-soft!), virtual porn on other underwear sites that show huge bulges obviously assisted by cockrings etc, ...."sexy" poses and even full views of dicks in see-through styles, or even full erections!
Is it just the age of the models?
How can you be expected to sell children's underwear without showing ....well, children wearing underwear really?
To me they simply look like kids having fun, and demonstrating a product on the side. I think the photographer has gone to great pains to avoid any "kiddie-porn" look, ....and yet that's what you are seeing?
Truly fellers, I am not only amazed at your reactions, and the mind-set it exposes, but I'm shocked that the sight of a kid's waistband could even produce such internalised phobias. The "paeds-under-the-beds" movement is getting to you, and that's really tragic.
Explain to me your thought processes. Surely, SURELY, you cannot be having feelings of sexual arousal? No, ...of course not, ...so what's the tsk-tsking all about?

[deusex]

u_neek_sa,

Don't do it. Don't take the bait. Just try to enjoy the site before you go head deep in a debate with Bondsman. It'll be ugly, trust me. ;)

Bondsman,

I'm speaking for me that it's just an overall feeling and one that I got a long time ago when the owner wanted to me to link my sexually charged underwear site over to his site full of children in Briefs. I haven't taken a close look at what is there now, but a few years ago, the boys didn't have jeans on.

I can answer you that no I wasn't aroused (did I say that?) but I found it a bit creepy. Those are my feelings, and I don't need to debate them.

Regardless of my feelings, I created a review for them anyway back when their site was Tiger Apparel but the review and links were removed when their site closed. The next time I devote myself to the shopping guide I'll do another review for them.

[The Bondsman]

u_neek_sa,
Don't do it. Don't take the bait. Just try to enjoy the site before you go head deep in a debate with Bondsman. It'll be ugly, trust me. ;)
Deusex, you are SUCH a spoilsport!:rolleyes::D:D
Here am I tring to get some discussion going here to keep the "dying" forums a bit more interesting than "you look hot", ...and you throw cold water on it?
Oh well, .....back to "you look hot" fellers!:rolleyes:
Bondsman,
I'm speaking for me that it's just an overall feeling and one that I got a long time ago when the owner wanted to me to link my sexually charged underwear site over to his site full of children in Briefs.
Look, I fully agree that linking this VERY sexually charged site with a children's underwear site WOULD indeed be inappropriate, ....however that would be because of THIS site's content, and not Tiger's one. THIS is the one that pushes the sexual aspect, but of course you take care NOT to involve minors.
I haven't taken a close look at what is there now, but a few years ago, the boys didn't have jeans on.
...and? If they didn't? Underwear such as full classic briefs certainly covers all the areas.
I can answer you that no I wasn't aroused (did I say that?) but I found it a bit creepy. Those are my feelings, and I don't need to debate them.
Not unless you feel it may get "ugly". :confused:
No, you didn't say you were aroused, but I just wondered if that was the source of the "creepy" feeling. Perhaps it because we are all very used to associating the sight of underwear with arousal that transmits highly conflicting messages when we see underwear, but it's worn by kids?
It's just that constantly recurring emotionally charged word "creepy" I was hoping SOMEONE would explain to me.
Just what specifically is it that you find SO "creepy"???:confused::confused::confused:
The kid himself? His age? The pose? The garment? That it's underwear? .....The bloody skateboard? What?
Would it be "creepy" (or creepier, ...if there's even such a word?) if the eight and nine year olds were wearing say, Dore, Dubio or Koala styles? :confused:
Kids featured for many years in Sear's mail order style catalogues wearing Tiger-like classic traditional briefs, ....and nobody ever found them to be creepy, or complained back then.

I suspect that it's a modern-day thing that has been entirely planted in your collective mind-sets by the constant equating of homosexuality with paedophilia, ....and if anyone here ever wants to lend support THAT argument, you WILL see things get VERY ugly from me!

[pnhmrk]

BEFORE I POST I WANT TO MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT NEVER HAVE BEEN, I AM NOT AND DON'T EXPECT TO BE IN THE FUTURE ATTRACTED TO CHILDREN.

I agree with Bondaman - the pictures aren't creepy (at least the couple I saw). They're just not to my taste.

Perhaps it because we are all very used to associating the sight of underwear with arousal that transmits highly conflicting messages when we see underwear, but it's worn by kids?

You've missed out that kids are a no-no when it comes to anything to do with sex (Just look at how I have started this message - I want to make it quite clear that I am not into anyone under the age of 30!)

Would it be "creepy" (or creepier, ...if there's even such a word?) if the eight and nine year olds were wearing say, Dore, Dubio or Koala styles? :confused:

No, that would just be weird! :D

Kids featured for many years in Sear's mail order style catalogues

Did they - I didn't look. I was more interested in looking at the men as a masturbation aid :D

[The Bondsman]

BEFORE I POST I WANT TO MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT NEVER HAVE BEEN, I AM NOT AND DON'T EXPECT TO BE IN THE FUTURE ATTRACTED TO CHILDREN.
See what I mean?
To feel that anyone has to preface a post with a statement like that should just be TOTALLY unnecessary.
Do str8s feel compelled to do this when they post about kids?
Why are we constantly almost apologising for being made to feel like child-molesters, just because we are gay?
Need I remind anyone that statistics show that by FAR the most cases of paedophilia are perpetrated by str8s, ......and usually by a known family member.
And yet? And yet.......?
However I am glad that pnmrk has contributed to this discussion on underwear advertising rather than just making a vague statement, then retreating snail-like.
The prospect of being seemingly restricted to just safely repeating "You look hot" was not exactly all that exciting.
And they say the forums are getting dull.....?

[deusex]

See what I mean?
rather than just making a vague statement, then retreating snail-like.


I'm not sure if you're referring to me or to u_neek_sa but I stated my thoughts. I really don't think I need to delve into them further. It's like saying I don't like Brussels Sprouts I think they taste like the dirt they're grown in. What more do I need to say? I'm entitled to my feelings, and there's no deep rooted pedophilia that need to be psycho-analyzed. Like pnhmrk, since the first day I became sexually aroused, it was always because of a mature man.

I'll leave you with this: This is a little more than a boy wearing jeans with the tops of his underwear showing. It's almost like a Calvin Klein ad. Can't you see why I had reservations linking to it from this site:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070701122631/www.tigerunderwearstore.com/BoysUnderwearCatalogPage6.html

Anyway, I'll leave you to your debate. I have far more important stuff on my plate right now. We have our busiest two days coming up next week - our booth at Toronto Pride. Two days where we match two weeks worth of sales from the website. It's insane and it's a lot of work. We have boxes upon boxes of stuff arriving daily and it all has to be bagged. Oh to have staff right now.

[benbanan]

I'm not sure why, but that store always creeps me out with all the children in underwear. Does anyone else feel this way?

Yes - not comfortable with that - needs blocking

[deusex]

Yes - not comfortable with that - needs blocking

I don't think it needs blocking at all. They make children's underwear and so there's photos of children in underwear. Like it was mentioned before, Sears and other catalogs have shown children in underwear for years. There's just an occasional photo that (for me) just seems to go to far and to be honest I wonder if it's maybe like I mentioned, that it's styling is very Calvin Klein who does intend to make his advertising provocative. Maybe that's the connection for me. (there ya go Bondsman, I've done it, I explained it further like I said I wouldn't)

But with that said, my original comment wasn't to insinuate that their website intentionally tries to be creepy, just that's just the way it makes me feel.

I also want to mention that that photo I linked to is from their site in 2007, but their latest photos are not like that at all - the kids are all in jeans with the underwear barely showing.

[The Bondsman]

Maybe that's the connection for me. (there ya go Bondsman, I've done it, I explained it further like I said I wouldn't)
Ooooh, just a moment, ...I'll move the pictures!
Crawling up the wall can be rather uncomfortable with them in place!:D:D:D

"You look hot" when you're flustered you know, mon petit escargot!:D

My work is done here, ...I can move on now.....

[deusex]

Bondsman, you know when I come down off the wall I'm going to slap you silly.

[The Bondsman]

Bondsman, you know when I come down off the wall I'm going to slap you silly.
Promises, promises; ...it's always the promises with you!
Don't slap me silly, ...fuck me stupid!:hump;);)

[The Bondsman]

Yes - not comfortable with that - needs blocking

Surely you're joking? Seriously? Blocking?
Are you trying to re-instigate the Spanish Inquisition here benbenan?
Tiger Underwear is a legitimate site that's selling LEGAL, ...and necessary merchandise, displayed tastefully without any exploitation, ...and I'm sure they pay their taxes too.
We have just got to be looking at different sites, no?
We are talking about the Tiger Underwear site here aren't we?:confused:
I have to ask because we are obviously seeing TOTALLY different things.
When I look at the site under discussion, what do I see?
Well I see professional studio shots of kids showing a little underwear, (the waistbands only mostly), which you would expect as it's the product being advertised, and that's it really....and yet you, ....judging by your call for "blocking" apparently see something resembling kiddie-porn?
Surely this must be a case of evil being in the eye of the beholder, .....because I just don't see anything at all that even remotely calls for "blocking".
THAT sort of action sounds WAY too much like North Korea, Iran, China or even Zimbabwe to me! :eek:

[pnhmrk]

See what I mean?
To feel that anyone has to preface a post with a statement like that should just be TOTALLY unnecessary.

Precisely :) I had two reasons for prefacing my post with that statement. Firstly I did want to make it clear that I am not interested in kids but secondly, and possibly more importantly, that post was made as an illustration of just how far you can feel the need to go when talking about children.

[The Bondsman]

Precisely :) I had two reasons for prefacing my post with that statement. Firstly I did want to make it clear that I am not interested in kids but secondly, and possibly more importantly, that post was made as an illustration of just how far you can feel the need to go when talking about children.
Of course pnhmrk! I TOTALLY understand WHY you did it, ...but I really despair over why we feel we HAVE to do it. :confused::mad:
Personally I really object to being placed in a position where I have to apologise for something I am not, never have been...and should never be assumed to actually be.:mad::mad::mad:
Do people really assume any man who happens to be gay to be untrustworthy around any children? Or is it just we ourselves are so anxious to re-assure everyone? Why don't they perceive heteros to be a threat, ..which statistically is far more likely?
And seeing as most paedophilia is perpetrated by heteros, why don't they feel the need to have to preface any of their comments with the same phrase? Or even say such things as " I'm not a rapist but..." before they discuss anything about women.
Let me make it clear right here that my post is NOT really about the actual sexual molestation of children, (appalling, and probably not for discussion on this board),...it's about why we as a group feel so pressured to constantly point out we are not.
Have we been brainwashed into seeing gay men as being guilty? You are not the only gay man I have heard repeat that very same disclaimer.
Are we indeed stereotyping ourselves in the very worst possible way?
What happened to the presumption of innocence?

[jimknosp]

I couldn't agree with you more -- childrens underwear is inappropriate for this site.

[The Bondsman]

I couldn't agree with you more -- childrens underwear is inappropriate for this site.
What the...? :confused: You're joking....yes?:shocked
Let me make this very clear here and now:
Nobody, ...repeat; NOBODY ever said or even suggested, hinted or in anyway proposed we should have children's underwear pics here on this USG site! END of story!
How you came up with the above response is beyond even my admittedly weird comprehension.
The debate, if I may summarise it for you, was a technical one about the use of pics of children to sell children's underwear, which is just ONE department over on the TIGER SITE., They sell a perfectly a legal product to both adults and children, and have pictures of the products it sells as worn by models, ..... some of which are, well,.... children. (Which figures.)
Some here found them "creepy" for some unfathomable reason which was never fully explained, ....but as for posting those ads or any other "underage" pics here on THIS site, ....I just cannot understand what ever gave you the idea that anyone was ever advocating or intending to do that?
We were discussing reasons why some people and not others found those ads to be "creepy", ....and what conditioning in their past may have led to them holding such feelings.
I do think we can discuss this aspect quite freely without it being somehow assumed we are about to set up a section for "kids in undies" here......no?

[SweatyAussie]

Honestly, you guys, this is - or should be - a non-issue.

Deusex said some of the photos on that site made him uncomfortable. A few members agreed. A number of others - myself included - browsed the site and found nothing disturbing in either the Menswear of the Boyswear section. Admittedly I didn't look at every image.

Deusex NEVER suggested censoring or blocking it.

It's a catalogue, so naturally there are photos of models of the target demographic wearing the items. It might be different if the photos were suggestive, but I saw no genitalia visible, not even the shape thereof, let alone erections - in fact I didn't even see a hint of arsecheek. OK, a paedophile might find the sight of a boy in underpants arousing, and someone suggests the site should be blocked for that reason. Fine... then in that case we should also ban any sites that have photos of animals, because some people are sexually attracted to dogs. Or only under-age dogs maybe? (In dog years of course.)

Come off it.