It will be interesting to see how Andrew threads the needle in talking about something that isn't worth talking about.
Boxers vs. Briefs
We look at people's ties and at whether they are wearing skirts and blouses or pant suits. Barbara Walters interviews a grief stricken widow, for 15 minutes of .. what, exactly? Why shouldn't we know what the informational content of underwear is? People have been yearning to know what's under a kilt for years, if anything. Politics abhors a vacuum. Of course, maybe there is a line for privacy ... or journalism.
The bottom line is that some underwear just isn't sexy. In a popular culture obsessed with the nubile and the prurient, perhaps underwear does have informational content (and electoral value?).
Anyway, the point is that, unless he's commando (not likely), set in his ways (getting there?), or a j-s guy (money bet ;), Andrew should know that "boxers v. briefs" dichotomy went out a long while ago, with the introduction of the "boxer-brief" (well, they were "square-cuts", first):
The Living Daylights
Meanwhile, if anyone has forgotten just how exciting the world of underwear can be, check out C-IN2, who have a runway-worthy macroflash on their website. Ah, the world of fashion!
sullylink
