Skip

Underwear!
March 8, 2010 9:57 AM   Subscribe

Manpacks. The underwear-replacement start-up.
posted by dame (64 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
Cache
posted by jckll at 10:04 AM on March 8, 2010


borked at the moment. Perhaps all of Metafilter is trying to look at it at the same time?
posted by Melismata at 10:05 AM on March 8, 2010


This, I could use.
posted by brundlefly at 10:08 AM on March 8, 2010


Working for me. I could use a service like this- I am fast running out of underwear, and am dreading having to go buy new stuff (since I don't know what I like anymore).
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:08 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


It's good that my girlfriend approves. I just wonder what my wife will think.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:08 AM on March 8, 2010 [18 favorites]


Yes, the lack of lady-options makes me sad. But that is because I know what I want but am lazy.
posted by dame at 10:10 AM on March 8, 2010


Is it any match for underwear made from bananas?
posted by MuffinMan at 10:10 AM on March 8, 2010


Finally, a way to automate consumerism in the field of fashion!
posted by DU at 10:13 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


Is it any match for underwear made from bananas?

Okay, nobody make a 'banana hammock' joke.
posted by hangashore at 10:14 AM on March 8, 2010


Seems odd that they use such short bananas.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 10:20 AM on March 8, 2010


Step 2: ....?
posted by honest knave at 10:22 AM on March 8, 2010 [6 favorites]


I'm certain that there was an almost identical service at the height of the 2000 boom. I distinctly recall white tube socks and tighty-whities (in packs of 5 I think) being the two products they would send you monthly.
posted by bonehead at 10:24 AM on March 8, 2010


Holy shit, I did this 10 years ago.
posted by mathowie at 10:27 AM on March 8, 2010 [10 favorites]


I just do the Don Draper thing. Buy more than you think you need. Stash them in different locations, like shirts in the desk drawer.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:29 AM on March 8, 2010


is three months a reasonable amount of time to replace socks, etc.?
posted by Jon_Evil at 10:33 AM on March 8, 2010


This really just encourages needlessly wasted threads. Nobody should have to replace their underwear every 3 months.
posted by tybeet at 10:36 AM on March 8, 2010


is three months a reasonable amount of time to replace socks, etc.?

Seeing as how you only get 2 or three pairs every 3 months, I'd bet they don't really intend for you to throw out the previous pack when the new one arrives.
posted by SAC at 10:38 AM on March 8, 2010


What DU said. Maybe my scrotum isn't as covered with harsh metallic spines as everyone else's is, but undies last me quite a while, and I even have some undershirts (ribbed, sleeveless "A" shirts) approaching 15 years active service.
posted by jtron at 10:47 AM on March 8, 2010 [5 favorites]


Hm. Interesting. I was just thinking about quitting wearing underwear/shorts. Aside from the obvious (cleanliness, warmth, zipper danger), are there any genuine medical hygiene reasons to wear underwear? (Maybe I'll ask AskMe...)

is three months a reasonable amount of time to replace socks, etc.?

I have underwear from 1990. Socks don't last nearly as long, but I'd say 5-6 years is about right.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:51 AM on March 8, 2010


In a related story, eight year old twins develop wedgie-proof underwear.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:54 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


What's the market for this? Single guys with no mothers?
posted by uncleozzy at 10:55 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


I briefly (ha!) pictured some sort of disposable genital enclosure, perhaps paper-based, that would replace traditional underwear. So I'm a bit relieved.
posted by longsleeves at 10:58 AM on March 8, 2010 [4 favorites]


Nobody should have to replace their underwear every 3 months.

As long as you change your underwear every day, this is not an unreasonable statement....
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:59 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


Lessee what choices I have: Hanes, Hanes, or Hanes.

UnderwearBlue?
posted by chairface at 11:01 AM on March 8, 2010 [2 favorites]


Every now and then I need to go to this magical place called Target because I've run out of toilet paper or some paper towels or maybe some other paper goods. And if I need to I stop by the clothing section where they sell underwear and socks. (For cheaper than this I might add.) Is that really so hard?
posted by aspo at 11:07 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


Best of... huh? Please.
posted by fcummins at 11:10 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


Oh come on, it's every red blooded male's natural born right to wear decrepit tattered rags whose elastic bands would turn to dust and scatter in the wind if handled too roughly. From time to time my faith in this ideal wavers but then I just pretend that I'm a pioneer farmer in the middle of nowhere and the Sears catalog wants a whole three pennies for a new pair and I don't have that because I had to use it to buy hog feed.
posted by Rhomboid at 11:12 AM on March 8, 2010 [14 favorites]


I could really use a reasons-to-bang-my-head-on-my-desk subscription service.

Oh wait, I'm already using the internet.
posted by orme at 11:13 AM on March 8, 2010


Wait, so there's no laundry service involved?
posted by electroboy at 11:15 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


Hm. Interesting. I was just thinking about quitting wearing underwear/shorts. Aside from the obvious (cleanliness, warmth, zipper danger), are there any genuine medical hygiene reasons to wear underwear? (Maybe I'll ask AskMe...)

Sweaty nutsacks.
posted by stenseng at 11:15 AM on March 8, 2010


I was waiting for the part where they explained how you mailed the dirty underwear back. And then seeing how they disclosed the delicate part about how the clean underwear they mailed you this week was, perhaps, not entirely new.

When I was at the MIT Media Lab the rumour was Nicholas Negroponte never packed a suitcase. He just had clean clothes Fedexed to him around the world. It makes perfect sense, in a perverse kind of way.
posted by Nelson at 11:19 AM on March 8, 2010


... WHERE ARE THESE FOR WOMEN?

Seriously, I replace underwear about three or four times a year, I don't like going out to buy the stuff and I wear a lot of pretty plain undies (although in colors), and I'd be happy with all black or all blue or all red or something.
posted by FritoKAL at 11:21 AM on March 8, 2010


Finally, a way to automate consumerism in the field of fashion!

Is underwear -- at least plain-ol-Hanes type underwear -- really "fashion"?

They seem more like consumable necessities to me, although I guess they aren't strictly 'necessities.' (I have from time to time had people tell me about the financial/spiritual/health reasons for going commando, but I have never been totally convinced.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:27 AM on March 8, 2010


Well, these prices beat me going to Zellers. But I actually sort of enjoy going to Zellers for this stuff. It's like the only reason I go to that store a few times a year.
posted by clvrmnky at 11:32 AM on March 8, 2010


Tightie-whities are a surefire recipe for inadvertent self-inflicted wedgies, and I despise boxer-briefs, and I also despise broadcloth old-man's boxers that come five-per-pack. Finding a decent pair of boxers is getting stupidly difficult.

I used to think it was only the music I missed about the '90s - now I realize it was also the golden age of comfortable, durable underwear.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:37 AM on March 8, 2010


I'm pretty picky. Gotta be 100% bushed cotton boxers, loose.

Anything else leaves me less "fresh" than my best.
posted by Danf at 11:38 AM on March 8, 2010


A little digging around seems to indicate that this is not affiliated with Hanes directly. Here's the Who.Is information about the site. Here's Hashbrown Interactive the owner. Here's the dude who started it talking about the process of tweaking the site to make it more attractive and have less bounce.

Actually, the last link is fairly interesting. His analysis of the first two weeks of launch and the uselessness of SEO is probably more interesting than the product itself.
posted by stoneweaver at 11:39 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]



I was waiting for the part where they explained how you mailed the dirty underwear back. And then seeing how they disclosed the delicate part about how the clean underwear they mailed you this week was, perhaps, not entirely new.


This is an entirely different kind of fetish service. And it costs you a lot more than this.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:43 AM on March 8, 2010 [2 favorites]


Metafilter: encourages needlessly wasted threads
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 11:51 AM on March 8, 2010 [2 favorites]


Seems like a limited market, after all, men buy underwear themselves for only 17 years (19-36).
posted by djb at 11:53 AM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


3. Profit
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 12:03 PM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


Do they have a pre-skidmarked option so that the new don't clash with the ones already in the drawer?
posted by digsrus at 12:10 PM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


I want Manpacks to be like power-ups you find in the field, except, instead of refilling your health, or making you invincible for a couple of minutes, it's clean underwear.

But, and this is important, I want them to figure out a way to have it just instantly spring onto your body the moment you run over it. That way, when you are out doing your thing, you can spot a Manpack hidden behind a dumpster or on a ledge or something, and you race across, activate it, and BAM! clean shorts.

That would rule.
posted by quin at 12:12 PM on March 8, 2010 [16 favorites]


I'm glad it's girlfriend approved because as a man I am genetically incapable of performing even basic routine hygienic maintenance upon my person and thus all laundry/cleaning/cooking/washing duties fall to the nearest vagina-equipped human AS IS ONLY RIGHT
posted by shakespeherian at 12:26 PM on March 8, 2010 [3 favorites]


Okay, I'm finally starting to understand why women I've dated over the years say that I have certain girl-like tendencies that they approve of. Is it really that hard for most men to put the toilet seat down, buy themselves new underwear before it turns to tatters, and not pee in the sink? I mean, it's not like little girls go to school and little boys run feral...

MetaFilter: my scrotum isn't as covered with harsh metallic spines as everyone else's is.
posted by davejay at 12:32 PM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


Soon to replace "diapers" as the #1 item found in landfills.
posted by not_on_display at 12:42 PM on March 8, 2010


I actually did have a pair of boxers turn to tatters once, while attached to my person. Very uncomfortable, falling down the legs of my pants and all. I think it was a manufacturing defect, though, rather than age.
posted by uncleozzy at 12:51 PM on March 8, 2010 [2 favorites]


Seconding davejay.
posted by odinsdream at 12:58 PM on March 8, 2010


Is it really that hard for most men to put the toilet seat down...?

In my experience, it's been the women who have trouble putting the seat up.
posted by LordSludge at 1:09 PM on March 8, 2010 [7 favorites]


Hm. Interesting. I was just thinking about quitting wearing underwear/shorts. Aside from the obvious (cleanliness, warmth, zipper danger), are there any genuine medical hygiene reasons to wear underwear? (Maybe I'll ask AskMe...)

Yeah, they protect your pants from butt sweat & stray pubes so you can wear your pants a few times in between washes. It's easier to wash a bunch of undies than to wash your pants every time you wear them. But I am kind of a dirty hippie when it comes to washing my jeans.

I wish they'd do this for women, but they'd have to have like 97 varieties of undies, if the picky ladies I know are any indication. But it would be so nice not to have to snap up the couple pairs in stock of my panties of choice every time I find them in a store.
posted by Fui Non Sum at 1:09 PM on March 8, 2010


... WHERE ARE THESE FOR WOMEN?

I wonder if there's any market research behind the decision to only do men's underwear, or if it's just an assumption that it would only appeal to men, or that a service targeted to women would be too complex.

It's easy to guess some of the objections that you'd get if you proposed an identical service for women; the only one that strikes me as potentially having merit is that there's more variation and brand preference in women's underwear than men's.

I.e., most men choose one style (out of a pretty limited selection of styles) and then stick with that style virtually all the time, while women tend to own -- perhaps as a consequence of wider variation in women's clothing -- more than just a drawerful of identical pairs of underwear (to say nothing of bras). But I'm admittedly basing that on anecdata; maybe it's not borne out in reality. There's certainly a lot of "women like to shop" and "men hate shopping" buried in there.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:17 PM on March 8, 2010


I've been hoping for a long time, to get a bundled subscription for everything. CSA produce, toiletries, cleaning products, bandaids, beverages, liquor, Rx, etc... It seems like the attrition rate for this stuff is fairly constant and if not, could be tweaked on occasion. Maybe an uptick in the liquor delivery around holiday time, or whatever.

The manpack fits in with this worldview, but if they could aggregate more items in their the delivery costs per item would drop.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:29 PM on March 8, 2010


Is there a service I can subscribe to that will remind me to change my underwear every three months? A simple e-mail will do.
posted by mazola at 2:18 PM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


Keeeraist, I haven't read through most of the posts on this thread--I kinda got the flavor of the pros & cons. How in the blue-freaking-blazes is it too hard to hit a Target/Macy's/TJMaxx (depending on your underwear class level) whenever you need something? Or, for no-drive, no-convenient-store people, ummmm, Amazon? May I never get so feeble that I can't buy my own underwear.
posted by beelzbubba at 2:30 PM on March 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


Is it really that hard for most men to put the toilet seat down, buy themselves new underwear before it turns to tatters, and not pee in the sink?

Ranks right up there with differential equations and climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro, apparently.

posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 4:38 PM on March 8, 2010


I was just thinking about quitting wearing underwear/shorts. Aside from the obvious (cleanliness, warmth, zipper danger), are there any genuine medical hygiene reasons to wear underwear?

I can't find it right now, but I seem to recall an AskMe a while back that confirmed (at least anecdotally) that men generally have looser, ah, sphincters than women do. Underwear would be useful for avoiding skid marks or even just butt sweat on your pants.

Also, many gynecologists says that thongs, for instance, can up the rate of UTIs and vaginal infections in women by serving as a sort of "conduit" for fecal bacteria to travel along. I'd worry that the seams of your pants might end up performing a similar function in the absence of underwear.

Finally, having underwear in place to wick away sweat, especially during warmer months, might be useful in preventing yeast infections/jock itch.
posted by limeonaire at 5:01 PM on March 8, 2010


Afraid of commitment? We also offer a Single Pack for just $10: 1 pair of underwear, 1 shirt and 1 pair of socks, delivered once.
posted by bam at 5:53 PM on March 8, 2010


Huh. I too was totally expecting a diaper service, but for adults' underwear. (I wonder if there's a market for that...)

Also, there's apparently already blacksocks and a few other subscription underwear places.

Manpacks' pricing is about on par with other online stores, though it looks like there are a few better deals to be had. I guess if three months is your preferred underwear buying interval, and you like paying the regular price + $6 shipping, it makes sense.

I just wonder why they say things like, "We believe...that most men are fully capable of ensuring they have clean stuff to wear. The task just happens to be low priority."

They're not giving you clean stuff in the "clean laundry" sense; it's just new! You'll probably wash it before you even wear it the first time! Misleading, if you ask me.
posted by sentient at 11:21 PM on March 8, 2010


There's a whole lot of TMI going on in this thread.
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:32 AM on March 9, 2010


FritoKAL: Seriously, I replace underwear about three or four times a year, I don't like going out to buy the stuff and I wear a lot of pretty plain undies (although in colors), and I'd be happy with all black or all blue or all red or something.

It's easy enough to throw a pack into your shopping cart at Target -- what *I* want, in my Special Snowflake Pony World, is somewhere you can buy ALL black underwear. Stupid Hanes and their "only one black pair per pack" nonsense.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 8:32 AM on March 9, 2010 [2 favorites]


Y'all are beanplating this. It's just a nice thing to have. I have a sock subscription from Sockrush, sending me four new pairs every two months. It's really useful, the socks are really nice, I don't need to think about getting new ones ever, they all match in my wardrobe, and getting a new packet of them is like opening a fresh can of Lavazza: it's a tiny little pleasure that happens just often enough.
posted by DangerIsMyMiddleName at 12:46 AM on March 10, 2010


I was going to post something here but then I remembered that MrMippy's made-up internet friends abound.

Be glad, men, that underwear doesn't cost a minimum $40 per throw.

Bittergirl, M+S do black packs. It took a lot of searching to find, though - it's almost like undies manufacturers don't know that women occasionally need functional dark underwear.
posted by mippy at 9:37 AM on March 10, 2010


Also, many gynecologists says that thongs, for instance, can up the rate of UTIs and vaginal infections in women by serving as a sort of "conduit" for fecal bacteria to travel along. I'd worry that the seams of your pants might end up performing a similar function in the absence of underwear.

I don't understand this. Research shows that women's underwear increases rates of UTIs and infections, yet *not* wearing underwear could cause the same problem in men? It's not like my pants will wrap around my genitals. I wear average loose clothing.

Finally, having underwear in place to wick away sweat, especially during warmer months, might be useful in preventing yeast infections/jock itch.

In that regard, I think underwear hurts more than helps. It gets all tangled and twisted (or, alternatively, is tight), warming everything up in general.

I live in a very moderate climate, and I'm in good shape. I can jog a mile or so without breaking a sweat. I'm giving it a shot. This is going to free up a good $10 or $20 per year!!
posted by mrgrimm at 10:05 AM on March 10, 2010


A good way to advertise man packs would be to have them free in cases of beer. Not many guys would admit to buying it for those reasons though.
posted by MechEng at 7:57 AM on March 11, 2010


« Older if you can make it there, you'll make it anywhere   |   Talking squid in outer space Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post