and therefore deserve to get laid.

Women. Wives and mothers buy most of the underwear worn by boys and men in this country, according to every stat I've ever seen on that subject. [Admittedly, only a few stats, but they've all been consistent.] Perhaps American Eagle is counting on American wives and mothers to be amused, rather than outraged, by 'male chauvanist' underwear. Maybe they will be amused. Maybe they won't -- in which case American Eagle shouldn't count on moving a lot of that merchandise. Who knows? I don't presume to know what motivates the average American consumer or the average American mom looking for underwear for her son.

To draw conclusions about broad social trends from a pair of underwwear [and, for all we know, a single pair is all that's actually been sold], seems like a serious reach to me.

it's called Irony, rebecca - big with the kids these days - like wealthy white college grads living in expensive "slums" and sipping PBRs - they wouldn't know a blue collar if it was wrapped around their throat, but they love the trappings. Same with this underwear: wearing "Most Likely to Succeed" on your underwear is silly - it's kind of funny, but mostly it's just marketing - not everyone, Rebecca, goes to grad school and deconstructs everything around them - my bet would be that American Eagle Outfitters is trying to distinguish their brand of identical underwear from all the other identical chains that sell identical types of clothes - most with stupid slogans on them, so they came up with this drivel. As to this being sexist, you fail to explain how "Biggest Flirt," "Best Dressed," "Most Popular" and "Most Likely to Succeed," is sexist, aside from your circular attempts to interpret them... Or how Male Chauvinist Pig is anything but degrading to the fool who wears it (if said fool even knows what it means) - it certainly is no endorsement (I think we're back to ironic).

O.k...Words written on your underwear, are ALWAYS meant as a joke.

A man with Male Chauvinist boxers is saying, "The notion of male chauvinism is ludicrous and deserving of mocking by having it on my underwear."

No body wears cute underwear except as a joke.

A girl with "Most Likely to Succeed" is probably mocking the labels put on people, and the forced obedience to certain stereotypes that others insist upon. If you tell a teen you can't wear that because they're on the honor roll, a teen will say, I will wear that because I'm on the honor role.

Now, there are clothes where a foot should be put down. I think any woman with words Juicy written across her butt deserves what ever slander any one wishes to toss at her. But underwear is not seen and makes no statement, except one you make to yourself. That statement is usually, I really like tweety bird, New Jersey Devil's are a great team, or I think the idea of wearing underwear aligning me with a group of people with whom I disagree is hilarious.

Please, please, please stop publishing fashion articles in a blog that is ostensibly about feminism. I don't care if Hillary Clinton informs us that she wears her black Saturday panties on Tuesday, or announces that she's going commando, it is not a feminist issue.

Your writing makes me cringe, and you take yourself so seriously, it's pathetic. You know what? It really ISN'T that big of a deal, and you really ARE being shrill and humorless. Has that thought even crossed your mind, or are you so caught up in your faux righteous indignation that you can't see that? Why trivialize the stuff out there that is truly worth getting angry about by whipping yourself into a little tizzy over silly bullshit like this? Self righteous twits like you give the left a bad name. Shut up before no one takes anything we say seriously.

Unless of course you have a hard hitting front page article on your experiences at a Madonna concert.

I kind of like the idea of undies that say "most likely to succeed." I have a pair of drop-dead sexy, insanely expensive skivvies that I save for high-stress days (important meetings, difficult conversations, that kind of thing). It's not that I'm going to be flashing them at a client or anything; it's a reminder to myself that there's more to me than meets the eye, so to speak.

But "chauvinist pig" boxers? Uh, no. Even if a guy is wearing them ironically (and how am I supposed to tell?), the sight of something like that will fizzle my sizzle in about 2 seconds flat. Hey, maybe A&F is onto something after all -- they're designed to promote abstinence!

Back in the 70s and 80s there was "Undawear that's Funtawear" - low-priced tighty-whities for men with cartoons and slogans on the front, mostly based on pop-culture slogans of the time. Most memorable: "Home of the Whopper" - inspired by a then-popular Burger King ad.

I read here today, that a woman who raped a 13 year old boy at knifepoint got only 6 months in prison:

http://tinyurl.com/nmru7

She is expected to serve only four months of her sentence. Oh well, he's only a boy!

I wonder how much of a sentence a man would have gotten had he done the same to a 13 yr old girl?

I've read ad nauseum how boys' sinking performance in our schools is dismissed without a discussion as well.

There's no gender parity in America if you're a boy, that's for sure. Feminists have replaced the sexism of the 50s with their own PC-fueled bigotry, and that hate is directed to boys every day.

If there is supposed to be some parity between the boys' underwear and the girls' underwear, are we to assume that the slogan 'most likely to succeed' should be taken as as much of an ironic joke for a girl as the slogan 'chauvinist pig' should be when it's pasted on a boy's underwear? are these both supposed to be dismissed and not taken seriously? is it ironic for a girl to succeed?

another criticism of these underwear, and one missing from your post, is that they assume a heterosexual normativity.

good post, though. the topic is an important one to point to.

there is something very problematic about these underwear. i understand the argument that, perhaps, american eagle's designers see these panty slogans as ironic. but i think it's hugely damaging when one's early interactions with gender stereotypes, sensitivity, and socio-constructedness are already ironic. i argue that it's important to lay a formative groundwork down of understanding before you begin referring to dangerous gender stereotypes so casually and ironically.