Register

Shorts with pockets but no fly, are they for: male? female? or both?

Is This A Good Question? (2)

Add an Answer to "Shorts with pockets but no fly, are they for: male? female? or both?"

Send me an email when there are new answers to this question

    Best Answer (Chosen By Asker):

    ServeMistressP - 46-50 years old - female

    Posted by ServeMistressP Jul 1st, 2011 at 1:03PM

    Both, My slave. Most of the athletic shorts My male partners have worn fit this description. I believe the designers decided a fly wasn't necessary because the men would probably also be wearing a jock strap. Since they would need to pull the waistband of the shorts away from the body anyway to free their **** from the athletic supporter when they needed to pee, the fly was useless and omitted.

    The question of gender-specific clothing is so foreign to Me anymore that I sometimes forget I am part of a small minority who find the designation of certain items of clothing as mens' or womens' to be more annoying than helpful. But I guess that's what happens when You admit You are addicted to the beauty of seeing a man wearing gorgeous silky panties and a matching bra...especially when he is aroused...

    [ Reply ] | Like (2)

  1. MPsslavetommy - 70+ years old - male

    Reply by MPsslavetommy Jul 4th, 2010 at 9:34PM

    Thank You my Mistress. I hope I will be able to show You that, especially the aroused part.

    Like (1)

1 Answer to "Shorts with pockets but no fly, are they for: male? female? or both?"

Ask A Question

Answers to questions are provided for entertainment purposes only. You should never use answers to questions provided here to replace professional advice, such as from a doctor or lawyer. This page is for providing answers to the question "Shorts with pockets but no fly, are they for: male? female? or both?"