Saturday, July 8, 2017

Cocksox Bikini Briefs Comparative Review: CX01, CX01BD, CX16N

 


Cocksox is an Australian company that makes underwear and swimwear for men. They offer a wide range of fits and styles, including four different pouch variations, two of which are smaller (the Snug and Contour pouches), and two of which are bigger (the Original and Natural pouches). As I mentioned in my previous review, I’ve been trying out bikini briefs for the first time in my life, and since I’ve always been impressed with the quality and longevity of Cocksox products, I decided to give the three main Cocksox bikini brief varieties a try. Cocksox ended up being the bikini briefs I was most impressed with. A comparative review of the three follows.

 
Materials and construction: Cocksox is the only company I’m aware of that primarily uses Supplex as its fabric. As a result, it’s hard to determine if it’s the material or the manufacture quality that is responsible, but Cocksox underwear has the best longevity of any company that I’ve tried. Supplex also dries faster than any common material. The 8% spandex blend makes it a tough but accommodating material. The differences between the three come in terms of the shape and support. While all three of these items use the Original pouch, it fits differently due to the different shape of the items. The CX01 is the most minimal of the three, with just a small, thin, streamlined silhouette that covers as little as possible and is supported by some minimal elastic. The CX01BD is quite similar, but has thicker layers of material surrounding the waist and leg holes (highlighted by the second color). The CX16N is a completely different design, similar to a jockstrap and utilizing a normal waistband, but with a normal backside rather than just two straps. The pouches on the CX01 and CX01BD are both positioned much more upwards than the comparatively relaxed CX16N. The CX01 and CX01BD are both quite stretchy around the waist, while the CX16N is has a tighter, stiffer waistband, possibly in an attempt to help alleviate the shifting on the backside (see next section). 9/10

 
Comfort and usability: The pouches on the CX01 and CX01BD are the same shape, but the CX01BD ends up being a better, more consistent fit, because the superior traction keeps everything more firmly in place. (A minor tradeoff to this is that the CX01BD is somewhat warmer, albeit still much cooler than most underwear.) Despite not covering much on the backside, the CX01 and CX01BD both stay in place better than one would expect, but can be irritating if they do fall out of place, which lots of sitting or friction against tight pants can do. The positioning of the pouches in the CX01 and CX01BD give more room for your penis than your testicles, but can be comfortably rearranged, and the lack of seam right behind the pouch gives them an advantage of comfort and flexibility that most pouch underwear lacks. Keeping the package away from the legs makes walking more comfortable. While I’m usually not a huge fan of low-rise underwear, both the CX01 and CX01BD surprised me with how comfortable they felt after I got used to the fit. While the CX16N’s pouch is as big as the other two, the tightness of the elastic pulls it in closer, restricting the amount of space. It’s still more spacious than most underwear but much tighter than ideal. The waistband is tight and narrow enough to dig into your skin, and the overall cut creates more friction against the inner thighs while walking around. In addition, the backside is rather unstable. The CX16N isn’t ideal for daily wear, but I did like it as a superior alternative to a jockstrap: The lack of strap attachments behind the pouch allows it to lie flatter and be much more comfortable against the body. I would definitely recommend the CX16N for people considering a jockstrap for workouts. 6/10

 
Aesthetics: I think part of the appeal of the pouch on the CX01 and CX01BD is that it’s supposed to make your bulge look bigger and more conspicuous, but it’s not very flattering in that regard. The minimalist approach to the tags/branding is welcome. The CX01BD’s two-color scheme looks good, and will please those who enjoy lively and unique color schemes. The CX01’s toned-down look is more of my style. From the front, the CX16N looks like a jockstrap. It’s not a bad look. The stitching around the angles in which the different parts of the item comes together looks a little rougher (but doesn’t indicate poor quality in this case). The CX01 and CX01BD (and arguably the CX16N) have a low enough fit that people who wear looser pants or shorts shouldn’t have to worry about the top of their underwear being visible under their pants. 7/10

Overall score: 7/10

Big enough? I could make the CX01 and CX01BD work, with some adjustment. They have bigger pouches than most underwear and can be worn low for comfort. The CX16N offers enough space for workouts, but not for prolonged usage.

No comments:

Post a Comment