Hmmm. Under the clothes or in general . . ? I think under the clothes it is simply a full brief as no matter what shape you are they don't cause as much vpl and ugliness. Must be good quality and reach the navel to achieve maximum containment. If we are looking at an underwear model. . . tall,sylph-like and low body fat, I would say hipsters with a boy leg. If we are talking men . . . there is no such thing. *boingggggg*
I think that is very much a personal choice. I could not say in general, because I can't speak for everyone. All I can say is that I remember that scene in ' Bridget Jones Diary' when she was in a scene with Hugh Grant. He was about to take her underpants off and he came across these huge grandma undies. He was nice about it, but she was mortified. They definately were very ugly and unflattering. Personally, I wear bikini or hipsters and they are flattering. I usually choose cotton underpants so they breathe, but I do have lots of lacy ones as well. When I was working in a nursing home, it was grandma pants as far as the eye could see, so I suppose they considered those flattering, but they would have been quite risqué in those days, I guess.
Well Vee, I hate the flesh coloured ones because they remind me of my mother's underwear, which wasn't called "flesh coloured" back in the day but I guess that's the reason I don't like it….sort of reminds me of old ladies. Can't help it.
I have to say that Bonds used to be better than they are now. I remember having Bonds as a kid, and they were great. I bought a pair about six months ago, they will be ready for the bin in the next six.