moi

Bringing this back from the dead... it seems to me at least the Walgreens Certainty brand has gone downhill, at least with the briefs I use. I know at this price point you don't expect awesome fit or capacity, but with the latest iteration, they seem to rip at the back if you attempt to get them tight to any degree. So in 2023, does anyone know of something at a comparable price point (say < $1.00 / brief in smallish quantities like 20) that at least won't fall apart? Years ago I wore the CVS brand then switched to Walgreens when it seemed they were selling exactly the same diaper for less money. But now at least in photos, the CVS ones look different (from Walgreens) - might they be any better?

I have a coworker who in spite of generally being a nice guy, buys into the "war on Christmas" BS.

So I think I've seen some mention of this before but I've never seen a real thread about it...

Bloody vikings!

Well hopefully not to fan the flames too much but let me throw out a few thoughts.

Let me share a related problem that drives me nuts... maybe someone has a solution?

One big possible difference: if it's fulfilled by Amazon, it'll show up in Amazon packaging.

I've gone through a bunch of these recently and pretty much agree with what others have said - they're incredibly comfortable and discreet / not very "diapery". They are 10x more "clothlike" than other diapers I've worn that make that claim. So depending on what you like, you'll probably either love or hate them. Two things I'd point out that have not been mentioned yet: these are definitely for "#1" and not "#2" - 90% of the absorbency is in the front and part of the rear isn't padded at all (I'm talking about the men's ones). And about people not noticing them if they're visible: they have very obvious seams down the sides and I've never seen underwear that looks like that. So if someone was pretty observant they might notice, although they probably would not identify them as diapers, just unusual underwear. Oh and one other thing I find especially odd: they're not available in white! If you're like me and almost exclusively wear white undies, the color difference alone could be enough to tip someone off.

Is this your way of telling us you're running for office?

Amazon.com. Someone looking at the statement can of course tell you bought something, but they can't tell *what* you bought. And of course with Amazon it could be anything! Look for products sold by or "fulfilled by" Amazon and they'll come in generic Amazon packaging.

No. The Onion story about babies

Actually, I also agree it's not victimless. However I don't agree with what some seem to think which is that everyone involved is a victim. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, as with so many other things. And like sarah_ab, I think that legalizing it would reduce the number of victims by bringing it out in the open.

Um... how can you claim to know what I want? You've never met me and know nothing about me. For what it's worth, I've never partaken of the services of a prostitute, never would, and have no desire to. So your made-up statement about what I want is incorrect.

...and yet you apparently do not support women having the right to earn a living by engaging in sexual activity? Many countries/groups/religions/people that oppress women claim it's for the women's benefit. Kind of how royals during medieval times claimed their treatment of the serfs was for their benefit.