LGBT News A week of bizarre underwear related news!

Just a bit of fun but I stumbled across these two stories last week, the timing did feel very coincidental.

Firstly:

A Norwegian underwear brand has been refused a patent in the USA for having too vulgar a name. The underwear is called ComfyBalls and is so named because...well...you get the picture. Apparently a conservative interest group called "One Million Moms" had been lobbying for this decision. Full story:

Comfyballs underwear leaves America feeling uncomfortable - Telegraph

Now whilst I can't say I'd wear them (I would be a bit embaressed by the waistband logo!), to be honest its a case of them doing "exactly what they say on the tin" - no false advertising there!

And Secondly:

A rather kinky gay-marketed underwear brand have had there Christmas ad pulled for being, well too gay I guess?

What's Time Warner Cable's Problem With This Gay Underwear Commercial?

Now I've watched the ad and whilst definitely suggestive (with the slightly porn-esque backing track) its really not explicit and surprisingly for an underwear ad there isn't even a lot of nudity in it (although who knew onesies could be so sexy!? :lol.

I'd echo what the comments of that article state, you see a lot more suggestive heterosexual themed adverts on TV, particularly perfume adverts (are there any perfume adverts where the woman isn't having a Meg Ryan-esque orgasm?!). What about this recent one, the imagery of which is currently plastered on bus-stand billboards in my locale! Or any Axe/Lynx commercial for that matter. Hell this was on TV not long ago (blatantly NSFW by the way and particularly awkward to be on when your parents are in the room), Ooh err! :icon_redf I would though....vaporize that is!

 

Those were my thoughts on it to.

Its obviously tongue in cheek but it does state the exact purpose so whats the problem? I wonder whether One Million Moms would be more of less outraged if they'd used the proper scientific term instead of the slang. How about testicular treaters? :lol:

But in America you have "athletic supports" (jockstraps) and no-one bats an eyelid - what do they think is being "supported"? Or is it OK as long as the parts are just implied?

 

I know, it is a bit...pants.

Or any Victorias Secret advert, take this one for example:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3XRv75StUg[/YOUTUBE]

Numerous women dressed incredibly scantily clad (in inappropriate environments to be wearing just underwear, i.e. in public and outside at night). Large breasts on display with much cleavage shown. Lots of very suggestive posing, "orgasm faces" and "come to bed" eyes (or rather "come f:***: me eyes"). And then you have them dressed as angels which could be taken as being somewhat blasphemous. Seemingly perfectly fine with America and the broadcasting companies however.

And then we have an advert where we see a few bare male chests (indoors I must add, and seemingly in a private residence), a couple of brief glimpses of underwear on the lower body and a little subtle sexual suggestion (I didn't even notice it when I saw it) and people are outraged.