The Joe Boxer Kerfuffle

It seems I’m back in the commercial swing of things, at least temporarily. Don’t expect anything too deep – RL is still a bear and an energy drain like whoa (but not in an entirely bad way) – but rather expect little toe-dips into the water. :)

I recently saw this commercial and despite myself, I giggled my head off:

Cue the controversy! Some people apparently found this ad distasteful to the point of upset to their moral turpitude. One Million Moms (not linking to them for reasons) called for a protest. My goodness, I thought, really? This is super tongue-in-cheek, right down to the speaking part going to the guy wearing the Joe Boxer logo underwear. We see what you did there, Kmart (or rather, Kmart’s ad agency).

I’m not trying to downplay the concern. Honest, I’m not. I’m just not sure how six guys fully clothed except for pants doing nothing overtly erotic or soft porny as offensive as, say, every Victoria’s Secret commercial ever.

Heck, even Hanes and their close-up crotch shots are more revealing. The fact the song from this ad gets stuck in my head is way more offensive than the commercial itself. Heh.

Yet, the Joe Boxer holiday ad is what spawned a public wave (a brief one, anyway, and no pun). Isn’t that just … weird to anyone but me? Don’t get me wrong. I understand the why of it. It just makes me irritated.

Comments

  1. Cheryl H. says

    *rolls eyes* Give me a break! I find the ad a bit tasteless, but because I think the humor’s a bit tasteless. Men in boxers that are loose and don’t show anything ‘naughty’? *yawns* My male cat taking a bath is more worthy of clutching my pearls while getting my panties in a twist. The comments at HuffPost by some people make me roll my eyes. One person calls using “…male genetiala [sic]…a pretty desperate attempt to sell junk.” O RLY? Then what’s using female genitalia and breasts, because companies do that all the time and it’s very successful for them–and the women in those ads aren’t as covered as the men in this ad, or if they’re wearing clothes, they’re wearing clothes that emphasize their breasts and physical assets in a way that sexualizes and objectifies them. The Morality Police screaming about this ad but remaining silent about VS, not to mention beer ads, car ads, and…*thinks*…oh, geez, lots of ads selling something that has nothing to do with the sexed-up woman/women in them is a glaring double standard.

  2. says

    Cheryl H., but you see, we MUST protect men from sexual exploitation on any level because… well, we’re not really sure what happens if we don’t because we’ve never tried it, but we’re pretty sure the world implodes and… wait, no, Duran Duran in Speedos as early as 1982… well, still, we’re pretty confident that at some point there would be a critical mass point and then the Big Bang would have a whole new meaning. ;)

  3. Cheryl H. says

    Yes, heaven forbid there be equality in sexual exploitation. We can’t be showing manbits around for no reason at all! Us weak wimmin wouldn’t be able to control ourselves if that happened. We must be protected from ourselves by those who know better than we do!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.