This discussion reminds me of when we took our then quite young son to see The Nutcracker one year at Christmastime, as one does. When he first got a glimpse of the male dancers in their tights and dance belts he gasped “Guwah*… Wiener pants!”
*(think Hank Hill)
In 1980-'81 when I was living in Southern France a Canadian roommate was trying out for the local hockey team, and we went all over town trying to track down a jock strap at sporting goods stores and no one knew what we were talking about. I guess those French Speedo-style briefs give enough support to not need something specific for the job.
Jock straps were/are totally unnecessary, they don’t really protect the ball sack. Compression shorts have fulfilled the role of ‘keeping everything in place’ which was all the jock strap really did.
I thought jockstraps were essential for holding a cup in place?
I too missed the whole inappropriate sexual innuendo interpretation of this. I thought people were just overreacting because the commercial featured an article of clothing that’s considered gross and intimate.
It is. I wore one when playing paintball (the one day I forget it…) But you also wear them when running or doing some sports as it was supposed to compress and keep tight to the body to prevent… something… I forget what. Testicular torsion, perhaps.
And also kids do crazy shit with their underwear: smell it, wear it on their heads, wear it out side their pants, blah blah blah. Farts and stinky smells are HILARIOUS. Fart on your brothers teddy bear and smell it - sure - why not? And as gross as little girls can be, boys are 10x worse.
Just as an example.
Exactly. Everyone wanting to sexualize this - wtf? Calm down.
The boys should have been playing a joke on Mom, using her panties, and then sniffing her panties. Laugh riot! Nothing sexual there!
Of course boys do gross things. 90% of those things are considered off-limits for commercials on TV, and sniffing jock straps falls into that category.
Right - there WOULD be nothing sexual there. Not at that age. I remember bathing with my mom and seeing her pubic hair and obviously naked. I remember her breast feeding my brother. I did laundry for a long ass time and handled my moms and sisters underwear. I remember peeping at a keyhole at my friends’ mom (through their urgings) and while in hindsight we shouldn’t have done that - none of these actions were remotely sexual due to the ages of people involved. (Well I was older when doing laundry, but doing your families underwear is a chore, not something you get excited about.)
Just because as adults (and young adults) there are fetishes doesn’t mean every similar act is sexual. There are guys who get off on smelly socks, doesn’t mean if you shove your sock or shoe in to your siblings or friends face it is sexual.
Fair point thinking it is gross. Fair point if one thinks it crosses the line of too gross. IMO I think the fact that it didn’t smell doesn’t make it gross. Like clean socks or shirts or underwear aren’t really gross. I do think it is over selling the power of Gain. Of course one is entitled to having their line crossed and I respect that. But I think people relating this to something sexual are hyperbole and probably stem from either our Puritanical roots, or people’s over protectiveness which is a cancer in today’s age.
That’s beside the point. There’s a huge difference between children doing something at home with just their parents around, and showing that same thing in a TV commercial.
Toddlers might run around naked and touch their genitals, and that can be completely non-sexual. That doesn’t mean it’s innocent and non-sexual if featured in a tv commercial.
At risk of spelling out the obvious, now watching the ad first without sound, and then again with sound, I can subjectively confirm that this mostly likely guerrilla marketing targeted towards gays (an extremely lucrative demographic, but hard to target without angering other demographics), hoping for a more than a Subaru-level of signaling. (Look it up)
The narration content (“dad washed it with…”) is a smoke-screen. It is supposed to feel sexually suggestive, but only to gays, particularly those into gay bears / dads. It probably got made with at least SOME intentionality, at least the director was in on it.
Why:
The groomed beard-scruff on the dad
Dad’s “pleased” snuggling motion after the Folgers-level sniff
The jock-strap finger pluck (insinuating replay of a familiar act while worn)
The voice-actor providing the narration is quite pleasantly “husky”
The very last word in the caption and narration: “fling.” (implying dad on the down-low)
Half the guys don’t know a jockstrap is man underwear not gay nothig it is used to hold a man’s or boys scrotum up and away from harm’s way when being active only ,the cup came along later for use in contact sports when a guy could be hit in the junk.i love this add there is nothing gay or sexual at all. But it takes a little hummer to see that. It’s a grate add and it does it job. Look at all the attention it getting weather it’s ++ or - - it still attention. On yes I am straight a father with 3 boys age 9 to 22 they and I use jocksstraps and we are not gay. We just play safe.
