These are brands that I do not recall. But I do recall one underwear advert that shows a young hunk of man in underwear surrounded by a gaggle of young women who have presumably planted kisses all over his trunk as evidenced by lip prints in lipstick on the man's exposed skin and prominently displayed muscular pectorals. Pectorals that appear like bare female breasts until you actually lift your eyes off the road while driving and look carefully.
Another young man in an underwear gets ravaged by a group of women who pull him into a bathroom - I can't recall whether its a men's room or not. To me, these ads appeared like they were erotic fantasies being lived out by some advertising storyline planner, with the suggestion that you need to wear some brand of underwear if you want to get laid. That confuses me. I always thought that the underwear needs to come off as a vital step in getting laid. Maybe I know nothing about virtual reality. Either way it took a leap of imagination to think that this is an underwear ad. What do they hope to achieve - a hard on every time anyone wants to buy underwear? shiv On Monday 30 Jul 2007 12:48 am, ashok _ wrote: > I&B Ministry bans Lux Cozy & Amul Macho ads > http://www.televisionpoint.com/news2007/newsfullstory.php?id=1185462935 > > "The Lux Cozy Underwear and Amul Macho Underwear advertisements, which are > being > telecast on several television channels, have been considered indecent, > vulgar and > suggestive and thus violative of Rule 7 (8) of the Advertising Code > prescribed under the > Cable Television Act, an official statement released by the I&B ministry > said." > > I couldnt quite decide which was funnier, the ban, or the fact that one > underwear is named > after a bath soap, and other after a dairy products brand.
