1. uffda says

    Just when I thought I might be hip, I don’t get it I have to return to my fallback position: how stupid.

  2. jpeckjr says

    The ad is clever, I think, but I wonder if the product is actually that, um, uh, magnetic, shall we say.

  3. Dan Cobb says

    I don’t understand TJ’s comment. A blow job is a good thing, always!! And it feels good. And a horney older guy still horney, getting his. Cool. I think it’s a great ad. I’m totally sex positive and have had a problem having sex. I’m not picky and I just love sexing with dudes. Period.

  4. Paul R says

    It’s gross, and not because the guy is older. Because it strongly implies that he’s molesting him.

    Get molested, and you might understand why many of us find it creepy.

  5. Lucas says

    DAN COBB, great, you love dudes sooo much and blow jobs are great.. but this is creepy.. RAPE! Wtf?

  6. TJ says

    C’mon, ENDO, the ad says he’s getting a closer look, but the implication of the position, what grabs one’s attention, is the appearance that the room service waiter is “servicing” the guest.

    And DAN COBB, I consider myself relatively sex positive, but some things cross the line. The ante is upped in this ad by making a definite age difference – one might not be as grossed out had the waiter been the same age and relative attractiveness. And not to get too PC and buzz-killy, lack of permission aside, but the much older, unattractive guy molesting a younger guy vibe, which is what they are going for, is pretty sex-negative. Imagine Gramps crawling under the sheets with a hot young girl. Most people are going to get the same “ew” vibe. Anna Nicole Smith, anyone? Don Draper would not cotton to associating “ew” with one’s product, no matter how attention-grabbing it is ;>)!

  7. elg/edwin says

    “If you thought he was getting a BJ, you completely missed the point of the ad.”

    So what was the point of the ad?

  8. endo says

    There are either some really dumb people on here or people so hard up for sex that they get titillated at the slightest possibility.

    He’s not giving him a blow job. He’s just looking at the underwear close up, very close up.

    There’s another ad in the series (feature a Little Person) that does the same gag without a bed sheet in the way.

  9. Jim says

    “So what was the point of the ad?”

    The point is that the underwear is so impressive that he really wants to see it up close. The joke of the ad is that what we think we’re seeing is him crawling into bed to blow the sleeping guy. BUT HE ISN’T. It’s the last part that makes it effective and amusing. “Oh my, it looks like he’s a perv who’s about to go down on someone without permission. But…oh wait, nope. He just put himself in a compromising position because this underwear is crazy incredible.” It isn’t playing with notions of rape or molestation. If anything, it’s playing with the audience’s belief that must be what’s happening.

  10. Paul R says

    Yeah, sure. Someone who gets into bed with a stranger who is sleeping isn’t doing anything gross. It’s just perfectly natural and acceptable. Because you can’t see underwear at a distance of a few feet.

    That is the stupidest argument I’ve heard in a while.

  11. TJ says

    JIM – if it’s “playing” with people thinking it looks like he’s servicing the guy in bed – and plenty of people here thought that – then its playing with looking like the guy is getting serviced. That it’s fooling people is part of the intentional manipulation. You don’t get to “blame the observer” for getting the joke. And if that joke creeps people out – and plenty of people here felt that – then that is the risk they took by creating a provocative ad.

    I’m still going to go with, it’s a mistake to create a yuck factor that is then associated with a product. “Wear our underwear, and pervy old room service waiters will want to crawl in bed with you while you sleep!” Oh, sign me up!

    I see plenty of ads that make me think, “WTF?” rather than funny, clever, and “I want that.” Perhaps I am not the target audience but then, when one is in business, it seems engaging the widest audience possible would be the more profitable approach to take.

  12. happyday says

    I really hope that most of these comments are trolls, because you demonstrate that gays are among the most uptight, ageist, sexually repressed, and creatively-challenged folks around.

  13. TJ says

    Aw shucks, if only I was as smart and hip as HAPPYDAY! I should have watched the video and thought, “Genius!” It’s all my fault for being such a repressed loser. I’m ageist because I didn’t get turned on by the idea of service person who appears to be about 80 crawling in the bed of a sleeping guest who appears to be 40-50 younger in order to get a closer look at that person’s underwear. Creepy is apparently cool, and no one bothered to send me that update. It’s ALL MY FAULT that I didn’t like the commercial. I am not allowed to question this monumental work of brilliant artistry. My taste is not only all in my mouth, but questionable to boot. Who wants my business anyway?

    Either that or HAPPYDAY was part of the “creative team” that produced it…

  14. uffda says

    Well TJ, my goodness, are we getting all uppity and defensive. Of course the ad’s totally creepy. You know that. We know that. The only ones that don’t are the creeps. So forget them.

  15. TJ says

    UFFDA – not uppity, über snarky. There is a difference. I’m much more bemused than annoyed. It is, after all just an ad.

    And I was going to tell you that I liked your “Titanic” annectdote, but now, having been admonished, I’m going to withhold that Bon mot. No nice for you.

  16. uffda says

    Don’t be mean to me. I’m glad you saw the Titanic piece, I’d hoped you would even if you’re not going to tell me. Hey, I’m nice. Nicer than snarky.

    Love this site which is so much more enjoyable now that I skip you know who.

  17. Homer says

    If people react differently to how this ad was originally meant, there’s a word for it: PROJECTION.