Pants/trousers* and Superbowl Commercials

I honestly don’t know what is  worse:  The commercial or what appears  to be the manufacturers/advertising agency’s comment on it:

And here’s the explanation:

The Men Without Pants ad makes a statement about modern masculinity, or lack thereof. The anti-anthem commercial dramatizes the ridiculous behavior of a group of men not wearing pants. These proud but childish men march through a field with purpose while singing I Wear No Pants and are interrupted with a notice to mankind: Calling all Men – its time to Wear the Pants. The takeaway of the ad is that men might see a glimmer of themselves in the pant-less parade and make the decision to Wear the Pants, both literally and figuratively.

Given the amount of drinking that can be going on as this commercial is watched, one has to worry about whether such a commercial is going to bring out undesirable behavior.  Or so I think.

What do you think?


*trousers are called “pants” in the US>

4 thoughts on “Pants/trousers* and Superbowl Commercials

  1. off-topic, but: The ongoing clarification of the US/UK “pants” discrepancy on this blog makes me so very cheerful. Just brings a smile to my face. Meanwhile, my first-year students (I’m in the US) were SHOCKED (shocked!) to learn today that “fanny” doesn’t mean bum to all peoples …

  2. Thanks for posting this, JJ–I’d read about it on mailing lists, and kept thinking I should do something!

    Molly– just imagine my British students when I told them about Fanny Farmer.

Comments are closed.