Must stop giggling about this..

[spuzzlightyear.livejournal.com]

Also, That little girl's position looks strange. Is she in the middle of that woman's legs?

Comments

[fallconsmate.livejournal.com]

She's standing in front of "mom", slightly turned with her right shoulder nearer the camera. You don't see her left arm much, but the left hand shows at the edge of the suitcase.

[keristars.livejournal.com]

Oh my, the pants the customs official is holding sure are starched. I hope she doesn't plan to wear them like that. (Ouch!)

[glass-houses.livejournal.com]

100% cotton please!

The headline grosses me out. Ew.

[dvdsky81.livejournal.com]

Maybe Im just dumb and missing something glaringly obvious-but wth does underwear have to do with peanuts? There are no peanuts appearing in this ad whatsoever as I can see. The whole tagline makes virtually no sense unless something is "lost in translation" or something. The more I read it, the more I "bwah?" IDGI.

[lydia-petze.livejournal.com]

"Peanuts" = slang term for "small change".

[mswyrr]

...oooh! I was thinking that maybe, since it appears to be set at an airport, the mom was supposed to somehow use her pantynut-hood to score more airplane peanuts.

Yes, there is no putrid suggestion so awful that I will not believe it of a '70s advertisement.

[freezer.livejournal.com]

It was the sentence structure that threw me. "Be a panty nut for peanuts" - I get that.

"Be a panty nut. For peanuts." = Wut?

[dvdsky81.livejournal.com]

Ah HAH!! NOOOOW It makes sense..lol.

[crabofdoom.livejournal.com]

Get mom some clown white, and we've got ourselves a new Joker. Wow.

You know that smile's only because she isn't wearing any at all. Those are some big-ass drawers for a girl that age, too. Maybe she's just helping to smuggle Mom's skimpier models. The suitcases would seem to imply that they did nothing but prance around a hotel room in only underwear for two weeks. What the hell is wrong with some advertisers?

[brinylon.livejournal.com]

Smooth-fitting excitement, uh-huh. If I wore some scary polyblend panties I'd want to change them every half hour too!

[lauramcewan.livejournal.com]

Exactly!

[cindyanne1.livejournal.com]

That mom has the scariest face ever! Omg her eyes! STOP LOOKING AT MEEEEEEE!!! *runs and hides*

Ahhh

[noluck-boston.livejournal.com]

I thought she was going to come out of the AD and bite me.
or..
Steal my underwear.

[murakozi.livejournal.com]

I think the Customs guy is more shocked by the woman's expression than her underwear obsession. I guess it's supposed to be a guilty "Gosh, you caught me" look, but dang if it doesn't give me the impression that Customs Guy just stumbled upon a mother-daughter serial killer team. Those panties are trophies from their victims.

On a totally different note: With that polyester blend, wouldn't she end up needing that minty spray we saw the other day?

[glass-houses.livejournal.com]

BA DUM CH!

[cuddyclothes.livejournal.com]

I'm going with the serial killer idea. The woman's expression is just too creepy. Or maybe she's going to wear them and then...oh, God, I was going to write something so gross I had to stop myself.

[pikkewyntjie.livejournal.com]

I remember this ad and thought it was stupid then. The Customs agent is right to be suspicious. Who travels with nothing but brand-new panties? You're not going to change your clothes on your trip? Looks like a black market panty ring to me!

There is something weird about the little girl. It looks like her left arm is behind her, but you can see her fingers on the suitcase. Just goes to show that you don't need Photoshop to make a hash of photo editing.

on second thought . . .

[pikkewyntjie.livejournal.com]

I looked at the little girl more closely (yikes, I'm starting to creep myself out now) and as weird as her pose is, it's not completely unnatural. The girl is sitting and leaning on the large suitcase and her torso is slightly turned. I think they wanted to have just enough of her in the shot so people would get the idea that they made panties for girls, but not detract from the underwear and the adult model.

Also, they wanted to make sure people could see that the woman does NOT have a panty line! Panty lines were a huge problem in the 70s!

I also noticed that they mentioned thongs. I didn't think those came along until later. I never saw a thong in the 70s either in the stores or on anyone. That's what we called flip flops then.

Re: on second thought . . .

[misstia]

they DID have thongs in the 70s but they were mostly always worn by say the purveyors of frederick's of hollywood.....

and yes, flip flops were called thongs.....now we couldn't call them that because there'd be mass confusion.....

Re: on second thought . . .

[pikkewyntjie.livejournal.com]

I guess everyone I knew wore granny panties! :D

Re: on second thought . . .

[amelia-eve.livejournal.com]

I remember thong panties from the '70s, but they were mostly referred to as G-strings and were pretty much considered a novelty item.

Most of the panties in the suitcase would be considered "hip-huggers," but the everyday-sexy style then was bikini panties. In particular, you'd wear bikinis with your jeans so they didn't show at the waist band.

Re: on second thought . . .

[cinnamonbite.livejournal.com]

The little girl is also posed to carefully cover/block mommy's crotch from the camera while at the same time drawing attention to it because that's where her face is. It makes you end up looking at her crotch because you're looking at the little girl, then feel guilty because clearly it's blocked so you don't look at it. Great bit of psychology there. In the end, I guess it didn't work since the company isn't THE name in undies today. Or peanuts.
LOL

[charlotterhys.livejournal.com]

Okay, people thought the Lollipop ad was weird, but I say no.

THIS ad though is SO FREAKY. Let alone Mom's wacko smile, look at the underchin on that girl. >.> It so does not look normal.