Was this a joke played on the poor model or something? I’ve seen the normal, upperbody one and I’ve seen the full one and the full one doesn’t seem like it was supposed to be printed. His crotch is ugly. His penis is unattractively positioned and looks like its made of elephant skin. His pubic hair is jaringly unkempt compared to the rest of his body. His genital area obviously wasn’t prepared to be photographed and it shows. I mean, the upper body looks great. High contrast with attractive shadows, shiny skin, lushious, kempt pelt on the chest, but below the belt it’s just bleh. This has to be some joke they played on this guy.
He is an uncircumcised male relaxing. He has hairy legs. He does not shave his pubes. Does not look wrong to me at all.
What, exactly, was a photo of a naked man supposed to advertise? Wouldn’t that be a rather pointless photo for anything except a gay club?
UncleBill:
If it were a regular picture, nothing would look wrong, but it’s a slick, produced ad, and the upper half looks more “produced” than the bottom.
Wow. Unshorn, natural pubes on a guy. Who would’ve thunk it? :rolleyes:
I mean seriously, this trend of male pube shaving is annoying.
Hell, I’m annoyed enough that women seem to think it’s required. Trim? Yes. Shave? NO.
Hello! I’m all for a natural look, I’m just saying it doesn’t look right for this advertisement! Everyone stop disagreeing with me now, or die!
here’s the ad if anyone hasn’t seen it.
Personally, I prefer this one. Leaves something to the imagination…
I contemplated getting rid of the link in herwono’s post, but decided against it. It’s not in bad taste, and it’s relevant to the discussion. It should be noted that this IS the full frontal version, so I wouldn’t open it at work.
Sorry, I guess I should have put a warning.
Er, so what are all those countless photos of naked/near naked women suppose to advertise? Are they pointless for anything except lesbians?
While I find the whole ‘sex sells’ thing thoroughly boring, it is refreshing to see a nude male for a change. I appreciate that many men feel threatened by the sight of willies on posters, but many women aren’t too comfortable seeing T&A every damn where either. So there! =)
The alternate version is great (I have a picture of my Hubby in a similar pose that I love), but I don’t see anything wrong with the full frontal. I thought it would be bizarre looking or something. It’s just a nice looking guy with hair on his body.
I think the ad industry has gotten us use to smooth, hairless mens bodies so when we encounter it in an ad it brings us up short. Or should I say we notice it more.
Wonder how much attention the ad would get if the model had been waxed?
I like both the ads. I think all the hair is sexy! Whoohoo! More naked hairy guys!
I don’t understand why he’s naked, beyond pushing boundaries.
But then, I rarely understand ads for fragrances and perfumes and stuff of that ilk - they all seem arty and pretentious, and make little sense.
Still, re: the OP, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the pic or the unkempt nature of it all - he’s just not of porn star tidiness, which I assume is what most of us are used to in the realms of male nakedity.
Hey, I could make the same statement about female T&A. Nudity is used almost 100% of the time to prevent people from thinking about the actual merits of a product versus its competition. I’ve seen ads for earthmoving equipment that used half-naked women, for god’s sake.
And I don’t feel “threatened” by some guy’s dick on a poster - why would I? I’m more offended than anything else. I wouldn’t want to see some woman’s clitoris either.
So it’s a naked man. He didn’t seem particularly unkempt to me. Not my type, but not bad. The ad certainly doesn’t make me want to buy the cologne, so in that respect, it’s not effective.
<shrug>
I’ve seen bushes far more unkempt than that. (And loved them!)
And it’s not that graphic-it’s very shadowy, so you just see a bit.
shrugs
No big deal.
I like the picture. I don’t think he looks messy at all.