Comfyballs

[PrincessFiona]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6304094.html

So they were denied a patent because they used the word balls. Balls was considered to be too vulgar!

o-COMFYVBALLS-570.jpg

The underwear is built with a special ... pouch.


I think this is ridiculous. They can't use "balls"? Are we really that easily offended?

Kris

[spotty_dog]

For some reason I'm reminded of something I once read...apparently the novel "Up the Down Staircase" was censored in the 60s because it describes the main character sitting in a school assembly and reading the graffiti on the backs of the seats...the graffiti read, "BALLS". The censored version changed it to "RATS".

We should brainstorm new names for the product. Comfynads?

[SoonerTexan]

Comfyjewels

[Pollyanna]

Duluth Trading company says "Ballroom" Jeans, lol. Maybe Duluth didn't apply for a patent or ballroom is more socially acceptable? Seems silly.

[Vanquisher]

What a kick to the balls. Free speech, anyone? They should be able to name their product as they see fit.


Heidi

[MrsK]

If uddercovers got a pass, comfy balls should be okay. Both awful names.

[Thirteen]

If uddercovers got a pass, comfy balls should be okay. Both awful names.

The also have "Hooter Hiders". 😄


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scrub-jay]

Bamboobies.

[fluffhead]

I disagree - I think it's obscene. I'm all for free speech, but I don't want my preteen children shopping in Macy's and learning that it's acceptable to have that kind of language in their lexicon.
I'd say ditto for the girly-parts language.
And truth be told, this is not an issue of free speech - the company can call it anything it wants, and it's up to the retailer to use their common sense about purchasing it or not. But shouldn't the US Patent Office have some standards?

[MrsK]

I agree to a degree. The names are all awful and demonstrate poor taste on the manufacturer s' part. But it's not up to the US Patent office to censor
It's a consumer issue. If the consumers and retailers find it offensive, don't buy/stock it. I only brought up the uddercovers comparison as a what's good for the goose argument. No one objects when women's parts are discussed but men's parts make everyone squimish.

[bobk]

I only brought up the uddercovers comparison as a what's good for the goose argument. No one objects when women's parts are discussed but men's parts make everyone squimish.

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. How about calling the female equivalent The Muffin Warmer? I'm sure the same folks would find that vulgar as well.

[Sheherezade]

Yeah -- I f'ing love science on facebook just had a whole blog post about how women's genitalia never gets all the mentions that men's genitalia does. So, I think it isn't really that nobody cares about women's bits and pieces being used crudely, it's that nobody really cares about BOOBS being used crudely. They are the least respected forbidden body part. It pretty much went bad for boobs when we made a national restaurant chain named Hooters successful.

Well, this discussion got ridiculous pretty fast, didn't it?

I am also kind of a fuddy duddy about the names, and I don't think these would be in gay men's stores. I think the crude-is-funny naming is very mainstream now. I know both my teen and my college kid respond to it and see it everywhere. I figure I'm holding the line to make a face when they toss out names like that. I think the company should be allowed to name them what they want, but I wouldn't buy it and I'd probably be turned off by the store display.

[JediMaster]

Knock knock Vanquisher--- guess who?!? #yourfavebrowngal

[Vanquisher]

Love you browngirl!


Heidi

[JediMaster]

Love you browngirl!


Heidi

😍


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk