By Queerty Staff · 13 comments· Updated on January 26, 2009
If you name your underwear line “Macho,” you’re asking to be ridiculed — especially when one of your styles is a zebra-print g-string thong. That is, of course, unless you can back up that macho claim, as Macho Underwear most certainly did.
We have drastically different views of “macho”. This is the cheesiest crap… I can’t even finish that thought.
The higher the cut on the thigh the more these garments resemble ladies panties. A muscle man in ladies panties UGH.
@ggreen: I actually see this as comedy due to the same observation: a waxed and oiled, pretty muscle queen in panties parodying gladiator-butch. Hilarious!
Ridiculous brand name. Ugly underwear. Hideous photo shoot.
@No. 3 So you really mean Nacho?
What the hell were they thinking?
The models are hot, and the underwear is fine, but the shoots are cheesy â€” like the photographer picked up whatever crappy props were laying around from whatever period (Imperial China, India, Ottoman, medieval Europe, ancient Greece …) and threw them together.
Kind of looks like if John Waters shot soft-core gay porn.
total rip-off of that old 50’s-60’s Athletic Model’s Guild stuff.
This is an ad campaign? I’m so distracted by the idiotic helmets/hats that I don’t even notice their product. It’s supposed to be underwear, right?
Dammit, I was expecting a different kind of Trojan Helmet.
I didn’t realize that body waxing, baby oil, and colored/patterned briefs were macho. I guess I’ve been doing it wrong.
Comments are closed.