Friday, July 13, 2007

Pants-Off Dance-Off, Indeed

On the way home from work yesterday, I ran across this billboard for the iPod:



Now, obviously, the quality on my cell phone camera isn't quite equal to that of my regular camera. But as I sat there gazing up at the brightly-colored image, it suddenly struck me that that chick totally wasn't wearing pants! Seriously, there was no telltale sign of the bottom of a pant leg, no little rise of the silhouette where the end of the tights/leggings would be (down near the ankle), nothing.

Heck, for all I could tell she was wearing a safety vest, sneakers, her iPod, and a smile.

So what kind of message is Apple trying to send here?
  • iPods - So awesome that nobody will notice you're nekkid!
  • iPods - Make you dance like you gots no pantz!
  • iPods - Support our charity campaign to clothe the indigent!
On the other, I suppose she could just be wearing thong underwear, but that just doesn't seem like something that'd be comfortable to walk around in all day, much less if you're doing the safety dance like this chick is. But maybe I'm wrong, my personal experience with thong underwear is, admittedly, limited.

3 comments:

KC said...

You see... she did have pants, but they had ants, and you know the old saying: "I have ants in my pants and need to dance." Hence, the removal of said pants in order to dance.

towwas said...

I think she's wearing capris that end just below the knee. There's something that could, conceivably, if you use your imagination, be a hemline below the knee at right. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

grrrbear said...

Nope. I drove the GF by this sign this weekend and she confirmed my belief that that chick is, indeed, wearing no pants.

Steve Jobs, you sly dog...

After all, Elmo seems equally disinterested in both...

I have a hard time believing that Elmo was traumatized by Katy Perry's decollatage after discovering that he had already "been arou...