Saving the world one panty at a time.
March 8, 2007 6:44 AM Subscribe
Panties for peace Buy a panty, save the world.
I don't quite get why people buy for these "percentage goes to an organization serving a cause" promotions: why not cut out the middleperson and write a check to the charity yourself?
In the case of peace-sign panties, is the consumer's goal here to impress one's latest "conquest" with the depth of one's commitment to a better world goes and/or how privately one maintains it?
posted by davy at 6:57 AM on March 8, 2007
In the case of peace-sign panties, is the consumer's goal here to impress one's latest "conquest" with the depth of one's commitment to a better world goes and/or how privately one maintains it?
posted by davy at 6:57 AM on March 8, 2007
Damn it. I just blew my last $14 on some boxers for botulism.
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 7:19 AM on March 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 7:19 AM on March 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
davy: See also Bono's "Red" initiative. "It’s predicated on the notion that most of us would like to give to charity, but only if we get something in return... and only if we can flaunt a logo showing just how good we are."
posted by chrismear at 7:26 AM on March 8, 2007
posted by chrismear at 7:26 AM on March 8, 2007
I have a hard time believing that Gandhi wrote this "quote"- Wear your Panties for Peace proudly, share your voice loudly and wage peace! The first 500 panties sold will be shipped with a "peace" button...together we can "be the change we want to see in the world." ~Gandhi
This is not the best of the web by a long, long shot.
Also, those are some butt ugly panties and yes I am an expert.
posted by fenriq at 7:57 AM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
This is not the best of the web by a long, long shot.
Also, those are some butt ugly panties and yes I am an expert.
posted by fenriq at 7:57 AM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
They are sold as one size fits all, is that even possible?
posted by dov3 at 8:00 AM on March 8, 2007
posted by dov3 at 8:00 AM on March 8, 2007
And they look damned uncomfortable.
posted by faceonmars at 8:00 AM on March 8, 2007
posted by faceonmars at 8:00 AM on March 8, 2007
I have a hard time believing that Gandhi wrote this "quote"- Wear your Panties for Peace proudly, share your voice loudly and wage peace! The first 500 panties sold will be shipped with a "peace" button...together we can "be the change we want to see in the world." ~Gandhi
To be fair, it sounded better in Gujarati.
posted by languagehat at 8:08 AM on March 8, 2007 [2 favorites]
To be fair, it sounded better in Gujarati.
posted by languagehat at 8:08 AM on March 8, 2007 [2 favorites]
That's not saying much - everything sounds better in Gujarati.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:16 AM on March 8, 2007
posted by Meatbomb at 8:16 AM on March 8, 2007
You are a butt ugly expert?
posted by YoBananaBoy at 8:44 AM on March 8, 2007
posted by YoBananaBoy at 8:44 AM on March 8, 2007
They are sold as one size fits all, is that even possible?
No, it's not.
posted by Red58 at 9:09 AM on March 8, 2007
No, it's not.
posted by Red58 at 9:09 AM on March 8, 2007
Sorry, Ginch for Gingivitis took my last dime.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:21 AM on March 8, 2007
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:21 AM on March 8, 2007
I just spent ten minutes trying to find a blog post I read yesterday, but can't locate it. It was about environmentally friendly and socially conscious sex toys. It featured things like S&M paddles which were made of wood which was grown in a sustainable fashion, and something-else-or-other which was made of hemp fiber. I think one of them was bed sheets made of bamboo. (??)
What was sad was that it wasn't a spoof. Those were real products, genuinely being sold on the web.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:24 AM on March 8, 2007
What was sad was that it wasn't a spoof. Those were real products, genuinely being sold on the web.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:24 AM on March 8, 2007
YoBananaBoy, nope, I am an ugly butt expert.
Steven, nothing wrong with green kink!
posted by fenriq at 9:30 AM on March 8, 2007
Steven, nothing wrong with green kink!
posted by fenriq at 9:30 AM on March 8, 2007
the panties are not awful and I am certainly guilty of paying more for a pair of panties at Victoria's Secret ... I wish we were all better about donating, but most of us aren't. if this raises money, then good for them.
and 50% seems pretty high to me, as far as "a percentage of goes to" products go.
posted by kitalea at 11:20 AM on March 8, 2007
and 50% seems pretty high to me, as far as "a percentage of goes to" products go.
posted by kitalea at 11:20 AM on March 8, 2007
What was sad was that it wasn't a spoof. Those were real products, genuinely being sold on the web.
What's sad about products manufactured in an environmentally responsible way?
posted by brundlefly at 12:10 PM on March 8, 2007
What's sad about products manufactured in an environmentally responsible way?
posted by brundlefly at 12:10 PM on March 8, 2007
If they'd been worn once and ya know they came with a picture of teh HAWT wearer. Not only could you charge 3X as much but World peace would be a cinch.
posted by Skygazer at 12:10 PM on March 8, 2007
posted by Skygazer at 12:10 PM on March 8, 2007
$14 underwear? Too rich for my blood (literally).
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:28 PM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:28 PM on March 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
Wow, those look cheap. Somebody is likely making a $6.75 profit off these after the charity's cut. I wonder what third world country they were made in.
posted by figment of my conation at 1:32 PM on March 8, 2007
posted by figment of my conation at 1:32 PM on March 8, 2007
TPS: You have some kind of blood condition, then?
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 3:32 PM on March 8, 2007
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 3:32 PM on March 8, 2007
"I wonder what third world country they were made in."
And whether the makers were chained to their machines.
posted by davy at 3:33 PM on March 8, 2007
And whether the makers were chained to their machines.
posted by davy at 3:33 PM on March 8, 2007
What was sad was that it wasn't a spoof. Those were real products, genuinely being sold on the web.
Why is that sad? The sex toy industry is a multi-billion dollar market, and most of it is cheap, outright dangerous crap that usually just gets thrown away as raw waste without any channels for recycling.
Or are "sustainable" industry and business practices "sad"?
And how is this any sadder than collecting images of catgirls?
Back on topic: Good God those things are hideous! What is that, an athletic cup supporter? One size fits who? Teddy fucking Ruxpin?
Of course, in the real world some poor confused soul is going to go vacationing in Morocco and mistakenly wear those to what they thought was a topless beach, but instead they took a wrong turn and ended up at the beach next to the Jihadist mosque, and it's going to spark a major diplomatic incident that embroils itself into a full scale war.
Not because she offended the fundamentalists because she was topless and underdressed. But because those goddamn panties are so ugly.
I hear that they're frantically re-writing the Geneva convention as we speak to include a hideous undergarment subsection to the list of banned cruel and unusual punishments.
If I had a girlfriend and she wore those in an attempt to be seductive, I'd ask her why she hated me. However, this may explain why I don't have a girlfriend.
posted by loquacious at 6:57 PM on March 8, 2007
Why is that sad? The sex toy industry is a multi-billion dollar market, and most of it is cheap, outright dangerous crap that usually just gets thrown away as raw waste without any channels for recycling.
Or are "sustainable" industry and business practices "sad"?
And how is this any sadder than collecting images of catgirls?
Back on topic: Good God those things are hideous! What is that, an athletic cup supporter? One size fits who? Teddy fucking Ruxpin?
Of course, in the real world some poor confused soul is going to go vacationing in Morocco and mistakenly wear those to what they thought was a topless beach, but instead they took a wrong turn and ended up at the beach next to the Jihadist mosque, and it's going to spark a major diplomatic incident that embroils itself into a full scale war.
Not because she offended the fundamentalists because she was topless and underdressed. But because those goddamn panties are so ugly.
I hear that they're frantically re-writing the Geneva convention as we speak to include a hideous undergarment subsection to the list of banned cruel and unusual punishments.
If I had a girlfriend and she wore those in an attempt to be seductive, I'd ask her why she hated me. However, this may explain why I don't have a girlfriend.
posted by loquacious at 6:57 PM on March 8, 2007
I won't wear a thong for anything. Peace, saving the whales, ending third world debt, it's not going to happen.
When we have some attractive hipster style or "boy cut" panties on sale, then we'll talk.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:02 PM on March 9, 2007
When we have some attractive hipster style or "boy cut" panties on sale, then we'll talk.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:02 PM on March 9, 2007
« Older Slow and Steady | Mr. Humphries has measured his last inside leg. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Out of this constant nagging in our brains, Panties for Peace were born.
posted by BeerFilter at 6:53 AM on March 8, 2007