Usually when a commercial makes me spit coffee all over my laptop, it’s because I find something hilarious or disturbing about the subtext. This one is less subtle.
Not that there aren’t questions. Are we supposed to think that their hair product is a turd? A… a marital aid of some kind?
Playing the video back and freeze-framing it, it becomes clear that the vent in the kangaroo costume is on the stomach, not between the legs, which means it’s the pouch, not the vagina or anus. That answers the question of what the product is supposed to be (it’s a baby kangaroo, or “joey”), and also the question of how the hell it got past the censors. But it raises another question. Why did I *think* it was a vagina to begin with? I do not have a dirty mind! Shut up! You shut up!
[For a shot-by-shot analysis of why Stokes thought it was a vagina, click and read on.]
A lot of it has to do with the way the commercial is shot and edited. In the ten seconds between the start of the commercial and the moment of ejection, we get ten different shots.
So what’s going on here? A few things conspire to make this last shot ambiguously filthy. First of all, they could have set it up so that the kangaroo’s head was in frame, eliminating all possibility of misinterpretation. They didn’t. Second, the limb in the shot is actually her elbow and forearm, but it could quite easily be mistaken for her ankle and elongated foot (making the thick white and purple thing it’s resting on her thigh, instead of her torso). Third, in all the shots of the kangaroo’s body that we’ve seen so far, the only white that’s been visible has been somewhere around her pelvis. (Closer examination reveals that it’s a massage towel, but these shots have been on average one second long: not enough time for a close examination.) Finally, the constant frontal shots of the kangaroo and the masseuse have us expecting a camera angle somewhere on this axis:
Combine that with the color thing, the vaguely sexual subtext of massage, and our anthropocentric tendency to assume that mammals have only three major orifices, NOT TO MENTION the rather unfortunate way that the ejection process stretches the fabric of the costume, and I think we can be forgiven for making a mons out of a molehill. Youtube user richfofo, who applies the Potter Stewart doctrine to fursuit genetalia, deserves to have the last word.
Add a Comment