The Under Armour fad is cringey.

under armour punisher edgy underwear.png

It’s nothing new that people like to wear some clothing company’s logo. America today is a marketer’s wonderland when people happily accept wearing a corporate identity where any expression of individuality could have been. Worse yet, they’re paying the marketers to advertise the brand instead of the marketers paying them. But this, too, is nothing new.

If I were to wear a company’s logo, it would be because I liked the brand that the logo belonged to. If I were to project that same sensibility, I’d guess that a lot of people really like a certain kind of underwear, because I’m seeing the Under Armour logo popping up on people like an inoperable super-cancer that’s contagious. But the benefit of the doubt doesn’t apply very well to fads, so it’s more likely that a bunch of impressionable mouth-breathers saw someone else wear the logo, and instead of recognizing it as stupid, they saw yet another logo to wear.

What’s especially cringey about the Under Armour fad is that it’s about underwear. When I see someone wearing an underwear logo openly, I have a mental image of some lanky aspiring jock saying, “Hey baby, this is the brand of underwear that I wear. Wanna see?” and then a disinterested woman must cope with the trivial social inconvenience of rejecting a subtle sexual proposition from an omega male.

Underwear as we know it today was a very recent invention, and was previously only worn by women during their period to ease the effects of menstruation. Women in ancient times didn’t advertise that they were wearing panties, because not everyone had to know that they were menstruating.

Underwear is marketed as heavily as it is today because marketers want you to spend more money on it than you otherwise would, and if the logo on that underwear becomes trendy, that means more people spending more money. The fact is, humanity has done just fine without underwear for nearly the entirety of its history. It does nothing for modesty, because the clothing that one would otherwise wear would have sufficed. No, people didn’t go without underwear while wearing a kilt because of some tradition, it’s because underwear was a rarity a few centuries ago. And yes, this means that just about everyone pictured in old paintings weren’t wearing underwear.

1200px-Mona_Lisa,_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpgThe meaning behind the Mona Lisa’s mysterious smile has finally been decoded: she loves the breeze when going commando. Either that, or she’s happy about something. Get a life.

People in the past certainly didn’t have Under Armour, and for that matter, wearing corporate logos wasn’t considered trendy, either. That’s one of those things that goes to show that people in the past weren’t as stupid as they’re sometimes assumed to be.

When people wear an underwear logo on their shirt, they have no idea how much the rest of us are laughing at them for it, regardless of how self-important the underwear company is. Under Armour is an underwear company; stop taking them so seriously.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s