Dettol tried to get way too deep trying to sell some household cleaner and ended up getting absolutely dragged by the community. The British disinfectant giant, owned by the big-money suits at Reckitt, had to delete their whole commercial and put out a quick apology on Sunday after the internet in China called them out for putting out some straight-up garbage that was wild offensive to women.

So here is how the commercial went down, and honestly, you can’t even make this stuff up. They dropped this five-minute "micro-drama" online at the end of May, thinking they were doing something real clever. The ad shows this goofy dude comparing his current girl to his ex. When he finds out his ex used to live with another man, he literally calls their relationship a "secondhand service." Then he goes and tells his boys he needs a girl who is "clean and untouched" for his first time.

This clown literally says on camera, "I may not be a virgin, but my future wife has to be," and then brags, "Luckily, I met her now, she’s clean and hasn’t been contaminated by other men." The ad tries to turn it around at the end when the new girl finds out what he’s been saying, calls him out for being a trifling-ass misogynist, and dumps him. But then, as she’s throwing his dirty socks in the wash, the brand drops this corny voiceover: "A toxic man is just like these germs – you need Dettol to eliminate them completely to feel at ease."

Like, seriously? You’re trying to use real-life relationship drama and messy-ass double standards just to pitch a bottle of disinfectant? The streets were not feeling it at all. By Tuesday, the whole topic had racked up over 80 million views on Weibo, and people were ready to throw the whole brand in the trash. Folk started calling for a straight-up boycott, with one user keeping it 100 and writing, "I will never use Dettol again." When you play stupid games with your marketing, you get stupid results.

Once the money started looking funny and the backlash got too loud, Dettol had to scramble. In their apology post, they tried to act like they were just trying to "challenge unequal gender attitudes and promote healthy, confident views." Then they tried to play the victim card, claiming that "edited clips" on the internet distorted what they were trying to say. That's the oldest trick in the book when a corporation gets caught slipping on the timeline.

They also tried to point fingers at a "third-party agency" for making the ad, though they had to admit they were negligent for letting it pass the review. They tried to wrap it up in some real corporate-speak, saying, "We are well aware that true protection also lies in safeguarding the dignity of every individual and their right to be treated equally." But let's be real—they only started caring about "dignity" once 80 million people started talking about taking their money elsewhere.