Sexually demeaning Irish Broadband advertising

Red Alert

so what exactly is your point haz? because it's unclear to me what your view on the suggestive advertising issue is other than the fact that you have found this ad offensive.

SeanW

jester77 wrote:

Sounds like viral marketing to me!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_marketing

You could be right: what better way to draw attention to an ad noone cares about and a company noone takes seriously?

haz

SeanW wrote:

I must admit I'm having a very hard time taking the OPs complaint seriously.

I think you are taking the fact that I raised the issue far too seriously - I just said it is offensive and unwelcome in the middle of my business news, not anyone else's. There is much worse about, which I would take to the ASAI or take direct action on.

But you are also (in my view) taking the issue itself far too lightly, perhaps because you have never faced or considered the reaction of someone who has faced the expectation of sex, physical restraint, coercion or sex without consent.

Haz wrote:

I have no connection with the company, the marketer or the broadcaster. I am indeed beyond sexual reproduction and attempting to procreate memetically. If I wanted the advert banned I would not be drawing attention to it.

I did once receive obscene amounts of money working for an unheard of little outfit that proposed, of all the weird, bizarre notions, that there might be money selling old-fashioned paper books through the internet. But I posted this message (on News & Media, not here in Consumer Issues) because the advert was inappropriate in the context I saw it. Discuss, compare & contrast and all that - nice to see it in the Sunday Business Post.

haz

It speaks volumes about the relative IQ of men and women that Danish road safety adverts featuring topless women holding 50 km/h signs actually work. Boys: the video link is in the Times story, although it is probably on YouTube under "speedbandits".

Flash of road safety genius (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2483819.html)

A ROAD SAFETY campaign that features topless Danish blondes flashing their breasts at passing motorists has been described as degrading, exploitative — and an enormous success. .... But feminists and family campaigners have condemned what they call a “ridiculous” campaign. “It’s degrading,” said Randi Theil Nielsen, of Denmark’s Women’s Council. “It is based on the idea that young men are preoccupied with sex and this view of young men is wrong.”

Zombrex

Randi Theil Nielsen wrote:

It is based on the idea that young men are preoccupied with sex and this view of young men is wrong.

Young men are preoccupied with sex. They are supposed to be.

The real ridiculous idea that there is actually something wrong with that, that thinking about sex is some how disgusting and no one should admit that we do think about sex, or get turned on by a naked woman. Of course a young guy is going to get turned on by a fit naked woman. Its biology. The quote that this view of young men is actually wrong is only put in there so they can claim that the men that are preoccupied with sex are themselves doing something abnormal and wrong.

MOH

haz wrote:

It speaks volumes about the relative IQ of men and women that Danish road safety adverts featuring topless women holding 50 km/h signs actually work. Boys: the video link is in the Times story, although it is probably on YouTube under "speedbandits".

The interesting thing is that it was a woman who came up with the proposal

haz

MOH wrote:

The interesting thing is that it was a woman who came up with the proposal

That could also be a consequence of the relative IQ thing. It is more interesting that this kind of advertising (according to its promoters) works. Incidentally, I have no objection to the content, in contrast to my namesake in the Danish Women's Council.

Hotblack Desiato

haz wrote:

It speaks volumes about the relative IQ of men and women

Does it now.
Since when was being interested in a good looking member of the opposite sex make one stupid?
Or is this something which is ok when women do it (ogling beefcake) but 'wrong' or 'stupid' when it is men doing it?
I find your remark above offensive, to be honest.

haz

ninja900 wrote:

Does it now.
Since when was being interested in a good looking member of the opposite sex make one stupid?
Or is this something which is ok when women do it (ogling beefcake) but 'wrong' or 'stupid' when it is men doing it?
I find your remark above offensive, to be honest.

Oh poor diddums. Perhaps you should read the sentence all the way to the end (that's where the little dot is) "It speaks volumes about the relative IQ of men and women that Danish road safety adverts featuring topless women holding 50 km/h signs actually work." My point was that the campaign apparently has an effect, without any equation between sexual interest and stupidity.

Hotblack Desiato

No need to be patronising thanks.

haz wrote:

My point was that the campaign apparently has an effect, without any equation between sexual interest and stupidity.

So why mention IQ at all then?
Of course it has an effect, the very reason they're using topless women is to get attention. Plenty of advertisers use semi-naked men to get the attention of women, that doesn't mean women are stupid now does it?

haz

ninja900 wrote:

No need to be patronising thanks.

A touch of patronising sarcasm is appealing, no?

ninja900 wrote:

So why mention IQ at all then?

Because the fact that breast exposure has an effect on imparting a serious message about road safety, when reason has no effect, says a lot about the bollocks-for-brains stage of development that many boys reach shortly after puberty and never mature beyond. It is not evidence of a healthy interest in sexually attractive people. It is related to the fact that boy drivers are the most frequent cause of death of girls.
Perhaps you like the portrayal of men in advertising as being as thick as two short planks (Ronseal), drunken to the point of self-harm (beer, licquer and MEAS), alcohol-addicted (various beers), useless wimpish geeks (kitchen cleaner), pathetic perverts (another kitchen cleaner) or terminally unfaithful (vodka), because they all affirm a particular version of masculinity. I seem to have missed the men-as-crumpet adverts, unless you mean the bisexual perfume ads.

Hotblack Desiato

haz wrote:

Because the fact that breast exposure has an effect on imparting a serious message about road safety, when reason has no effect, says a lot about the bollocks-for-brains stage of development that many boys reach shortly after puberty and never mature beyond.

There are undoubtedly people like that, but they are not representative of all men.
Just as the blathering-nonstop-into-mobile, label-obsessive, shop-til-you-drop, blow-ten-grand-in-NYC crowd's level of immaturity isn't representative of all women.

It is not evidence of a healthy interest in sexually attractive people. It is related to the fact that boy drivers are the most frequent cause of death of girls.

And boys too. But the majority of young male drivers should not be tarred by the reckless actions of a minority, just as a few ditzy female drivers should not tar all female drivers.

Perhaps you like the portrayal of men in advertising as being as thick as two short planks (Ronseal), drunken to the point of self-harm (beer, licquer and MEAS), alcohol-addicted (various beers), useless wimpish geeks (kitchen cleaner), pathetic perverts (another kitchen cleaner) or terminally unfaithful (vodka), because they all affirm a particular version of masculinity. I seem to have missed the men-as-crumpet adverts, unless you mean the bisexual perfume ads.

I don't like the use of any demeaning stereotypes in advertising, whether female or male.