Another reason to hate Ryanair

LittleGoblin

What do you all think? I find this sort of advertising so wrong on so many levels!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7216926.stm

DarkJager

I think its absolutely brilliant, especially how Ryanair have basically given the 2 fingers to the ASA. Come on people, its just a woman in a schoolgirl outfit!!! It would be a totally different thing if she had a vibrator in one hand and a whip in the other. This world has gone too PC for its own good...

LadyJ

Sex sells......And gets people talking. This is the point of advertising.
Again, it has worked.

LittleGoblin

DarkJager wrote: »

Its just a woman in a schoolgirl outfit!!!

Precisely. A woman in a schoolgirl outfit. Women don't wear schoolgirls uniforms, children do. Does women = child?

Does child / teenage girl = woman?

This kind of imagery is harmful to women and young women in particular, and leads to the sexualisation of children. Children nor adults should not, in any way or at any time, associate school uniforms with sexual behaviour - as is insinuated when an adult poses provocatively in childrens clothes.

gcgirl

Sex does sell ! Sex is selling everything now and it ant going away and thats from a womens point of view and i've seen worse ad campaigns!

Rattlehead_ie

Sex Sells and to be honest by justcreating this thread you have advertised Ryanair, so in the end its worked. Most ppl will agree that there is no such thing as bad advertising.

OP: you said women dont wear school uniforms, I've know an ex gf or two of mine that have and there weren't going to school at the time I'm sure there wouldnt be as much an up roar if it was a guy in trousers open button shift and a well built chest + I don't mean to be an A Hole but should this really be in the ladies lounge?

totally different thing if she had a vibrator in one hand and a whip in the other

But yet that wouldn't be wrong either that would be some gooooooooood advertising

citytillidie

They dont care as they know that if its out there and people complain about it then its more publisity *check spelling* for them.

Its worked

Iago

LittleGoblin wrote: »

This kind of imagery is harmful to women and young women in particular, and leads to the sexualisation of children.

How exactly does a fully grown women in a short skirt and shirt lead to the sexualisation of children? Yes it's meant to look like a school uniform, and a classroom setting but so what?

Anybody who looks at a picture like that and fantasises about a child as a result is probably fantasising about children without the aid of a picture.

Many men have fantasies about women in a wide range of clothing, including schoolgirl outfits, but the fantasies of the vast majority of those men don't include kids. As above, the ones that do don't need any encouragement from anyone else, they've already visualised that plenty of times.

It's a tongue in cheek ad and people need to get out of the dark ages and move into the light.

LittleGoblin

I can't believe more people aren't bothered by this. The use of sexist imagery of women might highlight the product but that does not mean it is ethically correct.

Iago wrote: »

How exactly does a fully grown women in a short skirt and shirt lead to the sexualisation of children? Yes it's meant to look like a school uniform, and a classroom setting but so what?

"Sexualisation was defined as occurring when a person's value comes only from her or his sexual appeal or behaviour, to the exclusion of other characteristics, and when a person is portrayed purely as a sex object.

They gave examples of a trainer advert that featured pop star Christina Aguilera dressed as a schoolgirl with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6376421.stm)

It worries me when adults think there is nothing wrong with a woman posing provocatively in childrens clothes.

Nightwish

Knowing how funny Ryanair ads can be, I think this one's a bit tame. I dont have any objections to it.

Iago

LittleGoblin wrote: »

"Sexualisation was defined as occurring when a person's value comes only from her or his sexual appeal or behaviour, to the exclusion of other characteristics, and when a person is portrayed purely as a sex object.

So we've established that an obviously adult young woman in the ad is sexualised by the ad, still not sure where you're getting the sexualisation of children from though.

Doctor DooM

Nightwish wrote: »

Knowing how funny Ryanair ads can be, I think this one's a bit tame. I dont have any objections to it.

Pretty much sums up how I feel about it. It looks like they made this ad specifically to get people like the OP going "this is an outrage!"

Solar

Got to agree with LittleGoblin. Pictures showing sexy woman dressed in children's clothes just leads to the sexualisation of children. Another example of Ryanair caring only about money and not about the rights of people ( remember charging for wheelchair users )

LittleGoblin

Rattlehead_ie wrote: »

Most ppl will agree that there is no such thing as bad advertising.

I think Gerald Ratner might disagree.

AckwelFoley

Ryanair revolutionised air fares in europe.

I like this advert.

Relax.

PrettyInPunk

LittleGoblin wrote: »

I can't believe more people aren't bothered by this. The use of sexist imagery of women might highlight the product but that does not mean it is ethically correct.



"Sexualisation was defined as occurring when a person's value comes only from her or his sexual appeal or behaviour, to the exclusion of other characteristics, and when a person is portrayed purely as a sex object.

They gave examples of a trainer advert that featured pop star Christina Aguilera dressed as a schoolgirl with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6376421.stm)

It worries me when adults think there is nothing wrong with a woman posing provocatively in childrens clothes.

i think you need to light up a LITTLE bit, i sincerely doubt when Ryanair published this ad they forcasted it appealing to peodophiles and what not. As stated already they made this ad to cause a stir and attract attention to the Ryanair brand and it clearly worked.

Mikel Jr.

people complain too much

don't think this is the best issue to take a stand on

doonothing

I think the sexual attraction of men to women in schoolgirl outfits is just attraction to power, and nostalgia, and youth... It's not that bad.
Ryanair have sent me to and from manchester and berlin this month, for €20.02, they can put whatever they want on their ads.

Reku

LittleGoblin wrote: »

Precisely. A woman in a schoolgirl outfit. Women don't wear schoolgirls uniforms, children do. Does women = child?

Does child / teenage girl = woman?

This kind of imagery is harmful to women and young women in particular, and leads to the sexualisation of children. Children nor adults should not, in any way or at any time, associate school uniforms with sexual behaviour - as is insinuated when an adult poses provocatively in childrens clothes.

And the mummies in places in Britain and Ireland have apparently been buying the little girls thong underwear because it's all sweet and innocent? You can't blame a single concept for the theft of childhood innocence, society as a whole must accept the blame.


Is the ad wrong: no more so than most ads these days.
Is it in poor taste: yes.

Iago wrote: »

How exactly does a fully grown women in a short skirt and shirt lead to the sexualisation of children? Yes it's meant to look like a school uniform, and a classroom setting but so what?

Anybody who looks at a picture like that and fantasises about a child as a result is probably fantasising about children without the aid of a picture.

Many men have fantasies about women in a wide range of clothing, including schoolgirl outfits, but the fantasies of the vast majority of those men don't include kids. As above, the ones that do don't need any encouragement from anyone else, they've already visualised that plenty of times.

It's a tongue in cheek ad and people need to get out of the dark ages and move into the light.

Exactly, one could just as much argue that women are paedophiles to be turned on by gardai and firemen since little boys will often pretend to be cops/firemen and so the women are turning the little boys into sexual things. Same goes for women who have a thing for soccer/GAA/rugby players, we'd best not be letting our children play those games either so.

LittleGoblin wrote: »

It worries me when adults think there is nothing wrong with a woman posing provocatively in childrens clothes.

I've known girls who due to their size had to shop entirely in kids stores, so since they could only get kids clothes to fit them is it wrong for them to ever try to dress & pose provacatively for a parter, should they just go join a nunnery since apparently you want them to remain celebate? I mean any man who would find a woman with a child's stature clearly must be a paedophile by your logic.:rolleyes:


Ohh, just realised we'd best ban all of those school uniform discos they have in the nightclubs from time to time too! :rolleyes:

LadyJ

What about when kids dress up in their parents' clothes or put on their mother's makeup ? That's no more sexualising children than this ad is imo. Woman in clothes that are too small for her = hot. Kids in any kind of clothes = not hot EVER (unless you like kids that way anyway).

Iago

LadyJ wrote: »

Some women in clothes that are too small for them = hot. Kids in any kind of clothes = not hot EVER (unless you like kids that way anyway).

FYP, no need to thank me.

WindSock

Would any Fathers out there fantasise to a Woman dressed in the same school uniform as your daughter? Or would you think it a bit disturbing?

LadyJ

Iago wrote: »

FYP, no need to thank me.

You're right, I should have narrowed it down. Hot women is really what I meant!

Plan_D

Women/Girls in school uniforms.

Who would have thought.

Whis I had of thought of that before the 50's.

:rolleyes:

LittleGoblin

Hi all -

Its been good to read the opinions people have about the ryanair advert. I have found it interesting, and while I might not agree with everyone its good to hear different views so I'm not in the least offended. I still think advertising should not employ this sort of imagery or connotations.

I just found this on the bbc website (I do peruse its contents a lot!) and would love to hear comments and opinions. I wholeheartly hate the idea of Playboy branding being associated with children (it is, they aim a lot of their merchandise at the pre-teen - teenage market) as as for the bed.. God knowly knows what they were thinking!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7222008.stm

Also, I am adding this to the Ladies Lounge as the perception of women, young women, and girls is very applicable to and influential on all our lives!


---> on a side note, when reading the above posts, I remembered that I was wearing thongs at the age of eight. This idea now is tied up in the sexualisation of children, at the time I was wearing them because I did a lot of dance and gymnastics, and childrens pants showed up under costumes and leotards.

Blisterman

Playboy is hardly pornography, though to be fair.
They happen to sell a magazine, featuring, among other things, semi naked women.

In fact, if you go to the London Playboy shop, they sell just about everything, home furnishings, clothes etc, except the magazine.

EamonnKeane

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the "irresponsible" image appeared to link teenage girls with sexually provocative behaviour.

the idea! :rolleyes:

DublinWriter

LittleGoblin wrote: »

Precisely. A woman in a schoolgirl outfit. Women don't wear schoolgirls uniforms, children do. Does women = child?

In the states child-porn is legally defined as also being a model who is dressed to portray a girl under the age of 18.

Reku

DublinWriter wrote: »

In the states child-porn is legally defined as also being a model who is dressed to portray a girl under the age of 18.

Girls can be 18 though and still in school, and I remember being told by a student of a specific Irish college that apparently even though it's a 3rd level institution they still have a uniform and roll calls, which you can get in trouble over.
As such being dressed in a school uniform does not really mean under 18. I guess if she were to be wearing a training bra or heck even a nappy (yup, there's a porn section for that too*) that could be argued as attempting to portray a minor.


*but then again one could argue that they are instead portraying someone with a medical condition. It's all in the eye of the beholder and so since innocent until proven guilty I'd imagine few if any people actually get successfully prosecuted under this law unless the girl in question is in fact under age.

DublinWriter

farohar wrote: »

As such being dressed in a school uniform does not really mean under 18. I guess if she were to be wearing a training bra or heck even a nappy (yup, there's a porn section for that too*) that could be argued as attempting to portray a minor.

I was talking specifically about the USA and its legislation. You can argue what you like, but if you were a legit porn production company in the states and came out with anything vaguely suggesting the term 'schoolgirl' you'd be in serious trouble.

Gyalist

This was appalling treatment of its passengers by Ryanair. I can't believe that they plan to appeal the judgement.

It's not been a good week for them on the PR front.

mickoneill30

The 5 guys (not Ryanair) should appeal. £1,116 each doesn't seem enough for crap treatment like that. That's nothing to Ryanair.

lauratkd

"Another" reason to hate Ryanair??

This whole Ryanair thing really annoys me. :mad:

Yeah ok they have small luggage allowance and they try and get money out of you as much as they possibly can (adding on insurance, checking in baggage etc etc) but they are still by far cheaper than most other airlines the majority of the time and they have improved flight prices across the board drastically. Compare recently to fly to Paris. Ryanair from Shannon €95 Aer Linugs from Cork €245. Luggage included, Ryanair are still far cheaper.

If you don't like them - dont' fly with them.

About the ad - I don't have a major problem with it. Their advertisers are obviously trying to get as close to the line as possible without really crossing over it. They cause as much controversy as they can so the ad gets as much coverage as it can. A very successful ad, even though I may not like.

"There's no such thing as bad publicity"!

Reku

Gyalist wrote: »

This was appalling treatment of its passengers by Ryanair. I can't believe that they plan to appeal the judgement.

That's just awful, and the worst thing I think is that if they were caucasian the psychology professor who apparently took it upon himself to vet other passengers for potential terrorists probably wouldn't have batted an eyelid....
As for Ryanair appealing the court ordered pay-outs? The cheeky, inconsiderate, *long angry list of unfriendly terms*...:mad:
I would agree with some of the comments asking that the psychology professor should be named and shamed, I certainly wouldn't want someone who is so quick to make rather baseless assumptions trying to educate anyone I know about the complexities of the human mind without them being warned of this.

DublinWriter

Gyalist wrote: »

This was appalling treatment of its passengers by Ryanair. I can't believe that they plan to appeal the judgement.

That makes me ashamed to be Irish.

I normally don't write letters to CEO's, etc, but I think I'll break the habit of a lifetime just this once.

Macha

Blisterman wrote: »

Playboy is hardly pornography, though to be fair.
They happen to sell a magazine, featuring, among other things, semi naked women.

In fact, if you go to the London Playboy shop, they sell just about everything, home furnishings, clothes etc, except the magazine.

Oh come on. Playboy may be softcore porn but it is porn. I suppose Jenna Jameson happens to star in films, featuring, among other things, naked people.

The problem with Playboy is that it's trying to reach out to very young girls through innocuous merchandise such as pencil cases, folders, etc. I'm sure the 6 year old girls who want a playboy pencil case have no clue what Playboy actually stands for.

Just on the comments that little girls and boys trying to emulate their parents are somehow comparable to the Ryanair magazine - it's the total opposite! It is women wearing young girls clothing. Why didn't they put some hot guy in tight shorts & a tie around his neck? I'm all for equality and I'm pretty sure women make up 50% of Ryanair's customers so why only cater to 50% of their customer base?