Misogynistic lines/attitudes from porn does it bother you ?

Zulu

Galvasean wrote: »

Yeah those things are head wrecking. Usually someone peeps over your shoulder, "What the heck are you lookin' at?"

Which got me thinking - if they're so harmless, why do I care?

I believe they are relatively harmless (those in particular); I guess my fear is that someone else would object. Still though, up until last week I never had to worry about the content of the ads; up until last week the sites I viewed in work didn't advertise with women in their nee-nee's.

CDfm

AARRRGH wrote: »

I do believe humans are programmed to find certain traits attractive (such as the appearance of being healthy, etc.) This would mean things like obese people are no longer considered "beautiful" as we know the obese person is unhealthy.




Hang on - I didn't say they aren't using nudity and sex to sell products. I am fully aware they do that. I just don't happen to think sex and nudity are negative things.

I find it sad that you associate nudity and sex with negative thoughts, but I know you are in the majority, and I accept that's just the way it is.


[controversial]
Has anyone noticed how you rarely see good looking people complaining about good looking women in adverts?
[/controversial]

Well AARRRGH - I also have a son and we also have had Dad chats - women in adverts aint healthy. Sorry -if this sounds any way homophobic -but they look like teenage boys and if he likes that sort of thing Id blame my ex.

What is considered obese in advertising is anything more then a Barbie figure long legs and seven foot tall with a few ribs removed. If you find that attractive you are a sick bunny.

Its like this - if you go out with a woman and she is half dressed or her boobs are all hanging out - other guys are gagging for an eyefull. Its flattering but you dont need it.This is not in any way condoning the she was asking for it mentality- but its reality.

And being good looking is not the only thing - being a boardsie would help as it means the woman is intelligent.

AARRRGH

@Zulu: I think you're being a bit paranoid. If you said, "I was checking my yahoo mail" and you're allowed check private e-mail in work, they'd have to be utterly retarded to hold a banner advert against you!

AARRRGH

CDfm wrote: »

Well AARRRGH - I also have a son and we also have had Dad chats - women in adverts aint healthy. Sorry -if this sounds any way homophobic -but they look like teenage boys and if he likes that sort of thing Id blame my ex.

Etc.

OK, I think you have issues which I will never understand. Let's agree to disagree.

Macha

Galvasean wrote: »

That is the 52million dollar question.

I just hope the people who do decide have a good ole debate about it before they decide.

Zulu wrote: »

Perhaps there has been a shift in the sand?

I would say so.

AARRRGH wrote: »

I do believe humans are programmed to find certain traits attractive (such as the appearance of being healthy, etc.)

But isn't that the joy of sexuality (coming, ever so slightly back on-topic)? That people find different things attractive, not just the plain old boring barbie and ken you see on TV? It's like they're pushing these people through cookie-cutters to get them all to look the same.

AARRRGH wrote: »

[controversial]Has anyone noticed how you rarely see good looking people complaining about good looking women in adverts? [/controversial]

Hey! I'm good looking and I object! :pac:

Galvasean

AARRRGH wrote: »

@Zulu: I think you're being a bit paranoid. If you said, "I was checking my yahoo mail" and you're allowed check private e-mail in work, they'd have to be utterly retarded to hold a banner advert against you!

You'd be amazed.

CDfm wrote: »

they look like teenage boys

In the case of Keira Knightly I'd agree. there a movie starring her and Cillian Murphy coming out on DVD soon. They get it on and it looks like two naked 12 year old boys kissing. Seriously messed up.

CDfm wrote: »

What is considered obese in advertising is a

I read an article on 'plus sized models' the other day. The model featured was a size 12 and an absolute stunner, slim without being skinny and very well toned. The article seemed to be implying that she was overweight.

CDfm wrote: »

And being good looking is not the only thing - being a boardsie would help as it means the woman is intelligent.

Not everyone who posts on boards is intelligent..

>_>


edit: I have noticed in recent times the PC brigade seem to brand anyone who finds the whole 'blonde hair blue eyes big tits etc." as being superficial or warped by pop-culture stereotypes. Is it so wrong to assume that such things are considered nice because a lot of people would genuinely find such things attractive?

Galvasean

*Finishes off thread for good*
Everybody happy now? :pac:

Dudess

AARRRGH wrote: »

[controversial]
Has anyone noticed how you rarely see good looking people complaining about good looking women in adverts?
[/controversial]

Nope, I haven't noticed that at all - but I've never taken note of the "type" of people doing the complaining. However I assume "complaining about good looking women in adverts" as you put it (what's being discussed here though is the commoditisation of women's bodies and female sexuality and some people here don't think that's a good thing) and being good-looking aren't mutually exclusive.
I think your assertion is not so much a reality as an assumption which regularly pops up on Boards (especially in After Hours) - e.g. as I mentioned already: my objection to fat people being bullied must mean I'm fat (I'm not), my objection to women getting all that "left on the shelf" sh1t thrown at them means I'm single (I'm not), my objection to ageism means I'm middle-aged/uncomfortable about my age (I'm 30 - it's an awesome age).

Until you learn how to read minds or at least meet the person/learn a bit about them, rather than having the words they post on a message board to go on, you really should hold off on making judgements (that's the general "you", not having a go at you specifically, dublindude).

On After Hours, a girl might say she doesn't think a certain over-rated-in-the-looks-stakes actress or singer is good looking and expresses her surprise at all the adulation - MUST mean she's ugly and jealous. A girl expresses concern at the celebration of extreme skinniness (not healthy petite and slender like Eva Longoria) - she's jealous, bitter and of course fat. A girl says fake tits, bleached her, orange skin, fake nails etc as the new sexy is more about marketing than genuine sexiness - she's jealous.

Again, the two, in each scenario I've mentioned, are not mutually exclusive and not necessarily covering up some insecurity the poster has, so to answer the regular cat-calls of "ooh, touched a nerve have we?!": no.

I have noticed in recent times the PC brigade seem to brand anyone who finds the whole 'blonde hair blue eyes big tits etc." as being superficial or warped by pop-culture stereotypes. Is it so wrong to assume that such things are considered nice because a lot of people would genuinely find such things attractive?

Grrr... I like you so I'll let the "PC brigade" comment slide...
I actually don't think a person would genuinely find the really fake, trailerpark ones attractive - the Swedish ones maybe as they are classier - but the tacky, stripper ones... I genuinely do think it's brainwashing.

shellyboo

Galvasean wrote: »

I read an article on 'plus sized models' the other day. The model featured was a size 12 and an absolute stunner, slim without being skinny and very well toned. The article seemed to be implying that she was overweight.

This just goes to show how f*cked the modelling industry is. If they're using perfectly normal women - in fact, at a size 12 she'd be smaller than 'normal' - to model clothes for plus-sized women, who do you think they're getting to model to 'normal' women? The images we see are NOT real, NOT representative of the actual majority of the population and are designed that way to make us feel inferior so we can buy ourselves some more self esteem in the form of make-up, clothes etc.

Zulu

AARRRGH wrote: »

@Zulu: I think you're being a bit paranoid. If you said, "I was checking my yahoo mail" and you're allowed check private e-mail in work, they'd have to be utterly retarded to hold a banner advert against you!

Well the problem with being a consultant is they don't have to ask you. There's no HR involvement. They complain to their manager, and I'm not invited back.
Fact is, in my game I can't be paranoid enough. And technically, I'm not allowed to check private e-mail. They don't pay me for private mails. And thats fair enough.

AARRRGH

Dudess wrote: »

I assume "complaining about good looking women in adverts" as you put it and being good-looking aren't mutually exclusive.

Do you really believe most of the women who complain about good looking women in adverts are doing so because they care about the health of the model?

No, it's because the advert makes them feel insecure.

I'm sorry, but I firmly believe the emotions you feel are owned by you. I am not insecure nor do I have low self-esteem so I am not bothered whatsoever by images of topless men. In fact, I think "fair play to them". I certainly don't try to blame the topless men for how I feel, or get angry with them, or say topless men are degrading themselves or say what they're doing is immoral or wrong or whatever.

I would agree that skinny models are unhealthy, and I would agree using very young models are also unhealthy, but these are concerns based on HEALTH and not their looks.

Dudess wrote:

On After Hours, etc.

After Hours is full of morons, kids and nerds. Please don't use After Hours as a sample of the real world's opinion.

Galvasean

Dudess wrote: »

Grrr... I like you so I'll let the "PC brigade" comment slide...
I actually don't think a person would genuinely find the really fake, trailerpark ones attractive - the Swedish ones maybe as they are classier - but the tacky, stripper ones... I genuinely do think it's brainwashing.

I wasn't referring to anyone here. As you may have seen in my posts the PC brigade (in my view anyway) are those nutters who get offended by James Bond posters and underpants.
I know lots of guys who go ga-ga for the likes of Jordan and that other fake Jordan... forget her name but she wore a belt at her reality TV instigated wedding... Jodie Marsh! (sorry for typing so manically, that was my actual trail of taught).
Maybe its the tackyness/sluttyness that attracts them. Ive known plenty of shallow guys to go out with a girl much less attractive than themselves (also lacking in other admirable traits mind) just because "Ah sure, she's an easy ride.".

CDfm

shellyboo wrote: »

This just goes to show how f*cked the modelling industry is. If they're using perfectly normal women - in fact, at a size 12 she'd be smaller than 'normal' - to model clothes for plus-sized women, who do you think they're getting to model to 'normal' women? The images we see are NOT real, NOT representative of the actual majority of the population and are designed that way to make us feel inferior so we can buy ourselves some more self esteem in the form of make-up, clothes etc.

We all saw the Marks and Spenser underwear ads -anyone who runs down a mountainside naked shouting "Im normal" is seriously weird and shouldnt be approached.

Women are all shapes and sizes- its women who buy into it.

Whenever I see the Sasha store sign Now Stocking sizes 18 to 20 I used to tell my kids thats where guys buy their dresses until a smartarsed woman said you are about a size 14.

You dont buy self esteem - you go for a look that suits you - and buy around that. Browse - and remember if you are not a standard size you will get great value in the sales-so you can afford a few disasters. Feck it - my daughter calls me her personal shopper.

CDfm

Galvasean wrote: »

In the case of Keira Knightly I'd agree. there a movie starring her and Cillian Murphy coming out on DVD soon. They get it on and it looks like two naked 12 year old boys kissing. Seriously messed up.



I read an article on 'plus sized models' the other day. The model featured was a size 12 and an absolute stunner, slim without being skinny and very well toned. The article seemed to be implying that she was overweight.



Not everyone who posts on boards is intelligent

Did you here that you have to be very careful what you post on this thread - a birdie without body issues - told me they might be running a Perv Of the Week competition

I would edit if i was you to say all women who post on boards are intelligent.

Think we should be OK - not so sure about some of the other lads though.

CDfm

AARRRGH wrote: »

OK, I think you have issues which I will never understand. Let's agree to disagree.

No issues - women are always for homosexuality -thought everyone knew that:pac:

Just pointing out that lots of fashion models are not sexy.

All this Waif thin, heroin chic and all that rubbish.

Wibbs

CDfm wrote: »

Well AARRRGH - I also have a son and we also have had Dad chats - women in adverts aint healthy. Sorry -if this sounds any way homophobic -but they look like teenage boys and if he likes that sort of thing Id blame my ex.

TBH it does sound homophobic. Trust me just because he's looking at skinny women will not "make" him gay. He's gay or not outa the box as it were. Advertising's got bugger all to do with it.

Healthy has little enough to do with it either. It seems to come as a shock to many people how you can be a woman with a flat stomach and an actual waist and be healthy. Indeed the healthiest women I know by any standard of fitness and strength are all size 8 to 10(as much as those sizes are consistent). They're not short either. They eat well too. The simple fact is that men and women that are very fit and healthy are not carrying extra weight as part of that package. They're not stick insects either.

What is considered obese in advertising is anything more then a Barbie figure long legs and seven foot tall with a few ribs removed.

Not really. Yes some are waaaaay too skinny, especially in catwalk fashion, many however are not. Ms knghtley is IMHO unhealthy skinny, but kelly brook isnt even close to unhealthy skinny and she's nowhere near spitting distance of a size 12.

If you find that attractive you are a sick bunny.

People find many things attractive. Some like anorexic types(not my bag) some like obese(not my bag either). It only becomes sick if you try to turn one into the other.

Its like this - if you go out with a woman and she is half dressed or her boobs are all hanging out - other guys are gagging for an eyefull. Its flattering but you dont need it

Meh so long as she's happy I don't mind.

And being good looking is not the only thing - being a boardsie would help as it means the woman is intelligent.

Good looks are the first thing we as humans go for. Now depending on what their own attractiveness is people tend to go for an "equal" in overall attractiveness. After initial meeting, women tend to go more for other attractive features in men. Social power etc. far more than men do anyway. Nature or nurture that;s the way the cookie crumbles.

CDfm

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH it does sound homophobic. Trust me just because he's looking at skinny women will not "make" him gay. He's gay or not outa the box as it were. Advertising's got bugger all to do with it.


Meh so long as she's happy I don't mind.

Of course it does a bit. Its not meant that way I was being facetious but just pointing out that to explain to a boy that- models in ads are part of a creative concept of a mixed media campaign to assert a brand image and give a brand or product added value or alter consumers perceptions/purchasing habits- is a bit much.

Trust me -while it may not be pc- my communications strategy was appropriate to my target audience.


You might have guessed that Ive worked in Marketing.It was my "rounded and grounded campaign" - I imagine if I worked for the Health Promotions crowd Id but up against the Advertising Standards Authority every month.

Galvasean

CDfm wrote: »

I would edit if i was you to say all women who post on boards are intelligent.

I wouldn't because it's simply not true. Such sweeping statements are frowned upon. Saying everyone is intelligent is just as ignorant as saying everyone has no manners.

Pyr0

Can someone tell me what everyone's talking about now ? It went from Porn and its terrible scripts being brought into the bedroom (I think O_o) to something completely differen't !

cba to read 20 pages !

CDfm

Galvasean wrote: »

I wouldn't because it's simply not true. Such sweeping statements are frowned upon. Saying everyone is intelligent is just as ignorant as saying everyone has no manners.

exactly- I think the body image stuff is over rated.

but you hit the nail on the head with the size 12 girl - that was just a pic in a newspaper so smaller is better for print media and TV because it looks better.Its what works. In the same way 4 fingers not five works in cartoons when an image is scaled down.

You often hear people say -I dont take a good photo or someone is photogenic its because their features lend themselves to the medium or not as the case may be.Its the technical limitations of the medium.

So a size 12 in print you are not averse to a size 14 in real life.

AS for porno movies - clicked onto the adult ads on Sky last night - and call me fussy - but these girls waiting to take my call were -UGGG

BTW - people can differentiate between media and real life - media uses extremes - that work in a medium but dont apply to real life.In the same way I wouldnt expect a Forensic Scientist to be decked out in Armani like in CSI Miami - would probably expect a white paper unflattering cover all boiler suit.

If anyone is so fickle that they cant see that - then they are really dumb

CDfm

Pyr0 wrote: »

Can someone tell me what everyone's talking about now ? It went from Porn and its terrible scripts being brought into the bedroom (I think O_o) to something completely differen't !

cba to read 20 pages !

A very interesting thread

What you have is a discussion about porno and its trickle down affects into real life. That is on a general level and how it affects mens attitudes to women. How would it make you act in the bedroom etc and does it influence you.

Sort of do guys treat women as sluts because of it kinda thing.

In itself that would be a very topical debate in any university or conference.

Along with that you have a body image debate.Pressure to be skinny conform to fashion model stuff.

You also have some debate on feminist theory on it etc

And along with that you have people giving their own comments on the issues and their lives.

More material here than you would get in most post graduate theses on the subject so it is a good read.

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

BTW - people can differentiate between media and real life - media uses extremes - that work in a medium but dont apply to real life.In the same way I wouldnt expect a Forensic Scientist to be decked out in Armani like in CSI Miami - would probably expect a white paper unflattering cover all boiler suit.

If anyone is so fickle that they cant see that - then they are really dumb

Ok these are the points that I would make in response to that.

Firstly, we're not just talking about adults but also kids and c'mon - these are people who think Santa Claus exists so their ability to distinguish between reality and fiction hasn't quite developed. Nor do we do them any favours by not teaching them in school about how fake the media and advertising is.

Secondly, advertising works. It works because otherwise, companies wouldn't spend millions and millions on it. Coca cola, a brand that is known the world over, carried out a test to see what would happen if they stopped all advertising for a short time. Sales started to drop. So we can agree that even adults are influenced by advertising.

77

Thaedydal wrote: »

Thankfully times have changed and we do finally have laws and domsestic abuse and partner abuse of any kind should not be tolerated by or to anyone of any gender.

Thankfully times have changed. There in lies the problem. Having cake and eating it.

We were chatting in work the other day about society n stuff and I came to the conclusion rightly or wrongly that we are all to blame. In fact the older we get the more obvious it becomes. Pandoras box has been opened and each generation is taking down the boundries of the one before it.

Back in the 80s having a child outside wedlock was a terrible thing to society. But we got over that and now all the gents and ladies of the LL can jump in and out of bed with each other without a bat of an eyelid. If a sprog pops out, no bother. We though porn was ok? Yes?

No as we get older we have our own moral compasses. Of course young people can't say things like "Swallow it b1atch"

Terrible behaviour indeed.

brianthebard

taconnol wrote: »

Ok these are the points that I would make in response to that.

Firstly, we're not just talking about adults but also kids and c'mon - these are people who think Santa Claus exists so their ability to distinguish between reality and fiction hasn't quite developed. Nor do we do them any favours by not teaching them in school about how fake the media and advertising is.

But what is reality tac? A child's reality is constructed from the matrix around it, involving its parents and such, that build to an understanding of the world. If the child sees its parents as the source of knowledge, and they tell him santa exists, then that means he is real? Knowledge is a discrepant, rather than discursive function of the mind as it sees the world, a subjective rather than objective experience which is then connected via the ego to the superego or popular consciousness which in our society wishes to appear objective and rational but is nonetheless inductive in its reasoning. Conflict arises as the singular ego attempts to ground itself in its matrix in partnership with the superego, and when it sees that they cannot fully empathise with each other neurosis springs forth. The ground is constantly shifting and in these transitions and fissures we allow santa, gender, the media to exist in order to live out our fictions. I hope this has contributed to the debate.

Macha

Yes, and it's contributed to my headache :pac:

I don't think its wise to go down the road of relativism here. I'm talking about young girls thinking that they're not worth anything unless they're considered attractive or boys who think that showing emotion is a failing or weakness.

Look at the sort of f**ked up "reality" that gets thrown about US high schools and the tragedy that comes out of it there, when the real truth is that often the people who are at the top of the pile in high school end up at the bottom in real life. My issue is when their sense of "reality" has negative consequences, and especially when their "reality" isn't necessarily true or absolute.

Kids are like sponges and will suck up everything we give them but we need to be able to give them the necessary tools to filter out the stuff that can have a negative impact. I would not wash my hands of a person and say "hey, that girl who think she has to be a size 4 to be successful, well that's just her reality". No - there are falsehoods perpetuated by advertising that can be detrimental to the development of young people and these issues need to be addressed, not just dismissed under the guises of relativism.

metrovelvet

77 wrote: »

No as we get older we have our own moral compasses. Of course young people can't say things like "Swallow it b1atch"

Terrible behaviour indeed.

The problem is young people are doing more than saying it, they are doing it.

77

metrovelvet wrote: »

The problem is young people are doing more than saying it, they are doing it.

Damn young people! Next thing you know having babies outside of marriage is wrong. Then having sex with aniamals is ok.

Which it is btw. I have seen picture houses were the animals look proactive., I think there was pea nut butter involved.

Ban pea nut butter!!

You worlds will meet.

What will people do when asked to defend what they despise but advocate?

My Farts smell.

metrovelvet

Well, if you think its palatable for an 11 year old girl to be in the boys locker room giving head to one of her male counterparts, I can only feel sorry for you and hope to god you are sterile and can't ever ever be a parent.

Zaph

77 wrote: »

Damn young people! Next thing you know having babies outside of marriage is wrong. Then having sex with aniamals is ok.

Which it is btw. I have seen picture houses were the animals look proactive., I think there was pea nut butter involved.

Ban pea nut butter!!

You worlds will meet.

What will people do when asked to defend what they despise but advocate?

My Farts smell.

If you have nothing coherent to add to the discussion then kindly stay out of it please.

GirlInterrupted

Thaedydal wrote: »

.........So do such things in porn bother you ?
Would some one you were with saying these things during sex bother you ?
Would some one saying such things about women bother you ?
Do you think that there are some bad things about the cross over of a lot of things in porn to real life ?

The thread seems to have moved away from the orignal question somewhat, to address the OP:

Yes, the fact that theres a market for such things in porn bothers me. In an ideal world it wouldn't take either domination or degradation for people to be aroused.

If someone said such things to me during sex, I would have made a grave error of judgement. I don't see myself ever in that situation.

If I heard anyone say such things about women, believe me, it would depress me greatly, it just speaks of such lack of respect in my opinion.

I think the more extreme porn becomes, the more desensistised to it it's audience becomes. If the parameters of 'normal' sexual behaviour keep moving, as they seem to have been, then I truly pity the next generation of girls for what will become expected of them.