Misogynistic lines/attitudes from porn does it bother you ?

AARRRGH

taconnol wrote: »

Aarrrgh, I don't think you can just saw sweepingly that there's nothing wrong with nudity and sex. There's a time and a place.

If you are talking about rape or sexual assault or public exposure, then we agree. Other than that, sex and nudity are not wrong.

For example, if the woman chooses to do it, and the man chooses to do it, and you agree sex is not dirty, then it doesn't matter if he's paying her or not paying her for sex, because what they are doing is not unwanted or bad.

The problem is a lot of people cannot see they associate negative thoughts with sex. This messes up their logic.

Macha

Ok right, but we're talking about advertising here and it isn't always a question of people choosing to see it: it's everywhere.

CDfm

AARRRGH wrote: »

The problem is a lot of people cannot see that they associate negative thoughts with sex. This messes up their logic.

Dont be so negative - always arguing the womens side and ignoring practical issues

It always comes down to who is paying for dinner

And if some body issues arise it means some guy out there is having a cheap date:)

AARRRGH

taconnol wrote: »

Ok right, but we're talking about advertising here and it isn't always a question of people choosing to see it: it's everywhere.

You see, I don't think sex or nudity or arousal is wrong; in fact, I think these are wonderfully positive, natural things.

The fact that another human can create all these positive (arousal, attraction, excitement, etc.) feelings in me is a good thing. They are good emotions.

I can understand how an "ugly" or obese woman might feel upset because she does not look like the perfect woman in the advertisement, but that doesn't mean the advertisement is wrong - it means the woman has low self esteem.

Galvasean

taconnol wrote: »

I heard that in biblical times blue was actually a very difficult dye to procure and therefore would not have been worn by Mary, as the wife of a carpenter.

Kinda like the fact that Jesus must have been brown if he were from the Middle East. Then again, religion isn't known for letting little things like facts get in the way of a good story.

The Bible never said what colour Jesus' skin was or what colour Mary was wearing. That was up to artists of the middle ages who painted pictures of them. Ever since the ancient Greeks it has been popular to paint Gods in one's own image. In fact the Greek template for a God was 'like us, only better', so basically the superheroes of the day.

taconnol wrote: »

Yes it's really either one or the other, isn't it? You're either a virgin or a slut.

The middle ground isn't as interesting as the 'sexual extremists'. :pac:

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah, good post panda, but I disagree with you on the men not being sexualised bit. However women's bods are used to sell far more than men's.

Statistically this is true (the bit I put in bold). Maybe it's because men are more succeptable to "Ooh boobies!". Although from my experience women are just as bad for drooling over attractive members of the opposite sex. I remember after seeing the film 'Wanted' (yeah, wasn't a great idea..) my female friends remarked that I only agreed to see it because I wanted to oogle Angelina Jolie (ina fairly 'silly boy' kind of condescending way), suddenly the conversation turned to "Oooh isn't James McEvoy so hot?" and "I can't wait to see the Incredible Hulk next week, Ed Norton is so hawt!" - Hypocrites. It's like if a guy does it he's just a horny bugger but when women do it it's perfectly okay for some reason.
*For the record i went to see Wanted moreso to watch stuff explode and get shot at than anything else. If I wanted to see Angie Jolie in her nekkid glory I'd probably watch Original Sin.

AARRRGH wrote: »

People don't get upset when a footballer cashes in on his footballing skills, but for some sad reason people get upset when a woman cashes in on her fit body or sexuality.

Agreed. Like the old saying goes "If you are good at something and there is a demand for it you shouldn't have to do it for free."

taconnol wrote: »

Ok right, but we're talking about advertising here and it isn't always a question of people choosing to see it: it's everywhere.

I don't see why sexuality should be put on such a pedestal. As it happens many different things could 'offend' many types of people.
If you were to get rid of sexual imagery in mainstream adverts because some people were offended by it pretty soon you'd have to get rid of anything that could be associated with religion, violence (movie posters etc.), tribalism etc etc etc.
Bottom line is everything offends someone.

Just wondering who do you all think those Freddie Ljungberg CK underwear adverts are aimed at? Men who want to look like that or women who want their BF's to look like that?

Latchy

We live in a culture of sexual fixation.Everything from dishwashers to to cars is marketed using sexual imagery or innuendou .It's a carry over from the sexual dialouge and innuendou in soft and some hard core porn .

Wibbs

In response to the original question? I would say it doesn't affect or bother me. Yes looking at exposed lady bits revs my engine and while I might take some issue with the background of how that image comes to be taken(after the blood rushes back to my brain), day to day it doesn't affect me much at all. Now gagging and all that crap worries me in the sense that clearly there exists a market for it, but again it doesn't affect me directly so....

Now it doesn't bother me simply because I wouldn't come out with that kinda porn script thing during sex. It would turn me off in fact. I've been with two women who actually acted like that(one even wore her high heels in bed for a time) and it did.

If I was a woman(stretch I know.. ) I would hope it wouldn't affect me. If it did, I would look first at my own self image and if that wasn't the obvious issue, then I would look at the kinda men I was sleeping with, in case they were running the same porn script.

I would say, that the older I get the less I think men and women have as much common ground as I did when I was younger. We may see eye to eye on so many issues, but no matter how I try to put myself in some frames of reference I just don't get it. I respect that others may have that opinion/issue, but truly understand it? no and tbh I've largely given up trying.

Macha

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't see why sexuality should be put on such a pedestal. As it happens many different things could 'offend' many types of people.
If you were to get rid of sexual imagery in mainstream adverts because some people were offended by it pretty soon you'd have to get rid of anything that could be associated with religion, violence (movie posters etc.), tribalism etc etc etc.
Bottom line is everything offends someone.

I don't think that's a plausible argument for not having limits on advertising. And I don't just limit it to sexuality. I don't think things like extreme violence should be on display everywhere. Do you?

People who say that they don't want any limits - really? No limits at all? As I said in the Feedback forum, I think everybody think that there should be a line drawn in the sand - it just depends on the person where you think the line should be drawn. Then we can be rid of this argument of "no limits" -and the song-it was brutal (ooh bad joke)

Nevyn

latchyco wrote: »

We live in a culture of sexual fixation.Everything from dishwashers to to cars is marketed using sexual imagery or innuendou .It's a carry over from the sexual dialouge and innuendou in soft and some hard core porn .

Which is becoming a bigger and bigger problem imho.

AARRRGH wrote: »

I can understand how an "ugly" or obese woman might feel upset because she does not look like the perfect woman in the advertisement, but that doesn't mean the advertisement is wrong - it means the woman has low self esteem.

Ugly by what standards ?
The ones the create the impossible perfect images of women in advertisement with lighting, make up and extreme digital image altering ?

CDfm

AARRRGH wrote: »

You see, I don't think sex or nudity or arousal is wrong; in fact, I think these are wonderfully positive, natural things.

The fact that another human can create all these positive (arousal, attraction, excitement, etc.) feelings in me is a good thing. They are good emotions.

I can understand how an "ugly" or obese woman might feel upset because she does not look like the perfect woman in the advertisement, but that doesn't mean the advertisement is wrong - it means the woman has low self esteem.

Man -if you were the father of a daughter you would - nudity in advertising is mostly gratutious. Using an arse to sell cranberry juice - me and the daughter talked about a brand advertised in the Sunday Times magazine - If you want a body like mine drink XXXXX cranberry juice.

When I explained to her how uncomfortable I was with naked juice drinkers lolling around the house -she saw sense. I also pointed out the laxative affects of too much juice. Funny I know - but teenagers and kids are influenced by these things and accept them as normal.

And if I have occasionally objected to buying items marketed by a drug addicted crack wh*** - I hope it amused her as much as much as educated her into normality.

Daughter and me have great times shopping and the like and I know how to pick up tops and stuff in the sales etc.

So yes advertising is soft porn - we should ridicule it as much as we can- wholesome and innocent it is not.

Reku

Galvasean wrote: »

Statistically this is true (the bit I put in bold). Maybe it's because men are more succeptable to "Ooh boobies!". Although from my experience women are just as bad for drooling over attractive members of the opposite sex. I remember after seeing the film 'Wanted' (yeah, wasn't a great idea..) my female friends remarked that I only agreed to see it because I wanted to oogle Angelina Jolie (ina fairly 'silly boy' kind of condescending way), suddenly the conversation turned to "Oooh isn't James McEvoy so hot?" and "I can't wait to see the Incredible Hulk next week, Ed Norton is so hawt!" - Hypocrites. It's like if a guy does it he's just a horny bugger but when women do it it's perfectly okay for some reason.
*For the record i went to see Wanted moreso to watch stuff explode and get shot at than anything else. If I wanted to see Angie Jolie in her nekkid glory I'd probably watch Original Sin.

Possibly the reason for the amount of use of women in marketing is the whole "if you want to sell a magazine to men put an attractive woman on the front, if you want to sell a magazine to women put an attractive woman on the front" thing...

OT but am I the only person who doesn't get the whole Angelina Jolie thing, often even hear girls saying they'd go lesbian for her yet all I think is
What makes her so unusual???

Galvasean

taconnol wrote: »

I don't think that's a plausible argument for not having limits on advertising. And I don't just limit it to sexuality. I don't think things like extreme violence should be on display everywhere. Do you?

I wasn't talking about extreme violence, I was talking more along the lines of this.
Not particularly offensive? Not offensive at all if you ask me but there are people out there who do find it offensive and want all movie posters with guns in them banned.
Case: remember the Get Rich Or Die Tryin' poster?
http://z.about.com/d/movies/1/0/0/B/7/getrichordietryinposter.jpg
Pressure groups in the UK successfully lobbied to have the gun in that photo digitally removed because it was 'offending' people.
It's a terrible attack of artistic freedom (not that I would consider anything by 50 Cent art) if you ask me. Just because you don't like the idea of a gun in a movie doesn't mean you should censor it. Guns sell movie tickets. People see a gun on a poster and think 'action' and go see the movie.
Obviously I think showing some guys brains being blasted out of the side of his head on a billboard is too much, but I don't see what is wrong with a silhouette of James Bond holding a gun. I think anyone offended by such an image is overly sensitive and should not represent the popular consensus.
Regarding sexuality (I bet people were starting to wonder if I was on topic), I don't think anyone wants to see a cum shot in all its glory on the billboards, but Samantha Mumba, David Beckham etc. wearing underpants should not be cause for concern (unless we're talkinga bout incidents such as the 'Hello Boys' campaign which allegedly caused car crashes, but that is an issue of safety not 'offense').

taconnol wrote: »

People who say that they don't want any limits - really? No limits at all? As I said in the Feedback forum, I think everybody think that there should be a line drawn in the sand - it just depends on the person where you think the line should be drawn. Then we can be rid of this argument of "no limits" -and the song-it was brutal (ooh bad joke)

I really hope you werent addressing me with the 'no limits' argument. I (in fact I don't think anyone) has made that argument on this thread.

Galvasean

farohar wrote: »

OT but am I the only person who doesn't get the whole Angelina Jolie thing, often even hear girls saying they'd go lesbian for her yet all I think is
What makes her so unusual???

Legs, lips, tits, ass, eyes, hair, stomach to die for. Plus all the stories you hear about her in the media being kinky. Truly a living embodiment of male fantasy, or a really good post-feminist.

AARRRGH

Thaedydal wrote: »

Ugly by what standards ?

Well, I remember from a very young age (5 or 6) finding certain types of girls in my class attractive. I hope this is because humans have a natural idea of what is attractive (I've read studies which would back this up) rather than because of a couple of advertisements I saw!

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.

CDfm wrote: »

Man -if you were the father of a daughter you would - nudity in advertising is mostly gratutious. Using an arse to sell cranberry juice - me and the daughter talked about a brand advertised in the Sunday Times magazine - If you want a body like mine drink XXXXX cranberry juice.

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. Like my example earlier, I don't have a problem with using footballers to sell products because I don't think football or being athletic are negative things.

CDfm wrote: »

I explained to her how uncomfortable I was with naked juice drinkers lolling around the house... So yes advertising is soft porn - we should ridicule it as much as we can- wholesome and innocent it is not.

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.

I am thankful that society is moving forward and sex and nudity are becoming more acceptable and "normal" every year.

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

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Case: remember the Get Rich Or Die Tryin' poster?
http://z.about.com/d/movies/1/0/0/B/7/getrichordietryinposter.jpg
Pressure groups in the UK successfully lobbied to have the gun in that photo digitally removed because it was 'offending' people.

Forgot to mention in my post that removing the gun made the poster's point moot. The poster's caption reads, "At the end of the day what will you hang on to?", meaning that the character in question has to choose between the gun (gangster life) or the baby (which represents a good family life) and that the two are not compatible. So without the gun the poster means nothing. (PC gone mad I tell ya! :P) Had the pressure groups actually done about 2 minutes of research they would have seen that the poster displayed a positive message, but no, they just saw a gun and "ZOMFG offense!!!"

Dragan

farohar wrote: »

OT but am I the only person who doesn't get the whole Angelina Jolie thing, often even hear girls saying they'd go lesbian for her yet all I think is
What makes her so unusual???

How you look makes you good looking, how you hold yourself and act makes you sexy.

For quite a while i felt that Angelina was quite nice, granted it was only for films but i always appreciate a girl who is physically able, and she was.

In recent years though she has gone to skinny for my liking. I don't like overly skinny women myself.

With regards to PC gone mad, Gaviscon, I will write a script about a zombie aborted baby armed with a sniper rifle who goes around killing the heads of various religious and social/political groups while chugging down beer and coke and banging hookers.

You up for making it?

Macha

Galvasean wrote: »

I really hope you werent addressing me with the 'no limits' argument. I (in fact I don't think anyone) has made that argument on this thread.

No need to take it so personally. My point is - if you accept that there should be limits, who decides where those limits are? You think celebrities in underwear is fine and so do I. But then again, I don't think they should be as prevalent as they are, particularly in places where children can see them.

I'm a consequentalist and I don't just say "Oh sex is bad just because it is dirty" (no, really AARRGH ). I say this should not be because it is having a negative impact - and I don't just mean on someone's sensibilities or sense of propriety. The BBC article I linked to earlier showed a study where young girls are becoming increasingly self-conscious about their bodies and a lack of confidence:
""We have ample evidence to conclude that sexualisation has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, and healthy sexual development.""

This is the reason I'm against it, not because of some victorian sense of it just being bad because it is.

Galvasean

AARRRGH wrote: »

Like my example earlier, I don't have a problem with using footballers to sell products because I also don't think football or being athletic are negative things.

The only products I take exception to footballers advertising are unhealthy things like those Pepsi adverts (why is Fabregas dressed as Indiana Jones with an acoustic guitar again?) or video games like Fifa 09.
Did Wayne Rooney get where he is today by drinking Coke and playing video games? Perhaps I'm being harsh on Wayne, nobody would buy his underpants.

AARRRGH

Galvasean wrote: »

The only products I take exception to footballers advertising are unhealthy things like those Pepsi adverts (why is Fabregas dressed as Indiana Jones with an acoustic guitar again?) or video games like Fifa 09.

I agree. I would also feel the same about a "beautiful" woman advertising a Big Mac. It's a bit too dishonest for me.

Macha

AARRRGH wrote: »

I agree. I would also feel the same about a "beautiful" woman advertising a Big Mac. It's a bit too dishonest for me.

But you think she got that way by using a particular brand of perfume?

Galvasean

taconnol wrote: »

My point is - if you accept that there should be limits, who decides where those limits are?

That is the 52million dollar question. Too conservative and people will scream 'Nazis!' or 'Orwellian society!'. Too liberal and it's "Will somebody please think of the children."
As long as it's all healthy I don't mind. For example a s a kid I watched a lot of wrestling so my role models were big muscle men. Nothing wrong with growing up to being healthy.
Now some people disagree, citing that wrestling promotes violence. Heck, some even say it promotes homosexuality.
Bear in mind the Wrestling I watched as a kid didn't have the 'Divas' (what they call female wrestlers these days) that are about nowadays. Some have claimed that they objectify women because they are prancing around oiled up in their underpants.. as opposed to what male wrestlers have been doing for years... prancing around oiled up in their underpants.

AARRRGH

taconnol wrote: »

But you think she got that way by using a particular brand of perfume?

No - there is a direct connection between a Big Mac and your body. A toned, slim girl definitely does not eat Big Macs.

She might wear the perfume though...

Know what I mean?

milod

/looks around

Jaysus lads, I think all the ladies have gone home...

Galvasean

taconnol wrote: »

But you think she got that way by using a particular brand of perfume?

Bit different TBH. Perfume won't make you fat. Big macs might.
The perfume stance is more along the lines of "Look glamorous people use this. You might not look like 'em but you can sure as hell smell like 'em!" The celebrities in question most likely do wear the perfume/aftershave they wear, but certainly not the big macs. Justin Timberlake actually said in an interview that he "can't stand" the food in McDonalds despite being their poster boy for about 3 years. That's pretty dishonest if youa sk me.

g'em

shellyboo wrote: »

Really? Are you sure? Body issues don't have to drive you to cosmetic surgery for them to be valid. In fact, if cosmetic surgery were free I bet you'd see the queue form pretty sharpish.

I agree that body image issues don't need to go to the extreme to be valid , that comment was more of a rebuke to panda100's post. My post was made as a result to the sexualisation of women in advertising campaigns resulting in an increase in body issues which I simply don't agree with. Other factors being at play, as you've said, are contributory factors.

shellyboo wrote:

Look here and here and here for perfect examples of people who have been brainwashed by advertising, society, their peers, anyone, to believe that what they are when they wake up in the morning isn't good enough.

Your perception of the forums I Mod is quite different to the way they are Modded. In Fitness and Nutrition and Diet I don't view posters as people who are brainwashed into wanting to achieve an idealistic form created by the media - the common theme of those forums is health. Wanting to lose weight or be fit to look good is one perogative; doing it to enhance your health is another and it's always the angle I employ when replying to posts there. Your perspective of these people may be that they're brainwashed, mine is that they want to live a healthier life.

I still stand by what I originally said: I don't see hoards of people wanting to conform to a sexual ideal imposed upon us my the media.

shellyboo

AARRRGH wrote: »

I would also feel the same about a "beautiful" woman advertising a Big Mac. It's a bit too dishonest for me.

AARRRGH wrote: »

A toned, slim girl definitely does not eat Big Macs.

Holy mother of the divine jesus. I have several skinny friends who eat nothing but the most awful ****e you could imagine - fast food, chips, big macs, pizza... they've never eaten or cooked a healthy meal in their lives. They're like toddlers, if you put a salad in front of them they'd make a yucky face. That's an extreme example, but to say that a slim girl NEVER, EVER eats Big Macs is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. By your logic, every single McDonald's customer in the world is fat and unattractive... this clearly isn't the case, just walk into one and observe all the people of normal weight.

I, on the other hand, am fat, and wouldn't eat a Big Mac if it was pressed flat and shoved under the door after two weeks on a starvation diet. I prefer real food.

AARRRGH

Ah yeah, there are always exceptions, but in general, toned people do not eat Big Macs!

shellyboo

g'em wrote: »

Your perception of the forums I Mod is quite different to the way they are Modded. In Fitness and Nutrition and Diet I don't view posters as people who are brainwashed into wanting to achieve an idealistic form created by the media - the common theme of those forums is health. Wanting to lose weight or be fit to look good is one perogative; doing it to enhance your health is another and it's always the angle I employ when replying to posts there. Your perspective of these people may be that they're brainwashed, mine is that they want to live a healthier life.

I still stand by what I originally said: I don't see hoards of people wanting to conform to a sexual ideal imposed upon us my the media.

You obviously have a very healthy attitude to body image, but go into a Weight Watchers meeting and ask the people there why they're there and I guarantee you you'll get 99% people who want to be "thin" and a very rare few who want to live more healthily. The vast majority of people who are dieting and exercising are doing it so that they LOOK better first and FEEL better second.

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

No need to take it so personally. My point is - if you accept that there should be limits, who decides where those limits are? You think celebrities in underwear is fine and so do I. But then again, I don't think they should be as prevalent as they are, particularly in places where children can see them.

Ha, you've no idea how relevant that point is. I use Yahoo mail, and recently it has an advertisement for a dating site. The advertisement has, obviously some women advertising it. These women appear in they're underwear.
Normally this wouldn't bother me in the slightest - but I'm working on-site in a government agency in a consultancy role.
This picture open on my desk top is highly inappropriate, and potentially could cost me my job. So I complained.
I was told to either upgrade to Yahoo plus, or wait until the ad runs it course.

Now don't get me wrong - I never believed the corporate world cared for me, but I did believe it liked like to pretend to be family friendly. Perhaps there has been a shift in the sand?

Galvasean

Zulu wrote: »

Ha, you've no idea how relevant that point is. I use Yahoo mail, and recently it has an advertisement for a dating site. The advertisement has, obviously some women advertising it. These women appear in they're underwear.
Normally this wouldn't bother me in the slightest - but I'm working on-site in a government agency in a consultancy role.
This picture open on my desk top is highly inappropriate, and potentially could cost me my job. So I complained.

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