Loaded, Nuts, etc.

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 5:08pm

This post has been deleted.

Dragan · 06-01-2009 5:12pm

Actually, you can go back as far as the late 1800's and find sex or the promise or implication thereof or general use of the female form to sell goods, develop brand and promote product awareness.

As an example, the below ad is for a brand of ciggarettes, circa 1870!
ads.Pearltobacco.jpg

Around the 1840's or so ads began to appear for corserts, showing women in what was considered at the time to be "close to total undress", that is to say, wearing a corset. Shortly afterwards ( in England and the States ) a law was issued that corsets in advertising could only be shown under a shirt.

The first set of advertising "guidelines" that is known was developed in 1934 in the States as a result of public outcry over an ad that showed a lady in her undergarments revealing way too much leg. Even then this was incredibly vague and lose and very much open to abuse by the people who had a vested interest in doing so.

So yes, sex has always been used in advertising, by and large.

Star Lord · 06-01-2009 5:15pm

No problem, I just wanted to be clear on that.

I'm not, it just appeared from your statement that it was what you were advocating, and again, I was seeking clarification.

When I was a 13 year old boy (And much as we hate to admit it, girls develop and mature sexually much earlier than we do) I was interested in such things (although their availability was much less then) yet I was still able, much as you said above, to differenciate between the faked - put on for the camera sexuality that the girls in such magazines try to convey, and reality. If such young boys/girls were isolated, only exposed to such images and then suddenly let loose and exposed to real girls and women for the first time, then I believe your argument would hold true, but teenagers live in the real world like the rest of us, they see their friends developing too, they see real adult men and women interact and they know that what they view is not the way things really are.

Dudess · 06-01-2009 5:19pm

But I can't understand what's wrong with that. When I was a kid in Roches Stores with my mum there would be Playtex ads everywhere - I didn't bat an eyelid.

Craft25 · 06-01-2009 5:20pm

Dragan how can you put that filth on here :rolleyes: .. lol only messin

here is an interesting documentary about how the discoveries of psychology were tied to capitalism in the 20th century to sell products...

hope its not too off topic but it goes some way to explaining the use of sexuality by the media & advertising... the interesting thing (and maybe more worrying) is sexuality that is not as obvious. There is one example of an advert for a car where the actress says something along the lines of: the new model is longer and thicker than the last, before giggling suggestively.. this stuff worked!!

The century of the self:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3LSyck0YTE

Snowie · 06-01-2009 5:21pm

No it has'nt, that's an opinion not a fact,

glamour is poseing
Soft porn leaves more to the imagination ie is more ierpotic to look at
hard core porn well look at telvision x to night or any of the trashy porn stations. on sky.
or just do a serach online.

because youyr missguided on your knwolidge....

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 5:21pm

This post has been deleted.

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 5:30pm

This post has been deleted.

citytillidie · 06-01-2009 5:37pm

Yes but is the age of cosent in England where these dirty rags is published 16 at the time

Dudess · 06-01-2009 5:38pm

I think it's a bit much to get bothered by sexy lingerie ads around Valentine's Day - to be honest I'm not aware of them being sexier at that time myself.
I think lingerie ads are usually very tasteful and gently sexual, celebrating the female form (which is fabulous!

) rather than being crass and vulgar and tacky about it. I don't think these ads commoditise women either - lingerie is supposed to make a woman feel sexy, desirable, good about herself.

Some Boards members have dyslexia hippiechickie.

Snowie · 06-01-2009 5:40pm

:rolleyes:

glamour models can be as sugestive with there pictures as they want untill there's a flass of pubic hair there ok..that is the difference between glamour and spft core porn posing because if you can see a vagina or public hair it goes into...... the cartigory of porn which is top shelf.....

thats why
play boy pent house etc are top shlf magazines...
nuts load fhm are all bottem shelf magazines because they dont break that golden rule
and because there not aloud ot have nakey nakey pics they go all out on the cover to grab a mans attention :rolleyes:.....

so to shut argument hsort theres nothing you can do about it

GreeBo · 06-01-2009 5:41pm

You share a vagina with someone?:pac:

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 5:44pm

This post has been deleted.

Snowie · 06-01-2009 5:46pm

make shor eyou go to confession tonight

GreeBo · 06-01-2009 5:51pm

Hmm I dunno...theres something fishy about that TomFord one...

paperclip2 · 06-01-2009 5:54pm

Sexualised imagery has always been around. For example a common symbol of good luck in ancient Rome was the phallus, it was made into jewellery, grafitti, even windchimes. It was also found on public buildings, Images of Priapus ware common enough and certain temples had prostitute priestesses.

A detail from the Villa of the Mysteries uncovered in Pompeii

Boticellis Venus has a pose similar to the one on the cover of Loaded.

We look at these and call them history or art, when the reality is that they are also expressions of sexuality, maybe meant to inspire a similar reaction as Nuts and Loaded do today.

The important thing I think, speaking as the mother of a thirteen year old girl is to make sure that children are educated enough to deconstruct the imagery presented and can make a balanced choice about what aspects of sexuality are relevant to them at different times as they grow up.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Alicat · 06-01-2009 5:55pm

Thought that was for women there for a minute, was thinking "what crazy ass advertising company thought that would make women want to buy that?"

I'm not in any way offended by the other two though. First one you can only see a man's torso and thighs really. Second one is just an ass.

citytillidie · 06-01-2009 5:57pm

If your going to point out ads that use sex to sell things what about the Areo tv ad? You know the one with the man in the towel walking about eating them and two girls talking over it and at the end one of them saying sorry what were you saying.

Or the minstrel add with the male strippers. or the Lacoste ad the the guy going about the flat naked, and there is one on now of a female taking pictures of a man undressing.

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 5:58pm

This post has been deleted.

Snowie · 06-01-2009 6:02pm

but kids dont notice it because they are unaware of it when i was five i wasnt really interested in anything other then the A team airwolf, mickl night and big knive's and guns women what are they eww girls yuk id rather eat a worm....

Alicat · 06-01-2009 6:03pm

I think it depends on the viewer's frame of mind to be honest

When I saw that picture, not once did I think that it "suggested she was masturbating". I thought the bra was kinda dull and the lip colour did nothing for her.

If you're thinking about sex, you'll see it everywhere.

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 6:04pm

This post has been deleted.

Dragan · 06-01-2009 6:08pm

I don't think i said what message i took from the other ones?

As for the "artistic image" above, it caused an outrage when it first went out, the simple fact is that noone cared because no one had to. There were no standards or laws around it, so there was no one to complain to or enforce any change. These days advertising laws are pretty stringent and people can't get away with much that is not allowed.

And, at the time, that image was concerned lewd and scandalous. You don't think it is now because our standards have changed. Do you see where i am heading with this?

Personally i do not blame any company for opperating within the legal established remit. The point of that business is to generate sales or a product and to make money afterall.

The big question and the one that confuses people is often whether to agree with things or not, or what actions to take. I mean, you clearly have issues with this type of thing but i am pretty certain the extent of your outrage will be to post here, as opposed to contact the mags, the headoffice of the shop, the advertising standards authority etc etc etc.

As for what i take from the ads you posted, you will need to forgive me as despite being well read and opinionated to a fault i also have the sense of humour of a horny 16 year old boy, so i am going to say

1) Gay Bukkake is in for Dolce and Gabanan
2) Levis have gotten REALLY cheap with their materials
3) Tom Ford has finally bottled what no one has bottled before.

You see, those ads mean literally nothing to me. Highly sexualised and stylised? Sure they are but frankly i can't decide which are worse, the suits or the smiles or the fact that some Advertising Agency and the relevant person at Tom Ford thought it was a good idea to imply the perfume smells like vagina.

Once again i think their can be a big lack of credit applied in arguments like this. Kids are not morons....I think WE believe that because we desperately want to believe we have moved on a massive amount from where we were as kids. And i think for the most part we have and we have no need to worry about it.

The reason i dislike this type of advertising, that type of mag and the joy of MTV is that it feeds people bull**** and those people are stupid enough to thank them for it.

If you look at social structure where this type of image is not likely to be seen then you will likely find all types of other things that you are not going to like, like abuse of human rights, massive issues are sexism and equality etc etc etc.

It's broader and deeper than you think it is. If you can get a magazine moved because it offends you then we need to look at other things like Attitude and all that jazz. It all implies sex, not just lads mags.

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 6:09pm

This post has been deleted.

Alicat · 06-01-2009 6:10pm

Paperclip didn't say that. Stop putting word's in peoples mouths/text

There has always been art, some of which may have been intended to be titillating, on some level similar to Nuts/Loaded.

Stop sensationalising everything.

Raze_them_all · 06-01-2009 6:11pm

Maybe you can't be serious. Look at the time in which it was painted. Your outraged at the magazines of today yet paintings of naked women back in the day would not of been hailed as masterpieces. Let me guess Michaelangelo's David is fine because it's in stone?? In that case slap a plaster cast on Lucy Pinder, would that be better for you??

Alicat · 06-01-2009 6:12pm

So maybe it's your own attitiude to sex and sexuality you should be examing. Not some cheap lads' mag.

hippiechickie · 06-01-2009 6:12pm

This post has been deleted.

orestes · 06-01-2009 6:13pm

What you perceive is a function of your mental process, just cos you see something as dirty doesn't mean it is dirty, it just means you perceive it as dirty.

Snowie · 06-01-2009 6:14pm

YES

Loaded, Nuts, etc.

Comments