Calender Controversy

dvet

doctor evil wrote: »

I think Ireland has one of the lowest rates of breastfeeding in Europe so no surprise that nickers are getting twisted.

I'm all for breastfeeding!! Still think it's a pretty strange choice of pic for an animal charity's calendar!

sligopark wrote: »

I think Egar puts it best - bestality - breast feeding is what occurs human to human - this was intended to push boundaries in an Ireland now where relativism is abound - what if a famous gay chap was photographed feeding a pup one of their sexual organs - although now thankfully famous rich folk like Elton John have moved on to purchasing children ...

shameful to sexualise a pup

Whispered

sligopark wrote: »

although now thankfully famous rich folk like Elton John have moved on to purchasing children ...

What do you mean? I find your post confusing. Can you clairfy?

doctor evil

Whispered wrote: »

What do you mean? I find your post confusing. Can you clairfy?

Going off topic (my bad)

I think he means that ET got the child through a surrogate mother.

doctor evil

dvet wrote: »

I'm all for breastfeeding!! Still think it's a pretty strange choice of pic for an animal charity's calendar!

It could be the first of its kind in this poster. I read the segment on No.12 (yer one who bf her cat, guinepig and horse) on one of the links, it does't specify if the mother chose not to breastfeed her son or if the child wouldn't latch on. I'm all for breastfeeding but sometimes it doesn't work out.

Whispered

doctor evil wrote: »

I think Ireland has one of the lowest rates of breastfeeding in Europe so no surprise that nickers are getting twisted.

Do you think that the only people who find it distasteful, are those who don't support breast feeding?

(if that's not the case ignore: ) but if it is the case I think you're a bit wrong, I am a huge supporter of breast feeding. Any children I might have will be breastfed if possible and I suppose you could say it's the norm in the group of people I associate with. As in I have more breastfeeding mother friends than I do bottle feeding mother friends. So it's not even something I'd really even notice anymore. But I still find the photo crass and tasteless. It's just unnecessary sensationalism, and I would have liked to think that rescues would be above that.

antomagoo

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Good publicity stunt by the OP tbh. Sell loads more calendars now.

Not a publicity stunt by me at all, I seen the image for the first time in the newspapers and was just interested in the opinions of the regular posters in the Animals & Pets forum.

I have no vested interest in Ash Animal Rescue even though we got our dog from there.

Off to the Conspiracy Theories forum with ya

Whispered

doctor evil wrote: »

I think he means that ET got the child through a surrogate mother.

oh I wasn't aware he even had a child. Also have no idea of the relevance it has to a breast feeding puppy pic. Still confused - but thanks for trying

EGAR

I am all for breastfeeding but pups get the bottle at EGAR. I find it vile, simple as and judging a lot of comments here and elsewhere I doubt they have hit the jackpot with this kind of c*ap.

seamus

I've reopened this thread.

Discussion of beastiality is off-topic at best. The topic relates to breastfeeding a pup, which is not in itself a sexual act and cannot be reasonably equated with beastiality.

seamus

Okay, I'll try kickstart it again

I don't have any particularly strong feelings about this one. I do think Ash shot themselves in the foot somewhat about it.

I don't think the actual issue is so much that she's breastfeeding a puppy. It's all about context. She's dressed up in sultry gear, made up and the tone of the rest of the image is lustful. i.e. it's set up as a "sexy" image.

However, breastfeeding is not a sexy thing, that is we don't associate the act of breastfeeding with sex - we don't consider it to be a sexual act.

So I think the context is the problem. Replace the puppy with a newborn baby and I think we'd still be having a debate about it because the image is sexualising an activity which is generally off-limits when it comes to sexualisation. It's like dressing a 4-year-old up in lingerie; you're sexualising something which has no inherent sexuality and which shouldn't have a sexuality.

The puppy would somewhat cause an additional offence for some people, but stick the model in hair curlers, pyjamas, and with a shawl covering most of the puppy and most people would find it a "strange" photo but accept the inherent message or artistry in it.

antomagoo

I dont think Ash had anything to do with the calender. I could be wrong but I think it was a model who adopted a dog from Ash wanted to help raise funds for them, so got a group of model friends together and put a calender together with proceeds from the sales going towards Ash.

If someone tomorrow decided to go out and sell their body for sex and donate all procedes to Ash would that be wrong? esp if Ash have nothing to do with and the person is doing it of their own free will and not harming anyone else. I'm not saying it's right, just looking for opinions.

At the end of the day they are a rescue who are desperately in need of funds and the money has been raised in a manner that is not actually hurting anyone, I mean its not as if she is actually breastfeeding the pup :rolleyes: The photographer for the shoot said the pup was asleep when the photo was taken.

@ EGAR, if someone done a similar calender without infroming you and then at the end when all the cash is taken in turned around and offered it to you would you refuse it if you found some of the photos used objectionable?

EDIT: Oh yeah how anyone thinks breastfeeding is sexy or sexual is beyond me

ISDW

antomagoo wrote: »

I dont think Ash had anything to do with the calender. I could be wrong but I think it was a model who adopted a dog from Ash wanted to help raise funds for them, so got a group of model friends together and put a calender together with proceeds from the sales going towards Ash.

If someone tomorrow decided to go out and sell their body for sex and donate all procedes to Ash would that be wrong? esp if Ash have nothing to do with and the person is doing it of their own free will and not harming anyone else.

At the end of the day they are a rescue who are desperately in need of funds and the money has been raised in a manner that is not actually hurting anyone, I mean its not as if she is actually breastfeeding the pup :rolleyes: The photographer for the shoot said the pup was asleep when the photo was taken.

@ EGAR, if someone done a similar calender without infroming you and then at the end when all the cash is taken in turned around and offered it to you would you refuse it if you found some of the photos used objectionable?

EDIT: Oh yeah how anyone thinks breastfeeding is sexy or sexual is beyond me

I obviously can't answer for EGAR, but yes, I would refuse it, the same as I wouldn't take any money if someone went greyhound racing to raise money.

I agree to a large extent with Seamus, on the context and what the model is wearing but I would still object if it was done with the model dressed very conservatively. However, I drink cow's milk, so yet again, I appear to be a hypocrite:rolleyes: These discussions certainly make you think.

maplebanks

NoseyMike2010 wrote: »

LOL ... What a bitch :P:P

the breed of dog here is a TITCHEW:D

TooManyDogs

My objection to the photo would be that it simply seems to be there in order to promote controversy, and that's always dangerous ground for any rescue group to tread. And by accepting the money from the sale of the calendar is treading that ground IMO. As regards feeding other species milk, as ISWD pointed out we drink cow/goat milk, whenever there's a story of a dog taking on orphaned kittens and feeding them with their litter we think it's fantastic and it gives us a warm and fuzzy, same when tigress fed those piglets, cats mind rabbits etc etc.

I think the reason we find it so peculiar for a human to feed a dog/cat/monkey is because breasts have become firstly a sexual image/object and secondly the way we can feed our babies. If we thought differently I don't think so many people would object to the image as being offensive but would still be asking why it's appropriate to sell a calendar.

I bouycotted United Colours of Benetton when they had those photo ads 15 years ago, remember the really controversial ones featuring dying AIDS patients, white children dressed as angels and black children dressed as devils, they had a breastfeeding one too. I had no objection to the photos, they were designed to challange us to think from a different angle and see what's going on in the world, I bouycotted because they were using those images to sell clothes, I felt it was completely inappropriate. One that really upset me was the bloody clothes of a soldier who had been killed in the middle east, would have been great in a news story or documentary but not suitable to make a profit

antomagoo

ISDW wrote: »

I obviously can't answer for EGAR, but yes, I would refuse it, the same as I wouldn't take any money if someone went greyhound racing to raise money.

Fair play to you ISDW, it can take alot to stick by your principles esp if your being offered money you may need to solve funding issues

BengaLover

even if you replaced the pup with a baby, the image would still be slightly provocative...breastfeeding is a beautiful thing, but i wonder how many women feel bresastfeeding is a sexual thing, that makes them feel sexy..not many ill bet.
Swollen leaky boobs, milk dripping everywhere, veins popping out, it certainly doesnt make you feel attractive although there is no doubt that its the most satisfying and deeply pleasant feeling in the world..
This shot would have been better placed in a breastfeeding campaign calender (minus dog of course).:D
Then again if the shot was of a hippy, earth mother type woman, would posters views be different?
just something to toss about..

EGAR

antomagoo wrote: »

I dont think Ash had anything to do with the calender. I could be wrong but I think it was a model who adopted a dog from Ash wanted to help raise funds for them, so got a group of model friends together and put a calender together with proceeds from the sales going towards Ash.

If someone tomorrow decided to go out and sell their body for sex and donate all procedes to Ash would that be wrong? esp if Ash have nothing to do with and the person is doing it of their own free will and not harming anyone else. I'm not saying it's right, just looking for opinions.

At the end of the day they are a rescue who are desperately in need of funds and the money has been raised in a manner that is not actually hurting anyone, I mean its not as if she is actually breastfeeding the pup :rolleyes: The photographer for the shoot said the pup was asleep when the photo was taken.

@ EGAR, if someone done a similar calender without infroming you and then at the end when all the cash is taken in turned around and offered it to you would you refuse it if you found some of the photos used objectionable?

EDIT: Oh yeah how anyone thinks breastfeeding is sexy or sexual is beyond me

Hell yes! Reputation is a lot more important to me than money.

And ASH did know about it, they were quoted in newspapers etc pp and defended the calendar.

I am sorry but there are other ways to fundraise. I find the image vile.

BengaLover

I dont find it vile, I find it at first fascinating, then on closer speculation, pointless.
In reality, there ARE women who give breast milk to animals, albeit not in the western world.
However, THIS image is failing to make ANY point regarding animal welfare - thus making it in reality a purely shock value thing to get publicity for the society that made it.

maplebanks

EGAR wrote: »

Hell yes! Reputation is a lot more important to me than money.

And ASH did know about it, they were quoted in newspapers etc pp and defended the calendar.

I am sorry but there are other ways to fundraise. I find the image vile.

lighten up ,its just a bit of trick photography, the puppy is asleep and doing nothing,vile is a very harsh word.:):rolleyes:

sligopark

BengaLover wrote: »

In reality, there ARE women who give breast milk to animals, albeit not in the western world.

where is that exactley? In the eastern, northern, southern or other world? Perhap snot and only in Narnia.

maplebanks wrote: »

lighten up ,its just a bit of trick photography, the puppy is asleep and doing nothing,vile is a very harsh word.:):rolleyes:

sick is another

Cherry Blossom

sligopark wrote: »

Perhaps not and only in Narnia.

I must have missed that page in the books, sorry couldn't resist

Like I said early on in the thread I find it slightly disturbing, I just don't find it sick or vile but I don't see the point of it. It isn't even an image that portrays nurturing in any sence of the word or even attempts too as the model seems completely detatched from the pup, it's almost as if it's being used as some prop that doesn't really work in the shot. Certainly wouldn't want to be looking at it for a month.

sligopark

adrenalinjunkie - I reckon it was there for provocation - unforunatety it crossed the line and I said earlier if it had have been full pc and had a pup with a naked male model lying up to close to his sexual organ (looking like it was baout to tak eit into its mouth) - it would have went world wide and then probably then we would had more folk saying its ok to encourage bestality

but hey everything now is relative now ...

as a calender it did nothing to encourage folk to take on dogs from Ash Rescue nevermind any other which is a shame given the work they do

Whispered

Sligopark, the two things are not in anyway comparable. At all. Please don't cause the thread to be locked again.

For me there is something not really right about it, it's uncomfortable to look at or something. I can't say exactly what it is. I know there is no sexual context "supposed" to be there, but the models clothes suggest there is.

Discodog

I think that it's a thought provoking image & could be a metaphor for the way that some people see their dogs - as babies. I don't find it the least bit offensive & I doubt if many would in the rest of Europe. It is hard to judge without seeing the rest of the calender.

Maybe it's part of our Father Ted, down with that sort of thing, mentality that some perceive it as sexual.

Does anyone know what the other images are like or have a link ?.

sligopark

Whispered wrote: »

the two things are not in anyway comparable.

For me there is something not really right about it, it's uncomfortable to look at or something. I can't say exactly what it is.

and your point is?

Whispered

http://www.puppylove.ie/gallery.html

Not all of them are there but there are a few.

sligopark

Whispered wrote: »

http://www.puppylove.ie/gallery.html

Not all of them are there but there are a few.

sorry is that your point - only one of them involves the suggestion of bestiality and so thats ok and encourages animal adoption and fostering?

Discodog

Well this is a comment from the photographer & I agree with him but I also love the images - so much so that I have just ordered mine. Apparently the are almost sold out so that will be £10,000 for ASH. If there hadn't been any controversy & this thread I would of missed it, so thanks OP.

If I were wealthy I might even be tempted to buy the originals - I have a feeling that they would be a good investment.

http://www.adelheidwalsh.com/1/category/ash%20animal%20rescue/1.html

"It seems to me that it's the average "Mary" and "Paddy" who are unable to see all the hard work, raw emotions, good intentions and artistic skills that has gone into this Charity Calendar now known as controverial and shocking! I think it's time all the people involved get recognition for their amazing work, support and effort - all offered by all for FREE to help raise much needed funds for Ash."

Maybe "Mary" and "Paddy" should take a step back and take stock of what they're doing to help where help is needed? Stop wasting energy on judging those who go out of their way to help and they way it's done. Maybe even broaden the hrizon and appreciate an art that's not necessarily to their taste, but knowing it's for animal charity, still offer support? "

Cherry Blossom

Whispered wrote: »

For me there is something not really right about it, it's uncomfortable to look at or something. I can't say exactly what it is. I know there is no sexual context "supposed" to be there, but the models clothes suggest there is.

I know what you mean by this, It's sort of confusing and illogical, it gives me a horrible feeling of annoyance like a problem I can't figure out an answer to. It makes me feel like a person with OCD lookin at a speck of dust that's just out of reach.


Look at me getting all artsy :P

Cherry Blossom

sligopark wrote: »

sorry is that your point - only one of them involves the suggestion of bestiality and so thats ok and encourages animal adoption and fostering?

I believe this is in reply to Discodogs comment not yours. - (Off for a nosey!!)

Please don't poke the mods, they bite! :eek: