Beaut.ie rant on Lush Stunt

SmokeyEyes

mysteries1984 wrote: »

Oh, were they Lush employees in Ireland? And just voicing their opinion? I wish I'd seen it.

+1 to them disliking anyone disagreeing with them...I think it's really unprofessional and put me off reading them. I still can't understand how they're lauded as being so great.

I'm not sure their tweet said Lush spam took the whole site down, but to me you can't say such sensationalist comments and not expect some strong opinions back, whole piece and handling of it pee'd me right off, not fair to say any comments made by Lush were all 'spam'

wonderfulname

lizt wrote: »

I honestly don't believe it's a marketing stunt; if it is Lush need to fire whoever thought it up. It's to raise awareness about an issue, They must have known it would shock people and possibly turn them off being a customer of Lush.

Even in marketing the issue and the opinion, it's a crass marketing stunt, I would describe it as such had PETA or similar been behind it. And of course you shouldn't be forgetting that the issue presented can be rectified at a consumer level by shopping in Lush.

mysteries1984

SmokeyEyes wrote: »

I'm not sure their tweet said Lush spam took the whole site down, but to me you can't say such sensationalist comments and not expect some strong opinions back, whole piece and handling of it pee'd me right off, not fair to say any comments made by Lush were all 'spam'

Absolutely agree...I remember they also blasted people using the withdrawal method as contraception, calling them stupid and ignorant. For the record I do have my own not-very-glowing opinion of that method, but their handling of it was just bitchy. I only ever go onto the site now to see what commenters are saying on best concealer posts, or others' tutorials.

I'm going to have another look now, see if I can find anything on the stunt on their page. I'd like to see what they said.

Scarinae

I used to work for Lush and I have met the owners several times, so I found this thread quite interesting. I wasn't aware of this current campaign because I haven't been into a Lush shop in ages, and the original post on beaut.ie seems to have been taken down so I am not sure exactly what they said.

Lush does campaigns all the time on various themes, usually to do with animal testing or the environment. They had a campaign while I was working there that focused on shark finning, and for that they had a similar stunt where a girl was strung up on fish hooks in a shop window (the pictures are horrible, but if you want to read about it there is information here). In that case the girl was a performance artist who was a former Lush employee, and the stunt was her idea - they didn't ask the regular sales assistants to volunteer or anything - so I'd imagine that's what happened again here although I'm not 100% sure on that.

Actually, googling the campaign brought me to this article that was posted on the Guardian website on Friday - the Lush campaign manager (who I haven't met) has written it in response to a blog post, would it have been the same one? She wrote:

We have, however, also received criticism for our portrayal of an anonymous victim who suffers at the hands of institutionalised violence. A blog that upset and patronised everyone involved in our campaign – from the performance artist to the 5,000 staff in 800 shops across 49 countries who continue to push the petition – commented: "Women aren't marketing tools. Rape is not a gimmick."

Morag

You cant' see it, they killed the post and you just get a 404 error message which means the page can not be found.

If you search their site you get over 2,000 hits on articles written about Lush products over the years.

And yes the tone of the blog entry and the tweets were very bitchy.



I honestly find it hard to believe that they put about that their site was being 'attacked' by lush employees, I think they just couldn't handle the robust discussion in the comments section.

mysteries1984

Sharrow wrote: »

I honestly find it hard to believe that they put about that their site was being 'attacked' by lush employees, I think they just couldn't handle the robust discussion in the comments section.

Thanks for the image Sharrow, it's fascinating. It puts me more off beaut.ie rather than Lush, personally.

LizT

mysteries1984 wrote: »

Sharrow wrote: »

I honestly find it hard to believe that they put about that their site was being 'attacked' by lush employees, I think they just couldn't handle the robust discussion in the comments section.

Thanks for the image Sharrow, it's fascinating. It puts me more off beaut.ie rather than Lush, personally.

Totally agree. It completely puts me off beaut.ie. I personally think it should have been kept off their twitter feed as they are only retweeting people who agree with them.

Mr Teeny

I saw the original article on beaut (link sent by one of my veggie pals) and I have to say they really dug themselves into a big hole. The article itself was far more sensationalist than the actual campaign imo. Totally agree with earlier posters, campaign would have worked better with a guy but it was still very effective.

Now I had no problem with the author on beaut having an opinion (I don’t agree with her in the slightest but she’s entitled to her own view – even if she did compare one of the force feeding images to “spunk in her mouth”) And they really need to lose the tabloid melodramatic headlines… “lush-in-horrible-disgusting-publicity-stunt-not-big-not-clever” :rolleyes:

Here’s my main problem though, I didn't see any comments from Lush employees in the comments section under the article (maybe they came later but there were plenty of comments when I read). All I saw was a decent debate with differing views and some well put forward arguments. Beaut couldn’t handle the criticism though so they pulled the article! That’s infuriating! If there were spam lush comments, all they had to do was delete them and leave the other comments.

Thank God for places like boards where people can actually voice their opinion. Beaut people if you are reading here take note… lots of different opinions are posted above mine, no need to delete any of them as they are all valid opinions. In future if you post such topical issues, let all sides have their say and keep your toys in your pram.

/rant

Linguo

Oh random was on twitter sneakily in work today and saw this before I left (cause I follow all the beaut girls)! Guess they aren't fans of boards so



I love the site but don't really like it as much lately, this one sided train of thought isn't doing them any favours

ms cloggs

Hi All, I hope you don't mind me butting me but I was involved in the comments on the lush thread and I'm not surprised they pulled the thread. It was nothing to do with spam but rather how bad they made themselves look. One commenter objected to the use of the word rapey being used on twitter and was told by the site it didn't matter if she was a victim of sexual abuse(They've since changed the word from rapey to vile) The writer was slagging the comments coming in with her friends on twitter instead of addressing them on the thread. Her article was a completely unresearched angry rant which really showed her immaturity as a writer. I'm having a bit of a rant here myself I know but I'm really annoyed they pulled the thread and lied about it. I used to love beaut.ie but not anymore, it's not a place to go if you want to express your opinion and your opinion differs from the clique that is beaut.ie.

mysteries1984

Linguo wrote: »

Oh random was on twitter sneakily in work today and saw this before I left (cause I follow all the beaut girls)! Guess they aren't fans of boards so
I love the site but don't really like it as much lately, this one sided train of thought isn't doing them any favours

How petty they would do this. They can't handle anything different from their own views.

And the word 'rapey'? They used 'rapey'? These are meant to be grown women. It beggars belief.

I said earlier that I like to see what other commenters say on products and read others' posts (there's one girl, Sara, who I find particularly good) and that's why I sometimes look on the site. This has just nailed the coffin shut for me. I'll stick to individual blogger's own blogs in future and keep looking at makeupalley.com and the like. Yes, I'm just one reader, hardly likely to shut the site down, but it's all I can do and I'll do it.

Sorry, this doesn't read well, it's fairly disjointed and all over the place. I'm just fairly horrified by the reaction of beaut.ie and the resulting 'SmokeyEyes MUA was it necessary....' Childish, petty and unnecessary.

Linguo

mysteries1984 wrote: »

I'm just fairly horrified by the reaction of beaut.ie and the resulting 'SmokeyEyes MUA was it necessary....' Childish, petty and unnecessary.

Have been keeping an eye out over on the twitter machine. Poor auld smokey eyes getting a hard time of it

LizT

Linguo wrote: »

Have been keeping an eye out over on the twitter machine. Poor auld smokey eyes getting a hard time of it

I wouldn't call this bitching, I'd call it a discussion. Something that beaut.ie obviously doesn't want to facilitate.

mysteries1984

Linguo wrote: »

Have been keeping an eye out over on the twitter machine. Poor auld smokey eyes getting a hard time of it

lizt wrote: »

I wouldn't call this bitching, I'd call it a discussion. Something that beaut.ie obviously doesn't want to facilitate.

+1 to both. Have they even read SmokeyEyes' original post?? Beaut.ie, as you're reading this, please feel free to contribute to this discussion. You apparently weren't willing to do so on your own website so a thought was posted here.

Sometimes I wish I was on Twitter so I could follow stuff like this. Then I realise it'd just infuriate me

Mr Teeny

I'm 99% sure that person tweeting Smokey Eyes there was one of the people who had commented on the original Beaut post defending the article. If I'm wrong, apologies.

Any of the people reading here from twitter / beaut, feel free to come on here and join in the discussion. Share your thoughts on the topic. It will end all this silly mud slinging via twitter. This is one of the reasons I choose to post on boards and not twitter. Nothing lost in translation over here, all views welcome, threads are well moderated and anything that resembles bitching will be dealt with in an appropriate manner (which doesn't have to involve deletion of all valid opinions).

Sittingpretty

I'm not sure why smokeyeyesmua is bothering to defend herself. I'd have told that Rosemary woman to take a hike a long few tweets ago. Who is she? The twitter police?
For what it's worth I didn't agree with the article. I thought it was childish, reactionary babble.
I was disappointed it was taken down though, debate is always good.

LizT

Feel sorry for smokey eyes.

Sittingpretty

lizt wrote: »

Feel sorry for smokey eyes.

I'll tell you what that is. Own medicine isn't so sweet. She/they throwing a hissy fit at someone doing precisely what they did last week. They need to suck it up and realise that if you write in a public domain you are open to criticism.
If Smokeyeyesmua is reading this thread, please don't feel you need to defend your actions, you absolutely do not.

Mr Teeny

Sittingpretty wrote: »

If Smokeyeyesmua is reading this thread, please don't feel you need to defend your actions, you absolutely do not.

^ Well said!


Lol at those tweets from the author of the article.

“Was it really nessicary(sic) to start a boards thread on my lush beaut post?
….just thought it was an unusual thing to do”

Unusual? How is it unusual to want to engage in a constructive debate on a topic? What’s more, a topic like this is always going to be subjective and invoke very strong opinions for or against, so debate is a very good thing here. If we all think the same about everything the world would be a mighty boring place!

Look at that Samantha Brick “I’m so beautiful” piece in the Daily Mail. She was slated after that article was published but to her credit she fought her case and stuck to her guns (her delusional guns maybe but that’s for another thread). Some of the comments posted below that article were downright nasty but they were opinions none the less so were left for everyone to see and discuss.

The whole idea of journalism is to spread an issue, topic or news with the masses. Where it’s an opinion piece it should remain that, one person’s opinion that they would like to share with a wider audience. I think that’s why the post was pulled from beaut. The article was written by someone who clearly has a strong opinion on the topic and wanted to voice her concerns. I’d say Beaut didn’t want people looking negatively at them generally though so they pulled it down. It’s had the opposite effect though, it makes them look amateur, childish and is alienating readers.

Message to Beaut – If you don’t want constructive, heated debate on your site, that’s fine. Just make sure your girls don’t post opinion pieces on topical issues in future. Stick to make-up, that way you won’t have to embarrass yourselves pulling down content every time someone has a different viewpoint. Problem solved.

It’s just a real pity the author didn’t have the bottle to stand up for her own beliefs and fight her case. I thought the article was no more than a badly thought out rant to be honest (and one I strongly disagree with, hence me posting here) but the author would have redeemed herself no end if she engaged in the debate afterwards instead of running off to slag the posters on twitter like a 4 year old.

I assume she’s reading this, so to the author: there is still time to enter the debate… you have an opinion, I have an opinion, so let’s discuss the issue like grownups. It’s a very interesting topic and one you clearly have very strong views on. I do too, so do lots of other people. I’d love to know if you actually think all the things you wrote are true. Register on boards (it’s free and very cool) and let’s see if we can’t educate one another …

Sindy1990

I followed the, now defunct, Beaut.ie post and the ensuing comment thread right from when it was first published to when it was eventually removed. Initially, I was so dumbfounded by the author's opinion that I refrained from posting a rebuttal until I had time to order my own thoughts.

When I had eventually calmed down enough to put a logical, well thought-out and structured opinion together, the comments had taken a distinct turn for the worse and, a once mature, if decidedly heated, debate had been reduced to little more than a school yard slanging match. This coupled with the outright bitchiness on Twitter made me refrain from posting my views. I didn't want to be lambasted in the comments or laughed at on Twitter for having a differing opinion from that of the author.

I came across the Daily Mail report the night before Beaut.ie got wind of it and, while I found the images disturbing and hard to digest, I didn't once think that they had sexual connotations. For anyone to draw parallels between a demonstration on animal testing (with the, admittedly simplified, message of "Humans do this to animals. How would you like it if they did it to other humans?") and rape/sexual violence says more about the individual than it does about Lush.

I thought that the Beaut.ie was post sensationalist and reaching but, I could accept it was an opinion. However, I found the treatment of commenters and the reference to "drinking his spunk" within the post to be crude, unwarranted and clutching at straws.

SmokeyEyes is well within her rights to start this thread and there was no grounds for anyone to question her on it. Differing opinions may not be welcome on Beaut.ie but, it is the entire basis for Boards.ie.

SmokeyEyes

I appreciate all the support here on boards and have had loads of lovely private messages on twitter too. You lot are lovely:)

Don't really want to say too much, I think I'm in people's bad books now but honestly just love boards to discuss interesting topics, I would've posted up just as easily if I'd read it in a daily newspaper or a magazine and won't stop doing it in the future!

Wasn't out to offend or cause hassle, just was genuinely surprised and interested in people's views after reading the strong views on beaut and always use here as my point of call to read and get views from dedicated boardsies!

mysteries1984

SmokeyEyes wrote: »

I appreciate all the support here on boards and have had loads of lovely private messages on twitter too. You lot are lovely:)

Don't really want to say too much, I think I'm in people's bad books now but honestly just love boards to discuss interesting topics, I would've posted up just as easily if I'd read it in a daily newspaper or a magazine and won't stop doing it in the future!

Wasn't out to offend or cause hassle, just was genuinely surprised and interested in people's views after reading the strong views on beaut and always use here as my point of call to read and get views from dedicated boardsies!

Smokey, I'm delighted you stuck to your guns on this one. As for bad books...do you really want to be in the good books of people that have that immature, mud-slinging attitude? I thought your original post was so unprovocative and genuine, opening it up to discussion. Mr Teeny gave good advice - beaut.ie girls, stick to make up, not opinion pieces if you can't handle the 'backlash'.

Bubblefett

SmokeyEyes wrote: »

I appreciate all the support here on boards and have had loads of lovely private messages on twitter too. You lot are lovely:)

Don't really want to say too much, I think I'm in people's bad books now but honestly just love boards to discuss interesting topics, I would've posted up just as easily if I'd read it in a daily newspaper or a magazine and won't stop doing it in the future!

Wasn't out to offend or cause hassle, just was genuinely surprised and interested in people's views after reading the strong views on beaut and always use here as my point of call to read and get views from dedicated boardsies!

Smokeyeyes, you started a thread on a topic that was relevant. You did nothing wrong. I am actually shocked at beaut.ie's reponse and have found it very childish and unproffessional. You can't write an opinion piece and then get upset when others disagree.
I hope they are reading this thread. It will provide them with some much needed feedback which they won't get on their site since deleting the article.

Mr Teeny

Found a copy of the original article in my history cache.

For those who haven't seen it:

Just a heads up, this post deals with rape culture and describes graphic images. I’d really urge you to go to one of our more cheerful posts if these are things that are very upsetting to you. However, it is an issue that I feel we really need to talk about, so do join in the discussion if you can cope with the topic.

I came home to a hatful of tweets, linking me to an article that people thought I’d be interested in. I clicked through and was astounded with what I saw. A man gripping the a woman’s hair and forcing white liquid into her mouth, a model with her mouth pried open, her face covered in tears as she grimaces and another model bound and tied up to her station.

After composing myself and reading the article properly, I found out that the pictures were from a publicity stunt by Lush. It’s point was, apparently, to raise awareness about animal testing, though they did do it in a country where it is illegal to test on animals so I’m going to say publicity stunt three times in the same paragraph. PUBLICITY STUNT.

The inferences are blatant – don’t attempt to tell me that this “artist” chap conceived the image of himself pouring imitation spunk into a distressed woman’s mouth without taking any references from sexual violence.

It seems Lush are following the lead from Peta, an animal rights group who get the gold star for spewing relentless sexism. They make no qualms about demeaning women - despite how abhorrent they find the exploitation of animals. I can’t remember the last time I saw one of their ads that didn’t have a skinny girl with her arse in the air, never mind the fact that they divide her body into sections like breast, leg and rump – possibly one of the most obvious examples of sexual objectification in advertising in recent years.

This is why so certain that his intention was to equate animal cruelty to violence against women. The animal welfare activism community is rife with the aforementioned bull****. Just google “milking a cow is rape” or any similar statement and you’ll get pages upon pages of animal rights groups who stand by this comment.

Every woman I know who has been a victim of sexual assault regards it as the worst experience of her life. I can’t wish enough bad will to Lush for trivialising it, portraying it on a public street and trying to make a buck out of it.

Women aren’t marketing tools. Rape is not a gimmick.

The Daily Mail has the full article and sickening pictures

TAGS: ANIMAL RIGHTS, DAILY MAIL, LUSH, PETA, RAPE

Hope it's ok posting that mods, if not just say the word and i'll get rid.

Linguo

Thanks for re-posting good to read it again!

I'm sure Jacqueline Traide (the activist and performance artist who took part in the campaign) would be greatly saddened to read the article above about something she obviously took so seriously.

She spent 10 hours straight doing this campaign and was obviously uncomfortable but desperately wanted to shock people into seeing the horrors of animal testing.

Traides said, "I hope it will plant the seed of a new awareness in people to really start thinking about what they go out and buy and what goes into producing it."

Yes it's disturbing, that's the whole point. This happens to innocent animals behind closed doors every day.

LizT

I don't really understand the point the author made by saying that animal testing is illegal in the uk. Yes it is, but it's not illegal to sell products tested on animals.

I really don't think most people know what the animals are subjected to and it's for that reason that I think lush's campaign was a good one.

panda100

Ok I don't want to go completely off topic, but people saying that these 'shock tactics' actually work is Bullcrap!

We see worse treatment of humans on the news every night with countless wars,famines etc. Yet most people do nothing in their lifetime to try and change this. How naieve do you have to be to think some performance artist is suddenly going to make us all stop using products tested on animals?

I think things can be changed in the world, but some well intentioned performance artist simulating toture porn is not the answer. The beauty industry systematically has to change. It is an industry with a long history of not only animal rights abuse, but also human rights abuse. It manipulates images and promotes messages to make women feel insecure about their looks from an early age so we will buy their products.
I'm sure we have all seen tv programmes of women getting breast surgery to make their boobs bigger or botox injected into their faces, how is this any different to the horrific treatment that animals get inflicted on them in labs? I know that animals don't have a choice as we do but still I think when it comes to the beauty industry you have to pick your battles, and animal rights are really not the biggest issue facing us at the moment.

Mr Teeny

lizt wrote: »

I don't really understand the point the author made by saying that animal testing is illegal in the uk. Yes it is, but it's not illegal to sell products tested on animals.

I really don't think most people know what the animals are subjected to and it's for that reason that I think lush's campaign was a good one.

Exactly! It really irks me that the author makes such an issue about the UK being an animal testing free zone yet Beaut.ie openly advertise products from companies that are associated with animal testing. And as you say, no testing is done in the UK but you can still buy countless products that have been imported.

As Linguo pointed out, the campaign was disturbing but the whole point was to raise awareness of what animals actually are put through, something most people have no idea about.

This quote in particular boils my blood.

This is why so certain that his intention was to equate animal cruelty to violence against women. The animal welfare activism community is rife with the aforementioned bull****.

What an ignorant statement. The intention of all the lush campaigns is simple, raising awareness of animal cruelty / testing.

With a little bit of research she would have found this.

A lush campaign where a male employee spent 12 hours in a cage dressed as a rabbit to draw awareness of animal testing.



And here is another male lush employee stuck in a cage with some fake cuts, again to draw awareness.



Granted, the two images above are nowhere near as shocking as the ones the article rants at, but I think they give a clear indication about Lush’s motives generally speaking. Is violence against women on their agenda…? Not a bloody chance.

Linguo

panda100 wrote: »

Ok I don't want to go completely off topic, but people saying that these 'shock tactics' actually work is Bullcrap!

We see worse treatment of humans on the news every night with countless wars,famines etc. Yet most people do nothing in their lifetime to try and change this. How naieve do you have to be to think some performance artist is suddenly going to make us all stop using products tested on animals?

I think things can be changed in the world, but some well intentioned performance artist simulating toture porn is not the answer. The beauty industry systematically has to change. It is an industry with a long history of not only animal rights abuse, but also human rights abuse. It manipulates images and promotes messages to make women feel insecure about their looks from an early age so we will buy their products.
I'm sure we have all seen tv programmes of women getting breast surgery to make their boobs bigger or botox injected into their faces, how is this any different to the horrific treatment that animals get inflicted on them in labs? I know that animals don't have a choice as we do but still I think when it comes to the beauty industry you have to pick your battles, and animal rights are really not the biggest issue facing us at the moment.

I think the animals would disagree:) Sure there are many important issues but I believe this is a very worthwhile one and should be addressed and sorted, we're the dominant species we should show compassion. If someone wants to mutilate their own body with surgery that's their own business!

There's a huge problem with how the beauty industry portrays beauty but that's a different issue, this is just about saving animals from unnecessary torture

Morag

I think a lot of work went into campaigning against animal testing for cosmetics in the 90s and it is shame to see it back slide. I think Lush is just trying to make sure it doesn't dissapear completely from people's awareness.

This is not the only campaing Lush has run, they shine a light on different issues,

https://www.lush.co.uk/our-values/campaigns

campaigns

At Lush there are lots of ethical issues that we care about as individuals and take action on collectively, making us a campaigning company.

Lush has always had embodied ethics that can be found in the products themselves; solid products were invented to reduce or entirely do away with our packaging and preservatives; the animal testing policy that all Lush suppliers have to abide by means that none of our, or our customers', money ends up in the hands of companies who are still testing on animals; and our buyers go to extraordinary lengths to find community projects to buy ingredients from, which will benefit the people growing, picking and making all the lovely butters, essential oils, resins and other materials that go to make up the finished products.

All of this has gone on quietly behind the scenes from the very beginning, but in 2006 something happened that led Lush to start campaigning publicly on environmental, animal and human rights issues - The Body Shop was sold to L'Oreal for approximately £650 million. Lush’s roots were as a supplier to the Body Shop, inventing and making products for them in their heyday when Anita Roddick was still at the helm. The same people who invented and made the products back then are still behind Lush today, and in response to the sale of The Body Shop and the reaction of staff and customers it became clear that another campaigning voice was needed on the high street.

Right from the very beginning, Lush's campaigns were somewhat different from those that had been seen in shops before. Rather than aligning with big name groups and choosing well supported issues, we chose issues and groups that we cared about, but that we knew would find it difficult to get support elsewhere. We campaigned against incomprehensible legislation in the EU that called for massive animal testing and responded by dumping manure outside the European Parliament in Strasbourg. We fought to uphold the rule of law for people in Guantanamo long before Obama pledged (but failed) to close it down, and we championed sharks, who have been vilified since Jaws hit the screens in the 70s, by having people suspended by shark hooks in our shop windows.

We invite you to have a look around this campaigns corner, read about some of the issues we work on, start conversations about them by commenting here or on our forum or Facebook page, and most importantly, support the groups working to protect the environment, safeguard animals and stand up for the rights of all people everywhere.

We know not everyone wants "politics in their bath water", but we feel privileged to be in a position where we have the resources to help those who work tirelessly and selflessly for equality, peace and justice for all. We hope that you will continue to support us as we support them.

Animal testing Human Rights Environment Animal Protection Palm Oil

So this wasn't a once off, they have had other events in shop windows in shops all over the world. While you may not think they are 'fights' worth fighting they do and at least they are standing up for something and trying to raise awareness and do some good.

LizT

I'm almost embarassed to admit it but I really didn't know what was involved in animal testing. I had this vision in my head of bunnies being kept in cages and smeared with lipstick and blusher. I know that's naive and a very ignorant view but that was the way I was. After lush did this campaign I did a bit more research on the issue and frankly it's disgusting what they put the animals through and the amount of companies that use animal testing (although I admit some of the sources of animal testing info are highly biased)

If even a few more people decide to research it a bit more as a result of a demonstration which involved a woman whovolunteered and was fully aware of what was involved then that's no bad thing, in my opinion.

Yes I can see how the images could be viewed as almost pornographic but I don't think that's what Lush were going for.

mysteries1984

panda100 wrote: »

Ok I don't want to go completely off topic, but people saying that these 'shock tactics' actually work is Bullcrap!

We see worse treatment of humans on the news every night with countless wars,famines etc. Yet most people do nothing in their lifetime to try and change this. How naieve do you have to be to think some performance artist is suddenly going to make us all stop using products tested on animals?

I think things can be changed in the world, but some well intentioned performance artist simulating toture porn is not the answer. The beauty industry systematically has to change. It is an industry with a long history of not only animal rights abuse, but also human rights abuse. It manipulates images and promotes messages to make women feel insecure about their looks from an early age so we will buy their products.
I'm sure we have all seen tv programmes of women getting breast surgery to make their boobs bigger or botox injected into their faces, how is this any different to the horrific treatment that animals get inflicted on them in labs? I know that animals don't have a choice as we do but still I think when it comes to the beauty industry you have to pick your battles, and animal rights are really not the biggest issue facing us at the moment.

The key word there is choice, to me. These people choose to undergo cosmetic procedures. The animals don't. I see that as the ultimate crux of the matter.

I think people are partly desensitised to human suffering. The news incorporating war, famine and so on are on in almost everyone's household from an early age. I think there's also an ignorance in relation to animal testing. People are unaware of what happens. Shock tactics like this make it more reachable to the public, for want of a better word. It's almost like a form of pathos.

Mr Teeny wrote: »

Exactly! It really irks me that the author makes such an issue about the UK being an animal testing free zone yet Beaut.ie openly advertise products from companies that are associated with animal testing. And as you say, no testing is done in the UK but you can still buy countless products that have been imported.

As Linguo pointed out, the campaign was disturbing but the whole point was to raise awareness of what animals actually are put through, something most people have no idea about.

Yes. Exactly. Beaut.ie and others may see liquid being forced down a woman's throat as a reference to 'spunk' but I don't, because I've seen enough footage of it being done to animals. And the issue vis a vis testing in the UK is a vital issue that many are unaware of.

Linguo wrote: »

I think the animals would disagree:) Sure there are many important issues but I believe this is a very worthwhile one and should be addressed and sorted, we're the dominant species we should show compassion. If someone wants to mutilate their own body with surgery that's their own business!

There's a huge problem with how the beauty industry portrays beauty but that's a different issue, this is just about saving animals from unnecessary torture

+1 to this. It's all about choice. There is undoubtedly an issue with the way women in particular are depicted in the beauty industry (and fashion) but as above, that's a different issue.

Sharrow wrote: »

While you may not think they are 'fights' worth fighting they do and at least they are standing up for something and trying to raise awareness and do some good.

Exactly. I buy stuff from Lush every now and again, and will continue to do so. I've always found the way their sales assistants jump on you when you go in the door pretty irritating, but at the same time I found their ethos to be solid and based ultimately on doing what is generally deemed 'good'. Aside from making a profit, obviously. No other high street brand does what they do for raising awareness, and I'll always applaud them for that.

lizt wrote: »

I'm almost embarassed to admit it but I really didn't know what was involved in animal testing. I had this vision in my head of bunnies being kept in cages and smeared with lipstick and blusher. I know that's naive and a very ignorant view but that was the way I was. After lush did this campaign I did a bit more research on the issue and frankly it's disgusting what they put the animals through and the amount of companies that use animal testing (although I admit some of the sources of animal testing info are highly biased)

I'm actually thrilled to read this. If Lush hadn't initiated this, you would be none the wiser on animal testing. I consider myself relatively well informed on methods of testing and what companies use them, so this has pleased me no end. Kudos to you for opening up about what you didn't know before. We can all do with a little more knowledge.

My first post on this thread referred to this being successful as an advertisement. I still do think like that, but I'm pleased to see the thread continuing.

On a personal level, I'm a vegetarian. I don't use anything that's been tested on animals for cosmetic purposes as there's always an alternative. Would I like to try the new L'Oreal mascara? Sometimes, a new product intrigues me. But never that much. I'm only one person who has made the decision to stop buying animal tested cosmetics. And I would never force my opinions down someone else's throat. Most people in my day-to-day life have no idea of my stance. But by portraying this stunt, maybe Lush have inspired someone else to do the same thing. I don't want to portray myself as a philosophical do-gooder, by the way. I hope this doesn't come across as self-righteous and up my own arse. I have many, many flaws. This is just my take on it all.

Sorry, that was rambling. Like my last post. This one has hit a nerve with me it appears

doctor evil

Inspired someone to do what though? Based on some of the groups (hunt saboteurs, plane stupid) the owner of Lush has donated funds to, this would not always be a good thing.

mysteries1984

doctor evil wrote: »

Inspired someone to do what though? Based on some of the groups (hunt saboteurs, plane stupid) the owner of Lush has donated funds to, this would not always be a good thing.

Are you talking to me? If so, I mean inspired someone to give up using cosmetics that have been tested on animals.

Bubblefett

I'm sorry but I really don't agree with this post

panda100 wrote: »

Ok I don't want to go completely off topic, but people saying that these 'shock tactics' actually work is Bullcrap!

if it wasn't true Beaut wouldn't be writing about it, it wouldn't be all over th papers and we wouldn't all be here. Shocking news gets people talking. Be is possitive or negative responces the message gets out there- in this case it's that animals are being harmed.

We see worse treatment of humans on the news every night with countless wars,famines etc. Yet most people do nothing in their lifetime to try and change this. How naieve do you have to be to think some performance artist is suddenly going to make us all stop using products tested on animals?

Humans are regretably used to seeing images of war and famine on their tvs. We've become desensitised to a point. It's awful but sadly the truth, everyone knows there's wars and people starving all over the world.
However most people (myself included until recently) do not know the extent of the conditions animals in test labs face.

I think things can be changed in the world, but some well intentioned performance artist simulating toture porn is not the answer.

Yes. That's why she wasn't simulating torture porn. She was showing what animals are subjected to. It's awful that it so closely resembles torture don't you think?

The beauty industry systematically has to change. It is an industry with a long history of not only animal rights abuse, but also human rights abuse. It manipulates images and promotes messages to make women feel insecure about their looks from an early age so we will buy their products.

The beauty industry is not a kind one, it certainly does have countless problems with anerexic modles/airbushed pictures giving women unreachable body targets etc etc etc. But that's a completely different arguement for another thread and another day.

I'm sure we have all seen tv programmes of women getting breast surgery to make their boobs bigger or botox injected into their faces, how is this any different to the horrific treatment that animals get inflicted on them in labs?

The difference is between someone choosing to enhance their body for whatever reasons under controlled proffessional circumstances and an animal who has never seen sunlight being raised in a cage just to be experimented on.

I know that animals don't have a choice as we do but still I think when it comes to the beauty industry you have to pick your battles, and animal rights are really not the biggest issue facing us at the moment.

Honestly I'd disagree. I think what's happening to animals on a day to day basis is every bit as important an issue. An animal doesn't volenteer to spent it's life in a cage. It has no say and no way to defend itself. Humans have a responsibility to protect them

OakeyDokey

I think LUSH deserve a round of applaue for having the guts to go beyond the limit and do a campaign so out of the box. As a strong believer in animal rights I was still shocked by the campaign, in a way to try do more! I researched more about the products I used and read up on the companies policies for animal testing. It managed to spark something in me to do better despite me already knowing so much. I'd like to think that it would strike something inside someone who is not aware.

As for Beaut I am shocked at how they handled the feedback, the commenters that had a difference of opinion were "animal activists" God forbid a person would have their own opinion :rolleyes: I really enjoy Beaut's posts in general but when I hear such dribble like that post I was disgusted with them. Sexual torture? That didn't even spring to my mind at all!

starling

Cocolola wrote: »

A couple of women posted to say that they had been victims of sexual assault and that they were highly insulted to have the campaign compared to what they went through. Another poster then went on to say that (and this is my interpretation of what she said) just because they had experienced sexual assault didn't mean they should be allowed base their views on their past experiences.

I think you mean me, and that wasn't what I said at all. The main topic of discussion on the comment thread was whether people thought the campaign was or wasn't offensive to them. Here's what I was responding to:

Several posters said stuff like "As a victim of sexual assault, I think this campaign is not offensive" (Though earlier in the thread quite a few people who had been assaulted said they found the campaign hugely upsetting and physically nauseating).

Some other posters said "Hey, these people who've been assaulted are OK with this campaign, so the rest of you are clearly oversensitive."

A few people pointed out that just because you've been assaulted, that doesn't make you automatically more qualified to judge what is or isn't offensive, and it doesn't give you the right to tell someone "This doesn't offend me so you shouldn't be offended by it either." I was only one of them but I was the one who said it most bluntly. It had been said a few times but people were ignoring or misunderstanding the previous mentions of it and when I said it, the commenter before me had actually said straight out "But doesn't someone who's been assaulted have more of a right to speak about this?"
Which I will never agree with because everyone's opinion is valid.

starling

Cocolola wrote: »

As for Beaut.ie, well of course they are more than entitled to write an article from whichever viewpoint they hold, but I have to say I'm quite disappointed by their treatment of commenters who didn't agree with them, in particular the bitchy tweets that were being exchanged between the author and a few of her friends. Just my opinion though.

As far as the comment thread goes, I honestly thought it was alright; lots of people held differing viewpoints, but everyone was having their say and compared to a lot of comment threads on the aul interwebs it really was relatively civil IMHO.
I only saw two personal attacks. One was from a commenter who said she didn't see anything torture porn-y about it and she got a sly dig in by saying "I suppose if you spend a lot of time looking at that sort of stuff you might see the connection."
The other was more upfront - it was "lushworker" who didn't seem to have fully read the article or the comments and just jumped in gushing praise for Lush and everything they do and then just said sure, it's only a few disturbed individuals who see this as violence against women.

I think the accusations that Beaut.ie didn't allow any opposing viewpoints are unfair, the comment thread was full of them. I don't think the twitter stuff was really the right way to handle it, but I don't know the full story on that and neither did anyone else. The comment thread was blowing up well after the author's working day had ended, I'm not sure what her situation was at the time. But as far as the comments on the site itself, I don't see any evidence to say that the editorial staff were unfair to the people who disagreed with them.

starling

Cocolola wrote: »

I don't know, there's so much more I want to say on this but firstly I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words and secondly, I don't want to start a fight about pushy feminists :pac:

There were a couple of posters who did what you just did - negatively stereotyping "feminists" and saying Oh look those bloody feminists are overreacting again, going around looking for things to be offended about.

Many, many commenters called them out for the downright ignorance of these kind of comments. And rightly so. If there's one place you expect to come and not have to deal with the sexist, racist and otherwise horrible crap on the internet it's on a website where women talk about nail polish and lipstick. It's a shock to a lot of women to hear other women bashing feminists and furthering those tired old cliches about how being a feminist is a BAD THING and recycling misconceptions about what a feminist actually is.

I hate to break it to you, but if you think that women should have equal rights, you're a feminist. If you think women should have the right to work, vote, get an education, and basically run their own lives, you're a feminist.
It's especially weird to hear this backlash coming from Irish women. Trust me, the only reason Irish women can get a university degree, buy condoms, continue working after they're married, have a seperate bank account, get a divorce, prosecute their husband for raping or beating them, vote in elections, or have a child out of wedlock without being sent off to rot in the Magdalene laundries is because feminists weren't afraid to kick up a fuss, even when it meant being unpopular, getting death threats and being sent to jail.

Nobody's asking you (or anyone) to do any of those things just because you say "I'm a Feminist". You don't have to march in any parades or chain yourself to any railings or whatever. But it seems so ignorant not to acknowledge that "feminists" have done, and continue to do, something valuable when they point out sexism. And the VERY least we can do is avoid repeating harmful myths that work to silence women and make them feel uncomfortable about saying "Hey, I don't like being treated unfairly just because I'm a woman".

starling

mysteries1984 wrote: »

And the word 'rapey'? They used 'rapey'? These are meant to be grown women. It beggars belief.

Lots of people use this word. I stuck it into Google (no pun intended) and there are pages and pages of results. I also think that they were just trying to work in the 140-character confines of Twitter. "Rapey" has fewer letters than "Misogynistic" and "Sexist".

Some instances of the use of the word:
http://skepchick.org/2010/03/pepsi-max-a-bit-rapey/
http://jezebel.com/5895931/the-rapey-belvedere-vodka-ad-that-just-got-pulled
http://manboobz.com/category/rapey/

starling

Babooshka wrote: »

The writer who did the piece on their site drew comparisons with rape imagery and torture porn which was hotly contested by some. From what I can gather the admins had to go into overdrive protecting the site from what they said were extremely abusive posts from extreme animal rights activists, and I'd say they decided enough was enough. They're not a political debate board and I'd say they're more interested in keeping it all about the cosmetics myself, considering that's what they're about, I don't blame them for that. BUT. Sheesh I dunno, whatever happened to freedom of speech.

Given what actually made it into the comments section (like a lot of animal rights protesters not addressing the actual post, just going on about how "OMG the artist AGREED TO DO IT!!!111!" and how you must be okay with animal testing if you think this ad crossed a line) I'd well believe them if they said they were buried in abusive posts. And you're right they're not really a political debate board. I agree with you, I can understand why they felt it was just getting out of hand and I don't really blame them for taking down the post altogether if there was no way for them to stop accepting comments on the article and just leave it there without the risk of it wrecking the whole site or getting some kind of DDOS attack or whatever.

I don't think the actual comment thread was particularly "out of hand" as far as what actually got onto the site itself i.e. people disagreeing with each other and debating the issues, but God only knows what kind of crap they were actually having to go through and moderate.

Tamsin Omond, who wrote a piece in the Guardian defending the campaign, said 'A blog that upset and patronised everyone involved in our campaign – from the performance artist to the 5,000 staff in 800 shops across 49 countries who continue to push the petition – commented: "Women aren't marketing tools. Rape is not a gimmick."' She was quoting the Beaut.ie post. Tamsin Omond is Lush's campaign manager, by the way. Now, she's not suggesting that all the animal rights folk go and invade Beaut.ie, but clearly she - and therefore other Lush employees - were aware of the post.

Unfortunately the internet is chock full of crazy and the scenario of the whole beaut.ie staff spending the next month doing literally nothing but deleting abusive, threatening posts is actually very plausible. Nobody wants that. And although free speech is a good thing in principle, just look at the comments under any Youtube video to see how quickly free speech and anonymity together can turn into a disaster that makes you question the future of the human race. Posting on a website's comments thread isn't a right that you have to be granted at all costs (like in this case the cost would be punitive for everyone else). It's like being in a pub or cafe or other privately owned business - the management is entitled to set rules.

Still, I'm glad Smokeyeyes started this thread, even if she and I don't specifically agree on the whole "Was Lush going too far" question. Because healthy, respectful debate is good.
I think it was a bit much for L. to complain to her on Twitter about moving the discussion elsewhere, like the whole thing was going to go away just because Beaut.ie took the post down. Not professional! Smokey you don't need to defend this thread. I'm sure someone else would have started it if you hadn't.

I'm a fan of Beaut.ie because I like the writing, and I trust what they say about products they review. I'm content to go elsewhere for political debate especially if it makes other Beaut.ie readers uncomfortable. But I'm sad that what could have been a chance for all of us to really think about certain important issues turned into such a debacle.

Cocolola

starling wrote: »

I think the accusations that Beaut.ie didn't allow any opposing viewpoints are unfair, the comment thread was full of them. I don't think the twitter stuff was really the right way to handle it, but I don't know the full story on that and neither did anyone else. The comment thread was blowing up well after the author's working day had ended, I'm not sure what her situation was at the time. But as far as the comments on the site itself, I don't see any evidence to say that the editorial staff were unfair to the people who disagreed with them.

It just seemed to me that one of the staff came on the next day and posted up something like, and I'm completely paraphrasing here, "Sorry folks, those commenters who don't see the sexual assault in it are just crazy animal rights activists..." Now it's quite possible that I missed some comments that were out of line and that had been deleted before I got there but I'm just going on what I saw.

starling wrote: »

There were a couple of posters who did what you just did - negatively stereotyping "feminists" and saying Oh look those bloody feminists are overreacting again, going around looking for things to be offended about.

Many, many commenters called them out for the downright ignorance of these kind of comments. And rightly so. If there's one place you expect to come and not have to deal with the sexist, racist and otherwise horrible crap on the internet it's on a website where women talk about nail polish and lipstick. It's a shock to a lot of women to hear other women bashing feminists and furthering those tired old cliches about how being a feminist is a BAD THING and recycling misconceptions about what a feminist actually is.

I hate to break it to you, but if you think that women should have equal rights, you're a feminist. If you think women should have the right to work, vote, get an education, and basically run their own lives, you're a feminist.
It's especially weird to hear this backlash coming from Irish women. Trust me, the only reason Irish women can get a university degree, buy condoms, continue working after they're married, have a seperate bank account, get a divorce, prosecute their husband for raping or beating them, vote in elections, or have a child out of wedlock without being sent off to rot in the Magdalene laundries is because feminists weren't afraid to kick up a fuss, even when it meant being unpopular, getting death threats and being sent to jail.

Nobody's asking you (or anyone) to do any of those things just because you say "I'm a Feminist". You don't have to march in any parades or chain yourself to any railings or whatever. But it seems so ignorant not to acknowledge that "feminists" have done, and continue to do, something valuable when they point out sexism. And the VERY least we can do is avoid repeating harmful myths that work to silence women and make them feel uncomfortable about saying "Hey, I don't like being treated unfairly just because I'm a woman".

That's why I put the smiley :pac: in afterwards, I was sort of making a joke and I did specify pushy! I'm well aware of what a feminist is and of course I am a feminist. Now, while I could have put my statement differently and I probably did provoke your reaction, it's a little bit insulting to be honest that you feel the need to lecture me on the meaning of the word and all that has been achieved because of feminism. But to be fair, maybe I brought that on myself with my comment.

I am extremely grateful for all the women who have and continue to fight tirelessly for women's rights, don't get me wrong. It's just sometimes I feel like some women (I don't mean you here BTW) almost do more harm to the cause than good by inadvertently pissing people off, for lack of a better description. Like this Lush campaign for example.

Personally, I find it annoying that a really good campaign that highlights the treatment of lab animals was hijacked and turned into an example of society's anti-women attitudes. I didn't see that in it at all. I feel like in this case, some people saw what they wanted to see in order to make it into something that wasn't there. Outcry for the sake of outcry or something. (Sorry, I'm really not articulate in any way and that was confusing to read )

I don't know, it just seems like women already have enough genuine battles to fight (read the sexual assault thread for some examples of this :mad:) and there was no need to go out of the way to try to find something misogynistic in the Lush campaign.

starling

Cocolola wrote: »

It just seemed to me that one of the staff came on the next day and posted up something like, and I'm completely paraphrasing here, "Sorry folks, those commenters who don't see the sexual assault in it are just crazy animal rights activists..." Now it's quite possible that I missed some comments that were out of line and that had been deleted before I got there but I'm just going on what I saw.

I don't remember that tbh, though I did see them saying that the comments were being moderated and one had been removed for being rude or something. Like, they weren't being unfair by making the pro-campaign commenters adhere to any special rules or anything, just warning them not to be dickheads about it. They still allowed everyone to have differing opinions, it's not like they were silencing anyone.
I know some of the Beaut staff commented on the thread with their own opinions but I don't remember them being unfair. Hard to reach a consensus on this though without being able to see the thread anymore!

Cocolola wrote: »

That's why I put the smiley :pac: in afterwards, I was sort of making a joke and I did specify pushy! I'm well aware of what a feminist is and of course I am a feminist. Now, while I could have put my statement differently and I probably did provoke your reaction, it's a little bit insulting to be honest that you feel the need to lecture me on the meaning of the word and all that has been achieved because of feminism. But to be fair, maybe I brought that on myself with my comment.

I am extremely grateful for all the women who have and continue to fight tirelessly for women's rights, don't get me wrong. It's just sometimes I feel like some women (I don't mean you here BTW) almost do more harm to the cause than good by inadvertently pissing people off, for lack of a better description. Like this Lush campaign for example.

My apologies. Unfortunately there's enough people who say stuff like that seriously that I didn't realise you were joking.:( Still though, I'm not sure I'm convinced that women who objected to the campaign did harm to the cause of women's rights as much as the actual campaign did. I do think that talking about it is good, and that everyone's viewpoint is important.

Cocolola wrote: »

Personally, I find it annoying that a really good campaign that highlights the treatment of lab animals was hijacked and turned into an example of society's anti-women attitudes. I didn't see that in it at all. I feel like in this case, some people saw what they wanted to see in order to make it into something that wasn't there. Outcry for the sake of outcry or something. (Sorry, I'm really not articulate in any way and that was confusing to read )

I don't think that was the case; for some people the campaign immediately screams "Violence against women", and although it didn't hit everyone that way, the problem was that it was in a shop window in the middle of the day. There's a comment on the Lush blog saying "I love the animal testing campaign, but yesterday I had to hold a survivor friend as she wept with betrayal and despair after encountering this performance. Please don't do it again." I don't think anyone was just trying to create a fuss just for the sake of it - I think many of us were genuinely horrified that Lush was depicting the torture of a woman in a shop window in the middle of the day. If it had been a film or play, there would have been ratings and PG warnings, but it was just sprung on people, and it really strikes me as shocking for a company that pretends to celebrate women to do something so insensitive. The follow up has been equally insensitive; they basically said "Sorry if anyone who's been abused or assaulted got their feelings hurt but we thought this was really important and it had to be a woman because women buy cosmetics"

Cocolola wrote: »

I don't know, it just seems like women already have enough genuine battles to fight (read the sexual assault thread for some examples of this :mad:) and there was no need to go out of the way to try to find something misogynistic in the Lush campaign.

God knows you're right we already have more than enough to deal with. But the thing is for many of us we didn't have to go out of our way.
I think that the horrifying things that are done to women are often part of a general misogyny. Rape, sexual assault, harassment at work, denial of rights, domestic violence etc etc can all happen in a culture where the disrespect of women is encouraged, whereas if men and women weren't constantly being given terrible messages about each other and were actively encouraged to respect each other maybe there wouldn't be so much violence and abuse directed at women. Then there would be no such thing as torture porn.:D

Linguo

I don't think you can justify someone using the word rapey just to fit into a twitter message....

My point is they were very harsh on anyone who didn't agree with the views held by Beaut and were very immature on the whole post IMO.

I just think this was overly sensitive, sensationalist stuff that would rile up most people, either in favour of or against. And of course Lush staff would be offended by the post, it was something written in complete anger with little heed or understanding of the cause or the people involved.

Do you mind me asking if you know the poster or girls in Beaut? Just you haven't posted in a few years and then are suddenly very active on the topic?:) If I'm wrong I apologise!

starling

Linguo wrote: »

I don't think you can justify someone using the word rapey just to fit into a twitter message....

Still not quite clear on what the problem is with the word though. Lots of people are using the term.

Linguo wrote: »

My point is they were very harsh on anyone who didn't agree with the views held by Beaut and were very immature on the whole post IMO.

Like I said I don't know about the Twitter stuff that was going on behind the scenes but I didn't see them being "harsh" on anyone who disagreed with the author's views.
They have mentioned on Twitter though that after Tamsin Omond's guardian piece they crashed the Beaut servers with spam, and as I recall the immature comments were from pro-Lush commenters like lushworker.

Linguo wrote: »

I just think this was overly sensitive, sensationalist stuff that would rile up most people, either in favour of or against. And of course Lush staff would be offended by the post, it was something written in complete anger with little heed or understanding of the cause or the people involved.

Actually that's how I feel about the Lush stunt -little heed and understanding- and especially about their half-assed non-apology. There was nothing to indicate the author or commenters didn't understand the cause; it wasn't a case of "Shut up about animals we don't care" it was clear the objection was to the way Lush had used a misogynistic way to express itself. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

Linguo wrote: »

Do you mind me asking if you know the poster or girls in Beaut? Just you haven't posted in a few years and then are suddenly very active on the topic?:) If I'm wrong I apologise!

No I don't mind you asking. When I signed up for boards.ie I had an office job, and time to be on the Internet every day. Then I changed to a different kind of job, no computers involved, and I moved to a flat with no internets so I couldn't surf from home. That's why I was absent so long. After an accident I was disabled and couldn't keep my job (or flat) but now I have more time for Internet stuff. Hadn't actually thought about boards.ie in a while but after the lush post got deleted from beaut.ie I googled it to see what was going on and Smokeyeyes' post here came up.
I definitely have no connection to beaut.ie and don't know any of the writers or commenters.
I'm not some random troll or out to stir up trouble. I'd put a smiley here but my computer's broken so now I'm trying to post on an old 1st gen iPod touch and my fat clumsy thumbs are making it difficult
ETA: Oh look I did manage to make a smiley!

mysteries1984

Starling, there are too many posts of yours to quote My own personal problem with the word 'rapey' is a bit complicated and hard to explain for someone who's not exactly a wordsmith. The fact that it's slang makes it hard to swallow for me. It's almost like it's making light of it. I don't think it has a place in any article with a sensitive subject matter or serious overtone. Nor, for that matter, does the word 'spunk' which someone said was in the post originally.

I'm glad you posted though, like you say you have differing views from Smokey but still appreciate the debate. I do too. It makes for interesting reading and it's what a mature discussion should be like. I still disagree with the way beaut.ie handled it and think they should have come here and said their piece if they were aware of the article, which twitter proved they were. But vive la difference

starling

mysteries1984 wrote: »

Starling, there are too many posts of yours to quote My own personal problem with the word 'rapey' is a bit complicated and hard to explain for someone who's not exactly a wordsmith. The fact that it's slang makes it hard to swallow for me. It's almost like it's making light of it. I don't think it has a place in any article with a sensitive subject matter or serious overtone. Nor, for that matter, does the word 'spunk' which someone said was in the post originally.

Oh I think I see what you mean, like it sounds almost too casual. The other blogs where I've seen it used have been feminist -leaning and in those contexts you can tell the people using it are totally not making light of rape; I can see how just seeing it in a tweet wouldn't give a clear indication of the author's intent.

mysteries1984 wrote: »

I'm glad you posted though, like you say you have differing views from Smokey but still appreciate the debate. I do too. It makes for interesting reading and it's what a mature discussion should be like. I still disagree with the way beaut.ie handled it and think they should have come here and said their piece if they were aware of the article, which twitter proved they were. But vive la difference

Thanks! I don't really get why they have a problem with the whole event being discussed here. Maybe it's just that they're worried about more hassle from the Lush people.
I know I did do quite a few posts in quick succession earlier today, kind of like just walking into a crowd of people and talking non-stop...It was because I got possession of the house computer for a while. Long story but basically I have to take advantage of computer time when I can get it. I'd be reading a whole bunch of stuff on boards just now but my sad old iPod touch battery is running low. Needs an hour or two to charge up. I actually end up charging this thing 3 times a day cause I use it so much!!

Mr Teeny

starling wrote: »

Lots of people use this word. I stuck it into Google (no pun intended) and there are pages and pages of results. I also think that they were just trying to work in the 140-character confines of Twitter. "Rapey" has fewer letters than "Misogynistic" and "Sexist".

Please tell me you are not serious Starling…

Linguo wrote: »

I don't think you can justify someone using the word rapey just to fit into a twitter message....

Absolutely. To even suggest such a thing is preposterous and really clutching at straws in defence of the article/author.

If that is a justifiable reason why stop there…

Imagine, a journalist is told to write up a story and his boss gives him the headline ‘African man convicted of tax fraud’. The paper is published and he has replaced it with ‘N****r convicted of tax fraud’

“Sorry everyone, I didn’t have enough space to fit it all in so I put in a shorter word. Sure lots of people use that word, do a google search, you’ll see it in lots of places”

You simply can’t justify the use of the word ‘rapey’ here… I get that it was used to get a reaction (which it certainly has) but is completely unnecessary, childish, insulting, completely inaccurate (in relation to the topic), grossly inappropriate and indefensible.

The article was sensationalist drivel looking to get attention. It worked but not in the way she had hoped so she backed down. Dreadful stuff from beaut, still has my blood boiling!

Morag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2NbBXFskMc

starling

Mr Teeny wrote: »

Imagine, a journalist is told to write up a story and his boss gives him the headline ‘African man convicted of tax fraud’. The paper is published and he has replaced it with ‘N****r convicted of tax fraud’

“Sorry everyone, I didn’t have enough space to fit it all in so I put in a shorter word. Sure lots of people use that word, do a google search, you’ll see it in lots of places”

You simply can’t justify the use of the word ‘rapey’ here… I get that it was used to get a reaction (which it certainly has) but is completely unnecessary, childish, insulting, completely inaccurate (in relation to the topic), grossly inappropriate and indefensible.

The article was sensationalist drivel looking to get attention. It worked but not in the way she had hoped so she backed down. Dreadful stuff from beaut, still has my blood boiling!

All I did was point out that it is a commonly used word, and suggest one reason why it might have been used on Twitter. Don't see why you're getting so upset about what I said, just because you have a problem with the article. You assert that the word was used to get a reaction, but you don't know that and neither do I. You'd have to take that up with the author.

It is not in any way similar to using the N-word. Not interested in your unnecessary, childish, insulting and completely inaccurate and illogical example of unjustified use of a completely different word with a different meaning, history and implication.

You also seem to think the beaut.ie blog needs attention so badly they'll resort to sensationalism just to get it. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make based on the popularity of the site; it's a make-up blog which accepts paid advertising so one would imagine that being edgy and controversial is not one of their goals.

I already wrote about why I think they pulled the article; I can't help bit think, given the faulty logic you are displaying and the fact that you are clearly very emotional, that you are calling the article drivel just because you disagree with it.