Would Ads portraying female genital mutilation be permitted?

SafeSurfer

I have noticed 2 ads on TV recently one for Specsavers, one for Greek Muller yogurt.
Both hilariously portray the gentitals of male statues being destroyed.
Would a similar portrayal of damage done to the gentitals of female statues be considered humorous and pass without comment?

eviltwin

It's a statue. It's not genital mutilation, it's a bit of clay, marble.

SafeSurfer

eviltwin wrote: »

It's a statue. It's not genital mutilation, it's a bit of clay, marble.

Can you reference any comparable ad where the gentitals of female statues are destroyed in advertisements?

keith_sixteen

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Can you reference any comparable ad where the gentitals of female statues are destroyed in advertisements?

Keep fighting the good fight.

eviltwin

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Can you reference any comparable ad where the gentitals of female statues are destroyed in advertisements?

Oh God, it's Friday night. Literally cannot be bothered arguing the toss about something so trivial. Contact the BAI and make a complaint.

SafeSurfer

eviltwin wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Can you reference any comparable ad where the gentitals of female statues are destroyed in advertisements?

Oh God, it's Friday night. Literally cannot be bothered arguing the toss about something so trivial. Contact the BAI and make a complaint.

It's trivial because it ridicules men and portrays the destruction of the penis. That's why it's considered trivial. If the ads portrayed the destruction of vaginas there would be outrage. Double standards?

One eyed Jack

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I have noticed 2 ads on TV recently one for Specsavers, one for Greek Muller yogurt.
Both hilariously portray the gentitals of male statues being destroyed.
Would a similar portrayal of damage done to the gentitals of female statues be considered humorous and pass without comment?

Hilariously?

If you don't find them funny, then it wouldn't be funny if it was a woman surely?

Answering your own question there in fairness.

corner of hells

eviltwin wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Can you reference any comparable ad where the gentitals of female statues are destroyed in advertisements?

Oh God, it's Friday night. Literally cannot be bothered arguing the toss about something so trivial. Contact the BAI and make a complaint.

Are you really a twin ?

SafeSurfer

One eyed Jack wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I have noticed 2 ads on TV recently one for Specsavers, one for Greek Muller yogurt.
Both hilariously portray the gentitals of male statues being destroyed.
Would a similar portrayal of damage done to the gentitals of female statues be considered humorous and pass without comment?

Hilariously?

If you don't find them funny, then it wouldn't be funny if it was a woman surely?

Answering your own question there in fairness.

Hilariously was added for irony.
The question isn't would they be funny it's would they be permitted.

Fr_Dougal

It's the Matriarchy.

Sweetemotion

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hilariously?

If you don't find them funny, then it wouldn't be funny if it was a woman surely?

Answering your own question there in fairness.

That's far from answering his own question.

The point I think is. It's funny when when it's a man but not when it's a woman.

Why is that?

One eyed Jack

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That's far from answering his own question.

The point I think is. It's funny when when it's a man but not when it's a woman.

Why is that?

Because different people find different things funny is probably the most obvious answer that comes to mind. They're two completely different things for a start.

The opening post is like asking why don't they advertise sanitary pads for men or something, it's weird!

Miss Demeanour

Im with ya op......as I sat eating my greek 0% fat yoghurt as I called specsavers today I thought this is wrong on so many levels.

Sweetemotion

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because different people find different things funny is probably the most obvious answer that comes to mind. They're two completely different things for a start.

The opening post is like asking why don't they advertise sanitary pads for men or something, it's weird!

How are they two completely different things?

So you think advertising sanitary pads for men is weird huh. Not only women bleed you know

Atlantic Dawn

It's their culture, can't be laughed at.

pitifulgod

SafeSurfer wrote: »

It's trivial because it ridicules men and portrays the destruction of the penis. That's why it's considered trivial. If the ads portrayed the destruction of vaginas there would be outrage. Double standards?

To use an example, the Goonies had a miniature statue of David. One of the kids accidentally knocked the penis off. Then reattached it upside down. By your logic, you'd read it as genital mutiliation but the reality is that it's a penis joke and nothing More. You're very easily offended.

If you can find a prominent enough vagina to knock off a statue. Knock yourself out.

_Dara_

You know the way modern feminists often aren't taken seriously because they often complain about trivial things, OP? Well, why would you want to ape that?

Sweetemotion

pitifulgod wrote: »

To use an example, the Goonies had a miniature statue of David. One of the kids accidentally knocked the penis off. Then reattached it upside down. By your logic, you'd read it as genital mutiliation but the reality is that it's a penis joke and nothing More. You're very easily offended.

If you can find a prominent enough vagina to knock off a statue. Knock yourself out.

And your opinion on this?

Ha ha just a joke.

One eyed Jack

Sweetemotion wrote: »

How are they two completely different things?

So you think advertising sanitary pads for men is weird huh. Not only women bleed you know

One is a man, the other is a woman?

Only women would need to use sanitary pads, unless there's another purpose men could use them for that I'm unaware of? :pac:

Nah, I sort of get where the OP is coming from, but criticism of humour in male genital mutilation for what it is rather than trying to say humour in female genital mutilation should be acceptable too. I don't think either circumstances nor adverts are particularly humourous if I'm honest. They're both a bit shyte.

YFlyer

Its more likely 1:1 kaolinite.

gitzy16v

Penises are a much funnier piece of genitalia than a vagina.

You can knock a penis off a statue but youd have to butcher a vagina to show any damage,I mean its hardly a tidy piece of kit the ladies have down there.:P

Edit:Vaginas are my favourite genitalia, all shapes and sizes are acceptable to me:)

Pero_Bueno

Of course not, don't you know men are the only ones left in society where it's safe for advertisers to take the piss out of - in particular white straight males.

Sweetemotion

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One is a man, the other is a woman?

Only women would need to use sanitary pads, unless there's another purpose men could use them for that I'm unaware of? :pac:

Nah, I sort of get where the OP is coming from, but criticism of humour in male genital mutilation for what it is rather than trying to say humour in female genital mutilation should be acceptable too. I don't think either circumstances nor adverts are particularly humourous if I'm honest. They're both a bit shyte.

Are you saying trans men are women :eek: because in your own own words and I quote "Only women would need to use sanitary pads"?

SafeSurfer

_Dara_ wrote: »

You know the way modern feminists often aren't taken seriously because they often complain about trivial things, OP? Well, why would you want to ape that?

I'm trying to point out double standards.
Both ads portray male genital mutilation. They don't show actual mutilation, they portray it.
Portraying female genital mutilation to elicit a laugh to sell products would be considered bad taste if not downright offensive.

_Dara_

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I'm trying to point out double standards.
Both ads portray male genital mutilation. They don't show actual mutilation, they portray it.
Portraying female genital mutilation to elicit a laugh to sell products would be considered bad taste if not downright offensive.

Well no, it's stone. They don't actually portray it. As to why they do this to a statue, unfortunately male circumcision is still societally accepted. It shouldn't be except for medical reasons, but currently it's acceptable. Hopefully that will change. That's why the ad can protray what it does because social mores dictate the it's OK.

One eyed Jack

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Are you saying trans men are women :eek: because in your own own words and I quote "Only women would need to use sanitary pads"?

What's wrong with saying only women would need to use sanitary pads?

I didn't say anything about men or women who are transgender, but the OP may well have their questions answered when gender confirmation surgery is advertised in the same way as cosmetic surgeries are currently advertised!

dark crystal

Look at all these filthmongers copping a feel of Molly Malone's boobs....

http://www.dailyedge.ie/molly-malone-tourists-boobs-2240994-Jul2015/

I for one am not laughing along with their blatant molestations :mad:

Sweetemotion

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well no, it's stone. They don't actually portray it. As to why they do this to a statue, unfortunately male circumcision is still societally accepted. It shouldn't be except for medical reasons, but currently it's acceptable. Hopefully that will change. That's why the ad can protray what it does because social mores dictate the it's OK.

Where is it socially acceptable?

ceadaoin.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Are you saying trans men are women :eek: because in your own own words and I quote "Only women would need to use sanitary pads"?

Only females would need to use sanitary pads for menstruation and trans men are female. You can't identify your way out of biology. The definition of woman is "adult human female" so I don't think there's anything wrong with saying sanitary products are for women . I'm not sure why we have to stop using language that applies to 99.99 percent of people who menstruate?

SafeSurfer

_Dara_ wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I'm trying to point out double standards.
Both ads portray male genital mutilation. They don't show actual mutilation, they portray it.
Portraying female genital mutilation to elicit a laugh to sell products would be considered bad taste if not downright offensive.

Well no, it's stone. They don't actually portray it. As to why they do this to a statue, unfortunately male circumcision is still societally accepted. It shouldn't be except for medical reasons, but currently it's acceptable. Hopefully that will change. That's why the ad can protray what it does because social mores dictate the it's OK.

It doesn't matter if it's stone or rubber or plastic. Of course it is portrayed. It is a portrayal.

Male circumcision isn't used in any current advertisements that I am aware of.
It was used in a Mercedes ad years ago to portray its smooth ride.

Sweetemotion

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Only females would need to use sanitary pads for menstruation and trans men are female. You can't identify your way out of biology. The definition of woman is "adult human female" so I don't think there's anything wrong with saying sanitary products are for women . I'm not sure why we have to stop using language that applies to 99.99 percent of people who menstruate?

That's my point.

_Dara_

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Where is it socially acceptable?

C'mon, don't feign innocence.

mahamageehad

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Where is it socially acceptable?

The US? American Academy of Pediatrics have stated that the benefits outweigh the risks. The WHO estimates that the overall male circumcision rate in the states is somewhere between 76 and 92 percent. Most Western European countries, by contrast, have rates less than 20 percent.

_Dara_

mahamageehad wrote: »

The US? American Academy of Pediatrics have stated that the benefits outweigh the risks. The WHO estimates that the overall male circumcision rate in the states is somewhere between 76 and 92 percent. Most Western European countries, by contrast, have rates less than 20 percent.

And even in Europe, hearing that a man is circumcised wouldn't create much of a stir. Actually no stir.

iguana

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Only women would need to use sanitary pads, unless there's another purpose men could use them for that I'm unaware of? :pac:

https://experthometips.com/2016/08/11/15-really-unexpected-uses-tampons-sanitary-towels/

Sweetemotion

mahamageehad wrote: »

The US? American Academy of Pediatrics have stated that the benefits outweigh the risks. The WHO estimates that the overall male circumcision rate in the states is somewhere between 76 and 92 percent. Most Western European countries, by contrast, have rates less than 20 percent.

Wow that is shocking, really.

Has anybody got the stats on male to female pediatricians in The US?

Edit 56% are women

One eyed Jack

iguana wrote: »

https://experthometips.com/2016/08/11/15-really-unexpected-uses-tampons-sanitary-towels/

I stand corrected!

_Dara_

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Wow that is shocking, really.

Has anybody got the stats on male to female pediatricians in The US?

I think it might have been popularised in the early 20th century though I'm not too sure of that. I'm going to guess that female doctors were in the minority then. I don't think it's a female-driven phenomenon.

Sweetemotion

_Dara_ wrote: »

I think it might have been popularised in the early 20th century though I'm not too sure of that. I'm going to guess that female doctors were in the minority then. I don't think it's a female-driven phenomenon.

Pediatrician is now actually the most female driven medical specialties in the US :eek:

SafeSurfer

_Dara_ wrote: »

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Wow that is shocking, really.

Has anybody got the stats on male to female pediatricians in The US?

I think it might have been popularised in the early 20th century though I'm not too sure of that. I'm going to guess that female doctors were in the minority then. I don't think it's a female-driven phenomenon.

Male circumcision is also a religious phenomenon among Jewish and Muslim communities.
Circumcision was widespread in Britain until the NHS was founded after WW2 when its perceived health benefits were shown to outweigh its risks and the cost consideration led to it being dropped as policy.

_Dara_

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Pediatrician is now actually the most female driven medical specialties in the US :eek:

Reading comprehension failure alert.

I'm talking about a century ago. And now it's culturally engrained in the US.

Spider Web

Sweetemotion wrote: »

And your opinion on this?

Ha ha just a joke.

Why would they think the removal of a real man's penis is only a joke just because they think the statue penis removal is a joke?

What scope is there to remove female genitalia off a statue? It's not like it's hanging there.

I think male circumcision on babies and small boys is barbaric by the way (men, in fairness, agree to having it done - whether that's right or wrong) and I think that clip with that weapon Sharon Osbourne and others is grotesque but you're talking about something that isn't comparable - i.e. the non "hanging there" quality to female genitalia!

SafeSurfer

Spider Web wrote: »

Sweetemotion wrote: »

And your opinion on this?

Ha ha just a joke.

Why would they think the removal of a real man's penis is only a joke just because they think the statue penis removal is a joke?

What scope is there to remove female genitalia off a statuse? It's not like it's hanging there.

I think male circumcision on babies and small boys is barbaric by the way, and I think that clip with that weapon Sharon Osbourne and others is grotesque but you're talking about something that isn't comparable - i.e. the non "hanging there" quality to female genitalia!

So if a body part is just hanging there it is acceptable to portray its destruction?

How about an ad for cornflakes portraying female breasts being broken off?

One eyed Jack

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So if a body part is just hanging there it is acceptable to portray its destruction?

How about an ad for cornflakes portraying female breasts being broken off?

Unless they dropped off while she was putting milk on her cornflakes, I'm just not seeing the connection tbh! Maybe that's what it is - it's not whether it would be seen as acceptable or not, it's that there's just no scenario I can think of where it would be applicable!

SafeSurfer

One eyed Jack wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So if a body part is just hanging there it is acceptable to portray its destruction?

How about an ad for cornflakes portraying female breasts being broken off?

Unless they dropped off while she was putting milk on her cornflakes, I'm just not seeing the connection tbh! Maybe that's what it is - it's not whether it would be seen as acceptable or not, it's that there's just no scenario I can think of where it would be applicable!

Maybe the destruction of the penis is subconsciously acceptable, almost welcomed while destruction of female body parts is unthinkable. It certainly would never to used in an advertisement.

One eyed Jack

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Maybe the destruction of the penis is subconsciously acceptable, almost welcomed while destruction of female body parts is unthinkable. It certainly would never to used in an advertisement.

I doubt that's it SS :pac:

SafeSurfer

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I doubt that's it SS :pac:

What explanation can there be for the double standards?

Samaris

I have to raise the point that it's a lot more difficult to destroy a vagina on a statue than it is to destroy a penis*. One sticks out. The other is not generally anatomically correct. (DOUBLE STANDARDS! Female anatomy is not rendered correctly! IS IT BECAUSE I IS FEMALE? Or...maybe because spending months dutifully hollowing out the inside of a statue is a little insane..)

How about you find a statue with a vagina, film yourself destroying it and post the vid somewhere and we can all decide if it is objectively funny?

*Someone's probably already raised this, but I wasn't sure I could get through multiple pages of comparative entertainment values of destroying statues and whether a stone penis is more upsetting to see destroyed than a stone vagina.


Also, jays on the clickbait (and dishonest) thread title. You are aware of what FGM -is-, right? It has nothing to do with statues. You may as well have called it "WHY CAN ADS SHOW MURDER?" regarding destroying statues.

lazybones32

The baby's foreskins get used in anti-aging creams.

m1ck007

Its double standards and its sexist

SafeSurfer

Samaris wrote: »

I have to raise the point that it's a lot more difficult to destroy a vagina on a statue than it is to destroy a penis*. One sticks out. The other is not generally anatomically correct. (DOUBLE STANDARDS! Female anatomy is not rendered correctly! IS IT BECAUSE I IS FEMALE? Or...maybe because spending months dutifully hollowing out the inside of a statue is a little insane..)

How about you find a statue with a vagina, film yourself destroying it and post the vid somewhere and we can all decide if it is objectively funny?

*Someone's probably already raised this, but I wasn't sure I could get through multiple pages of comparative entertainment values of destroying statues and whether a stone penis is more upsetting to see destroyed than a stone vagina.

The question is not if it is easy or funny. Its would it be permitted? Acceptable?
Could you imagine an ad for yogurt where the sculptor, while shaping the vagina, slips the chisel destroying the vagina? And the female model runs away holding her crotch?