Would Ads portraying female genital mutilation be permitted?

OU812

Ive destroyed several vaginas in my time and nobody ever complained.

whoopsadoodles

The Venus De Milo has no arms.

Is that not the same thing?

Men are for ridin and wimmin are for doing the dishes after all.

osarusan

_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?

Indeed, we are seeing lads who want a piece of the victimhood culture and have embraced it to a spectacular degree.

The_Valeyard

OU812 wrote: »

Ive destroyed several vaginas in my time and nobody ever complained.

Your own mothers on the day you were born does not count.

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.


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.

The thread title is correct.
It says portraying. Look it up! I don't think actual genital mutilation would be shown on TV.
These ads portray the mutilation of male genitals. Would ads portraying the mutilation of female genitals be shown?

SafeSurfer

osarusan wrote: »

Indeed, we are seeing lads who want a piece of the victimhood culture and have embraced it to a spectacular degree.

Well where are the cries for equality when men are ridiculed, mocked, humiliated, abused portrayed in a sexist way?
If feminists were concerned about equality they would identify these ads as sexist and offensive. If there was a similar portrayal of women there would undoubtedly be a flood of complaints.

maudgonner

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

Men are for ridin and wimmin are for doing the dishes after all.

Oh my God, posts like this make my blood boil. I can't believe in this day and age there are people who so underestimate women's contribution to society. It's absolutely ridiculous.

We make the sandwiches as well as doing the dishes!

B0jangles

maudgonner wrote: »

Oh my God, posts like this make my blood boil. I can't believe in this day and age there are people who so underestimate women's contribution to society. It's absolutely ridiculous.

We make the sandwiches as well as doing the dishes!

Stop trying to be funny, it's an established fact that Women Aren't Funny.

pitifulgod

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Well where are the cries for equality when men are ridiculed, mocked, humiliated, abused portrayed in a sexist way?
If feminists were concerned about equality they would identify these ads as sexist and offensive. If there was a similar portrayal of women there would undoubtedly be a flood of complaints.

You're very easily offended. The fact that this is an issue for you while FGM is an actual practice that is engaged in while statues have penises falling off affects nobody. Put your priorities in the right place.

Ficheall

Seth Brundle

Why do some people feel the need to take offence at any little thing?

spurious

Vast man-hating 'feminist' conspiracy or truly crap marketing with even crappier ideas?
Imagine how many meetings that particularly ****e idea went through, without anyone saying 'Here lads, this is a load of ****e'.

ancapailldorcha

Posts by rereg troll deleted.

Samaris

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The thread title is correct.
It says portraying. Look it up! I don't think actual genital mutilation would be shown on TV.
These ads portray the mutilation of male genitals. Would ads portraying the mutilation of female genitals be shown?

It portrays breaking a goddam statue. And honestly, if you were posing nude for a statue and the sculptor had a drastic accident with a chisel, would you -really- immediately associate it closely enough with your physical flesh-and-blood genitals enough to run away clutching at them in case..what, the sculptor comes after you with the chisel to ensure his statue remains accurate? What is it even implying, that men are so terrified of anything happening to their genitals that a sculptor making a mistake is enough to send them into little furry meltdowns?

Mind you, I just asked my male partner this question and he agrees that it would be upsetting, so fair enough, based on a sample size of two, men are so terrified of anything happening to their genitals that a sculptor making a mistake is enough to send them into little furry meltdowns.*

Yes, it's a stupid topic upon which to attempt to sell yoghurt. Ads are often stupid. And I really would not give any more of a damn if it was a statue with a vagina. Mind you, it is physically more difficult to break a vagina than a penis so maybe I cannot mentally link the two easily. Arms? Nope, I'd be sad for a work of art being damaged, but my own arm would not start hurting just from the sight of it.


*Personally, I think it would be most upsetting to the sculptor rather than the model, but sympathy where it's due if it does actually cause mental distress.

SafeSurfer

pitifulgod wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Well where are the cries for equality when men are ridiculed, mocked, humiliated, abused portrayed in a sexist way?
If feminists were concerned about equality they would identify these ads as sexist and offensive. If there was a similar portrayal of women there would undoubtedly be a flood of complaints.

You're very easily offended. The fact that this is an issue for you while FGM is an actual practice that is engaged in while statues have penises falling off affects nobody. Put your priorities in the right place.

I think you are being facetious.
If you had a problem with representations of children being stabbed in an advert and I told you that children are stabbed in real life so you are being ridiculous would you accept that?

super_furry

Mickeys are funny. You ever look at one? They look like a naked mole rat just kind of hanging out there. Mad.

Lads who accidentally think mickeys made of stone are light switches, well they're funny too. Especially if your using them to remind people to get their eyes tested.

So what I take from this is that the matriarchy is trying to destroy and defile our young men and this is the next step on the road to enforced castration of all males. The streets shall flow with the blood of the non-believers!

Allinall

Standards are obviously good, so I'm all for double standards.

Twice as good.

pitifulgod

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think you are being facetious.
If you had a problem with representations of children being stabbed in an advert and I told you that children are stabbed in real life so you are being ridiculous would you accept that?

If a statue of a child is stabbed, I will be unconcerned. I'm not being facetious, you're simply going full mra on us over something that is entirely unconcerning. Here's the shocking scene from the Goonies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baVvz2HJ9bQ

Spider Web

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.

"Almost welcomed" I dunno, but I agree that it does get the joke treatment, and the equivalent being done to a woman would not be tolerated let alone joked about. I think using an ad about statues is a strange way to make the point though. I do think the SpecSavers ad is very funny.

A better example in my opinion is the recent Gary Lineker tweet (and tweets in response) having a laugh in relation to a man whose wife cut off his penis.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Well where are the cries for equality when men are ridiculed, mocked, humiliated, abused portrayed in a sexist way?
If feminists were concerned about equality they would identify these ads as sexist and offensive. If therlvie was a similar portrayal of women there would undoubtedly be a flood of complaints.

Ok, I do agree with you on feminism being dishonestly held up as a movement for equality. It isn't - it's only about women's rights. And I agree men can be ridiculed in ads and other media. One of those ads (e.g. the Bord Gais "Donal" one) would better illustrate this I think, rather than the statue ad.

However... why are you just expressing concern about feminism in relation to this issue? What about the men who make such ads? What about men who join in on the ridiculing of fellow men (as was the case for the Gary Lineker tweet)? I do agree with raising awareness of the issue - it bugs me too. But it seems a lot of the energy tends to be on feminists' lack of comment rather than men getting together and working on a strategy themselves to make people (including men) consider the double standard.

One eyed Jack

SafeSurfer wrote: »

What explanation can there be for the double standards?

That the double standard is your invention? I certainly don't see a penis and a vulva as the same thing.

To be perfectly frank, I'd be concerned about anyone who would, they could be in for quite a shock when they discover the reality that they aren't.

SafeSurfer

One eyed Jack wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

What explanation can there be for the double standards?

That the double standard is your invention? I certainly don't see a penis and a vulva as the same thing.

To be perfectly frank, I'd be concerned about anyone who would, they could be in for quite a shock when they discover the reality that they aren't.

Your point makes no sense. You are basically saying that for there to be a double standard they must be the same thing.

What about men and women?

Blacks and whites?

Wheelchair users and the able bodied?

By your reasoning because they look different they can be treated differently.

One eyed Jack

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Your point makes no sense. You are basically saying that for there to be a double standard they must be the same thing.

What about men and women?

Blacks and whites?

Wheelchair users and the able bodied?

By your reasoning because they look different they can be treated differently.

And your point is?

somefeen

None of these genitals are real OP and the humour only exists because they are the genitals of statues.
I'll join you in rightful anger when TV ads depict actual violence.

Maybe stop looking for double standards where there aren't any and focus on real ones.

SafeSurfer

One eyed Jack wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Your point makes no sense. You are basically saying that for there to be a double standard they must be the same thing.

What about men and women?

Blacks and whites?

Wheelchair users and the able bodied?

By your reasoning because they look different they can be treated differently.

And your point is?

My point is that you obviously don't understand the point.
This is a perfect example of a double standard.
There is no way advertisers would portray harm being done to female genitals be they clay, stone or marble.

Can you imagine a specsavers ad where a shortsighted man shoves his umbrella into a statues vagina mistaking it for an umbrella holder?

Ficheall

SafeSurfer wrote: »

My point is that you obviously don't understand the point.
This is a perfect example of a double standard.
There is no way advertisers would portray harm being done to female genitals be they clay, stone or marble.

Can you imagine a specsavers ad where a shortsighted man shoves his umbrella into a statues vagina mistaking it for an umbrella holder?

See the pic I posted earlier. That poor REAL woman's ladylips will be irreparably damaged, even if the lube renders the process allegedly painless and feasible. Not to mention the damage to her coccyx and lower digestive tract.

-Dr. Ficheall

SafeSurfer

Ficheall wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

My point is that you obviously don't understand the point.
This is a perfect example of a double standard.
There is no way advertisers would portray harm being done to female genitals be they clay, stone or marble.

Can you imagine a specsavers ad where a shortsighted man shoves his umbrella into a statues vagina mistaking it for an umbrella holder?

See the pic I posted earlier. That poor REAL woman's ladylips will be irreparably damaged, even if the lube renders the process allegedly painless and feasible. Not to mention the damage to her coccyx and lower digestive tract.

-Dr. Ficheall

It's difficult to discern that from a pic but if so it's truly shocking.

Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the donkey.

AH is going to eat itself sooner or later.

pitifulgod

SafeSurfer wrote: »

My point is that you obviously don't understand the point.
This is a perfect example of a double standard.
There is no way advertisers would portray harm being done to female genitals be they clay, stone or marble.

Can you imagine a specsavers ad where a shortsighted man shoves his umbrella into a statues vagina mistaking it for an umbrella holder?

OP doesn't understand difference between statues and real people. It's not voodoo. :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

SafeSurfer wrote: »

My point is that you obviously don't understand the point.
This is a perfect example of a double standard.
There is no way advertisers would portray harm being done to female genitals be they clay, stone or marble.

Can you imagine a specsavers ad where a shortsighted man shoves his umbrella into a statues vagina mistaking it for an umbrella holder?

I can imagine it, and if someone in the Specsavers advertising department thought it was a good way to sell glasses, I have no doubt they'd put it out there!

See? No double standards.

You don't know that there's no way advertisers would or wouldn't portray anything if it's never been tried. For example one of my favourite advertisement campaigns right now is this one -

Would it work the same if it were men prancing around in pyjamas? No, because nobody would actually understand what was going on, a bit like your objection to an advert for a Greek yoghurt and the Greek sculptor making an unfortunate slip of a chisel when he hears these Greek style yoghurts are fat free!

Context.