Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Beaut.ie rant on Lush Stunt

123578

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    i think its only a good thing they are bringing attention to it


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭Linguo


    Jess16 wrote: »
    Let me get this straight, a community of people who regard make-up as a major passion in life are unable to engage in constructive debate -hardly surprising really

    Believe it or not, you can actually love makeup and also be an intelligent, worldly person capable of engaging debate!:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,176 ✭✭✭Jess16


    Linguo wrote: »
    Believe it or not, you can actually love makeup and also be an intelligent, worldly person capable of engaging debate!:)

    Absolutely, I'm a huge advocate of it myself but discussing it ad nauseam every day á lá Beaut.ie whilst tripping over themselves to procure every new product that falls off the marketing wagon is more than a bit nauseating I think


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,032 ✭✭✭SmokeyEyes


    Jess16 wrote: »
    Absolutely, I'm a huge advocate of it myself but discussing it ad nauseam every day á lá Beaut.ie whilst tripping over themselves to procure every new product that falls off the marketing wagon is more than a bit nauseating I think

    Hey now, don't offend beauty bloggers:D

    I have a beauty blog because I'm a Journalism grad and I enjoy makeup and think it's fun to write about. That doesn't mean I'm some airhead sitting thinking about lipstick all day long, I just think it's fun to run my own site and write all it's content on a subject I find interesting:)

    I've written for newspapers and study Astrophysics in my spare time (as well as studying to become a make up artist) so my interests are varied and I enjoy them all!


  • Registered Users Posts: 984 ✭✭✭ViveLaVie


    I know one poster already said that the Lush campaign raised her awareness of what actually happens to animals in testing and it was the same for me. I actually didn't have a clue how badly they were treated before Lush brought my attention to it - that said, I found out about the campaign through beaut.ie's article on it. For some reason, I also thought the scientists just grabbed a few bunnies, smeared lipstick on them and monitored them. I had no idea some animals are raised specifically for the purpose of being tested on, that they are caged and that chemicals are forced down their throats! Appalling.

    All the debate on the subject has also informed me that The Body Shop is now owned by L'Oreal and that they are the biggest offenders when it comes to mistreating and abusing animals for cosmetic purposes.

    I was not offended by the use of a woman in the campaign and nor did I draw comparisons with sexual torture and the depiction of the woman's position even after having read beaut.ie's article.

    I was slightly confused by their assertion that it was so alike to torture porn. The white liquid looked to me as though it were meant to be moisturiser or cleanser or something along those lines.

    To all the people who say it is terrible that Lush deliberately cast a woman in a subservient position and perpetuated the idea of the woman as victim, do you not think that is precisely the reason the campaign worked? I'm not for a minute suggesting it is ok to trivialise rape, violence against women or anything of the sort! I just mean that Lush probably used a woman in a subservient role in order to force us to re-evaluate how deplorable animal testing is. In aligning the torture of the animals with the degradation and exploitation of women in society, they are highlighting how incredibly wrong it is. I think if a man had been used, it wouldn't have been so powerful, precisely because men aren't traditionally exploited in the same way that women and animals are - because they are the weaker members of society. For me anyway, it emphasised that animals should be protected as much as women should be, because both are the more vulnerable and more easily exploited.

    Either way, the campaign certainly impacted on me and got me thinking about about my future cosmetic purchases.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭starling


    ViveLaVie wrote: »
    I was not offended by the use of a woman in the campaign and nor did I draw comparisons with sexual torture and the depiction of the woman's position even after having read beaut.ie's article. 

    I was slightly confused by their assertion that it was so alike to torture porn. The white liquid looked to me as though it were meant to be moisturiser or cleanser or something along those lines.
    It's really not that much of a leap to see a restrained woman being roughly treated by a man and think "there is a woman being tortured". At one point they use a contraption to prevent the woman from closing her mouth. If that doesn't strike you as having disturbing sexual overtones, google "spider gag". NOTE: Do not actually google this. You don't want to know.    
    ViveLaVie wrote: »
    To all the people who say it is terrible that Lush deliberately cast a woman in a subservient position and perpetuated the idea of the woman as victim, do you not think that is precisely the reason the campaign worked?
    The issue was never whether it worked or not, although the answer to that question depends on what the intended outcome was. If you mean that they were trying to generate controversy and seem to have succeeded, well, I'm not sure it worked exactly as they were hoping. While controversy certainly ensued, many of the comments in the guardian and on lush's own website demonstrate that they actually angered a lot of people with the tactics they used, thus damaging their reputation and losing customers.
    It's not okay to do a demonstration (in the window of a shop in a busy city street in the middle of the day) of a woman being tortured, just to further your own agenda. It's not okay if the woman consents. It's not okay if the woman conceived the whole performance. Lush hoped the campaign would raise awareness of the current state of animal testing legislation and encourage people to buy "cruelty-free" products. Which would mean a real monetary gain for Lush. Therefore they are exploiting violence against women for their own ends. Which is what the beaut article and commenters found unacceptable.
    ViveLaVie wrote: »
    I'm not for a minute suggesting it is ok to trivialise rape, violence against women or anything of the sort!
    That's precisely what Lush's stunt does, though. For me, the fact that even when abuse survivors spoke up about finding the performance deeply upsetting, lush refused to acknowledge this in any meaningful way shows that they don't really care about them. They only addressed this briefly, by saying 'yeah, some people were upset. Sorry, but this is an important issue!' 
    Lush used a performance that involved a woman being tortured, for shock value, and said that they felt justified in doing it because attention needs to be drawn to the current state of animal testing legislation. There are hundreds of other ways they could have publicised the issue. They chose a deeply offensive and intentionally shocking way to make their point, and hurt women in the process. Despite their homey aesthetic, Lush is a multinational retailer, not a grassroots movement; they ought to have used a more grown-up way to raise awareness of the issue.
    ViveLaVie wrote: »
     I just mean that Lush probably used a woman in a subservient role in order to force us to re-evaluate how deplorable animal testing is. In aligning the torture of the animals with the degradation and exploitation of women in society, they are highlighting how incredibly wrong it is. I think if a man had been used, it wouldn't have been so powerful, precisely because men aren't traditionally exploited in the same way that women and animals are - because they are the weaker members of society. For me anyway, it emphasised that animals should be protected as much as women should be, because both are the more vulnerable and more easily exploited.
     

    I don't mean to leap on you here but there are a couple of turns of phrase here that just sit very badly with me.
    For one thing, women are members of  society. Animals are not.
    Also, women are not "the weaker members of society". Though men tend to be on average more physically powerful, women are more vulnerable to physical abuse due to far more complex reasons than simple physical strength. Societal attitudes to women and the normalisation of violence against women are part of the problem, among other things, so portraying violence against a woman without saying 'violence against women should be stopped' is irresponsible.
    If a man had been used, I think the stunt would actually have been more shocking, precisely because as you say the sight of a man in the role of victim is so much more rare. But the guardian piece admits that the performance was intended to touch on the systemic abuse of more vulnerable groups eg. women and that for that reason, they couldn't use a man as the 'subject'. So basically they admit that violence against women was something they wanted to bring to people's minds, but only to further their agenda. Lush also insisted that a woman had to be used because women buy cosmetics. Which is actually pretty misogynistic just in itself: they are implying that women are responsible for animal testing (totally untrue) and should be doing something about it by only buying "cruelty-free" cosmetics.
    As if the products that men use are not relevant to any discussion of animal testing. Men may not be buying lipstick, but they do use other toiletries which basically have the same ingredients as women's with different perfumes. They buy products from companies with poor records on animal testing - like L'Oreal which you mentioned.
    ViveLaVie wrote: »
    Either way, the campaign certainly impacted on me and got me thinking about about my future cosmetic purchases.
    'impact' is a noun btw.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭starling


    Jess16 wrote: »
    Let me get this straight, a community of people who regard make-up as a major passion in life are unable to engage in constructive debate -hardly surprising really
    The arrogance of this comment is breathtaking, especially coming from a teacher who frequently mixes up "it's" and "its".


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    starling wrote: »
    It's not okay if the woman consents. It's not okay if the woman conceived the whole performance.


    This for me is the root of it.
    She knowingly and willingly consented.
    She chose it, she consented to everything which was done to her.
    This to me make a huge difference and makes it no different then any other
    bdsm act. She consented, was very brave and bravo to her.


    You didn't have to watch the video, or look at the images, or if you were in the street that day, you didn't have to watch. You chose to.

    starling wrote: »
    Despite their homey aesthetic, Lush is a multinational retailer, not a grassroots movement;

    Why do you think that these two things are mutually exclusive?

    starling wrote: »
    they ought to have used a more grown-up way to raise awareness of the issue.
     
    How?


    starling wrote: »
    Lush also insisted that a woman had to be used because women buy cosmetics.


    Can you please provide a citation for that.

    starling wrote: »
    Which is actually pretty misogynistic just in itself: they are implying that women are responsible for animal testing (totally untrue) and should be doing something about it by only buying "cruelty-free" cosmetics.


    Did you not read the whole thread? if you had of you would have seen that they did you men in their stores as displays on this issue.

    starling wrote: »
    As if the products that men use are not relevant to any discussion of animal testing. Men may not be buying lipstick, but they do use other toiletries which basically have the same ingredients as women's with different perfumes. They buy products from companies with poor records on animal testing - like L'Oreal which you mentioned.


    True but men do not on average spend as much as women do.

    starling wrote: »
    'impact' is a noun btw.

    Just before you go picking at any spelling or grammar errors in my reply
    I would prefer if you didn't, I have dyslexia, if you can't under stand my post
    due to them then I will understand if you don't reply.


  • Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ Lilith Faithful SWordplay


    starling wrote: »
    'impact' is a noun btw.
    starling wrote: »
    The arrogance of this comment is breathtaking, especially coming from a teacher who frequently mixes up "it's" and "its".

    Mod

    Starling, drop the grammar nazi comments. They add nothing to the discussion.

    Thank you.

    Tony Hallowed Chipmunk


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭starling


    Sharrow wrote: »
    no different then any other
    bdsm act.

    Sharrow wrote: »
    You didn't have to watch the video, or look at the images, or if you were in the street that day, you didn't have to watch. You chose to.

    Other BDSM acts aren't put on in the street, in broad daylight, without warning.
    If a film contained the stuff that was in that video, it would have a certificate/warning. The acts depicted in the video would not have been televised prior to the watershed without warning.
    The people in the street that day did not choose to see this. Excuse them for thinking that they could go about their business in a public street without being confronted with a woman being tortured.
    Incidentally they also emailed it to everyone who was on their mailing list, just in case those abuse survivors thought they were safe enough at home from triggering images.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭Linguo


    starling wrote: »
    Other BDSM acts aren't put on in the street, in broad daylight, without warning.
    If a film contained the stuff that was in that video, it would have a certificate/warning. The acts depicted in the video would not have been televised prior to the watershed without warning.
    The people in the street that day did not choose to see this. Excuse them for thinking that they could go about their business in a public street without being confronted with a woman being tortured.
    Incidentally they also emailed it to everyone who was on their mailing list, just in case those abuse survivors thought they were safe enough at home from triggering images.

    I'm sorry I don't agree with you at all or the Beaut article and I think you need to re-read the Guardian article as you seem to be missing the point. If this offended you fine, but I don't agree that the views held by Beaut were right, they were thrown up and offensive and the reaction by them after was just as childish.

    Did you actually think the Beaut post was well written and a good post out of interest?

    From the article:

    "Our aim was most certainly not to titillate. The bodysuit was not attractive (regardless of how the mainstream media may have presented or written about it). The costume made her an anonymous test subject and stripped her of the accoutrements of sexuality or eroticism. It was horrific from beginning to end, and all the more so for the actual horror that it intends to represent.

    We are sorry if this has hurt women who have suffered sexual violence or assault. It is a horrible compromise that a performance of animal testing and abuse could conjure up such distressing lived memories for real women.

    However, knowing the careful thought Lush and the performance artists gave to every moment of this, I will ferociously argue for its intended goal: to challenge public apathy, which always encourages powerful forces to oppress the less powerful, regardless of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or species."


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭starling


    Mod

    Starling, drop the grammar nazi comments. They add nothing to the discussion.

    Thank you.

    Tony Hallowed Chipmunk

    Sorry, Jess16 just really pissed me off with that ignorant comment. Didn't mean to make any other posters feel intimidated about making their points.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭starling


    Linguo wrote: »
    I'm sorry I don't agree with you at all or the Beaut article and I think you need to re-read the Guardian article as you seem to be missing the point. If this offended you fine, but I don't agree that the views held by Beaut were right, they were thrown up and offensive and the reaction by them after was just as childish.

    I'm not interested in discussing anything with you, you'll just call my post "silly" and refuse to back up that opinion with any actual facts. Then you'll tell me it's no big deal (how come you get to decide what's a big deal?) and call me rude. I think it would be better if we didn't talk about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭Linguo


    starling wrote: »
    I'm not interested in discussing anything with you, you'll just call my post "silly" and refuse to back up that opinion with any actual facts. Then you'll tell me it's no big deal (how come you get to decide what's a big deal?) and call me rude. I think it would be better if we didn't talk about it.

    What??? You've been very robust and forthright in your criticism of other people's posts without holding back in the slightest so I think it's very unfair to suddenly act like I've upset you with a slight bit of criticism of your post!

    All I said was that I thought a 'statement' about the word rapey of yours was silly (imo) and then said it's no big deal meaning it wasn't worth scrapping over, that's all. And I didn't refuse anything!

    I don't think you can be so argumentative about everyone else and then act so offended by the tiniest bit given to you! This is just debate, that's all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭Mr Teeny


    starling wrote: »
    I'm not interested in discussing anything with you, you'll just call my post "silly" and refuse to back up that opinion with any actual facts. Then you'll tell me it's no big deal (how come you get to decide what's a big deal?) and call me rude. I think it would be better if we didn't talk about it.

    This is a debate Starling, and to your credit you have stuck to your beliefs throughout... but why stop when it's not going your way?

    Earlier in the thread you dissected one of my posts in great detail. I replied with a long retort but you either didn't read it or simply chose to ignore it because it wasn't in keeping with your argument.

    You also generalised something from the guardian piece...
    They only addressed this briefly, by saying 'yeah, some people were upset. Sorry, but this is an important issue!'

    Linguo quoted the actual piece in her argument to back up her point. Surely this is her backing up with actual facts and you putting forward a poorly constructed argument??


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭starling


    Sharrow wrote: »
    This for me is the root of it.
    She knowingly and willingly consented.
    She chose it, she consented to everything which was done to her.
    Please explain how this woman's consent makes the display any less misogynistic. No seriously I really want to know, so many people seem to be offering this as a reason why the performance is not exploitative of women and their fears/experiences.


    Sharrow wrote: »
    Why do you think that these two things are mutually exclusive?

    I don't, I'm just saying that they have plenty of resources at their disposal. They can employ professional PR staff and spend money on advertising. They use a "handmade" aesthetic which fits with the artisanal nature of their products, but they take it a bit too far sometimes in painting themselves as a small, lovable-underdog-type business. I'm not sure I'm expressing this very well.
    I personally think the use of shock tactics - which they admit they were doing - is not a hallmark of reasoned, grown-up, professional people. It is immature, childish and unnecessary.


    Sharrow wrote: »
    Can you please provide a citation for that.
    Certainly. "We felt it was important, strong, well and thoroughly considered that the test subject was a woman. This is important within the context of Lush's wider Fighting Animal Testing campaign, which challenges consumers of cosmetics (a female market) to feel, to think and to demand that the cosmetics industry is animal-cruelty free." That's from Tamsin Omond's Guardian piece.
    A female market. Because men never buy soap, shower gel, toothpaste, contact lenses, shampoo, razors, shaving cream, deodorant or cologne.
    Sharrow wrote: »
    Did you not read the whole thread? if you had of you would have seen that they did you men in their stores as displays on this issue.

    Yes I did read the whole thread and the fact that they used men in the past doesn't change the fact that they deliberately used a woman this time, then argued that they had to use a woman because a) women are apparently the ones who have a responsibility to stop animal testing and b) they wanted to capitalise on violence against women. They admitted both of these things. Then they insisted that there was nothing wrong with it, ignoring the feelings of the abuse survivors who told them how distressing they found the performance.:eek:
    Sharrow wrote: »
    True but men do not on average spend as much as women do.
    That's true. But they don't get a mention at all in discussion of animal testing for cosmetic purposes and they are specifically not acknowledged as consumers of cosmetics in Tamsin Omond's piece. All of the blame is being put on women.:mad:

    Sharrow wrote: »
    Just before you go picking at any spelling or grammar errors in my reply
    I would prefer if you didn't, I have dyslexia, if you can't under stand my post
    due to them then I will understand if you don't reply.
    I won't, as long as you don't say arrogant and unhelpful things like "people who are interested in make up are stupid".:P I'm interested in discussing the issue, and so are you, and you're making an argument. I respect that. But that was just insulting and ignorant.


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,089 ✭✭✭✭LizT


    starling wrote: »
    Sharrow wrote: »
    This for me is the root of it.
    She knowingly and willingly consented.
    She chose it, she consented to everything which was done to her.
    Please explain how this woman's consent makes the display any less misogynistic. No seriously I really want to know, so many people seem to be offering this as a reason why the performance is not exploitative of women and their fears/experiences.


    Sharrow wrote: »
    Why do you think that these two things are mutually exclusive?

    I don't, I'm just saying that they have plenty of resources at their disposal. They can employ professional PR staff and spend money on advertising. They use a "handmade" aesthetic which fits with the artisanal nature of their products, but they take it a bit too far sometimes in painting themselves as a small, lovable-underdog-type business. I'm not sure I'm expressing this very well.
    I personally think the use of shock tactics - which they admit they were doing - is not a hallmark of reasoned, grown-up, professional people. It is immature, childish and unnecessary.


    Sharrow wrote: »
    Can you please provide a citation for that.
    Certainly. "We felt it was important, strong, well and thoroughly considered that the test subject was a woman. This is important within the context of Lush's wider Fighting Animal Testing campaign, which challenges consumers of cosmetics (a female market) to feel, to think and to demand that the cosmetics industry is animal-cruelty free." That's from Tamsin Omond's Guardian piece.
    A female market. Because men never buy soap, shower gel, toothpaste, contact lenses, shampoo, razors, shaving cream, deodorant or cologne.
    Sharrow wrote: »
    Did you not read the whole thread? if you had of you would have seen that they did you men in their stores as displays on this issue.

    Yes I did read the whole thread and the fact that they used men in the past doesn't change the fact that they deliberately used a woman this time, then argued that they had to use a woman because a) women are apparently the ones who have a responsibility to stop animal testing and b) they wanted to capitalise on violence against women. They admitted both of these things. Then they insisted that there was nothing wrong with it, ignoring the feelings of the abuse survivors who told them how distressing they found the performance.:eek:
    Sharrow wrote: »
    True but men do not on average spend as much as women do.
    That's true. But they don't get a mention at all in discussion of animal testing for cosmetic purposes and they are specifically not acknowledged as consumers of cosmetics in Tamsin Omond's piece. All of the blame is being put on women.:mad:

    Sharrow wrote: »
    Just before you go picking at any spelling or grammar errors in my reply
    I would prefer if you didn't, I have dyslexia, if you can't under stand my post
    due to them then I will understand if you don't reply.
    I won't, as long as you don't say arrogant and unhelpful things like "people who are interested in make up are stupid".:P I'm interested in discussing the issue, and so are you, and you're making an argument. I respect that. But that was just insulting and ignorant.

    Sharrow didn't say that, please re read the thread.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,032 ✭✭✭SmokeyEyes


    Starling everyone is here to have a respectful debate about an important issue so I only think it's fair you stay in keeping with that.

    It's great to all have different opinions and if you genuinely feel the Lush campaign was offensive that's perfectly valid, just don't make the same mistake as Beaut and the likes and be rude to those who don't share the same views as yours.:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,605 ✭✭✭OakeyDokey


    starling wrote: »
    Incidentally they also emailed it to everyone who was on their mailing list, just in case those abuse survivors thought they were safe enough at home from triggering images.

    I am a survior of sexual abuse, I still struggle with it enough to know I still have issues but seeing that didn't trigger anything with me. I think it's a bit annoying for people to assume that everyone with an abusive passed is going to be offended by this campaign! Now before anyone jumps to conclusions I am not saying that no one with abusive history hasn't found it offending I'm just stating my own opinion.

    Sometimes with campaigns like this people don't take the time to actually read about the campaign, to see why this women was wearing a body suit was meant to (as the article states) "make her an anonymous test subject and stripped her of the accoutrements of sexuality or eroticism"

    I think the author who wrote about it on Beaut didn't read up on the actual campaign before writing her post, I think she skimmed through it and reacted to the photos. Writing a post like that is of course going to draw up lots of debate but they could have disabled the comments if it got to out of hand instead of removing the whole post.


  • Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭Mr Teeny


    starling wrote: »
    I personally think the use of shock tactics - which they admit they were doing - is not a hallmark of reasoned, grown-up, professional people. It is immature, childish and unnecessary.

    Look at these cigarette packets that were released in Canada a few years ago.

    Image may be NSFW

    http://www.quitsmokingpainlesslynow.com/img/Oral%20Cancer.jpg

    Would you consider that campaign and use of shock tactics immature, childish and unnecessary too?

    My father has a form of incurable (but thankfully manageable) lung cancer.

    Any campaign that highlights the dangers of smoking to me is a wonderful thing.

    Any campaign that highlights animal suffering is to me a wonderful thing.

    There are clearly good and bad examples of shock tactics, stop generalising.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭starling


    Mr Teeny wrote: »
    This is a debate Starling, and to your credit you have stuck to your beliefs throughout... but why stop when it's not going your way?
    I'm not stopping, I just don't want to engage with Linguo on the topic, because she is not being logical.
    Mr Teeny wrote: »
    Earlier in the thread you dissected one of my posts in great detail. I replied with a long retort but you either didn't read it or simply chose to ignore it because it wasn't in keeping with your argument.
    I didn't ignore it, but before I could reply, Smokey posted and she was clearly worried about the thread getting antagonistic, so I though it would be better to let it go. Besides, you admitted straight out that you were calling the article "drivel" just because you didn't agree with it, not because it was actually badly written. I get that not everyone has a background of debating sensitive or emotive issues, but that's not a rational way to make your point.
    Another example, you asserted that "The article was sensationalist drivel looking to get attention. It worked but not in the way she had hoped so she backed down."
    When I pointed out that Beaut doesn't need to get attention by being sensationalist, you didn't respond to that point, just sidestepped it by saying "I'm well aware of Beaut's popularity that was never in question." But you were the one who had brought it up:confused:
    The article was taken down because after Tamsin Omond's piece in the Guardian, which made a clear reference to the Beaut article, the Beaut servers were crashed with spam and hate mail, and because the staff did not have the resources to wade though all the comments and remove rude and offensive comments. I don't think your assessment of the situation is fair. It wasn't removed because not everyone agreed, it was the way they were disagreeing. Many commenters on the article disagreed or said that they didn't see the performance as resembling torture porn, and their comments were posted on the site along with everyone else's, because they weren't attacking other posters.
    Mr Teeny wrote: »
    You also generalised something from the guardian piece...

    I paraphrased to show that I believed Lush's "apology" sounded insincere. It was a way of showing the meaning that came across to me and to other people who were upset by the performance.
    Mr Teeny wrote: »
    Linguo quoted the actual piece in her argument to back up her point. Surely this is her backing up with actual facts and you putting forward a poorly constructed argument??

    I have asked Linguo more than once to justify calling my comment "silly",but so far she has not done so. Likewise I invite you to show me where my argument is poorly constructed. In her last post Linguo quoted me pointing out that there actually is a difference between the Lush performance and "any other bdsm act" and listed some of those differences. Linguo just said "I don't agree with you" but did not actually challenge any of the points i made. There's nowhere to go from there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭Linguo


    starling wrote: »
    I have asked Linguo more than once to justify calling my comment "silly",but so far she has not done so. Likewise I invite you to show me where my argument is poorly constructed. In her last post Linguo quoted me pointing out that there actually is a difference between the Lush performance and "any other bdsm act" and listed some of those differences. Linguo just said "I don't agree with you" but did not actually challenge any of the points i made. There's nowhere to go from there.

    Listen you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about me simply because I thought you justifying the use of the author's use of the word 'rapey' wasn't a good call. That's it. I just didn't think there was any excuse for the use of that word. I don't really think that's the most important issue to fixate on here so can we please move on?

    Beaut linked to Lush in their post, Lush referred to a blog (not by name) when they acknowledged the backlash. That's fair in my opinion if they both mentioned each other and Beaut were naive if they thought such a sensationalist post wouldn't cause such an amount of heated debate. And I don't know if I believe that every Lush worker in the land was sending abusive comments to Beaut, their post was incredibly infuriating and badly written, I'd say Lush were only right if they feel strongly about the company they work for to respond with their own heated comments, I highly doubt it was all just 'spam'.

    I understand the campaign offended you but do you think Beaut were right with the post and the handling of the mess after??

    This is just healthy debate here and I'm not attacking you personally ok so let's keep it just as chat, that's what Boards is for after all!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭starling


    Mr Teeny wrote: »
    Look at these cigarette packets that were released in Canada a few years ago.

    Image may be NSFW

    http://www.quitsmokingpainlesslynow.com/img/Oral%20Cancer.jpg

    Would you consider that campaign and use of shock tactics immature, childish and unnecessary too?
    Nope. But it's a completely different issue. Crucially, the cigarette packets make their point without capitalising on violence against women.
    Mr Teeny wrote: »
    My father has a form of incurable (but thankfully manageable) lung cancer.
    That's terrible, I hope he will be okay.
    Mr Teeny wrote: »
    Any campaign that highlights the dangers of smoking to me is a wonderful thing.

    Any campaign that highlights animal suffering is to me a wonderful thing.
    I'm not arguing that smoking or testing cosmetics on animals are good things and I agree that awareness needs to be raised about these issues. I am arguing that Lush acted badly by deliberately hurting women, to further their own ends. It's not an either-or situation; they could have made their point without having a "BDSM" display in their window.
    Mr Teeny wrote: »
    There are clearly good and bad examples of shock tactics, stop generalising.
    The Lush performance was a bad example. Deliberately playing on women's fears and experiences of abuse and violence - for profit. Not professional.

    People choose to buy cigarettes and they know there will be an anti-smoking message, text or picture, on the packaging. That's not at all the same thing as ambling along Regent Street doing some shopping or whatever and suddenly being confronted by a woman being tortured. There were children in the street too, I don't think it's fair to deliberately put stuff like this on display where they will see it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭starling


    lizt wrote: »
    Sharrow didn't say that, please re read the thread.
    And I didn't say anything about Sharrow's spelling or grammar. I was obviously referring to Jess16's comment, please re read the thread.


  • Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭Mr Teeny


    starling wrote: »
    Besides, you admitted straight out that you were calling the article "drivel" just because you didn't agree with it, not because it was actually badly written.

    Correct, I did indeed say it was drivel and that I didn’t agree with the article. I have explained in detail why I don’t agree with their argument. I didn’t however feel the need to pick out minor errors in the construction of the article to back up my point. I’m not a grammar nazi … ;)

    But seeing as you brought it up, it was a poorly written piece……
    A man gripping the a woman’s hair and forcing white liquid into her mouth
    This is why so certain that his intention was to equate animal cruelty to violence against women.

    200px-Linguo-dead-grammar.gif


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,089 ✭✭✭✭LizT


    starling wrote: »
    lizt wrote: »
    Sharrow didn't say that, please re read the thread.
    And I didn't say anything about Sharrow's spelling or grammar. I was obviously referring to Jess16's comment, please re read the thread.

    Your statement wasn't very clear and was in reply to a quote from Sharrow. It seemed that you thought Sharrow made that comment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭Mr Teeny


    starling wrote: »
    Nope. But it's a completely different issue.

    Irrelevant. My point remains the same. You called shocked tactics childish and unprofessional, I gave an example of how shock tactics can be greatly effective.

    Regarding these particular shock tactics, I think they worked, you think they didn't... let's leave it there ok? :)
    starling wrote: »
    That's terrible, I hope he will be okay.

    Thanks. He's doing great. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    starling wrote: »
    Please explain how this woman's consent makes the display any less misogynistic. No seriously I really want to know, so many people seem to be offering this as a reason why the performance is not exploitative of women and their fears/experiences.

    I don't see how respecting a woman's informed choice and her ability to consent is misogynistic, in fact I would say doing that is feminist.


    starling wrote: »

    I don't, I'm just saying that they have plenty of resources at their disposal. They can employ professional PR staff and spend money on advertising.

    They can but they don't.

    https://www.lush.co.uk/content/view/1324
    Fortunately, because Lush doesn't advertise and prefers to spend money on quality ingredients rather than packaging and celebrity endorsements

    This has always been thier policy, if asked they will do press or give interviews but they don't do paid advertising and endorsements.

    starling wrote: »
    They use a "handmade" aesthetic which fits with the artisanal nature of their products, but they take it a bit too far sometimes in painting themselves as a small, lovable-underdog-type business. I'm not sure I'm expressing this very well.

    I think the term you are reaching for is '"folksy", and you seem to think that the success they have had makes them somehow less true to their mission statement and ethics. Do you have anything to back that up?

    Because I see them as using the position they are in to be even more true to their ethics and enabling them to follow true on their mission statement on a larger scale with out compromise.
    starling wrote: »
    I personally think the use of shock tactics - which they admit they were doing - is not a hallmark of reasoned, grown-up, professional people. It is immature, childish and unnecessary.

    You are entitled to your opinion, I still think you are trying to force Lush into a certain pigeon hole which they never want to be in, ie you are trying to make them some how 'respectable', which they don't ever wanna be (Mel & Kim ) held to that standard. The same as Ben & Jerry's who also can be considered folksy and have kept to their ethics and refused to be held to a certain standard of being respectable, which could be clearly seen with the Schweddy Balls flavor and the peopel who got offended.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/09/is-ben-jerrys-schweddy-balls-r-rated-ice-cream.html



    starling wrote: »
    Certainly. "We felt it was important, strong, well and thoroughly considered that the test subject was a woman. This is important within the context of Lush's wider Fighting Animal Testing campaign, which challenges consumers of cosmetics (a female market) to feel, to think and to demand that the cosmetics industry is animal-cruelty free." That's from Tamsin Omond's Guardian piece.

    A female market. Because men never buy soap, shower gel, toothpaste, contact lenses, shampoo, razors, shaving cream, deodorant or cologne.

    Women spend more on cosmetics and it is still women in most households who will be doing the buying of most of the toiletries for the household including the men in their lives. That is basic market demographics.
    I can't see how that fact is sexist or misogynistic.


    starling wrote: »
    Yes I did read the whole thread and the fact that they used men in the past doesn't change the fact that they deliberately used a woman this time, then argued that they had to use a woman because a) women are apparently the ones who have a responsibility to stop animal testing and b) they wanted to capitalise on violence against women. They admitted both of these things. Then they insisted that there was nothing wrong with it, ignoring the feelings of the abuse survivors who told them how distressing they found the performance.:eek:

    IF an abuse survivor found that triggering and emotionally upsetting then I would have compassion but point out it's their issue and they need to considered some more counseling.

    I know I have things which trigger me, I take responsibly for myself and my own emotional reactions to things, by either not exposing myself or by taking the time to sort out why I was triggered and finding the right place for my anger instead of lashing out at those who may have triggered me.
    starling wrote: »
    That's true. But they don't get a mention at all in discussion of animal testing for cosmetic purposes and they are specifically not acknowledged as consumers of cosmetics in Tamsin Omond's piece. All of the blame is being put on women.:mad:


    It was women who stood up the last time.
    It was mostly women who caused the change in EU law in 1993 on animal testing which had never come into effect due to the lobbists.

    It was my mother, my sisters, my friends and my class mates in convent school who all became anti animal testing in the late 80s and early 90s,
    it was women who created a fuss so that companies listened.

    So Lush are now going back and letting these women know that we were duped. That they are still testing on animals, that the democratic process was by passed and we need to put pressure and raise awareness to sort it out.


    So Lush is working on informing and empowering women, how dare they be such feminists.
    starling wrote: »
    I won't, as long as you don't say arrogant and unhelpful things like "people who are interested in make up are stupid".:P I'm interested in discussing the issue, and so are you, and you're making an argument. I respect that. But that was just insulting and ignorant.

    I reserve the right to say what I please with in the rules of the site, and while I am happy to have this discussion please do not use your replies to me to be snide about other posters.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭starling


    Seriously I don't want to continue to engage with anyone who thinks I'm being rude because I am trying not to antagonise anyone, this is why I don't want to engage with Linguo. I also think she's actually been a bit rude to me and have asked her to explain but she hasn't so far. I don't want to escalate the situation.:(
    I can't engage in any meaningful way while everyone's getting at me, I'm off for some coffee.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    starling wrote: »
    When I pointed out that Beaut doesn't need to get attention by being sensationalist, you didn't respond to that point, just sidestepped it by saying "I'm well aware of Beaut's popularity that was never in question." But you were the one who had brought it up:confused:
    The article was taken down because after Tamsin Omond's piece in the Guardian, which made a clear reference to the Beaut article, the Beaut servers were crashed with spam and hate mail, and because the staff did not have the resources to wade though all the comments and remove rude and offensive comments. I don't think your assessment of the situation is fair. It wasn't removed because not everyone agreed, it was the way they were disagreeing. Many commenters on the article disagreed or said that they didn't see the performance as resembling torture porn, and their comments were posted on the site along with everyone else's, because they weren't attacking other posters.

    Are you connected in any way to the beaut.ie site?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement