The Hunky Dory Ads

Teferi

Gents,

You may have seen "those" adverts around the place. Well, I know they've caused a fair bit of controversy but I have just heard the height of stupidity on Newstalk.

There was a woman on the Moncrief show who said (paraphrasing here) that women are going to get raped because of these adverts. The fucking eejit. If you can listen to it on the Newstalk website you should take 15 minutes and do it. It really made my blood boil. She said that there is a difference between those ads and using naked men in ads. Really, I fail to see the difference. They have your man from Sex and the City in a Galaxy ad walking around in his underwear and eating chocolate. That's exactly the same thing.

I really think that that kind of opinion is backwards and anytime these kind of adverts come around you see all these faux feminists get up in arms about it. Where is the male reaction to exploiting what is seen as the perfect male form? It doesn't exist as far as I can see. And neither would I want it to. If lads want to get up there and use their bodies for money then fair play. Same for any women.

Otis Driftwood

These ads are the same as the wonderbra ads with Eva Herzegova,an excuse for saggy women to have a whinge.Laughable really but c'est la vie.

donfers

The ads are being taken down, the advertising complains authority or whatever the feck it's called upheld the complaints of amongst others the Irish Rape Crisis Network or whatever it's called......talk about giving yourself a bad name and turning very worthy ideology into a laughing stock and losing all credibility....really whoever their pr people are, they've scored a huge own goal here, absolutely mind-bogglingly unbelievable stuff...if it was a satire i wouldn't believe it, if I was the advertising commision person and the Irish rape centre person phoned me to complain about the hunky dory ads I'd hang up thinking it was a wind-up....just amazing really

Teferi

nedtheshed wrote: »

These ads are the same as the wonderbra ads with Eva Herzegova,an excuse for saggy women to have a whinge.Laughable really but c'est la vie.

Yep, I've never seen an attractive woman complaining about them tbh.

CDfm

That bit always confuses me.

No I dont use porn and have never been a fan of it. It doesn't do it for me.

Some groups like Feminists For Free Expression question those assertions and what they say its the far right and some feminists using the same ultra conservative censorship arguments but dressing it up as feminism.

Here is their website

http://www.ffeusa.org/html/statements/statements_pornography.php

Arts Censorship * The Internet * Pornography * Prostitution



dowload: microsoft wordpdf

The Free Speech Pamphlet Series: Pornography
Feminism and Free Speech: Pornography is part of the Feminism and Free Speech series produced by Feminists for Free Expression, a national, not-for-profit anti-censorship organization. FFE has prepared this publication to aid in the understanding of pornography, its uses and benefits, and its relation to violence. Below is an overview of the scientific and cross-cultural research, and legal and historical data on sexually explicit material. Popular beliefs are followed by research review.



1. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY

Yes, there is. Obscenity is sexual words and images, which are not protected by Constitutional guarantees of free speech. To be illegally obscene, a work must appeal to the prurient interest, depict sex in a patently offensive way, and lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Pornography is material designed to arouse and has no legal or consistent definition. Each person’s definition depends on her upbringing, sexual preferences and viewing context. One woman’s “trash” may be another’s treasure or boredom.


2. SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL CAUSES VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

No reputable research in the U.S., Europe or Asia finds a causal link between pornography and violence. Meese Commissioner Dr. Judith Becker said, “I’ve been working with sex offenders for 10 years and have reviewed the scientific literature and I don’t think a causal link exists.”

No research, including the Surgeon General’s report, finds a link between “kinky” or “degrading” images and violence. Exposure to such material does not cause people to change their sexual preferences or commit acts against their will. The derailed impulses of child abusers and rapists are caused by childhood traumas. “They are not,” wrote leading researcher John Money, “borrowed from movies, books or other people.”

Studies on violent pornography are inconsistent. Some find it increases aggression in the lab, some find it does not. Research also finds that aggression will be increased by anything that agitates a subject (that raises heart rate, adrenalin flow, etc.), not only violent movies but riding exercise bicycles. Agitation will boost whatever follows it, aggression or generosity. Dr. Suzanne Ageton, measuring violence out of the lab, found that membership in a delinquent
peer group accounted for 3/4 of sexual aggression.

Studies in the U.S., Europe and Asia find no link between the availability of sexual material and sex crimes. The only factor linked to rape rate is the number of young men living in a given area. When pornography became widely available in Europe, sexually violent crimes decreased or remained the same. Japan, with a far more violent pornography than the U.S., has 2,4 rapes per 100,000 people compared with the U.S. at 34.5 per 100,000.


3. MEN WATCH PORNOGRAPHY AND COPY IT OR FORCE WOMEN TO DO WHAT THEY SEE

Violence and intimidation existed for thousands of years before commercial pornography and countries today with no pornography, like Saudi Arabia and Iran, do not boast strong women’s rights records. Men have forced women to do things—sexual and nonsexual—for centuries. The problem is not sex, it’s force.

People do not mimic what they read or view in knee-jerk fashion. If they did, the feminist books of the last 25 years would have transformed this into a perfect feminist world. If they did, advertisers could run an ad and consumers would obey. Instead, businesses spend millions of dollars and still, the strongest motive for purchases is price. People juggle words and images—good and bad—with all the others that they have seen or heard, and with all their real life experiences. It is experience that is the strongest teacher.

Men do not learn coercion from pictures of sex. They learn it from the violence and contempt for women in their families and communities where each generation passes down what sorts of force are acceptable, even “manly”.

Copycat theories are “porn made me do it” excuses for rapists and batterers. They relieve criminals of responsibility for their acts.


4. PORNOGRAPHY DEGRADES WOMEN

Sexism, not sex, degrades women. Though sexism pervades our culture in many forms, we will not eliminate it by banning sex. Sexism and violence stem from long-standing economic, political and emotional factors. It is these that need addressing.

Women interpret pornography in different ways. Some find it sexist, some find it a form of fantasy, like dreams and the movies we run in our heads when we masturbate or have sex. Opponents of sexual speech misunderstand that it is in everyone’s interest to allow a variety of pleasurable materials that enhance well-being and sexual fulfillment.

The first work removed under Canada’s new obscenity standard (which claims to outlaw the degradation of women) was an erotic magazine made by and for women.


5. PORNOGRAPHY IS ONLY FOR MEN

Half the adult videos in the U.S. are bought or rented by women alone or women in couples.

Sexual health professionals recommend pornography as entertainment and information for women and men. It may enhance failing marriages and help couples talk about and experiment with sex.

AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases have made it a public health necessity to encourage sexual fantasy material that allows women and men safe alternatives to unhealthy sexual contact.


6. THE WOMEN IN PORNOGRAPHY ARE EXPLOITED OR VICTIMIZED

Women are exploited and harassed in all fields; some are in pornography. Exploitation will stop when it is vigorously prosecuted everywhere it occurs.

When the National Organization for Women considered launching a campaign against pornography, women in pornography protested, saying that a ban against it would create an illegal market of exploitation. Some said that their work gave them independence and a sense of accomplishment, banning it would worsen their lives. NOW abandoned its proposed campaign.


7. AS AN AID TO MASTURBATION, PORNOGRAPHY IS ACTION THAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Pornography may lead to masturbation much as a novel or film may lead to tears or laughter. All are protected by the First Amendment. Including those that some find offensive. “The government may not prohibit,” wrote the Supreme Court, “the expression of an idea because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

FFE does not believe that policing masturbation is the proper business of government or well-meaning committees.


8. BANNING SEXUAL MATERIAL WILL PROTECT OR HELP WOMEN

Historically, censorship has hurt women. Information about sex and reproduction has been banned under the guise of “protecting” women—from the jailing or birth control advocate Margaret Sanger to the “gag rule” against abortion counseling in federally funded clinics to the attacks against feminist National Endowment for the Arts grant recipients. It has never reduced sexism or violence.

Bottle_of_Smoke

The root of the complaints are women who are jealous of the girls in the advertisements.

Every second advertisement targeted at women has a hot skinny teenager/woman in 20s dressed suggestively or wearing very little. Yet no mass hysteria. Most rugby fans/people who play it are men and these jealous women don't like being compared to the girls in the advertisements

I wonder to they realise how much publicity they've drummed up for Hunky Dorys

Kimia

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The root of the complaints are women who are jealous of the girls in the advertisements.

Every second advertisement targeted at women has a hot skinny teenager/woman in 20s dressed suggestively or wearing very little. Yet no mass hysteria. Most rugby fans/people who play it are men and these jealous women don't like being compared to the girls in the advertisements

I wonder to they realise how much publicity they've drummed up for Hunky Dorys

I think your 'jealousy' idea is a bit too simplistic and I don't agree. I would imagine that perhaps they are complaining because they feel like Hunky Dory's are trying to exploit women's bodies (and men's predictable reaction to same) and these women are not happy about this exploitation. I also completely agree that if you're annoyed with the Hunky Dory ads you should also be annoyed with the naked man Malteser's/Aero (can't remember which one) because your very annoyance should be based on the same principle - that we are 'above' being targeted by purely sexual imagery - surely we are better or more intelligent than that etc..

I don't think the point of the ad is to even compare women to the girls in the ads I think it's more a parody and if i was a man I'd probably be slightly offended that Hunky Dory's are making such little efforts in marketing to me. Sure great, a pair of boobs, yep I'll buy your crisps - wahey!! Come on, surely men deserve a cleverer ad than this??

I think that the people in the ad agency just thought - come on let's take the piss out of people a bit - let's go back to the 80's and throw a pair of boobs onto a big poster and see what happens. It'll create a bit of a stir anyway with the oul Joe Duffy brigade and the idiots that think they're feminists (after ogling the male equivalent ad because it's fine if its a guy being exploited right?) so at the end of the day we'll get publicity! And how right they were.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Kimia wrote: »

I think your 'jealousy' idea is a bit too simplistic and I don't agree. I would imagine that perhaps they are complaining because they feel like Hunky Dory's are trying to exploit women's bodies (and men's predictable reaction to same) and these women are not happy about this exploitation.

That's probably the conscious idea that runs through their heads but subconsciously its obvious its based on jealousy. Every time I turn on a TV ad there are half naked women used for advertisements for body lotions, or a Cheryl Cole type looking sexy in an advertisement for shampoo. If it were anything other than jealousy there'd be numourous women calling for these ads to be banned like with the Hunky Dory advertisements. They're not because the advertisements aren't targeted at men.

I also completely agree that if you're annoyed with the Hunky Dory ads you should also be annoyed with the naked man Malteser's/Aero (can't remember which one) because your very annoyance should be based on the same principle - that we are 'above' being targeted by purely sexual imagery - surely we are better or more intelligent than that etc..

Good observation, it does however back up my point. These ads don't have women complaining and calling for them to be banned because they're not jealous of the men in the ads.

I don't think the point of the ad is to even compare women to the girls in the ads

Its not at all, but when sexy women are presented in that format it bothers some women, those women feel threatened because they can never look that way so they complain.

I think it's more a parody and if i was a man I'd probably be slightly offended that Hunky Dory's are making such little efforts in marketing to me. Sure great, a pair of boobs, yep I'll buy your crisps - wahey!! Come on, surely men deserve a cleverer ad than this??

I'm not offended by a company trying to sell me something in any way. That would be ridiculous. I appreciate that it will catch men's attention and they will associate the brand with the photo. Whether a man is borderline retarded or a professor of theoretical physics, he will still find an attractive woman in skimpy clothes pleasing to the eye. How clever he is doesn't come into it at all.

CDfm

Kimia wrote: »

I think your 'jealousy' idea is a bit too simplistic and I don't agree. I would imagine that perhaps they are complaining because they feel like Hunky Dory's are trying to exploit women's bodies (and men's predictable reaction to same) ..................

Sure great, a pair of boobs, yep I'll buy your crisps - wahey!! Come on, surely men deserve a cleverer ad than this??

So it offends you. Surely, you must have a reason to be offended?

Why do you need a cleverer advert to buy crisps -its hardly health food.

I don't think that I buy crisps to be smarter or more attractive to women but the advert works as it draws attention to the brand and creates name awareness. It doesnt make any claims and neither does the advert harm anyone.

What about the McDonalds Promotions of Happy Meals for Happy Kids and Happy Mums. Mums feed their babies McDonalds for its nutitional value. No one complains about the portrayal of Mums like that. It makes you think

krudler

No different than the Diet Coke ads or the Galaxy ones tbh, cleavage, wow, end of the friggin world.

monkeyfudge

The adverts are utterly pathetic.

I personally think they degrade everyone! Are men so dimwitted that this sort of primitive bullsh*t will make you want to buy a bag of crisps?

As a male I find them very offensive because they're an absolute insult to my intelligence.

krudler

They've got people talking havent they? surely they've achieved their purpose?

slavetothegrind

mmmmmm...boobies!......mmmmmmm

....have munchies for crisps now...??????

miss5

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The root of the complaints are women who are jealous of the girls in the advertisements.

Every second advertisement targeted at women has a hot skinny teenager/woman in 20s dressed suggestively or wearing very little. Yet no mass hysteria. Most rugby fans/people who play it are men and these jealous women don't like being compared to the girls in the advertisements

I wonder to they realise how much publicity they've drummed up for Hunky Dorys

Actually have to admit there is truth in that for sure, I was at a friends
house and her uncle's wife complained about the ad not because she felt it
was degrading to women but because as a women in her late thirties she didn't
want to be looking at 24 year old Georgia Salpa. I found it very funny to be honest
but it definetly happens.

monkeyfudge

krudler wrote: »

They've got people talking havent they? surely they've achieved their purpose?

I really hate that argument. I actively avoid products that have advertising I can't stand.

What's really stupid is how much men seem to be lapping these adverts up... Really makes me despair for humanity...

I've actually witnessed people wolf whistling and honking their horns as they pass by these adverts on bus shelters. Are they that sexually repressed that this is on the only titillation they're being exposed to?

Bottle_of_Smoke

monkeyfudge wrote: »

The adverts are utterly pathetic.

I personally think they degrade everyone! Are men so dimwitted that this sort of primitive bullsh*t will make you want to buy a bag of crisps?

As a male I find them very offensive because they're an absolute insult to my intelligence.

NOOOOOO! thats not how advertising works. They're not an insult to your intelligence. They're trying to get you to notice hunky dorys by putting an attractive girl in skimpy clothes, that's all. Your intelligence doesn't come into it!

I'm not offended by a company trying to sell me something in any way. That would be ridiculous. I appreciate that it will catch men's attention and they will associate the brand with the photo. Whether a man is borderline retarded or a professor of theoretical physics, he will still find an attractive woman in skimpy clothes pleasing to the eye. How clever he is doesn't come into it at all.

Bottle_of_Smoke

miss5 wrote: »

Actually have to admit there is truth in that for sure, I was at a friends
house and her uncle's wife complained about the ad not because she felt it
was degrading to women but because as a women in her late thirties she didn't
want to be looking at 24 year old Georgia Salpa. I found it very funny to be honest
but it definetly happens.

That women is an absolute legend for her honesty.

CDfm

krudler wrote: »

They've got people talking havent they? surely they've achieved their purpose?

The adverts worked and so did the campaign against them.

So no-one is harmed by the ads so all you are left with is the Right Wing Propaganda.

There was a self appointed censorship do gooder in the UK named Mary Whitehouse active in the 60's and 70's -so the campaign seems to be a throwback to her.

Pherekydes

monkeyfudge wrote: »

The adverts are utterly pathetic.

I personally think they degrade everyone! Are men so dimwitted that this sort of primitive bullsh*t will make you want to buy a bag of crisps?

As a male I find them very offensive because they're an absolute insult to my intelligence.

+1

Their crisps are crap, too.

monkeyfudge

It is an insult.

It makes it look like they don't think I'll be able to grasp the concept of flavoured crisps being tasty.

So they just throw tits in your face and assume that you're probably into sports because that's what men are supposed to like, tits and sports.

The captions they use on the posters aren't the least bit clever either, that's if anyone has even bothered to read the captions.

Bottle_of_Smoke

monkeyfudge wrote: »

It is an insult.

It makes it look like they don't think I'll be able to grasp the concept of flavoured crisps being tasty.

Ah come on. They know everyone they're targeting has tried crisps before.

So they just throw tits in your face and assume that you're probably into sports because that's what men are supposed to like, tits and sports.

The captions they use on the posters aren't the least bit clever either, that's if anyone has even bothered to read the captions.

How do you know they're happy to be just targeting people who do like sport. And generally men do like tits and sport. They're a private company trying to make a profit. Not an equality office for men

miss5

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That women is an absolute legend for her honesty.

I don't think jealousy is restrcited to adverts, Everyday women are bitchy towards
each other over who is better looking/thinner etc. My friends aunt actually wrote
"The advert paints young women as prostitutes" In no way is that a fair statement
since she admitted se didn't want to be looking at young women promoting crisps.
Yet when men see footballers half naked on posters they don't have the same reaction.

Macha

miss5 wrote: »

I don't think jealousy is restrcited to adverts, Everyday women are bitchy towards
each other over who is better looking/thinner etc. My friends aunt actually wrote
"The advert paints young women as prostitutes" In no way is that a fair statement
since she admitted se didn't want to be looking at young women promoting crisps.
Yet when men see footballers half naked on posters they don't have the same reaction.

If women are taught to compete with each other on looks, why are we surprised if they feel threatened by other beautiful women?

The "catty" stereotype of women is really little more than a convenient fabrication of our society. Men can be just as susceptible to feeling threatened, they just aren't taught by our society that their value is intrinsically tied to their looks so they don't react as much in these situations.

I say "as much" because I have seen some quite bitchy comments from men when put into similar situations. For example, a comment that appeared below a photo of footballer Ronaldo's latest Armani underwear ad:

Did you know that there is an inverse correlation between abdominal muscle definition and intelligence?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/15/cristiano-ronaldo-six-pack-abs

Captain Chaos

Pherekydes wrote: »

Their crisps are crap, too.

Buffalo HDs, could eat them all day. They would be my go to crisps on the market since they came out.

CDfm

Pherekydes wrote: »

+1

Their crisps are crap, too.

But what would you ban next -amy whinehouse,kylie, lilly allen?

Parental advisory lyrics stickers anyone

baldshin

There's nothing wrong with the ads in fairness, they're not even good, and have a godawful slogan! They don't make me(as a man) want to buy the crisps, they do, however, make me want to steal one of the ads from a bus shelter

monkeyfudge

Who said anything about banning?

They've clearly zoned in on a demographic and that demographic has been stupid enough to lap it up...

I just find it depressing that modern Irish males are so primitive as to be taken in by this type of crap.

Kimia

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's probably the conscious idea that runs through their heads but subconsciously its obvious its based on jealousy. Every time I turn on a TV ad there are half naked women used for advertisements for body lotions, or a Cheryl Cole type looking sexy in an advertisement for shampoo. If it were anything other than jealousy there'd be numourous women calling for these ads to be banned like with the Hunky Dory advertisements. They're not because the advertisements aren't targeted at men.

I don't understand your point here. I would imagine that using Cheryl Cole is for peer based source credibility - and it would be actually detrimental to the ad's objectives (to get women to buy the shampoo) if the girls watching the ad were jealous of Cheryl Cole?

I still don't believe those women are complaining (and is it just women?) because they are jealous - surely that's just a stock answer and has no basis in truth? Do you really think women are that b*tchy and that's all that women care about? Please stop using boobs in an ad because it makes me feel bad about myself? If you believe that it seems you have a very low opinion of women..

Good observation, it does however back up my point. These ads don't have women complaining and calling for them to be banned because they're not jealous of the men in the ads.

Why are you assuming that it's only jealousy though? So if a man complained about the Aero ad - would you agree that he's only jealous of the naked man? That he has no other reason for complaining?

Its not at all, but when sexy women are presented in that format it bothers some women, those women feel threatened because they can never look that way so they complain.

Maybe some women do - but again I can't believe that the ad got cancelled because of a group of crazed jealous women..

I'm not offended by a company trying to sell me something in any way. That would be ridiculous. I appreciate that it will catch men's attention and they will associate the brand with the photo. Whether a man is borderline retarded or a professor of theoretical physics, he will still find an attractive woman in skimpy clothes pleasing to the eye. How clever he is doesn't come into it at all.

Fair enough! My point was similar to monkeyfudge - surely they could have gone a bit deeper into the way men think and come up with something a little better, a little cleverer than - yay boobs!!

Kimia

CDfm wrote: »

So it offends you. Surely, you must have a reason to be offended?

Why do you need a cleverer advert to buy crisps -its hardly health food.

I don't think that I buy crisps to be smarter or more attractive to women but the advert works as it draws attention to the brand and creates name awareness. It doesnt make any claims and neither does the advert harm anyone.

What about the McDonalds Promotions of Happy Meals for Happy Kids and Happy Mums. Mums feed their babies McDonalds for its nutitional value. No one complains about the portrayal of Mums like that. It makes you think

CDFM - don't know what you mean here. I never said I was offended? My point was actually quite similar - it really doesn't make any claims at all about intelligence - the exact opposite in fact!! haha

It definitely worked - but it used men, in my opinion.. It would have been really original if they had just gone that extra mile without having to resort to the usual, boobs to sell stuff.

CDfm

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Who said anything about banning?

They've clearly zoned in on a demographic and that demographic has been stupid enough to lap it up...

Havent the ads been dropped and thats the point.Whats next ???

Men who find women dressed skimpily attractive is a fairly big demographic.

CDfm

Kimia wrote: »

CDFM - don't know what you mean here. I never said I was offended? My point was actually quite similar - it really doesn't make any claims at all about intelligence - the exact opposite in fact!! haha

It definitely worked - but it used men, in my opinion.. It would have been really original if they had just gone that extra mile without having to resort to the usual, boobs to sell stuff.

The reasons given by those protesting against the adverts are spurious.

Maybe its emotional intelligence they are aiming for.

citytillidie

If the ads are dropped i expect the Torres and Drogba ads to be axed too. After all they are topless in their bill boards.

Bottle_of_Smoke

taconnol wrote: »

If women are taught to compete with each other on looks, why are we surprised if they feel threatened by other beautiful women?

The "catty" stereotype of women is really little more than a convenient fabrication of our society. Men can be just as susceptible to feeling threatened, they just aren't taught by our society that their value is intrinsically tied to their looks so they don't react as much in these situations.

I say "as much" because I have seen some quite bitchy comments from men when put into similar situations. For example, a comment that appeared below a photo of footballer Ronaldo's latest Armani underwear ad:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/15/cristiano-ronaldo-six-pack-abs

I think what causes women to do it more is men reward physical attractiveness in women more then women reward physical attractiveness in men.

You'll hear a bunch of guys talking about a popular girl and they're usually talking about how hot she his, her great tits or ass.

When you hear women talking about a popular man they will refer to him as handsome or cute but they'll also often compliment good qualities in his personality or income.

So women end up being jealous of good looks whereas men get jealous of "rich ****" mostly

Kimia wrote:

I don't understand your point here. I would imagine that using Cheryl Cole is for peer based source credibility - and it would be actually detrimental to the ad's objectives (to get women to buy the shampoo) if the girls watching the ad were jealous of Cheryl Cole?

Not what I'm saying. That product isn't targeted at men so women don't get jealous of her. If they saw her in a car advertisement in a bikini they probably would.

I still don't believe those women are complaining (and is it just women?) because they are jealous - surely that's just a stock answer and has no basis in truth?

It makes the most sense to me. Otherwise they would be complaining about body lotion advertisements with naked slim women in showers to the same extent as this advertisement. These advertisements objectify women just as much, the only difference is they aren't targeted at men. No significant volume of complaints though. . . can you explain that?

Do you really think women are that b*tchy and that's all that women care about? Please stop using boobs in an ad because it makes me feel bad about myself? If you believe that it seems you have a very low opinion of women..

Maybe some women do - but again I can't believe that the ad got cancelled because of a group of crazed jealous women..

No jealousy is perfectly natural, nothing neccesarily bitchy about it. As I said earlier they probably conciously think they genuinely have a problem with women being objectified. But if that were the only reason for objection they'd be complaining about all the advertisements targeting women which use skinny attractive half naked teenagers/young women, and they're not. That's why I think the root cause is primarily jealousy.

Why are you assuming that it's only jealousy though? So if a man complained about the Aero ad - would you agree that he's only jealous of the naked man? That he has no other reason for complaining?

Yes I would assume it was down to that man being jealous. I assume its only jealousy because these women don't complain about advertisements targeted at women which objectify women.

Fair enough! My point was similar to monkeyfudge - surely they could have gone a bit deeper into the way men think and come up with something a little better, a little cleverer than - yay boobs!!

Meh, the product is fried potatoes with salt and chemicals. Think anyone offended by it is going out of their way

There was a woman on the Last Word the other evening who I thought put it perfectly.

Women have spent years trying to stop the country, the courts, the judges etc from thinking that how a woman looks/what she wears is the reason she was raped. And now, the rape crisis centre is telling us that pictures of women looking hot and "tackling" each other is somehow going to cause men to think it's ok to sexually assault women. So are they now saying that how a woman looks actually does have bearing on rape?

monkeyfudge

Well when the adverts are objectifying a person to where they have the same worth as a bag of crisps I can sort of see where they're coming from.

Bottle_of_Smoke

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Well when the adverts are objectifying a person to where they have the same worth as a bag of crisps I can sort of see where they're coming from.

Sorry . . . what? I only saw one bustop advertisement so far, don't remember "This girl = bag of crisps" being to prominent a message in it.

That's actually a very good point whoopsa, the Irish Rape Crisis network shoudl be hanging their heads in shame

monkeyfudge

It's pure objectification.

I could understand if they used actual sporting athletes in their adverts... but no.

Objectification is very dodgey and I can completely understand how a rape counseling service would be concerned.

Macha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think what causes women to do it more is men reward physical attractiveness in women more then women reward physical attractiveness in men.

I would go a step further and say that it's our society that gives women the message that men judge them mainly on their physical attractiveness and that men are judged on this basis to a lesser degree. I personally don't think that it's necessarily true or inherently natural either way but that's definitely the message that's out there.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

When you hear women talking about a popular man they will refer to him as handsome or cute but they'll also often compliment good qualities in his personality or income.

Yeah umm maybe I move in different circles but I have never heard a group of women, either one that I'm in or anywhere out in town/pub etc talk about a man's income. This is probably because I am from a background whereby I have been taught that I should and am able to provide for myself, whereas historically women were very much dependent on their husband's incomes - it's nothing inherent, just a plain old response to a situation.

Kimia

taconnol wrote: »

Yeah umm maybe I move in different circles but I have never heard a group of women, either one that I'm in or anywhere out in town/pub etc talk about a man's income. This is probably because I am from a background whereby I have been taught that I should and am able to provide for myself, whereas historically women were very much dependent on their husband's incomes - it's nothing inherent, just a plain old response to a situation.

I'm the same Taconnol - I think this women choosing a man based on his income has to be a myth! I've never ever heard anyone female ever using this as criteria to choose to be with someone..

t makes the most sense to me. Otherwise they would be complaining about body lotion advertisements with naked slim women in showers to the same extent as this advertisement. These advertisements objectify women just as much, the only difference is they aren't targeted at men. No significant volume of complaints though. . . can you explain that?

I'll try sure! I don't think that women in advertising for body lotion are using their sexuality to sell that body lotion.. As in, their cleavage isn't on prominent display or they aren't being 'sexualised' or 'objectified' in these ads, and you're right - it's because the target audience would have (presumably) no interest in buying a product because it will make women want to sleep with them. The difference is that women will object to ad exec's using women's bodies in a sexual way to sell stuff.

For example, let's replace 'Hunky Dory and Have you seen my 'Crisps', with 'Clarins body lotion - Have you seen my lotion'. If the woman was in the exact same pose, selling the body lotion, I bet you would have the same amount of complaints.

I'm probably explaining myself very badly here. I as a women don't see those shampoo ads or body lotion ads as objectifying women. The Hunky Dory's ads do. That's why these complainers are annoyed (I imagine), not because they're jealous.

Macha

Kimia wrote: »

I'm the same Taconnol - I think this women choosing a man based on his income has to be a myth! I've never ever heard anyone female ever using this as criteria to choose to be with someone..

I'm sure there are some out there but I think they're the product of their upbringing/social circles/personal circumstances. These things probably vary widely across difference cultures as well. Just as I'm sure that there are quite a few men who do really just judge their partner on looks.

donfers

monkeyfudge wrote: »

It's pure objectification.

I could understand if they used actual sporting athletes in their adverts... but no.

Objectification is very dodgey and I can completely understand how a rape counseling service would be concerned.

wait, hold on a second there...the adverts are pure objectification....get out of town, how dare they!!!

there was me thinking that advertss should allow me to get to know and appreciate the depth and essence and history of somebody/something but then again I'm insane

adverts by their very nature objectify, the whole purpose of advertising is to create brand awareness, to attract new consumers.....not to bloody well befriend us and show us the hidden depths of the product, I have never come across any advert that said "sure if you get to know the product and give it a bit of time, you might like it"...the objectification argument is complete bollox.....it's like giving animals a hard time coz they breathe our air

another argument that is utter cack is the one about the ad meaning Irish males are dimwitted neanderthals coz we see boobs and buy crisps. Absolutely nobody reacts like that, men like attractive female bodies and sports so that creates an awareness. Crisps are crisps, not a hell of a lot of difference between any kind of brand so basically the crisp companies are not wasting their time saying "try out our tasty crisps, we use this special salt that tastes 0.1% different from the salt in taytos, it'll blow your mind...we promise" because that's absolutely pointless, they are instead trying and succeeding in this case of getting exposure for their brand and lots of it. This ad is bold and brazen and unashamedly trying to draw attention to itself and it works...it's not trying to make any sort of connection between the crisps and the women in the ad, it's a bit like those t-shirts or ads that have SEX written in large font at the top and then says now that we've got your attention bla bla bla. I admire the sheer cheek of the ad (no pun intended) yet unsurprisingly the usual hypocrites and idiots take the bait. What is far more insulting to our intelligence is those ads that see a guy choosing a particular type of deodorant or ice-cream or whatever and subsequently he earns a date with a gorgeous gal and is french-kissing her by end of ad = insidious stuff connecting the product to success with women when there is no correlation between them. Hunky dorys know there is no correlation between success with women and eating the crisps but just say...alright lads check out these babes playing rugby-our product is hunky dorys by the way and is far far more honest advertising than so much of the guff out there.

Finally the point about women being valued by society based on their attractiveness, yes it's absolutely true and will remain so for a long time and there are many many valid reasons why it is true relating to trivial petty stuff like fertility and health. In the same way I think it's a complete equivocation to say "well my friends never discussed a guy's income"...they may not have explicitly done so but they say stuff like "he's in a good job" or "has a great career going" which is basically the same thing, again for very valid reasons.

I am always very suspicious of the "blame society" thing as individuals must take responsibility for how they view themselves, anything else is a sign of weakness as the ever-tempting rush to victimhood is yet again apparent

Table Top Joe

Wow...i first heard about this ad about two weeks ago,people are still talking about it?? incredible,great looking women grab mens attention(and clearly womens too)i dont know how anyone can see this as being insulting to mens intelligence,its how we're wired,*shrugs* we like looking at good looking women,i know a lot women wish it wasnt so.....but it is,its gotten "Hunky Dorys" name out there like no other kind of ad would

Interestingly enough the women in these ads look in rude health,far from the stick models used in womens mags and ads aimed at women,but no thanks to Hunky Dorys for that eh?!:D

I dont eat crisps that much but i like Hunky Dorys,arguably my favourite,just felt like sticking up for them since theyre getting a bit of a bashing!

Pherekydes

CDfm wrote: »

But what would you ban next -amy whinehouse,kylie, lilly allen?

Parental advisory lyrics stickers anyone

LOL, CDfm off the point by about 3 miles, as usual.

Yeah, ban them all.

What he said:

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Who said anything about banning?

Pherekydes

CDfm wrote: »

The reasons given by those protesting against the adverts are spurious.

And the reasons for using skimpily-dressed models to sell a product aren't?

CDfm

Pherekydes wrote: »

And the reasons for using skimpily-dressed models to sell a product aren't?

Maybe for the same reason puppies are used in toilet paper ads. What would you have the adds say

The late Michael Jackson and Pepsi ?

Neo-classical artists used a trick ,the undefined source of light ,to draw us into a paintings detail.

Advertisers use images to draw us towards the products packaging so we are familiar with the packaging when we see it on a display stand and pick it up in preference to another brand.

Thats how advertising works -so that men will go phwoar and be familiar with the packaging.

Horseriding ,tennis and abseiling are used to sell what product genre??

CDfm

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a woman on the Last Word the other evening who I thought put it perfectly.

Women have spent years trying to stop the country, the courts, the judges etc from thinking that how a woman looks/what she wears is the reason she was raped. And now, the rape crisis centre is telling us that pictures of women looking hot and "tackling" each other is somehow going to cause men to think it's ok to sexually assault women. So are they now saying that how a woman looks actually does have bearing on rape?

I posted a pamphet from the Feminists for Freedom of Expression in the USA who dispute that line of thinking and say it is not supported by evidence and here is a link

http://www.ffeusa.org/html/statements/statements_pornography.php

Now I am not a fan of the adverts or overtly sexual imagery in selling consumer products like this, I find it offensive that men are labeled potential rapists because of a crisp ad by a womens advocacy group.


So if you are against the advert -let it be for real reasons not makey upey ones.

Bottle_of_Smoke

taconnol wrote: »

I would go a step further and say that it's our society that gives women the message that men judge them mainly on their physical attractiveness and that men are judged on this basis to a lesser degree. I personally don't think that it's necessarily true or inherently natural either way but that's definitely the message that's out there.

Understand the argument. I'd say its more 50/50 on society versus human instinct though, mainly because most guys I know will decide how they see a potential girlfriend based mainly on their physical attractiveness. I can't see us agreeing on this, we've both had our say so probably not worthwhile discussing.

Yeah umm maybe I move in different circles but I have never heard a group of women, either one that I'm in or anywhere out in town/pub etc talk about a man's income. This is probably because I am from a background whereby I have been taught that I should and am able to provide for myself, whereas historically women were very much dependent on their husband's incomes - it's nothing inherent, just a plain old response to a situation.

Not specifically about income details but you do hear women refer to men being wealthy having his own house etc where men will talk about breast size and ass ashape. Again I'd say 50% instinct 50% social conditioning.

Kimia wrote:

I'm the same Taconnol - I think this women choosing a man based on his income has to be a myth! I've never ever heard anyone female ever using this as criteria to choose to be with someone..

Rich men generally get more attractive wives. I guess there's other factors at play but I wouldn't rule it out so casually.

I'll try sure! I don't think that women in advertising for body lotion are using their sexuality to sell that body lotion.. As in, their cleavage isn't on prominent display or they aren't being 'sexualised' or 'objectified' in these ads, and you're right - it's because the target audience would have (presumably) no interest in buying a product because it will make women want to sleep with them. The difference is that women will object to ad exec's using women's bodies in a sexual way to sell stuff.

Well often cleavage is on display, deoderant advertisements they're generally in underwear. They often are sexualised too and pretty much always objectified. Why do you think they're always slim and attractive?
Even if the ones that aren't sexualised its still the basic message of "this girl uses our deoderant/body lotion and look how slim and sexy she is" - its still objectification

For example, let's replace 'Hunky Dory and Have you seen my 'Crisps', with 'Clarins body lotion - Have you seen my lotion'. If the woman was in the exact same pose, selling the body lotion, I bet you would have the same amount of complaints.

I *really* don't think you would.

I'm probably explaining myself very badly here. I as a women don't see those shampoo ads or body lotion ads as objectifying women. The Hunky Dory's ads do. That's why these complainers are annoyed (I imagine), not because they're jealous.

You probably would if the products were aimed at men.

Bottle_of_Smoke

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Objectification is very dodgey and I can completely understand how a rape counseling service would be concerned.

What's dodgy about that argument is you could therefore deduce that a woman dressed in skimpy clothes is objectifying herself and therefore increasing her chances of rape. Yet rape counselling services would never say that, unless they're egyptian:

Nevyn

I objected, got my letter from the ASAI saying my complaint has been registered and accepted and is being investigated, glad I did.

CDfm

I know its a bit off topic.

But Pretty Polly tights are often marketed by billboard campaigns with the longest legs. Or the Radox shower tv ads. So why is it so different when the same type of images are used but targeted towards women or girls as the target demographic.

CDfm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What's dodgy about that argument is you could therefore deduce that a woman dressed in skimpy clothes is objectifying herself and therefore increasing her chances of rape. Yet rape counselling services would never say that, unless they're egyptian:

What concerns me is that claims are being made based on lack of evidence but on taste. If they are being made on the basis of taste lets have it and call it like it is and put in an advertising code that reflects that.

I disagree with the point that a woman in skimpy clothes is asking for it and its a justification used by rapist -a rapist is not influenced by skimply clothes.

What it seems to be is an attempt at a Clean Up TV Campaign for morality etc but called a different name.

Anyone who is not familiar with Mary Whitehouse and her clean up TV campaigns should have a quick squint here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Whitehouse#.22Clean_Up_TV.22_campaigns

And if the cap fits wear it