The Hunky Dory Ads

CDfm

Kooli wrote: »

Ah yes I do see your point. It's hard to advertise tights without showing legs, it's hard to advertise shower gel without showing a body, and it's hard to advertise crisps without...oh wait...

But its images & if its ok to show bums under tights without knickers & wonderbra boobs without offence and last time I watched one the ad didnt say "if you are a man, under 18 or a child under 18-turn away now".So when its a female demographic its Ok -is that it?

Its cherrypicking images and not disagreeing with the image but disagreeing with the context in which its displayed.But you cant filter those images out.Just in the same way if I am in a shopping centre and a woman is wearing micra shorts or a micra skirt can you filter that out.

Lots of women magazines are close to soft porn and some are very explicit. Its like women dressing for other women or size zero superskinny models being used in advertising -which many object as anorexic or even homo-erotic.

While you are at it ban MTV and the pussycat dolls.

An image is an image - ban one and you should ban them all -but do so for reasons of taste or cultural norms or decency -don't do so for bogus reasons that they promote rape which academic studies prove to be untrue. Realize that when you are doing so that you align yourself with ultra right religious groups and lend them legitimacy and theres is the aghenda you support. Thats what happened in the USA.

So how do you know that the spokesperson from the Rape Crisis Centre is not from the all women should cover up and wear a burqua brigade. You dont.


There are lots of images and things I disagree with like the Irish models in shorts and football jerseys everytime an all Ireland is on. Do I want to ban them. No.

cowzerp

The ads are nothing unusual, and nothing to do with intelligence, sure what have crisps got to do with intelligence anyway? nothing-there nutritionally not good for you so if anything there unintelligent!

Sexuality sells and thats the way of the world, for both sexes-jealousy is not the problem here though-its insecurity with themselves.

so due to this pretty or good looking women should have to wear them muslim face masks to appease all the insecure whingers and "bad looking people!"

Im off to buy some funky dorys; or whatever they are!

Nevyn

You can choose to change the channe, you can choose to close the magazine or not read it in the first place, there is not choice with billboards and busstops.

If the ads had been for condoms, I wouldn't have been as perturbed by them
as my son commented They are hunky dorys not humpy dorys.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

You can choose to change the channe, you can choose to close the magazine...

...but apparently us neanderthals can't choose not to rape at the sight of a woman in short shorts.

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

It's insulting.

thirtythirty

If someone finds it offensive, it probably means theyre ugly.

Sure look at that one at the head of the National Women's Council of Ireland who, when challeneged with all the half naked men seen in women's magazines, said "i'm not looking for equality for men, i'm looking for equality for women"......that sentence is so far off making sense it's hilarious! Not only is she ugly, but stupid too. No wonder she's up in arms about these, possibly ireland's most successful marketing campaign yet, harmless, funny ads.

CDfm

Or you can ban the images.

I have a 19 year old son and when he was around 12 his favorite expression was "thats gay" which evolved into" its got the ghey". So one day I'm having lunch with him at Eddie Rockets and he says it and I'm thinkin -well what if Eoin (a gay friend) was around and he said that. So I say to him well how do you know your not and get "well I go up to so and so's house to look at his brothers stash of magazines and I am definiitely not gay." Eoin found it amusing and told me not to be so uptight and the first openly gay person he met was Brian Kennedy at a book signing.

What I am saying is you can't protect children from these images or you end up like Marge Simpson in the Banning Itchy and Scratchy episode. Or king Canute who tried to order the sea to obey -clever man as he wanted to prove that there are limits to what can be done even by a King with divine right.

Its exactly the same here. Same hair,different dog. Censorship and prohibition may be dirty words but life is like that. As ffeusa say

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.

So while I may agree in some way with the argument on taste and decency grounds -I have overriding concerns which I think are more important.

Fox McCloud

I dont think they objectify women. I cant even remember what that means anymore at this stage its thrown at eveything so liberaly.

The angle I dont like is the sports angle. Womens sports in this country are already badly funded and under encouraged in schools and throughout youth. What you have is a volume of young adults who dont get healthy fun excercise for fun, they diet and bla bla bla its all very unhealthy..

Rugby is expanding rapidly in popualrity, as is tag rugby alongside it. For alot of people i know tag rugby and supporting the Irish team have been the first positive sporting experiences they've had since school, perhaps ever. Soccer has this inherent sexism, the "foottie, beer, women" mentality thats maybe kept women away.

And now I see hunky dory bringing some of that attitude to rugby, especially womans rugby. Because thats what it is, its not mens rugby they're portraying, its women playing rugby, so women rugby players should have right to protest it. Its their sport after all.
Its not saying look at these fit women play good rugby, its look at these women, they are sexy and there for mens entertainment, not to enjoy sport.

Nevyn

Zulu wrote: »

...but apparently us neanderthals can't choose not to rape at the sight of a woman in short shorts.

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

It's insulting.

I never said that.

spottyelephant wrote: »

If someone finds it offensive, it probably means theyre ugly.

And that's not insulting?

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

I never said that.

I didn't say you did; I was referring to the complaint made by the rape crisis centre. That said:

Do you disagree, in principle, on the grounds that the complaint was lodged by the rape crisis centre?

And that's not insulting?

Clearly I'm not spottyelephant.

Nevyn

CDfm wrote: »

I have a 19 year old son and when he was around 12 his favorite expression was "thats gay" which evolved into" its got the ghey". So one day I'm having lunch with him at Eddie Rockets and he says it and I'm thinkin -well what if Eoin (a gay friend) was around and he said that. So I say to him well how do you know your not and get "well I go up to so and so's house to look at his brothers stash of magazines and I am definiitely not gay." Eoin found it amusing and told me not to be so uptight and the first openly gay person he met was Brian Kennedy at a book signing.

ah the I have a black friend and he doesn't find me saying nígger offensive :rolleyes:

CDfm wrote: »

What I am saying is you can't protect children from these images or you end up like Marge Simpson in the Banning Itchy and Scratchy episode.

Such images have to be in the right context or else it's sexploitation.
It's that simple.
I also complained about the special K heart bum add posters, they were crap ads as well and sexpoltiation and objectivation and my kids commented on them and how they were 'wrong' and I am far from a prude, and am a very sex positive person and am doing my best to raise the kids to be but it's made tougher with gratuitous images like that.

amacachi

So women are a bag of crisps, puppies are toilet roll and I now have an excuse if I rape a woman. Good to know.

Why are the ads being pulled anyway? Is it not because they're claiming to sponsor Irish Rugby and the IRFU complained?

Nevyn

If the ASAI recieves a certain ammount of complaints they pull the ads, thats how it works.

http://blog.marketing.ie/?p=2856

The ASAI said it made the decision to pull the ads due to the widespread criticism. The IRFU was up in arms about the ads because of the reference to ‘proud sponsor of Irish rugby’ . Largo Foods boss Raymond Coyle defended the use of the line, saying it was a reference to his company’s sponsorship of the Navan rugby team.

ASAI chief executive Frank Goodman said a decision on the complaints it had received would be published later this month. The job of removing the posters was underway and is expected to be completed this week.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

ah the I have a black friend and he doesn't find me saying nígger offensive :rolleyes:

Well I am divorced and he didn't learn it in my house and I dealt with it.

He was a child ffs.

Such images have to be in the right context or else it's sexploitation.
It's that simple.
I also complained about the special K heart bum add posters, they were crap ads as well and sexpoltiation and objectivation and my kids commented on them and how they were 'wrong' and I am far from a prude, and am a very sex positive person and am doing my best to raise the kids to be but it's made tougher with gratuitous images like that.

I disagree on the context issue because where you get context you get censorship as it is very subjective.

I am not saying you are a prude but you cant have rules like you propose without censorship.

Thaedydal

Thaedydal wrote: »

my kids commented on them and how they were 'wrong' and I am far from a prude, and am a very sex positive person and am doing my best to raise the kids to be but it's made tougher with gratuitous images like that.

Kids learn what they are taught. They think the images are wrong because you think they're wrong - that's what you're teaching them.

The argument that "even my kid knows they're wrong" is invalid.

Nevyn

They know themselves that such sexy images tend not to be the norm on billboards and bustops and when they are there is usually a connection to the product, like radox, it's not primarily a sexy image is an image of a person having a shower using the product.

For me it's about consent and context rather then censorship.

thirtythirty

For me, it's about tits, ass, and crisps.

WindSock

spottyelephant wrote: »

For me, it's about tits, ass, and crisps.

But for the rest of us who don't, we are all ugly?

I have to agree with whoopsydaisy regarding the rape org getting uppity about this ad. It is bloody idiotic to say that sexily clad women on billboards encourage rape.
Perhaps sexual harrasment to some degree, as in a group of lads standing around saying 'show us your crisps, hur de hur' or something, but rape is a bit different to that now.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

They know themselves that such sexy images tend not to be the norm on billboards and bustops and when they are there is usually a connection to the product, like radox, it's not primarily a sexy image is an image of a person having a shower using the product.

For me it's about consent and context rather then censorship.

A naked woman working up a lather in the shower isn't sexy now? Since when?

I've seen more porn with a woman in the shower, than I have of women playing rugby.

Maguined

I wonder how happy those people who are offended by men "objectifying" women in these adds would be if suddenly tomorrow every man woke up and no longer "objectified" women, no longer wanted to look at attractive women?

I think they would not be so happy receiving far less attention from their partners or no longer ever received attention from future suitors etc.

Kooli

CDfm wrote: »

But its images & if its ok to show bums under tights without knickers & wonderbra boobs without offence and last time I watched one the ad didnt say "if you are a man, under 18 or a child under 18-turn away now".So when its a female demographic its Ok -is that it?

It's not OK just because it's a female demographic. It's OK because it's a completely different type of picture, with a completely different aim.

I'd also compare these ads to all those 'Irish Models' shoots where they are standing in a bikini on street pointing to a bike, or whatever represents whatever event they are supposedly advertising.

Nudity, bums, boobs - none of these things in themselves are offensive. But in circumstances such as these (which, yes, are targetted at men), these women are nothing but a pair of legs or tits, who are presenting a cartoon version of sexuality to men that has nothing to do with what is being advertised, and that plays into the laddish, chauvinistic culture that sees women as sex objects.

When I see a half naked woman in a radox ad or a Dior ad I don't think 'Wow, she is really a sex object there'. When I look at the hunky dory ads I do. I don't understand why that would be seen as jealousy? It's all nekkidness right? But the message, the underlying tone of the ads is different.

The hunky dory ads have nothing intelligent about them, nothing unique, clever, or original. They are a throwback to a stupider time, they are unimaginitive and they are degrading. That's how I feel when I look at them. I'm sure it is more convenient to dismiss that feeling as one of jealousy. Just like the RCC's comments have made it easy to dismiss anyone's reasonable objections to the ads.

Kooli

Maguined wrote: »

I wonder how happy those people who are offended by men "objectifying" women in these adds would be if suddenly tomorrow every man woke up and no longer "objectified" women, no longer wanted to look at attractive women?

I think they would not be so happy receiving far less attention from their partners or no longer ever received attention from future suitors etc.

I'm not sure you know what 'objectification' means? Because there are few women I know who would NOT be happy to wake up in a world where it didn't happen anymore.

You can appreciate attractiveness in women without objectifying them. Most men I know do.

PopUp

WindSock wrote: »

It is bloody idiotic to say that sexily clad women on billboards encourage rape.

For what it's worth, they didn't actually say this. Here is a link to their actual statement.

They do object to the scantily clad women because they are 'objectifying' but not because they 'encourage rape'. Rape is mentioned in connection with just one ad in particular, which featured a scantily clad woman with the phrase 'tackle this'.

Fiona Neary, RCNI Director said, ‘these posters are sending messages out that may condone and may even have the effect of encouraging unsafe actions. The RCNI have grave reservations about a call to action to ‘tackle this’ against the backdrop of a scantily clad woman who is already having her skimpy pants ripped off her. These posters add to attitudes and behaviours that make Ireland a place where the casual and everyday sexual assault of women is permitted and unchallenged.

I don't agree with them - I don't think 'tackle' was supposed to suggest violence - but it's a substantially different point to the one that people huffing about 'hysterical man-hating feminists, they're all ugly hur hur hur' are accusing them of.

Also from what I can tell the Rape Crisis centre did not kick off this controversy, all their statements seem to be from some days after the story first broke. Bizarre that they are getting flack for 'censorship' when all they are doing is responding to journalists questions and it was (according to the Irish Times) a combination of 'Twitter' and hundreds of individual complaints that actually kicked off the controversy.

Carlos_Ray

Thaedydal wrote: »

They know themselves that such sexy images tend not to be the norm on billboards and bustops and when they are there is usually a connection to the product, like radox, it's not primarily a sexy image is an image of a person having a shower using the product.

For me it's about consent and context rather then censorship.

I don't agree at all. There are numerous adverts that use men in ( often in a context totally unrelated) to sell products to women.

The Aero ad with the model parading around naked is one that springs to mind. I didn't hear one woman complain about that (which was also on billboards)

Also there are many other ads that coould be seen as "degrading" to men. The malteser ad, for example, when the girls place thier sleeping boyfriends on top of each other for a laugh. Can you imagine the feminist outcry if it was the other way around??

Men in ads are portrayed in usually two ways, really sexy, or stupid. We don't complain. Anyone who confuses adverts with real life... need help.

The hunky Dory adverts are the same....sexy women selling products to men. Big deal. Thats marketing.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Kooli wrote: »

It's not OK just because it's a female demographic. It's OK because it's a completely different type of picture, with a completely different aim.

The aim doesn't matter. The end result is exactly the same.

Nudity, bums, boobs - none of these things in themselves are offensive. But in circumstances such as these (which, yes, are targetted at men), these women are nothing but a pair of legs or tits, who are presenting a cartoon version of sexuality to men that has nothing to do with what is being advertised, and that plays into the laddish, chauvinistic culture that sees women as sex objects.

And guess what... men know its a cartoon. We know normal women don't look like this, we see hundreds every day. The idea that a man would think women should look like that because of one poster compared to the hundreds of normal women in all different shapes and sizes every day is bloody ludicrous.

When I see a half naked woman in a radox ad or a Dior ad I don't think 'Wow, she is really a sex object there'. When I look at the hunky dory ads I do. I don't understand why that would be seen as jealousy? It's all nekkidness right? But the message, the underlying tone of the ads is different.

One doesn't see it that way because it isn't targeted at men, if it is targeted at men one fear's men will compare them to oneself. Advertising seeks to make you think the people in them are part of your world, but in reality they're not and the efect wears off when the advertisement is over.

The hunky dory ads have nothing intelligent about them, nothing unique, clever, or original. They are a throwback to a stupider time, they are unimaginitive and they are degrading. That's how I feel when I look at them. I'm sure it is more convenient to dismiss that feeling as one of jealousy. Just like the RCC's comments have made it easy to dismiss anyone's reasonable objections to the ads.

When do advertisements have to be intelligent, imaginative, unique or original to avoid being banned? Why even mention that?

Maguined

I know what objectification means but the reason i put it in quotes in my post is that i do not see these ads as being about that, where do you draw the line between simply admiring the female form and putting forward the idea that men like the female form and the female form purely being a tool for sexual gratification?

When i look at those ads i dont think if i buy a packet of crips that i will get to use that woman or any other woman as my personal tool for sexual gratification, i look at the ads and think to myself "yes that is an attractive woman, she is pretty" so i dont think i or most men are objectifying the women in these adds but merely appreciating the female form.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Fiona Neary, RCNI Director said, ‘these posters are sending messages out that may condone and may even have the effect of encouraging unsafe actions. The RCNI have grave reservations about a call to action to ‘tackle this’ against the backdrop of a scantily clad woman who is already having her skimpy pants ripped off her. These posters add to attitudes and behaviours that make Ireland a place where the casual and everyday sexual assault of women is permitted and unchallenged.

That is saying the advertisement encourages sexual violence or rape. Not directly but you know that's what she means. Reminds me of Gerry Adams making indirect statements about the IRA!

PopUp

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That is saying the advertisement encourages sexual violence or rape. Not directly but you know that's what she means. Reminds me of Gerry Adams making indirect statements about the IRA!

Sure, my point is just that a lot of posters seem to be under the impression that they said showing men boobs turns them into rapists. Whereas in reality they are objecting to what they see as implicit violence in just one of the ads. And while I don't agree with them, I can see how if I spent all day working with people who really had been beaten to the ground and stripped of their clothes, I wouldn't see the funny side of inviting people to 'tackle' a girl who's having her knickers ripped off her.

Zulu

PopUp wrote: »

...inviting people to 'tackle' a girl ....

Of course you know they are talking about crisps & not the girl, right?
There is no invitation to...
...never mind. :rolleyes:

Kooli

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

if it is targeted at men one fear's men will compare them to oneself. Advertising seeks to make you think the people in them are part of your world, but in reality they're not and the efect wears off when the advertisement is over.

I'm not sure what you're saying here - that I actually AM jealous? That I'm worried men will see me and think I don't measure up?

I'm not worried about the direct consequences on any individual, or perpetrated by any individual, of this ad.

My objection is that it contributes to a culture of laddish, sexist chauvinism that I am not comfortable with, and that belongs in the past. A culture that uses women as objects for men to leer at, and that does not take them seriously.

I'm not stupid enough to think that any individual man is going to go out and rape because of this. I'm not stupid enough to think that any man is going to look from the poster to me and think 'No thanks love, you look nothing like her'. It's not as simplistic about that. It's about the bigger picture, and how we see women.

PopUp

Zulu wrote: »

Of course you know they are talking about crisps & not the girl, right?
There is no invitation to...
...never mind. :rolleyes:

And of course you know that they were at no point suggesting that male "neanderthals can't choose not to rape at the sight of a woman in short shorts", right?

Or were you just leaping to take offense without actually reading what they'd said?