The Hunky Dory Ads

Khannie

Coming to this late and haven't read the whole thread yet.

I like them. Eye candy. Same way I like looking at a pretty lady on my walk to work. I would have no problem with an equivalent male ad. I want hunky dorys now.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

Morning CDfm

I do not condone the comments by the Rape Crisis Centre or Kate Moss and I do not have to do so, in order to have a problem with the adverts.

Morning Taco

I wasnt being smart because I too think that in some aspects the ads were OTT and do have probs with a lot of promotions. Father of teenage daughter and all that.

I mean it is a jump from Mr Tayto.

But from the other side there needs to be a clear line drawn.

Is part of the shock that it is Largo Foods,an Irish Company, and they are nice people and years ago me and the kids went to see the Herd of Buffalo there

http://www.shelflife.ie/article.aspx?id=248

We had an invite from his wife who runs or ran a home heating oil business and drove a tanker. Nice people.

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

Well, I'm glad we're all clear that it's merely an opinion of yours backed up with no evidence at all.

I always said it was an opinion/observation taconnol. It's backed up by evidence (granted anecdotal) but it's more than you've offered to dismiss it.
But by all means - dismiss my opinion, I wouldn't expect anything less*.

On what grounds do you say that?

You have no interest in considering my position; you have shown absolutly no evidence to the contrary. You've dismissed my point, that, the majority of society aren't offended, because you feel it weakens your standing, but not only have you dismissed it - you've completely refused to even consider the point. You've simply clamored for evidence.

I could do the same: prove the majority of people were offended - but it's pointless and doesn't really promote rational discussion.

I honestly don't know - nobody does..

I asked what you believed.

Do you believe that the majority of our society was offended?

But I really don't consider the fact central to whether the advert is degrading

Nice avoidance!
You do consider it central to dismissing my point entirely though.




*Feminism clearly has no intest in the opinions of men. It strives for a "equality" by only considering one half of the equation, does it not?

CDfm

@Zulu - I dont think you could accuse Taco of only considering one side of the equation. A bit of an egalitarian & I think she may be a closet mens activist myself. :cool:

Bottle_of_Smoke

taconnol wrote: »

You're also brought up in a society that basically expects you to do so. Women are just as much interested in men physically as men are in women physically.


You already seem to have done a good job of internalising socially constructed messages, as above.

What are you talking about? When have I been "expected by society" to leer and objectify women?

And what has the women being interested in men physically got to do with anything? Clutching at straws to be honest.

Zulu

Here's food for thought: would these images have caused the same controversy?





They are, after all, wearing less clothes!

Macha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What are you talking about? When have I been "expected by society" to leer and objectify women?

Images like those in the Hunky Dory adverts normalise the pervasiveness of sexualised images of young women in public and encourage men to look at them - quite obviously. When the CEO of Largo said he wanted to inject a bit of fun, he really meant a bit of fun for heterosexual men.

You said yourself a few posts back "Men are going to leer at women until humans die out. We're programmed to do it." Now if that isn't the internalisation of a message perpetuated by our media, I don't know what is.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

And what has the women being interested in men physically got to do with anything? Clutching at straws to be honest.

Because if, as a society, we fully acknowledged that women are just as interested in men physically as vice versa, there would be far more equality in terms of the sort of images of women as portrayed in the Hunky Dory ads. That is a large part of my issue with the ads, as part of a general trend.

Zulu - funny you should bring up Volleyball and I note you felt it necessary to include photos, as if words could not have conveyed the same concept. Anyway, the regulations in Beach Volleyball require women to wear these tight uniforms while at the same time obliging men to wear loose clothing. This has provoked complaints by female athletes and commentators about the intentions of the FIVB.

rjb80

Good god, some of these complaints to the ads are so infantile I couldn't be bothered to argue them.

Personally I think it's best to stick to the occam's razor (not sure if i got that correct) theory that the simplest explanation is correct and put simply a lot of women are put out because us men got a cheap thrill outta these ads. Get over it.

And if I was to continue with the occam's razor thing, can I just ask why all the blokes stop posting after zulu posted those volleyball pics?

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

he really meant a bit of fun for heterosexual men.

...according to you. What give you the right to speak on behalf of him?

Now if that isn't the internalisation of a message perpetuated by our media, I don't know what is.

Oh, you think in a world devoid of the media, men wouldn't leer at women? Interesting.
Personally I think that's utter tosh; I think men are programmed by nature to leer at women - it's a fundamental principle of nature as a whole.

...would be far more equality in terms of the sort of images of women as portrayed in the Hunky Dory ads.

Yes, indeed, we all look forward to the day adds like this exist:




Oh wait - they already exist.

Zulu - funny you should bring up Volleyball...

taconnol funny you should ignore the salient point from my other post. I feel I deserve an answer as you attempted to completely dismiss my point, avoid the discussion & only further your own agenda.

Will you answer my question:
Do you believe that the majority of our society was offended?

I note you felt it necessary to include photos, as if words could not have conveyed the same concept

Yup, you clamored so hard for proof at my previous point(s) I felt I needed to provide evidence before making the "wearing less clothes" comment.

Also, the photos closly mimic the poses in the hunky dorey adds.

CDfm

On a related issue. Here is an article on the portrayal of women in sport that is reasonably balanced.

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/ISOR/ISOR2002za.pdf

Now I looked for viewing figures of womens beach volleyball by gender and couldn't find them. Lots of times I don't watch womens sports as they are not as competitive or as fast as the men. Even skimpy costumes wouldnt drag me to Croke Park for the Womens All Ireland Football. No interest.

And here is a link to an article of British athletes of both genders posing nude for the camera

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/04/britains-olympic-athletes_n_116799.html

So we have to ask ourselves is the sexualisation of sport etc part of modern sport. I often find the underage female gymnasts just a little bit creepy.

That would have been unheard of before. I wonder if the GAA have rules on it.

Maguined

taconnol wrote: »

Because if, as a society, we fully acknowledged that women are just as interested in men physically as vice versa, there would be far more equality in terms of the sort of images of women as portrayed in the Hunky Dory ads. That is a large part of my issue with the ads, as part of a general trend.

How so? if womens magazines had more pictures of fit attractive men on them then it would legitimise the hunky dory adds?

Hunky Dory's is a private company, the onus is on them to think of advertisements that will garner as much attention as possible, they are not responsible nor should they be to focus their adds on what is "equal and fair" compared to their competitors advertisements.

donfers

taconnol wrote: »

Moreover, there are some people, including women, who don't see what the fuss is about because they haven't thought about it. I spoke to a few women who at first didn't understand why I was annoyed but after I spoke to them about the issues, they understood. Not everybody thinks about the messages in the media and the wider impact that they have.

So basically they weren't offended until they were told why they should be offended.

And that is feminism in a nutshell.

Seek offense and ye shall find.

Example: I have been working in my current company for three years. At reception there are security staff. One of them is a middle-eaged blonde woman, almost every time I enter she asks me to produce ID. The other staff seem to have the faculty of facial recognition and don't ask me. Today as I was walking in she started to speak but before any discernible word came out of her mouth I just flashed the card, she nodded and I proceeded on my way. I find it comical now. I am not angry or upset or put out by this, I know she is just doing her job. However I could choose to interpret it as her attempt to demean me, to signify I am unwelcome in this female dominated company, to emasculate me, to gain some sort of control or authority over the few male figures she encounters that work here etc etc etc...I could go on and on here. But you know what, I don't think like that (I just think she's a bit simple and a bit of a jobsworth). I think many feminists choose to think like that however and it is the easiest thing in the world to find offense if you are actively looking for it especially when you have some agenda in mind that the perceived offense will help to promote. Not everybody or everything is out to get you but if you want to see that then you will, however it makes for very very bitter people. Just accept the simple truth that some people think differently than you, that's all, and all the bad and evil things you may see, well sometimes they're not really there and sometimes they tell us a lot more about you than them.

cowzerp

Taconnal you are officially owned, well played sir.

Zulu wrote: »

...according to you. What give you the right to speak on behalf of him?
Oh, you think in a world devoid of the media, men wouldn't leer at women? Interesting.
Personally I think that's utter tosh; I think men are programmed by nature to leer at women - it's a fundamental principle of nature as a whole.

Yes, indeed, we all look forward to the day adds like this exist:




Oh wait - they already exist.

taconnol funny you should ignore the salient point from my other post. I feel I deserve an answer as you attempted to completely dismiss my point, avoid the discussion & only further your own agenda.

Will you answer my question:
Do you believe that the majority of our society was offended?

Yup, you clamored so hard for proof at my previous point(s) I felt I needed to provide evidence before making the "wearing less clothes" comment.

Also, the photos closly mimic the poses in the hunky dorey adds.

Kooli

donfers wrote: »

So basically they weren't offended until they were told why they should be offended.

And that is feminism in a nutshell.

Seek offense and ye shall find.

That's one way of looking at it.

But another is that if something like the over-sexualisation and objectification of women is very normalised and common in society, it can just become 'white noise' and people forget to question it.

I had the same response when I first heard people arguing about lads mags with topless girls fondling each other being so visible in your local newsagent. My first response was 'Hmmmm, is that really a problem?' and then I thought about it and my second response was 'WOW how have I become so IMMUNE to this that I've stopped reacting to it!!'

I would never deny though that there are some feminists who over-interpret the effect of their gender on everything and everyone, and become offended too easily. It's like the stereotype of the angry black man who greets every slight with 'Is it because I'm black?'. Does no one any favours.

Macha

Zulu wrote: »

...according to you. What give you the right to speak on behalf of him?

Are you suggesting that the ads were aimed at women?

Zulu wrote: »

Oh, you think in a world devoid of the media, men wouldn't leer at women? Interesting.

Did I say that?

Zulu wrote: »

Personally I think that's utter tosh; I think men are programmed by nature to leer at women - it's a fundamental principle of nature as a whole.

So you don't see any link between the fact that, for example in Egypt women are constantly harassed by men in the streets who view it as their right to leer at and feel up women? Yet that doesn't happen in Ireland?

Zulu wrote: »

Oh wait - they already exist.

Congratulations on picking out the few male examples. The fact remains that sexualised images of women in the media far outweigh those of men. Open up a copy of the Metro or the SUnday Times and count

Zulu wrote: »

taconnol funny you should ignore the salient point from my other post. I feel I deserve an answer as you attempted to completely dismiss my point, avoid the discussion & only further your own agenda.

Is it salient? Explain why it is salient. You are such an aggressive debater. It is entirely unnecessary. And I have already answered your question but you're so busy being aggressive, you didn't notice.

Zulu wrote: »

Yup, you clamored so hard for proof at my previous point(s) I felt I needed to provide evidence before making the "wearing less clothes" comment.

What a pathetic comment. The two points have zero relation.

Maguined wrote: »

How so? if womens magazines had more pictures of fit attractive men on them then it would legitimise the hunky dory adds?

Partly.

Maguined wrote: »

Hunky Dory's is a private company, the onus is on them to think of advertisements that will garner as much attention as possible, they are not responsible nor should they be to focus their adds on what is "equal and fair" compared to their competitors advertisements.

Advertising sends out messages to society and as such, companies involved in advertising bear a responsibility for their adverts. Do we allow gratuitous violence in our adverts? No we don't.

donfers wrote: »

So basically they weren't offended until they were told why they should be offended.

And that is feminism in a nutshell.

Seek offense and ye shall find..

Oh what utter rubbish. A person cannot be educated to recognise trends that they viewed as natural but that are actually part of social constructions?

According to your logic, women who live in terrible conditions in Saudi Arabia are fine as long as they are ignorant of how bad their position is.

I'll remember these comments next time AH get a 100+page thread on the latest version of 'he drives, she dies'.

Kooli

As for those half-naked men ads - I don't think ANYONE here was claiming that they don't exist, but if anyone claims they exist in numbers anywhere CLOSE to ads featuring half-naked women, then they are lying or deluded.

I do find myself wondering how hard you had to search for them, as very few of them are extremely familiar (to me anyway, except the Beckham one). But if you were to search for ads with half-naked women or women in sexually suggestive poses, you would be able to find 10 times the number, and most of them would be ads we've all seen a million times.

CDfm

Ah come on lads - why all pick on Taco.

She has a point about them being a bit OTT and fair enough she has tackled the issue without relying on silly arguments.

The image is a bit provocative for a billboard as are the male equivalents.

A few years back I had an issue with the Anti Vivesection Peoples Campaign accross from Trinity as its poster displays were eye level for a small child.

Now maybe, for Hunky Dory to compete for ad space/attention they need a campaign like they have.

Walls

Not everyone is going to see the same thing in these adverts. But some men are, while not agreeing, at least open to understanding why these would be a problem for women.

Below is a link to a Feminist Website, that explores the power advertising has, and explains some of the objections that exist to these images. The original link is about Photoshopped Women's bodies, but it is also useful to understand the concerns of women's bodies are used in general.

http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2010/05/11/photoshopped-reality-the-damaging-impact-of-phony-images-of-women-in-advertisements/

donfers

taconnol wrote: »

Oh what utter rubbish. A person cannot be educated to recognise trends that they viewed as natural but that are actually part of social constructions?

According to your logic, women who live in terrible conditions in Saudi Arabia are fine as long as they are ignorant of how bad their position is.

I'll remember these comments next time AH get a 100+page thread on the latest version of 'he drives, she dies'.

Seems like you're losing the head a little bit, you accuse Zulu of being an aggressive poster when he's just debating the issues with you quite rationally and calmly and then you in the same post call my comments utter rubbish.

Advertising exists everywhere, we live in a Capitalist world, it's all about selling stuff and attracting consumers. Men are attracted to hot women like the ones in the ads. You may think it's all a big conspiracy to demean women, to "objectify" them (advertising objectifies everything by the way), to make them feel worthless. You can certainly make a case for that but it's fallacious, it's all about selling stuff and in this case it happens to be crisps. If you want to feel bad about the ads as a woman and if you want to tell the other poor uninformed numbed dimwitted clueless "can't think for themselves" women out there about how nasty and sexist and evil the crisp ads are then feel free, but really the agenda here is selling crisps using sexy women - that's it. Men will always be attracted to attractive women. Advertisers will always focus on superficial imagery (it's how it works) and capitalism will always make people try to buy stuff. If you want to change all that, go right ahead...but if you want to morph those universal facts into some kind of conspiracy by a crisp company to say rape's ok and womens' only value is in their looks then I've got a problem with that.

Incidentally the reference to Saudi Arabia not my logic at all but thanks for speaking on my behalf nonetheless. Your analogy not only compares the treatment of Saudi Arabian women to the crisp ads here, it also suggests that they aren't aware they are being oppressed - again mindboggling stuff.

Really you are insulting your gender here (with regard to the comment about you opening other womens' eyes) far more than any crisp ad ever could.

Maguined

taconnol wrote: »

Partly.

Advertising sends out messages to society and as such, companies involved in advertising bear a responsibility for their adverts. Do we allow gratuitous violence in our adverts? No we don't.

Partly? but do you not agree that men and women are attracted to traits on a different scale? I am not suggesting that women are not attracted to mens physical appearance but would you not agree that in general men would place more emphasis on a females physical attractiveness than women place on mens? if you agree than it makes complete sense that there are more ads out there with sexualised images of women than there are men. Also from the product itself, I have no proper data to make this claim but I would guess that more men than women buy crisps so it would make sense for Hunky Dory to make ads to appeal to their target market just as it makes complete sense for Diet Coke to target their ads towards women, plenty of men drink it but their market is probably dominated by more women.

True society has a responsibility to censor what is considered inappropriate for public displays and so extreme violence is banned but do you really consider those odds to be extreme objectification? there are plenty of magazines and other media that will display violent images, its only the extremely violent ones that are restricted, if i watch tv i can watch two men beating the hell out of each other in an action show, its only if the violence is very severe that they will have that show after the watershed but there is still plenty of violence on tv before then. These ads are sexualised images of women yes, but I would definitely not consider them extremely or severely sexualised images of women, if they were tv commercials i definitely would not class them as after the watershed material. I would actually consider them quite tame compared to many of the other commercials out there, does anyone remember the ad for shampoo with the woman enjoying the shampoo so much she is screaming in a sexualised orgasmic tone? The girl getting a bottle of sprite zero with the camera watching her so she slowly takes her top off and throws it at the camera? The tanning salons around dublin wit ha poster of a woman in a thong and an epic amount of side boob on display? even the vast majority of womens shampoo, lotion, leg shaving ads i would consider far more sexualised as they are showing far more naked female flesh on display than these Hunky Dory ads.

I honestly believe because most of those other ads were aimed at women then it becomes "okay" in the eyes of women, but because the Hunky Dory ads were aimed at men that it suddenly becomes offensive to women and that comes across as sexist to me as it is basically saying "its okay when we do it!".

CDfm

I suppose its all down to showing a bit of T&A and women get nervous.

Maybe its cultural norms instilled by mothers,grannies or nuns or maybe its jealousy or insecurity.

I don't paticularily fancy watching Becks Keks on the back of a bus or some guys arse on a billboard. It doesnt make me feel threatened though.

So its down to the essential issue -how suggestive do we want our advertising and what goes over the mark. Bare in mind when you regulate you do so to the lowest common denominator and it will affect both genders.

Bottle_of_Smoke

taconnol wrote: »

Images like those in the Hunky Dory adverts normalise the pervasiveness of sexualised images of young women in public and encourage men to look at them - quite obviously. When the CEO of Largo said he wanted to inject a bit of fun, he really meant a bit of fun for heterosexual men.

You really believe that? He didn't want to inject a bit of fun for anyone. He wanted to sell his product

You said yourself a few posts back "Men are going to leer at women until humans die out. We're programmed to do it." Now if that isn't the internalisation of a message perpetuated by our media, I don't know what is.

No its really not. I've read many books about evolution from Dawkins, Robert Winston and college text books because my course falls within the biomedical field.

Women with youthful sexual features catch men's attention which leads to leering because natural selection has favoured men who are drawn to youthful sexual women(that doesn't for a second mean its acceptable in our society by the way) It's not perpetuated by the media or advertisements, the media and advertisments are taking advantage of that instinct to sell their products.

Just as McDonalds take advantage of the human instinct to crave high-fat, high-sugar foods rather than make the public want them

You pick and choose points in my posts you think are wrong but ignore the parts you know you can't argue with. You seem to just really want to believe society/the media has exclusively shaped attitudes of people.

Because if, as a society, we fully acknowledged that women are just as interested in men physically as vice versa, there would be far more equality in terms of the sort of images of women as portrayed in the Hunky Dory ads. That is a large part of my issue with the ads, as part of a general trend.

If that were true advertising companies and the media would be taking advantage of it. They do on the other hand make use of the confident, mature, rich, charming and funny guys in advertising and films/tv shows targeted at women. Of course they use handsome guys too but not in such an overtly sexual way as young women are used.

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the ads were aimed at women?

Can you prove they weren't? You see you're approach (which I've adopted here to prove my point) isn't very conductive to a discussion. Now I could accept your point and move on, but you didn't extend that courtosy to me.

Is it salient? Explain why it is salient. You are such an aggressive debater. It is entirely unnecessary. And I have already answered your question but you're so busy being aggressive, you didn't notice.

Hummmm, you're being very dishonest. Lets quickly recap: I made an observation, which you disregarded instantly without considering the salient point. I asked you a simple question, which you continue to avoid (as, conviently it means you can't so readily disregard my origional observation).
...and because I've persued this clarification when the genuine intention of vindicating my origional observation, I'm "aggressive"!?!

I'm going to ask you again; I deserve an answer: Do you believe that the majority of our society was offended? Yes or no.

What a pathetic comment.

What's pathetic is you crying victim now I've pointed out the folly of your instant dismissal of my point.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Kooli wrote: »

As for those half-naked men ads - I don't think ANYONE here was claiming that they don't exist, but if anyone claims they exist in numbers anywhere CLOSE to ads featuring half-naked women, then they are lying or deluded.

I do find myself wondering how hard you had to search for them, as very few of them are extremely familiar (to me anyway, except the Beckham one). But if you were to search for ads with half-naked women or women in sexually suggestive poses, you would be able to find 10 times the number, and most of them would be ads we've all seen a million times.

Of course there's more of women. This doesn't mean they're somehow changing attitudes toward women though. You see more sexualised hot women in advertisements but at the same time you're seeing hundreds of normal women every day too. Why would someone think the advertisements are normal women when 99% of women don't look that way?

As pointed out it is pure capitalism.

Macha

donfers wrote: »

Seems like you're losing the head a little bit, you accuse Zulu of being an aggressive poster when he's just debating the issues with you quite rationally and calmly and then you in the same post call my comments utter rubbish.

Zulu is not debating calmly at all and his points are less than rational. He is asking me the same question over and over despite me answering it with more than a liberal usage of bolding and underlining his posts. Perhaps my vocabulary was too strong so apologies for that.

donfers wrote: »

Advertising exists everywhere, we live in a Capitalist world, it's all about selling stuff and attracting consumers. Men are attracted to hot women like the ones in the ads. You may think it's all a big conspiracy to demean women, to "objectify" them (advertising objectifies everything by the way), to make them feel worthless. You can certainly make a case for that but it's fallacious, it's all about selling stuff and in this case it happens to be crisps. If you want to feel bad about the ads as a woman and if you want to tell the other poor uninformed numbed dimwitted clueless "can't think for themselves" women out there about how nasty and sexist and evil the crisp ads are then feel free, but really the agenda here is selling crisps using sexy women - that's it. Men will always be attracted to attractive women. Advertisers will always focus on superficial imagery (it's how it works) and capitalism will always make people try to buy stuff. If you want to change all that, go right ahead...but if you want to morph those universal facts into some kind of conspiracy by a crisp company to say rape's ok and womens' only value is in their looks then I've got a problem with that.

If I had a euro for every time someone in here states that men are attracted to women. I never said they weren't. But if we accept that women are just as attracted to men physically, then according to your logic there should be just as many sexualised pictures of men in adverts. This is clearly not the case.

You misrepresent my argument about discussing the issue with other women - why on earth should I not to talk to them about it? I can present my side of the argument and they can either chose to agree or disagree. No one is calling them dimwitted here but you, as in your above post.

I have already distanced myself from the rape comments and your attempt to use them against me is disingenuous.

donfers wrote: »

Incidentally the reference to Saudi Arabia not my logic at all but thanks for speaking on my behalf nonetheless. Your analogy not only compares the treatment of Saudi Arabian women to the crisp ads here, it also suggests that they aren't aware they are being oppressed - again mindboggling stuff.

This is getting ridiculous. I did not compare the two in the way that you falsely suggest. And having lived in Saudi Arabia for five years, I can tell you there is a lot of female compliance and reinforcement of gender discrimination. It happens all around the world.

donfers wrote: »

Really you are insulting your gender here (with regard to the comment about you opening other womens' eyes) far more than any crisp ad ever could.

That is totally inaccurate, as I have demonstrated above. You falsely accuse me of calling other women dimwitted and then use that fabricated accusation to come to the above conclusion. It's easy to win arguments when you misrepresent what the other person actually said.

Maguined wrote: »

Partly? but do you not agree that men and women are attracted to traits on a different scale? I am not suggesting that women are not attracted to mens physical appearance but would you not agree that in general men would place more emphasis on a females physical attractiveness than women place on mens?

No I don't agree that men place more emphasis on physical attractiveness than women. I think men like to think this is the case but I've seen very little evidence for it, other than general messages from the media that it is the truth.

In fact, a study carried out in the US (And discussed by Malcom Gladwell in his book 'Blink' asked men and women to list traits of the opposite sex in order of preference consciously. Men put attractiveness first and women put sense of humour. But when the preferences were tested subconsciously, women also put physical attractiveness first. Men and women are both told that physical attractiveness is more important for men and their decisions can be impacted by that. It doesn't change the fact that in reality, both genders have it at the top of their list.

Maguined wrote: »

Also from the product itself, I have no proper data to make this claim but I would guess that more men than women buy crisps so it would make sense for Hunky Dory to make ads to appeal to their target market just as it makes complete sense for Diet Coke to target their ads towards women, plenty of men drink it but their market is probably dominated by more women.

Yes but you see women are used to sell things to women AND men. So we end up with a media saturated with sexualised images mainly of women. Just go to today's copy of the Metro and flick through it. There is one sexualised image of a man and EIGHT women!:

http://e-edition.metroherald.ie/2010/05/13/

Maguined wrote: »

I honestly believe because most of those other ads were aimed at women then it becomes "okay" in the eyes of women, but because the Hunky Dory ads were aimed at men that it suddenly becomes offensive to women and that comes across as sexist to me as it is basically saying "its okay when we do it!".

I see your point but I would have an issue with the wider prevalence of these images so would not agree with the opinions your set out for women above. I don't particularly have a problem with nudity but I do have a problem with advertising when it is mainly only one gender, when the use of nudity is mainly gratuitous and when it mainly portrays images of women that are totally impossible to achieve. Research has shown that these images have far more of a negative effect on youth (male and female) when the youth do not have access to images of normal bodies. For example, these images do not cause such problems among self esteem in youth in Spain where nudist beaches are common and young people can see what normal people actually look like.

Macha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Women with youthful sexual features catch men's attention which leads to leering because natural selection has favoured men who are drawn to youthful sexual women(that doesn't for a second mean its acceptable in our society by the way) It's not perpetuated by the media or advertisements, the media and advertisments are taking advantage of that instinct to sell their products.

And you don't think that the same is true for women?

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You pick and choose points in my posts you think are wrong but ignore the parts you know you can't argue with. You seem to just really want to believe society/the media has exclusively shaped attitudes of people.

For example, what parts have I ignored? I could equally say that you seem to just really want to believe that the current social constructions in our media are totally natural.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

If that were true advertising companies and the media would be taking advantage of it. They do on the other hand make use of the confident, mature, rich, charming and funny guys in advertising and films/tv shows targeted at women. Of course they use handsome guys too but not in such an overtly sexual way as young women are used.

Well, things are changing as companies realise that money made off of men's insecurities is just the same as money made off of women's insecurities.

Zulu wrote: »

Can you prove they weren't? You see you're approach (which I've adopted here to prove my point) isn't very conductive to a discussion. Now I could accept your point and move on, but you didn't extend that courtosy to me.

You really think that these ads were aimed at women? I'm not going to just accept your opinion on blind faith if it doesn't make sense to me. Courtesy has got nothing to do with it.

Zulu wrote: »

Hummmm, you're being very dishonest. Lets quickly recap: I made an observation, which you disregarded instantly without considering the salient point. I asked you a simple question, which you continue to avoid (as, conviently it means you can't so readily disregard my origional observation).
...and because I've persued this clarification when the genuine intention of vindicating my origional observation, I'm "aggressive"!?!

The above recap is less than accurate. You claimed an unfounded opinion to be fact ("The reality is that a minor sub-section of our society, with a disproportionate voice feels they are offended and objected"). If it had just been your opinion, you wouldn't have used the phrase "the reality is". I questioned the validity of this and after a while you admitted it was just opinion. You asked what I thought, and I said I didn't know. You then repeatedly asked me what I though and continue to do so in a very aggressive way. I really would recommend that you look back through the thread where you will find my answer.

Zulu wrote: »

I'm going to ask you again; I deserve an answer: Do you believe that the majority of our society was offended? Yes or no.

I've already answered your question. Why do you insist on repeatedly asking me?

Zulu wrote: »

What's pathetic is you crying victim now I've pointed out the folly of your instant dismissal of my point.

You've done nothing of the sort. And in fact you were obliged to admit that your point was not fact but opinion based on no evidence.

While we're on the topic, I did ask you if you felt that this point was salient and you have yet to answer!

Meh, I'm done. This is not enjoyable.

Bottle_of_Smoke

taconnol wrote: »

And you don't think that the same is true for women?

Definitely not. Men and women are attracted to different things in a partner(do you even accept that?), youthful high eostrogen labelled women are always top of the list for men. Youthful men aren't to women, though not that looking physically good will put women off, just not top of the list. In most relationships the man will be older than the woman.

For example, what parts have I ignored? I could equally say that you seem to just really want to believe that the current social constructions in our media are totally natural.

sorry I take that bacK I was mixing you up with another poster. You couldn't say that about me because I've given clear reasons and I said earlier in the thread there's some social conditioning involved. I said 50% but that was more to keep thiings calm. Now that everyone's gone nuts I'll admit I'd say its 95% media taking advantage of male instinct and 5% trying to condition male attitdes. Though I doubt they're succeeding much.

Well, things are changing as companies realise that money made off of men's insecurities is just the same as money made off of women's insecurities.

That's been going on for ages anyway. Think of the cool guys in car advertisements the last few decades. Marilyn Manson makes some good points about it talking to Michael Moore:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P27cnBizD7U

Macha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Definitely not. Men and women are attracted to different things in a partner(do you even accept that?), youthful high eostrogen labelled women are always top of the list for men. Youthful men aren't to women, though not that looking physically good will put women off, just not top of the list. In most relationships the man will be older than the woman.

I really think that attractiveness is as important for both genders - really. And eh, I'm not that old but I can still imagine finding a fine young thing very hot when I'm older! And for all those men having one night stands? Well they're having sex with women - women who want to have no-strings sex with an attractive guy. I just sometimes feel that if aliens came down and looked at western culture, they'd think that 50% of the population were just lying back and thinking of their country while the other 50% can't keep it in their pants. I just don't think it's true. We're probably not going to agree on it though

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

sorry I take that bacK I was mixing you up with another poster. You couldn't say that about me because I've given clear reasons and I said earlier in the thread there's some social conditioning involved. I said 50% but that was more to keep thiings calm. Now that everyone's gone nuts I'll admit I'd say its 95% media taking advantage of male instinct and 5% trying to condition male attitdes. Though I doubt they're succeeding much.

Ah no worries about it.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's been going on for ages anyway. Think of the cool guys in car advertisements the last few decades. Marilyn Manson makes some good points about it talking to Michael Moore

Yes I always remember that interview from the film - it was the one that stood out the most for me.

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

Courtesy has got nothing to do with it.

Courtesy has everything to do with it. Extending courtesy to each other we can have a civil conversation - not doing so, demaning proof at every phrase when the point is evident; dismissing somones point without considering it is not conductive to a civil discussion.

I questioned the validity of this and after a while...

After a while?!? I never suggested it was anything but an opinion. You are being dishonest again.

I've already answered your question. Why do you insist on repeatedly asking me?

No, you haven't. You avoided it. You either believe (like I) that the majority of society does not object to the add, or you don't. You won't answer this.

Monkeybonkers

CDfm wrote: »

I suppose its all down to showing a bit of T&A and women get nervous.

Maybe its cultural norms instilled by mothers,grannies or nuns or maybe its jealousy or insecurity.

I don't paticularily fancy watching Becks Keks on the back of a bus or some guys arse on a billboard. It doesnt make me feel threatened though.

So its down to the essential issue -how suggestive do we want our advertising and what goes over the mark. Bare in mind when you regulate you do so to the lowest common denominator and it will affect both genders.

Freudian slip? I think you've been affected by all the bare flesh in those ads. You've gone sex mad!!:p