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

Misogynistic lines/attitudes from porn does it bother you ?

1…89111314…17

Comments

  • #302
    Pyr0
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,967 ✭✭✭Pyr0


    Back to the issue about porn. My Girlfriend and me do all the dirty talk and rough sex that'd people would see in those kind of movies, Why ? Cause its what I like (Not because of porn, was just always a turn on). I'd never do or say something that she was uncomfortable with, fortunatly for me she's grand with it all and enjoys it too :)

    I can see why people would be freaked out over it though, some people are used to that language in the bedroom, while others wouldn't be. It comes down to having a commom understanding in that sense, what can be said, done etc by both partners.

    The more extreme porn wouldn't be my thing at all, but one person extreme is anothers norm. Any of the bondage or physical pain type of stuff wouldn't be my thing, or extreme acts of humiliation.


  • #303
    LivingDeadGirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,150 ✭✭✭LivingDeadGirl


    Damn right I like it! ;) I only do it because I know you respect me 100% and would never really mean any of the things you say, it's just fun in the heat of the moment etc.

    But yeah, as long as everything is consentual between whoever is involved then I don't have a problem with it! Some extreme stuff wouldn't be my thing but it doesn't bother me if it's someone else's, that's their own business!


  • #304
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Pyr0 wrote: »
    Back to the issue about porn. My Girlfriend and me do all the dirty talk and rough sex that'd people would see in those kind of movies, Why ? Cause its what I like (Not because of porn, was just always a turn on). I'd never do or say something that she was uncomfortable with, fortunatly for me she's grand with it all and enjoys it too :)

    I can see why people would be freaked out over it though, some people are used to that language in the bedroom, while others wouldn't be. It comes down to having a commom understanding in that sense, what can be said, done etc by both partners.

    Again what to consenting adults do in with the bounds of thier relationship
    is between them to discuss and agree to, but there is a difference between
    what people do and say in private and what acceptable in public or on/in more public fora.
    Zulu wrote:
    Now don't get me wrong - I never believed the corporate world cared for me, but I did believe it liked like to pretend to be family friendly. Perhaps there has been a shift in the sand?

    I think there has been, we have gone from what was a general standards for a polite society where life, public advertising most t.v. were for every one,
    every age group to where media wise there are so many options that they are fighting with each other for 'notice'.

    This also means a person can be free to streamline what they want in thier life, what they watch, listen to ect or consume to be of a certain type fair enough but am I so wrong in thinking that when a person steps out of thier own created bubble to places where they interact with others in a more general manner that they have to have consideration for other's?

    Like being in a burger joint and having a young lads loudly describing ( for everyone to hear) to the others a porno they had been watching the night before, in public where there are range of people in ages (including kids).

    Like being in a public shopping centre and seeing a domintrix in full gear leading a gimp around on he's knees with a leash.

    I do think that yes none of that are 'wrong' per say but at least to me what is wrong is forcing those things on other people in public when they have consented to it.

    As for yahoo mail, if I were you I would consider changing your email and telling them why.

    Yes the internet and media explosion means people can become absorbed in what they want but there has to be consideration to others, this goes for kids as well, I disagree with kids being left in control of the tv all day with non stop designated children's channels.

    Media and marketing has us all divided into thier niche pigeon holes and want us watching certain things in order to sell us certain products and they want to keep us there.


  • #305
    Pyr0
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,967 ✭✭✭Pyr0


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Again what to consenting adults do in with the bounds of thier relationship
    is between them to discuss and agree to, but there is a difference between
    what people do and say in private and what acceptable in public or on/in more public fora.

    I get what you're saying alright, I wouldn't throw out any of the language that would be said in private out in public and anyone with a bit of sense would realise people don't wanna hear that stuff out walking the dog or with their children. If I heard it myself i'd find it very rude and distastful. On a forum though not so much, it depends on the context its used, like for example of someone was recalling an experience gone badly (as with a thread or two knocking about atm) then it'd be grand ! But used to make a thread title funnier when its not needed for example would be a bit odd.


  • #306
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Thaedydal wrote: »

    I think there has been, we have gone from what was a general standards for a polite society where life, public advertising most t.v. were for every one,
    every age group to where media wise there are so many options that they are fighting with each other for 'notice'.

    Well, yes this is true, but you do realise that once upon a time in Ireland it was illegal to adervtise tampons on tv because it was rude, that it was considered rude and taboo for parents to talk to their children about sexuality or for condoms to be publically displayed. What is rude changes across the decades and across cultural boundaries.

    As for your example of the dominatrox in a shopping mall, well if people don't like it they should leave and complain. When the shopping mall sees its sales drop they will change their tune.
    Thaedydal wrote: »
    This also means a person can be free to streamline what they want in thier life, what they watch, listen to ect or consume to be of a certain type fair enough but am I so wrong in thinking that when a person steps out of thier own created bubble to places where they interact with others in a more general manner that they have to have consideration for other's?

    Well that's true people have internal realities that we can only guess at , but as I have said before as the world becomes more and more diverse consenus on what is offensive and what isn't is going to become harder and harder to reach. For example, many Americans will find the foul language used in Ireland incredibly offensive, while the Irish will find the American opinion or voice far more amplified than what the American invests in it and will get offended. I've heard several Americans say about the Irish "They are so sensitive over there!'


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Again what to consenting adults do in with the bounds of thier relationship
    is between them to discuss and agree to, but there is a difference between
    what people do and say in private and what acceptable in public or on/in more public fora.



    I think there has been, we have gone from what was a general standards for a polite society where life, public advertising most t.v. were for every one,

    Like being in a public shopping centre and seeing a domintrix in full gear leading a gimp around on he's knees with a leash.

    Media and marketing has us all divided into thier niche pigeon holes and want us watching certain things in order to sell us certain products and they want to keep us there.

    But isnt that it really - what is acceptable in the public has undergone a massive change.

    A British Couple have been jailed for kissing in public in Dubai - the original charge was having sex in public-there may have been leniency as the couple are Westerners.

    http://www.paperarticles.com/2008/10/british-couple-jailed-in-dubai-for.html

    Then you have the proliferation of porno with stuff like readers wives, big woman and granny sites ,dogging(sex in public for voyeurs) and all kinds of stuff.

    I dont see many posting about that - but you have websites advertising products and that means someone thinks there is a demand or a percieved market and someone is prepared to pay to view or advertise the stuff.

    What was considered private or at least underground is now becoming mainstream and the barriers are being stripped away. Advertising , print and other media mean that the boundaries between what is now deemed normal etc are blurred.

    I saw Pinks tour advertised in the the print ads you can see her bum with no knickers.Dana wouldnt have been anywahere near as racy as that in her popsinger days.

    So its not just porno chat - but what other stuff people admit to liking and doing that otherwise would have been out of bounds.


  • #308
    Christy Manure
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26 ✭Christy Manure


    Dudess wrote: »
    Oh that fuker. I remember seeing him on the documentary Hardcore. What a bastard. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322500/

    "I pay an otherwise unemployable whore around a thousand dollars for two to three hours work. Few lawyers make that much - and they don’t take it up the ass. Call me old fashioned, but I expect people who get paid that much to work hard on the set."

    - Max Hardcore


  • #309
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    I found this really interesting article on the relationship between porn and misogyny from Heartless Bitches, written by a man. Here's an excerpt:

    I started to do more research on this, and came across some interesting ideas. One particularly valuable resource was a book called "The Centerfold Syndrome," by Gary Brooks. The author states that while objectification "calls for men to become observers, it also calls for women to become the observed. Women become objects as men become objectifiers." He goes on to explain that women are expected to accept the role of stimulators of men’s visual interest. This visual interest focuses on a two dimensional view of women, one that values the physical characteristics of women while ignoring personal character or any of the inner complexities that are inherent in human beings. When I understood this, I realized that when I hear someone claim how much they "love" women, they are really talking about love for a two dimensional view of women and the women who pursue that ideal. They are not talking about women as they really are.

    This all made a lot of sense, but I still had not made the connection to the word "hate." Eventually I made the connection when I found this website. The author summed up his reason for creating the site and his dislike of women in one simple sentence: "I hate women because I want their attention and they won’t give me any." So what a misogynist truly loves is the shallow image of women that exists only in one’s mind and is illustrated in society in such things as pornography or mainstream media that espouses that ideal. The hatred is directed at real women, for not living up to a misogynist’s expectations of women being easy to control and for not providing adequate stimulation for men’s interest.

    ...you can find the whole article here:

    http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/misogyny.shtml


  • #310
    Ann22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,005 ✭✭✭Ann22


    My friend told me that one night in bed her husband told her she had lovely 'tits'. She was disgusted...froze mid nookie and told him to get off her. He retreated to the other side of the bed in shame. I told my hubbie that and he said if that was us I'd have some hope of getting him off me.:D Personally I'd be squirming if he used that term..'tits'. Yuck!


  • #311
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    I found this really interesting article on the relationship between porn and misogyny from Heartless Bitches, written by a man. /quote]

    Metrovelvet - I wonder what comes first the misogyny or the porn. So I would hazard a guess that there are some misogynist men out there - a very small percentage that are misogynists and some of them buy this type of porn. But its not widespread.

    What concerns me is that there is no mention of porn when it is produced by women. A US female photographer in 2006 got kids to cry for a series of photos and other female photographers have published books of naked children for sale but claim its art - here is a thread on it

    http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=10694661

    Personally I dont see the Art angle I think it was for money and that it was aimed for a market of people who like that kind of stuff.

    Or what about Andrea Dworkin - who was pro -porn- this article from the Guardian sums up the puzzlement many people feel when feminism and pornography are mentioned in the same breath

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/15/gender.politicsphilosophyandsociety

    However - what also comes out is that many who use sado-masochist porn include women - and in Canada a lesbian bookshop was prosecuted for it.

    http://www.writersblock.ca/spring2003/feature.htm

    Here is a link to an article documenting the confusion in feminism and the views of leading feminists however- its by a woman Avedon Carol a founder member of Feminists Against Censorship and it appeared in a journal The Law in the UK. It questions the link between porn and violence against women

    http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/harm.htm

    You also dont mention dominatrix women who take the dominant role - why so coy.

    I was afraid to put up a link to Susie Bright - a feminist pro-porn writer.

    Its all too confusing for me to know what to believe -thats not being flippant as I am not a porn fan. To omit that porn is produced by women for women is illogical.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Great article metrovelvet.

    A lot has been written on this idea of the "male audience" and is evidenced by the prevalence of attractive females in the media. For example, women being used to promote say charity days, etc - when in fact this only caters to 50% of the audience. In fact, Dublin City Council were only recently forced to stop using just female models to promote events.

    If you ever watch Italian TV, you can see this attitude in the extreme with pretty, half-naked women often just being brought onto the stage in chat shows for no particular reason.

    It also helps perpetuate this idea of women as the "fairer sex" when in fact for women, it could be argued that men are the fairer sex. Actually, there's an interesting article that is kind of relevant in the Guardian todayabout how men don't really comment on each other's appearance while women do:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/20/male-beauty-sexuality

    I hadn't thought about it's role in porn before..


  • #313
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    taconnol wrote: »

    A lot has been written on this idea of the "male audience"

    I hadn't thought about it's role in porn before..

    I cant believe you hadnt - Cosmo and many mainstream womens publications - Sex in the City- all that semi- pornograhic love story novels - men are light years behind.

    Its a very short jump from Jackie Collins novels to porn:pac:

    I wouldnt deem Cosmo suitable reading for my daughter.

    Is your objection only if the audience is male?


  • #314
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    CDfm wrote: »
    Is your objection only if the audience is male?
    Well..no. 50% of the population are female. Why shouldn't we be considered as an audience and not just in terms of how attractive we can be to men but in terms of what WE find attractive? I'm not saying this doesn't exist, but that there's a definite inequality there. As I'm sure someone has said before: the female image is used to sell things to men and women.

    But there's a difference between wanting the female audience to be taken into consideration more and wanting porn to enter the mainstream as it has done in recent years. I don't read crap like Cosmo and like you, I wouldn't really be happy with it filling my daughter's mind with nonsense (not that I have one yet..). And I wouldn't consider the appearance of women's magazines in the same vein as Nuts or Zoo as a step in the right direction.


  • #315
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    taconnol wrote: »
    Well..no. 50% of the population are female. Why shouldn't we be considered as an audience and not just in terms of how attractive we can be to men but in terms of what WE find attractive? I'm not saying this doesn't exist, but that there's a definite inequality there. As I'm sure someone has said before: the female image is used to sell things to men and women.

    But there's a difference between wanting the female audience to be taken into consideration more and wanting porn to enter the mainstream as it has done in recent years. I don't read crap like Cosmo and like you, I wouldn't really be happy with it filling my daughter's mind with nonsense (not that I have one yet..). And I wouldn't consider the appearance of women's magazines in the same vein as Nuts or Zoo as a step in the right direction.


    But we already know that women are attractive to men and v v.

    You already have Mainstream TV shows and movies like Sex in the City etc and porn etc produced by women for women.

    In mainstream TV advertising you already have misandrist negative stereotyping of men in the mainstream-in a way that would be highly offensive to people if a woman was depicted. You already have dominatrix sado/masochistic media with women in the the dominant role.

    Its not such a leap of faith to believe that we might already be there - it would seem to be so-maybe the debate should be how did that happen?


  • #316
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    CDfm wrote: »
    But we already know that women are attractive to men and v v.
    Well you would wonder sometimes with some of the comments posted on boards, especially in the PI forum where apparently all men are raging sex-addicts, obsessed with porn and ready to rape at the drop of a hat, while women are shy, retiring creatures that only agree to have sex because they're afraid their boyfriend will cheat on them otherwise.
    CDfm wrote: »
    You already have Mainstream TV shows and movies like Sex in the City etc and porn etc produced by women for women.
    OK SITC was quite a shocker when it came out and it was considered a pioneer. It will take more that just one token show, but a real diffusion of this idea until it becomes mainstream. To be honest, I don't really watch that much TV so I don't know what it's like at the moment but for example on CSI they have hot male and female detectives so it's all good. ;)

    Again, I don't know that much about porn produced by women for women but yes, it's definitely there and growing.
    CDfm wrote: »
    In mainstream TV advertising you already have misandrist negative stereotyping of men in the mainstream-in a way that would be highly offensive to people if a woman was depicted. You already have dominatrix sado/masochistic media with women in the the dominant role.
    Can you give an example of what you mean? Although I can think of one example. You know adverts for house cleaning products always have a woman in it, doing the laundry, cleaning the toilet, etc. And if a man is ever doing it, they're like "ho ho, isn't this hi-larious-a man doing the cleaning!". I can't really decide which gender comes off worse in that ad :pac:

    And if they ever do step away from gender stereotyping, some people get in a huff! Anyone remember that Hellmans mayonnaise ad with the two men kissing? It got pulled almost straight away.
    CDfm wrote: »
    Its not such a leap of faith to believe that we might already be there - it would seem to be so-maybe the debate should be how did that happen?
    Nope, I wouldn't say we're there yet but will advertising ever get rid of the gender stereotyping of both males and females? I doubt it!

    And I don't think it really needs to go crazy on the PCness: as I've said a few times already, we just need to educate our kids so that they know how to interpret and filter these messages we're bombared with every single day. I don't think enough people question advertising. It's a very ubiquitous and I suppose it just fades into the background but really it's quite powerful and should be questioned.


  • #317
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Ann22 wrote: »
    My friend told me that one night in bed her husband told her she had lovely 'tits'. She was disgusted...froze mid nookie and told him to get off her. He retreated to the other side of the bed in shame. I told my hubbie that and he said if that was us I'd have some hope of getting him off me.:D Personally I'd be squirming if he used that term..'tits'. Yuck!

    So if you were having sex with your husband and he said something to upset you and you asked him to stop, that is you with drew consent to be having sex with him, he said he would not stop or get off/out of you ?


  • #318
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    So if you were having sex with your husband and he said something to upset you and you asked him to stop, that is you with drew consent to be having sex with him, he said he would not stop or get off/out of you ?
    isnt that a bit off topic - thats a whole different debate


  • #319
    pseudonym1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,092 ✭✭✭pseudonym1


    I am shocked that someone married someone and then whilst having sex it was first time it she was ever told had lovely tits!!


  • #320
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    taconnol wrote: »


    OK SITC was quite a shocker when it came out and it was considered a pioneer. It will take more that just one token show, but a real diffusion of this idea until it becomes mainstream. To be honest, I don't really watch that much TV so I don't know what it's like at the moment but for example on CSI they have hot male and female detectives so it's all good. ;)

    Again, I don't know that much about porn produced by women for women but yes, it's definitely there and growing.


    Can you give an example of what you mean? Although I can think of one example. You know adverts for house cleaning products always have a woman in it, doing the laundry, cleaning the toilet, etc. And if a man is ever doing it, they're like "ho ho, isn't this hi-larious-a man doing the cleaning!". I can't really decide which gender comes off worse in that ad :pac:

    And if they ever do step away from gender stereotyping, some people get in a huff! Anyone remember that Hellmans mayonnaise ad with the two men kissing? It got pulled almost straight away.

    Nope, I wouldn't say we're there yet but will advertising ever get rid of the gender stereotyping of both males and females? I doubt it!

    And I don't think it really needs to go crazy on the PCness: as I've said a few times already, we just need to educate our kids so that they know how to interpret and filter these messages we're bombared with every single day. I don't think enough people question advertising. It's a very ubiquitous and I suppose it just fades into the background but really it's quite powerful and should be questioned.

    SITC was not a shocker - we are long used to seeing capable and predatory women in soap operas and comedies. Cmon- Dynasty 25 years back had Joan Collins fresh from the Stud. Take Coronation Street - Hilda and Stan Ogden - she might have done a comic turn but he was slow and oafish. Deirdre whatever she was - men are depicted as flawed characters and women as heroic empowered and capable. Mike Baldwin was always coming of the worst with a "bit of skirt".

    If you take Roseanne (Barr) Keeping Up Appearances and Hyacinth Bucket and Men Behaving Badly and any other number of comedies. Its amazing that Father Ted had Mrs Doyle a stupid woman in it. Now thats a shocker.

    Advertising - I will go one better - I will give you a link to a Sunday Times article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article2167748.ece

    This documents a lot of anti-male adverts. Its popular to show men as dumb -it appeals to women.In fact - a lot of female media extols the manipulation of men.Its an industry- and lots of women work in marketing and advertising but its really mainstream anti-man.You cant twist it thats what it is.

    I dont know how much porn is produced by women but isnt Anne Summers the erotic sex shop, mail order and high street shop run by a woman. Many of the modeling agencies and magazines are run by women - so again its no leap of faith to say they run the porn industry.

    I would hazard a guess that the reason for the mixed reaction to porn by mainstream feminists is that as an industry it is to a great extent extent (probably more that people would like to admit) dominated by women.

    I didnt see the Hellmans ad - but I imagine that was pulled for the same reason that the Marks and Spenser "I am normal" knickers adds were pulled. It didnt appeal to the target market -which was women- so didnt sell any mayonaise.If it did it would still be running.

    IF by education you are suggesting a school program along the lines of TV programms and adverts . It could stereotype young guys as stupid and dorkish so shouldnt be even attempted.


  • #321
    Pyr0
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,967 ✭✭✭Pyr0


    Ann22 wrote: »
    My friend told me that one night in bed her husband told her she had lovely 'tits'. She was disgusted...froze mid nookie and told him to get off her. He retreated to the other side of the bed in shame. I told my hubbie that and he said if that was us I'd have some hope of getting him off me.:D Personally I'd be squirming if he used that term..'tits'. Yuck!

    I personally wouldn't be able to handle someone who's that much my opposite, i don't mean to get personal here but what other words on the same line as "tits" wouldn't you like to be said during sex ?


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    CDfm wrote: »
    SITC was not a shocker - we are long used to seeing capable and predatory women in soap operas and comedies. Cmon- Dynasty 25 years back had Joan Collins fresh from the Stud. Take Coronation Street - Hilda and Stan Ogden - she might have done a comic turn but he was slow and oafish. Deirdre whatever she was - men are depicted as flawed characters and women as heroic empowered and capable. Mike Baldwin was always coming of the worst with a "bit of skirt".

    If you take Roseanne (Barr) Keeping Up Appearances and Hyacinth Bucket and Men Behaving Badly and any other number of comedies. Its amazing that Father Ted had Mrs Doyle a stupid woman in it. Now thats a shocker.
    Sorry I don't watch soaps or those other programmes so I take your word for it. I would argue that these roles exist but they are in the minority. You constantly hear about actresses complaining about the lack of decent roles for them and particularly older women:
    http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2007/09/demi_moore.php

    And lots of people are excited about the new Ricky Gervais movie because they feel there's finally a leading man that people can identify with. I'm not saying get rid of all the hot young actors and actresses but y'know, variety is the spice, etc etc. Don't get me started on Hollywood teen movies..!
    CDfm wrote: »
    Advertising - I will go one better - I will give you a link to a Sunday Times article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article2167748.ece
    Thanks for the article. It is very accurate. Funny, if you notice at the two semi-naked women to the right of the article with no similarly clothed men to be seen. One article links to what the "ideal woman" is. And Sunday Times is the most hypocritical paper to be running an article like that. I have stopped buying them because they are just obsessed with printing photos of "tastefully naked" women under the guise of art-with no corresponding ones of men (I have looked!)
    CDfm wrote: »
    I dont know how much porn is produced by women but isnt Anne Summers the erotic sex shop, mail order and high street shop run by a woman. Many of the modeling agencies and magazines are run by women - so again its no leap of faith to say they run the porn industry.
    Well..yes it is a leap of faith to say they "run" the porn industry. I really don't know so I can't say either way. I would hardly consider Anne Summers part of the porn industry.
    CDfm wrote: »
    I didnt see the Hellmans ad - but I imagine that was pulled for the same reason that the Marks and Spenser "I am normal" knickers adds were pulled. It didnt appeal to the target market -which was women- so didnt sell any mayonaise.If it did it would still be running.
    Why are women the target audience for Mayonaise? :confused: It was pulled because of complaints to the company about the kiss between two men.
    CDfm wrote: »
    IF by education you are suggesting a school program along the lines of TV programms and adverts . It could stereotype young guys as stupid and dorkish so shouldnt be even attempted.
    Er..why would it stereotype young men? The whole point of it would be to educate people to see through stereotypes as portrayed in advertising..


  • #323
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    So if you were having sex with your husband and he said something to upset you and you asked him to stop, that is you with drew consent to be having sex with him, he said he would not stop or get off/out of you ?
    There's a very strong chance that what she reported he said flippantly and what he'd actually do in reality are very different.


  • #324
    shellyboo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,883 ✭✭✭shellyboo


    Ann22 wrote: »
    My friend told me that one night in bed her husband told her she had lovely 'tits'. She was disgusted...froze mid nookie and told him to get off her. He retreated to the other side of the bed in shame. I told my hubbie that and he said if that was us I'd have some hope of getting him off me.:D Personally I'd be squirming if he used that term..'tits'. Yuck!

    This is absolutely the saddest thing I have ever heard in my life. A man tells his wife he finds her sexy and attractive (or at least part of her) and she's 'disgusted'. Sad sad sad sad. Ok, 'tits' wouldn't be my favourite word either, but ffs, I wouldn't hoist the guy off me because of his choice of vocabulary. It's just a really sad example of a lot of women's attitude towards sex - it's dirty and bad and could you please hurry up and get it over with.
    taconnol wrote: »
    OK SITC was quite a shocker when it came out and it was considered a pioneer. I

    Sex and the City was considered highly controversial when it came out - and now, when watching the earlier episodes, they're so tame it's unreal. There's an episode where they're talking about blow jobs and how Charlotte 'doesn't do that'. I mean, yawn. Blow jobs, how shocking. It just goes to show how much attitudes change and minds broaden in a few short years.


  • #325
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    taconnol wrote: »
    Sorry I don't watch soaps or those other programmes so I take your word for it. I would argue that these roles exist but they are in the minority.
    I don't know if that is such a sound argument tbh. Soaps make up a large portion of prime time viewing and are amongst the most watched shows. I'd say add comedies to soaps and you've got a huge portion of tv (that has actors - ie: not news/current affairs shows), wouldn't you agree? (of course I'm just guessing here - this is purely anecdotal. Stats anyone?)
    You constantly hear about actresses complaining about the lack of decent roles for them and particularly older women:
    http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2007/09/demi_moore.php
    But that more hollywood/big budget movies isn't it? Not saying your point doesn't stand, but we watch far more tv than we do movies. I'd imagine there is plenty of work in tv for these people, but it not something they'd like to "lower" themselves to.


  • #326
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Zulu wrote: »
    I don't know if that is such a sound argument tbh. Soaps make up a large portion of prime time viewing and are amongst the most watched shows. I'd say add comedies to soaps and you've got a huge portion of tv (that has actors - ie: not news/current affairs shows), wouldn't you agree? (of course I'm just guessing here - this is purely anecdotal. Stats anyone?)
    But that more hollywood/big budget movies isn't it? Not saying your point doesn't stand, but we watch far more tv than we do movies. I'd imagine there is plenty of work in tv for these people, but it not something they'd like to "lower" themselves to.

    Yeah I mean naturally, my view of it is anecdotal as well. I'd just like to share with you, however, one of the worst offendors IMO:

    http://eckomfg.com/ (maybe nsfw)

    Pull quote: A girl's legs are her best friends, but the best of friends must part"

    Unbelievable...if you know of a male equivalent, please let me know!


  • #327
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    taconnol wrote: »
    http://eckomfg.com/ (maybe nsfw)

    Pull quote: A girl's legs are her best friends, but the best of friends must part"

    Unbelievable...if you know of a male equivalent, please let me know!
    Whats "maybe nsfw"??? Can I open it or not? I'm guessing not, if it's a maybe. What's the quote from though?

    I mean, people objectify other people all the time. I don't think it's a male only trait. (Sorry I've probably pick the total arse end of your point, but without the link I'm stabbing wildly in the dark - apologies)


  • #328
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    taconnol wrote: »

    Pull quote: A girl's legs are her best friends, but the best of friends must part"

    Unbelievable...if you know of a male equivalent, please let me know!

    "Size matters."


  • #329
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Zulu wrote: »
    Whats "maybe nsfw"??? Can I open it or not? I'm guessing not, if it's a maybe. What's the quote from though?
    LOL...sorry Zulu. It's basically women in bikinis..dunno if that's safe for you work or not.
    Zulu wrote: »
    I mean, people objectify other people all the time. I don't think it's a male only trait. (Sorry I've probably pick the total arse end of your point, but without the link I'm stabbing wildly in the dark - apologies)
    Women and men are put in little pieces of clothing and put on TV all the time. I don't have a huge problem with it, BUT I do have a problem with the context of this one. With headlines like "Ugly girl sues" and saying people mistake her for a pot-bellied pig.

    Here's one of the "news items":
    Scandal erupted at the Ecko Manufacturing factory today when hot presser Madison was accused of padding her, um, assets.

    Apparently some of the other employees have been suggesting that Madison may in fact be walking around with artificially enhanced features.

    Well known as the most curvaceous employee at the company, Madison was surprised that her natural gifts caused so much jealousy.

    "Do these look fake to you?" she cried.

    Security guard Peter Gozinya seemed to agree. "I've been looking at the staff for a long time now and those are the real deal!"

    Insiders suspect that a girl out for Madison's job started these rumors.

    "Putting a bunch of incredibly beautiful women together under one roof is bound to cause problems," noted public relations director Rebecca Love.

    To answer the question once and for all, Madison has agreed to undergo a thorough and probing examination.
    Galvasean wrote: »
    "Size matters."
    OK yes, that Riverrock one was pretty bad but..seriously. Look at the website and tell me that the Riverrock ad is on the same level as this one!


  • #330
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    taconnol wrote: »
    LOL...sorry Zulu. It's basically women in bikinis..dunno if that's safe for you work or not.
    Thanks - that's deffo nsfw for me so.
    BUT I do have a problem with the context of this one. With headlines like "Ugly girl sues" and saying people mistake her for a pot-bellied pig.
    Is this a serious website though, or a "nuts" equivalent? I'm guessing it's the latter.
    OK yes, that Riverrock one was pretty bad but..seriously. Look at the website and tell me that the Riverrock ad is on the same level as this one!
    Well now hang on. You asked for an example, which you got. You can't disregard it that simply. The fact of the matter is, both men and women are objectified.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    taconnol wrote: »
    OK yes, that Riverrock one was pretty bad but..seriously. Look at the website and tell me that the Riverrock ad is on the same level as this one!

    TBH I think that ad in your link says more about the shallowness of certain women than anything.
    Also for the record I think ads like the Riverrock and Diet Coke break ones portray a negative image of women much more than ads with a scantly clad lady in them.

    edit: those are womens jeans right?


Advertisement