Watch what you might be doing
The advert on the right is demeaning and offensive, so says one person who complained to Britain's Advertising Standards Authority?
Why? Because the woman's hand is resting on her tummy with her fingers hidden by her thighs, suggesting that she might be masturbating. And of course we all know that masturbating is demeaning and offensive.
What bothers me is that only a few people complained, and the advert was pulled. I am quite sure that if I complained about an advert, which does not have sexual overtones, not only would I not succeed, but I would be thought to be a little unusual.
I could argue that advertising alcohol should be banned outright, because not only are thousands of people killed each year from alcohol-related diseases, but drink drivers cause the deaths of innocent people nearly every day of the year.
Lets stick to sexually provocative adverts. We must ban all adverts showing good looking men and women as they suggest to me thoughts which I won't publish here. We must ban all adverts showing undressed limbs since they are offensive to some people in some cultures.
Alternatively, perhaps people should just turn the page of an advert that they find offensive, and look in a mirror and ask themselves what makes them feel that way.
The suggestion of masturbation is not demeaning and offensive. It is some people who find it so.
Original Accurist Watch News Item
9 Comments:
The Accurist web site,
http://www.accurist.co.uk/
has 4 more images of the model on the advertising pages. Three of the images show her bound with the watch band material in a B&D suggestive way. I am sure that True Christians approve of this because women are viewed as objects of filth and depravity. The fourth image is suggestive of "The Birth of Venus" by Sandro Botticelli. Clearly this is pornographic because of its pagan origins.
I too am puzzled how an advert that could be construed as a woman masturbating should be considered "demeaning". I don't understand the rationale but is just typical. Excellent post.
There often isn't any rationale to socialization just a confusion mixing mores and morals.
Some Muslims see women going about in bikinis or shorts skirts as immoral because it will lead men to loose control of their sexual urges and demeaning.
People who are against porn and that picture for similar reasons their social/attitudinal construction view it that way.
Rather than say its not rational is would be better characterized non-rational, most culture is.
Look at the US and Australian drug policy yes the illegal drugs are harmful but so are cigarettes and alcohol.
Let women bare their breasts
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/12051252.htm
its only a more it not going to kill anyone.
What is good for a man should be the same for a woman.
I wonder, do you have any children? Somehow I think not.
You write:
"Alternatively, perhaps people should just turn the page of an advert that they find offensive, and look in a mirror and ask themselves what makes them feel that way.
The suggestion of masturbation is not demeaning and offensive. It is some people who find it so."
I don't find masturbation at all demeaning or offensive, but I sure as hell don't want an advert suggesting masturbation in a newspaper, on a billboard, or in a magazine (not porn mag here I mean) where my kids could easily find it. We're talking as if we're all adults here - how about children....don't they have rights. Rights to be educated about how masturbation is a private thing, the right to security, be prevented if possible from viewing stuff which is not only unsuitable for them but could also be harmful to them emotionally, etc., etc. I wish you would grow up in your attitude.
Sorry Anonymous, I don't agree.
What I object to, is that ONE peron felt that the advert SUGGESTED masturbation.
So do we ban all adverts where only a few people believe there is something untoward going on? If we take this argument to its logical conclusion, then we ban all adverts showing bare arms because some cultures object, all adverts containing women because some feminists assume women are being exploited, etc.
As for this particular advert, this one was in a women's magazine which often contain articles on sex and relationships. If you don't want your kids seeing it, don't leave it lying around.
Having said that, would you have thought that this advert suggests masturbation? To me, it's just a woman relaxing.
Would I have thought that this advert suggests masturbation? Yes I would. In my opinion it's quite a sexual advert and quite ambiguous too. Some would perhaps see it as masturbatory and others not. Personally I always like to relax by lying naked in my chair with my hand reaching between my legs *chuckles* (Said with tongue in cheek of course :).
I don't think I'm petty, but coming across scenes relating to sex makes me 'angry' to the ones who desinged that advert, movie scene, etc. (except for certain kinds of movies, I watch them WHEN I WANT TO, not incidentally, that's the matter) in my daily life. Who are they to take the advantage of my sexual instincts?? It's malignant to take people's attention by using sexual images. And about the photo of the advert, a naked woman sitting in that way, with her hand between her legs, it does not require a super creative imagination to think that she's masturbating. Crude, indecent, humiliating. Don't misunderstand me, not the masturbation itself. But as a billboard? As a part of a newspaper? Yes humans have sexual desires but this does not mean that they can be exploited,at a time when I am not thinking about sex. I imagine a man sitting next to me in public has a magazine in his hand which bears that advert. Eww, terrible! I am not actually shy but... That's TOO MUCH! If there were a man instead of that woman, naked, sitting in that way, I would be aroused and asking myself whether it is fair for an advert to make me feel in that way or not. Would I buy that good? Damn, no. I am not a consumer that can be coaxed by exploitation.
We certainly all have our own boundaries when it comes to portrayals of sexually related imagery.
If we take an extreme Middle Eastern perspective, adverts would probably not feature women at all, let alone showing the bare arms. I'm sure we can both appreciate the beauty of the male and female forms.
Let's look at another analogy, the advertising of luxury goods. The money saved on spending a $1000 less on a luxury car, could save the lives of how many children, who still die every day from malnutrition?
But you are absolutely right, you should have the choice over what images you see. But does this extend, for example, to those who are more religious than us. Or there more important matters than whether a model show their bare arm, or the position of their hand?
Post a Comment
<< Home