Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Discuss books, film, tv, music, games and all other arts here.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#141  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 13, 2015 1:31 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:
Forty Two wrote:another one upset


If Fall answered this with a 'yes', and then the rest of us all chimed in and said that we too are 'upset', would that make you happy? Your happiness is, after all, our raison d'être.


Happy? No. Puzzled, yes. Why? Because this was a long-dead thread that none of you was posting in. None of you apparently has cared about this thread for over a year. I post tangentially related material here, rather than create a new thread, to start some discussion. As I've said, I gave the forum a quick search to see if a thread was around to post in, rather than create a new thread. That's all.

So, then comes a dog-pile of folks who come into the thread with no intend on discussing the OP in general, my posts, or any other post in the thread -- rather, the dog-pile comes here and harps on me personally -- I'm called names, like "troll" and I'm told that I've improperly posted here.

That, to me, is very puzzling, because it seems as if you folks dog-piling me could either post elsewhere, in threads regarding topics in which you take an interest, or if you really think I've done something wrong, go ahead and report my post as a derail or something. If it's really too far off topic, then the admins will split it. Why the need for you and others to act as posse comitatus to hang me from a tree?

I think you need to reread the thread again, because the above scenario did not occur.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#142  Postby Forty Two » Jul 13, 2015 1:32 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Now we have TWO posters who rely on stupid gifs and images for rebuttals and think they're super smart!


Stupid gifs are a new thing on this forum. I think the "Img" button above the text entry box is a newly-added feature.
Forty Two
 
Name: Harcourt Mudd
Posts: 1431

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#143  Postby Forty Two » Jul 13, 2015 1:34 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Now we have TWO posters who rely on stupid gifs and images for rebuttals and think they're super smart!


The stupid gifs and images don't load for me on most of the machines I use to view these forums. So from these posters all I see are posts devoid of worthwhile content and ones where the stupid gifs and images don't load.


Yes, indeed, and I am now convinced. If anyone sees a post that they think is devoid of worthwhile content, then a group of like-minded members should badger the offending person relentlessly. That's really helpful. The more other members police the forum and point out the dearth of worthwhile content in other members' posts, the better.
Forty Two
 
Name: Harcourt Mudd
Posts: 1431

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#144  Postby purplerat » Jul 13, 2015 1:39 pm

all those words and still not a single sentence directed towards anything relevant to this thread.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12947
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#145  Postby Forty Two » Jul 13, 2015 1:40 pm

purplerat wrote:So you think there's some real substance there Skinny Puppy? Care to share what it is since Forty Two refuses to do so and you've apparently taken up his cause?


Even assuming they lack substance, is this reaction to substance-lacking posts common on this forum? Do you treat all members who post things that you feel are lacking in "real substance" this way? Or, if I click around the thread, will I find that, but for my posts, we have a posting Nirvana here, where all the posts are erudite, perfectly on point, and substantial?

Forty Two has posted something that lacks real substance, in a thread that has been completely inactive for over a year and in which none of us has taken the slightest interest until Forty Two posted there! Let's get him, folks!

Image
Forty Two
 
Name: Harcourt Mudd
Posts: 1431

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#146  Postby purplerat » Jul 13, 2015 1:44 pm

I'm actually now becoming convinced that your whole point of being here is to fulfill some sort delusional persecution complex.

Have fun with that.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12947
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#147  Postby Forty Two » Jul 13, 2015 2:13 pm

purplerat wrote:all those words and still not a single sentence directed towards anything relevant to this thread.


That's what I've been saying about your posts and others.

Here is a post from Dr Kwaltz which contains images of scantily clad women, and a comment about how he likes women with curves. That's his opinion of women with curves. Is that post related to the OP? Was there a dog-pile on Dr. Kwaltz for posting that? http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... ml#p153095

DoctorE posts "Curvy women....slurp..." with a wink emoticon there. He likes them curvy women. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... ml#p153999 - that does seem to be irrelevant to the original post, doesn't it. The OP is not really about whether men find them attractive or appealing, is it?

Calilaesseia sees fit to say "Allow me to offer a nod of approval for normal women with curves, as opposed to self-propelled sticks of bamboo ..." Directly on point? http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... ml#p154314

Chairman Bill and mraltair are discussing this Kylie Minogue video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX7jeaXiETA -- they apparently find her rather appealing, without "curves," I guess. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... ml#p237014

Here, nineonefour is discussing what he and his wife find appealing in women they see on the tellie -- http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... ml#p153804 - nineonefour doesn't need women who disappear when they turn sideways.

So, the series of posts immediately preceding mine involved a lengthy discussion and back and forth by several different members here, not about the original OP, but about the relative merits of curvy and non-curvy women.

I then posted, when I revived the thread, a couple of posts about "curvy men" and their appeal vis-a-vis the traditional notion of a fit male. I have also explained why I posted what I initially posted in reviving this thread, and what the point of discussion would be.

I was attacked quite vigorously from then on about reviving a "zombie thread" and not sticking to the point of the OP.

You've also accused me of not posting anything of relevance "to this thread." Well, here http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... l#p2259047 - that comment relates to objectification, patriarchy and sexism related to curvy/noncurvy imagery. That is far more relevant to the thread than the host of previous comments about how much some guys really love curvy women, and how they can't stand those stick thin "lollipop" women.

Here I posted about whether women could or could not objectify men, in response to an inquiry directed toward me about that topic. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... l#p2259119 -- again -- that is far closer to the topic of the OP than the post after post about the sexual appeal of curvy women that is already previously on the thread, without any sort of dogpile and accusations of trolling directed toward them.

You yourself jumped in and accused me of "just trolling." How so? How have I been trolling?

I even answered YOUR direct question about what I thought my posts had to do with the thread -- http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... l#p2259128 I explained that "the thread is about curvy women not allowed in lingerie ads. My post related to why curvy women might not generally be in lingerie ads. That's on topic." It's certainly far more "on topic" than mere discussions of the sex appeal of curvy women being greater than that of thin women. And, guys posting "curvy women.... slurp" -- which did not elicit accusations of trolling, and did not get a dog-pile of vigilante forum members harping on the propriety of the post rather than discussing the issues.

Let me remind you, this was not a thread that was alive and kicking. This was a thread I revived. Apparently, you were not interested in the topic to be discussing it. If it's not a topic you're interested in, I mean, you have other options. And, if it is, you can at least stop falsely accusing me of not explaining why I posted it and how I think it related generally to the topic. And, do recall that I also explained that I acknowledge that my posts reviving this thread were "tangential" in nature to the topic of the "OP" -- that shouldn't be a problem, however, given that the thread had strayed far from that original post throughout the time it was active.
Last edited by Forty Two on Jul 13, 2015 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Forty Two
 
Name: Harcourt Mudd
Posts: 1431

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#148  Postby Forty Two » Jul 13, 2015 2:16 pm

purplerat wrote:I'm actually now becoming convinced that your whole point of being here is to fulfill some sort delusional persecution complex.

Have fun with that.


I don't feel persecuted, and there is nothing that could occur on a message board that I could even imagine would count as "persecution."

However, if you have actually become convinced of that, you may wish to do some self-examination as to why in the world it should matter to you in the slightest why I am here.
Forty Two
 
Name: Harcourt Mudd
Posts: 1431

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#149  Postby purplerat » Jul 13, 2015 2:17 pm

Forty Two wrote:I even answered YOUR direct question about what I thought my posts had to do with the thread -- http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... l#p2259128 I explained that "the thread is about curvy women not allowed in lingerie ads. My post related to why curvy women might not generally be in lingerie ads. That's on topic." It's certainly far more "on topic" than mere discussions of the sex appeal of curvy women being greater than that of thin women. And, guys posting "curvy women.... slurp" -- which did not elicit accusations of trolling, and did not get a dog-pile of vigilante forum members harping on the propriety of the post rather than discussing the issues.

Your response amounted to "was so". Still nothing of substance. But hey, you have yourself convinced your a victim here so that's cool :thumbup:
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12947
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#150  Postby purplerat » Jul 13, 2015 2:20 pm

Forty Two wrote:
purplerat wrote:I'm actually now becoming convinced that your whole point of being here is to fulfill some sort delusional persecution complex.

Have fun with that.


I don't feel persecuted, and there is nothing that could occur on a message board that I could even imagine would count as "persecution."

However, if you have actually become convinced of that, you may wish to do some self-examination as to why in the world it should matter to you in the slightest why I am here.

lol, simply look up two posts

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2262064

Forty Two has posted something that lacks real substance, in a thread that has been completely inactive for over a year and in which none of us has taken the slightest interest until Forty Two posted there! Let's get him, folks!

thinking people are out to "get you" = thinking you are being persecuted.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12947
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#151  Postby Forty Two » Jul 13, 2015 2:29 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Lol, no, didn't speak French until it was taught in elementary school.

Mom's an immigrant and I was born and grew up on a reservation so the first languages spoken to me were Plattdüütsch and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh snichim, which is a Coast Salish language.

To be fair, once I began interacting with other children (when do kids start talking to each other - three?) it was exclusively in English and, once I was in school, French, so I do consider English my natural language. I'm incompetent in anything else now. I regret not studying and maintaining at least one of them.



Quick, purplerat, take action here! We have found a post that is unrelated to the OP and has nothing to do with the topic of this thread!
Forty Two
 
Name: Harcourt Mudd
Posts: 1431

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#152  Postby Forty Two » Jul 13, 2015 2:38 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:
What I'm commenting on is that there are people here who think juvenile behaviour consisting of responding to people who disagree with them with dumb gifs and images instead of content expressed with words is an appropriate, clever way to conduct themselves when, in actuality, its fucking stupid.


The person I responded to here with a photo (not a gif) -- was telling me he "gave me more credit than I deserved" or words to that effect -- http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... l#p2260046

You see, I responded to his insult, his comment as to giving me too much credit, with a counter-insult -- that I don't give him any thought at all. The use of the image was done because that scene in Mad Men is funny, and appropriate to the content of the insult leveled at me. I.e., one person being critical of another, and the other not possibly able to be critical in return, because actually no thought at all is given to that other person.....

So, whether the use of that kind of meme-humor worked here is, well, as with most humor, a matter of opinion. You didn't like it? Well, you may be in for a surprise that in a forum populated by a lot of people, with hundreds of posts being created a day, many of which containing attempts at humor, some may not be your cup of tea.

If you like, we can all police your posts, too, and if you make a joke someone doesn't like, then we'll let you know about it. Would you like that?
Forty Two
 
Name: Harcourt Mudd
Posts: 1431

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#153  Postby Forty Two » Jul 13, 2015 2:53 pm

As for contributions to this thread -

Purplerat -- do you recall this from page 1 of the thread. It's just four or five posts in to the entire discussion of the OP. The OP concerned an advertisement of underwear for "curvy" women.

Warren Dew posted a joke -- stating that the ad would not be aired on "NPR" (probably referring to Public Television), because the advertisement made the curvy women look "fat" -- hahhahahahahahah!!!! http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... ml#p152669

Purplerat's contribution to the thread was a "laughing smiley face" emoticon. That's it. No words -- just a "stupid gif or image."

purplerat wrote:
[url=http://www.rational-skepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=152662#p152662]Warren Dew[/url] wrote:
[url=http://www.rational-skepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=152645#p152645]GreyICE[/url] wrote:Hell, I'm a credulous sheep and generically outraged with Fox over this one-sided and clearly unbiased news story from a credible, only marginally blog-related source.

I bet NPR wouldn't accept the ads either.

Edit: if the woman in the ad is "curvy" as the thread title suggests, the lingerie in question does a good job of making her look fat instead.

:lol:



Wow! Great contribution! Full of "substance!" And, how on point! A laughing emoticon about how the lingerie in question does a good job of making a woman look fat!

The OP, of course, was directed toward whether a TV network had failed to air an ad because the women depicted were overweight or "curvy." Did you address that? Obviously not. You just laughed at a joke.

But, do go on and set folks straight about posting threads with substance and explaining how their posts are relevant to the topic of the OP.
Forty Two
 
Name: Harcourt Mudd
Posts: 1431

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#154  Postby purplerat » Jul 13, 2015 3:06 pm

I'm not here to police people or tell them to post on topic "or else".

You dug up a specific thread, apparently using specific search criteria to find a certain topic. Yet you can't explain why.

I asked earlier if it was simply to point out that advertisers prefer certain body types and you said "no" it wasn't that. I'm interested in why you are so evasive as to why you thought this topic needed to be resurrected or what you think about it.

You've dedicated what amounts to pages of text with this drivel about how you are not posting off topic or how it's ok because others do it. I don't care. I want to hear what you actually think about this topic. Clearly you think something about it because you went out of your way to dig it up. So what is it? Can you actually articular a sentence or maybe even a paragraph rather than posting some nonsensical gif?
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12947
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#155  Postby Forty Two » Jul 13, 2015 3:13 pm

purplerat wrote:
Forty Two wrote:I even answered YOUR direct question about what I thought my posts had to do with the thread -- http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... l#p2259128 I explained that "the thread is about curvy women not allowed in lingerie ads. My post related to why curvy women might not generally be in lingerie ads. That's on topic." It's certainly far more "on topic" than mere discussions of the sex appeal of curvy women being greater than that of thin women. And, guys posting "curvy women.... slurp" -- which did not elicit accusations of trolling, and did not get a dog-pile of vigilante forum members harping on the propriety of the post rather than discussing the issues.

Your response amounted to "was so". Still nothing of substance. But hey, you have yourself convinced your a victim here so that's cool :thumbup:


Ugh, other than reposting a cut-and-paste of the posts, i can not do much more.

Look - the first post I put to this thread was a post of an image with a fit man and an overweight man. Basically, that was a statement regarding the oft-seen juxtaposition of traditional-beauty female bodies against "real" women or "curvy" women. The reason I posted it was because it related to fit vs. overweight models in adverts, and people could discuss whether there really is disparate treatment in that regard, vis-a-vis males vs. females. The post was more to the point of why less-fat bodies would be more appealing to buyers in underwear ads, regardless of sex.

Then a bit later, after some back and forth about "objectification" and such, I posted an image juxtaposing overweight women modeling underwear with overweight men modeling underwear, and that was also to the point of the treatment of men and women in underwear ads. You wouldn't really see the men in Calvin Klein ads, anymore than you'd see the women in a Victoria's Secret ad. Then you and I had a bit of an exchange .e.g. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... l#p2259952 And, I did explain my point in posting the material, and then you just went on continuing to deny that I had posted anything of substance and had not explained why I posted what I posted.

I'm not a "victim" of anything here. This is a friggin' message board. There are no victims here.

You're just flat wrong that I've posted something without substance -- I have, and I've explained the substance. You're flat wrong that I've "trolled" -- I haven't. And, you're flat wrong that I have not stuck to acceptable topics on this thread. I've stuck far closer than you did in the original discussion, and far closer than just about anyone posting on the last two pages of the thread before I revived it. The discussion at the end of the thread before I revived it was about the relative sex appeal of curvy women vs thin women. I notice you didn't police that back then, even though you actually did post to the thread back then -- you just posted a laughing smiley icon in response to a joke by Warren Dew about how the underwear made the curvy women look fat.

So, do go on again about who is posting substance and relevant material. :coffee:
Forty Two
 
Name: Harcourt Mudd
Posts: 1431

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#156  Postby Forty Two » Jul 13, 2015 3:30 pm

purplerat wrote:I'm not here to police people or tell them to post on topic "or else".
O.k., but you seem to be doing just that.

purplerat wrote:

You dug up a specific thread, apparently using specific search criteria to find a certain topic. Yet you can't explain why.


I did explain exactly why, and I have re-linked to those posts today. I have explained why. You keeping saying I haven't, but I absolutely have explained why I searched for the topic.

purplerat wrote:

I asked earlier if it was simply to point out that advertisers prefer certain body types and you said "no" it wasn't that.
Yes, and in that same post I went on to explain why I posted in this thread.

purplerat wrote:
I'm interested in why you are so evasive as to why you thought this topic needed to be resurrected or what you think about it.


I'm not being evasive, since I explained exactly why I posted here, more than once, not that I should have to.

purplerat wrote:

You've dedicated what amounts to pages of text with this drivel about how you are not posting off topic
In response to people directing posts at mine, often asking me direct questions.

purplerat wrote:
or how it's ok because others do it.
The fact that others do it, commonly, is relevant to whether there should be a bunch of members here calling me out for supposedly doing it.

purplerat wrote:
I don't care. I want to hear what you actually think about this topic.
O.k., I've explained to you what I think about what I posted. You just keep skipping over that and telling me I haven't written any of it. Even in my most recent post above, I've explained again what I think about the images I posted when I revived the thread.

If you're interested in what I think about the OP, well, I think that if a television network did not play an otherwise equivalent ad in primetime, the only difference being the size of the models, I would find that to be rather silly of them and unwarranted. it doesn't appear clear to me from the OP that the network actually did that, though.

purplerat wrote:

Clearly you think something about it because you went out of your way to dig it up. So what is it? Can you actually articular a sentence or maybe even a paragraph rather than posting some nonsensical gif?


I haven't posted a gif. But, you have. Your contribution to the original topic on page one was a gif of a laughing smiley, and you were apparently communicating that you thought Warren Dew's joke about how the underwear made the curvy women look fat was very funny. Can YOU articulate a sentence or maybe a paragraph, rather than posting something nonsensical?

And, you posted "clearly you think something about it..." -- I explained - in agonizing detail -- that I had revived this thread by posting a "tangential" point. I mean - I've said this multiple times now. Yes, indeed, the posts I made on page 4 and 5 were tangential, not directly related to the OP itself, but rather, indirectly related to the general topic of curvy women in adverts. And I have explained several times that I was posting about the sexism and objectification issues. I also explained that I had found this thread through a search, looking for something close to what I was posting, so that I would not create a new thread, but rather post in an already existing thread. It was not the exact advert discussed in the OP that caused me to post here. And, that has been explained to you before.

And, I have also explained my substantive position on the original advert and the accusation that a network did not play the ad because it featured overweight women. I'll add to what I have already said about that, that I doubt it occurred as described in the OP. I think the OP was painting an inaccurate picture of what exactly happened. ABC denied Lane Bryant’s allegations saying, "Their statements are not true. The ad was accepted to run in DWTS. Lane Bryant was treated absolutely no differently than any advertiser for the same product." I'd be interested to see what proof Lane Bryant had.
Forty Two
 
Name: Harcourt Mudd
Posts: 1431

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#157  Postby purplerat » Jul 13, 2015 3:42 pm

Forty Two wrote:

Look - the first post I put to this thread was a post of an image with a fit man and an overweight man. Basically, that was a statement regarding the oft-seen juxtaposition of traditional-beauty female bodies against "real" women or "curvy" women. The reason I posted it was because it related to fit vs. overweight models in adverts, and people could discuss whether there really is disparate treatment in that regard, vis-a-vis males vs. females. The post was more to the point of why less-fat bodies would be more appealing to buyers in underwear ads, regardless of sex.

Then a bit later, after some back and forth about "objectification" and such, I posted an image juxtaposing overweight women modeling underwear with overweight men modeling underwear, and that was also to the point of the treatment of men and women in underwear ads. You wouldn't really see the men in Calvin Klein ads, anymore than you'd see the women in a Victoria's Secret ad. Then you and I had a bit of an exchange .e.g. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... l#p2259952 And, I did explain my point in posting the material, and then you just went on continuing to deny that I had posted anything of substance and had not explained why I posted what I posted.

Ok, so you are trying to make this a "man vs woman" thing. So why? Has somebody suggested that men get better treatment in advertising in respect to body image? What's you concern here?
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12947
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#158  Postby Forty Two » Jul 13, 2015 4:01 pm

No. Why can't you just accept what I write? I mean, I did not say that I'm trying to make this a "man vs. woman" thing. Saying that men and women are treated approximately equally in a given context doesn't make anything a "man vs. woman thing."

Folks do suggest that advertising is sexist toward women, including lingerie ads. One of the ways in which it has been said lingerie ads are sexist is that they focus on "unreasonable body images" in advertising involving women, and that "real women" aren't featured in ads. This is supposedly sexist. However, if men are treated the same way -- e.g., in men's underwear ads -- you can't really say it's "sexist." If you examine the ads involving both sexes, you see a preference to fitter bodies -- in men it's slim waists, muscular arms and shoulders, six-pack abs, and no fat to speak of. In women it's long thin legs, firm round butt, flat belly, curved figure, perky breasts. I.e., the advertisers appeal to what the buying public wants -- or what will motivate them to buy a particular product -- so, it stands to reason that Calvin Klein would put Mark Wahlberg in their ads rather than Horatio Sanz.
Forty Two
 
Name: Harcourt Mudd
Posts: 1431

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#159  Postby purplerat » Jul 13, 2015 4:10 pm

Forty Two wrote:No. Why can't you just accept what I write? I mean, I did not say that I'm trying to make this a "man vs. woman" thing. Saying that men and women are treated approximately equally in a given context doesn't make anything a "man vs. woman thing."

WTF? Do you even read what you write.

The reason I posted it was because it related to fit vs. overweight models in adverts, and people could discuss whether there really is disparate treatment in that regard, vis-a-vis males vs. females.


Forty Two wrote:
Folks do suggest that advertising is sexist toward women, including lingerie ads. One of the ways in which it has been said lingerie ads are sexist is that they focus on "unreasonable body images" in advertising involving women, and that "real women" aren't featured in ads. This is supposedly sexist. However, if men are treated the same way -- e.g., in men's underwear ads -- you can't really say it's "sexist." If you examine the ads involving both sexes, you see a preference to fitter bodies -- in men it's slim waists, muscular arms and shoulders, six-pack abs, and no fat to speak of. In women it's long thin legs, firm round butt, flat belly, curved figure, perky breasts. I.e., the advertisers appeal to what the buying public wants -- or what will motivate them to buy a particular product -- so, it stands to reason that Calvin Klein would put Mark Wahlberg in their ads rather than Horatio Sanz.

Who says you can't say it's isn't sexist or objectifying towards men? The reality is that in advertising it's more often attractive women used (especially for products which have nothing to do with body image) so maybe that's why you here it more about women. It's not uncommon to see commercials with some fat balding middle age man selling cars surrounded by 20-something bikini models. You generally don't the reverse though.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12947
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

#160  Postby Forty Two » Jul 13, 2015 4:42 pm

purplerat wrote:
Forty Two wrote:No. Why can't you just accept what I write? I mean, I did not say that I'm trying to make this a "man vs. woman" thing. Saying that men and women are treated approximately equally in a given context doesn't make anything a "man vs. woman thing."

WTF? Do you even read what you write.


Are you able to discuss anything without including insulting commentary?

purplerat wrote:

The reason I posted it was because it related to fit vs. overweight models in adverts, and people could discuss whether there really is disparate treatment in that regard, vis-a-vis males vs. females.


O.k. -- yes, the issue would be whether there is disparate treatment between men and women. However, I did not intend this to be a "man vs. woman" thing in the sense of "whose better." So, to clarify, it's not "man vs. woman" in the sense of "battle of the sexes." It's more of a discussion of whether there is sexism or discrimination at play, or whether the sexes are basically being treated the same.


purplerat wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Folks do suggest that advertising is sexist toward women, including lingerie ads. One of the ways in which it has been said lingerie ads are sexist is that they focus on "unreasonable body images" in advertising involving women, and that "real women" aren't featured in ads. This is supposedly sexist. However, if men are treated the same way -- e.g., in men's underwear ads -- you can't really say it's "sexist." If you examine the ads involving both sexes, you see a preference to fitter bodies -- in men it's slim waists, muscular arms and shoulders, six-pack abs, and no fat to speak of. In women it's long thin legs, firm round butt, flat belly, curved figure, perky breasts. I.e., the advertisers appeal to what the buying public wants -- or what will motivate them to buy a particular product -- so, it stands to reason that Calvin Klein would put Mark Wahlberg in their ads rather than Horatio Sanz.

Who says you can't say it's isn't sexist or objectifying towards men? The reality is that in advertising it's more often attractive women used (especially for products which have nothing to do with body image) so maybe that's why you here it more about women. It's not uncommon to see commercials with some fat balding middle age man selling cars surrounded by 20-something bikini models. You generally don't the reverse though.


Well, if men and women are treated basically the same, then it isn't "sexist." I suppose you could say that both men and women are "objectified."

But, you've made the claim that in advertising it is more often attractive women used. I wonder if that is, indeed, true. Do women feature in advertisements more than men overall?

Generally, for automobile dealer ads, you don't see "bikini ads." Mostly they are like this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu6GRkFEgk0 -- the ones that have women in them generally have professionally garbed women. example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtnjT6HCzpM

I suspect that we hear so often about how ill-treated women are in advertising, without real evidence for it, that we tend to accept it without really critically examining it.
Forty Two
 
Name: Harcourt Mudd
Posts: 1431

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to The Arts & Entertainment

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest