Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Fallible · **#161** by **Fallible** » Jul 13, 2015 5:04 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fallible wrote:Look I'm really sorry, but I can't invest enough in you right now to look up some pictures to post or to respond sensitively to your cries for attention. This will have to do for now.

If you're not interested in the thread, why do you post here? To tell me that what I posted didn't meet your approval? Noted. Thanks!

Aww look, you don't need to misrepresent me in order to get my attention. Here -

Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.

Fallible · **#162** by **Fallible** » Jul 13, 2015 5:07 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fallible wrote:Forty Two always talks about how upset other people are for no discernible reason.

In completely unrelated news, isn't it sweet how a budgie will sit in front of a mirror, tapping it and singing to it, thinking its reflection is another budgie?

Thank you for pointing out that there is no discernible reason for anyone to be upset here. That's good to know.

Can we all agree that nobody posting here on this thread is upset with me for any reason, discernible or otherwise? And,can we also agree that nobody is accusing me of having posted here improperly?

Much obliged.

Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.

Skinny Puppy · **#163** by **Skinny Puppy** » Jul 13, 2015 6:42 pm

Fallible wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Fallible wrote:Look I'm really sorry, but I can't invest enough in you right now to look up some pictures to post or to respond sensitively to your cries for attention. This will have to do for now.

If you're not interested in the thread, why do you post here? To tell me that what I posted didn't meet your approval? Noted. Thanks!

Aww look, you don't need to misrepresent me in order to get my attention. Here -

Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.

Nice one! You’ve really addressed the content of this thread. However, may I add a proviso?

It’s (possibly) difficult for some of us to read through your posts (My GOD! They almost read like a dissertation on quantum mechanics or relativity) without an incredible amount of background knowledge and an intimate understanding of the subject matter. Yes, I know, your posts are probably written for the few elite here that hold a PhD in this field, but remember... some of us are just plain folk and we need a more toned-down, and may I say, a much more down-to-earth explanation in order for us to fully grasp the many intelligent and thought-worthy ideas that you’re presenting here.

Using 56 attention.(s) Is simply beyond my comprehension. One; well yes, one I could handle, but 56 of them? That would strain even the most determined investigator. But I am here to learn and learn I will! Even if it means that I’ll have to study them one-by-one.

During my extensive investigation, I’ll wait for the :thumbup:

brigade to arrive. Oh how I :heart:

them!

Oh my... looks like they’re here already. Hooray! :clap:

purplerat · **#164** by **purplerat** » Jul 13, 2015 6:43 pm

Forty Two wrote:

Are you able to discuss anything without including insulting commentary?

That's rich considering the source.

Forty Two wrote:
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.

So then what do you have to say about it? That's not what the OP was about nor had anybody else brought it up. You interjected it all on your own (which is fair enough) yet you've just left it hanging there without adding much else. If your point is simply that this happens irrespective of gender I think you would find most here would say "so what, that doesn't make it any better". Maybe you disagree with that sentiment?

Forty Two wrote:
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."

Well they really aren't treated the same are they? At best it's more of a "separate but equal" with plenty of skepticism towards the equal part but we'll ignore that for the moment.

Yes both are objectified but in different ways which generally reinforce gender stereotypes. While there are "preferred" body types for both men and woman in advertising they are drastically different. You don't see super muscular female models nor supper skinny male models. It's sexist and happens to cut both ways.

On a side note I was listening to an interesting conversation on the radio this weekend about female athletes and how they have to maintain their body types, in particular Serena Williams. Since such high level athletes also need to consider their marketability women athletes, according to this radio program, actually avoid getting too muscular even to the detriment of their athletic ability. Obviously that is not a concern for male athletes.

Forty Two wrote:
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.

I don't know that I made any specific claims. What I will say is that when sex is used in advertising it's usually seems to be women used to attract men. I'm referring more so to ads in which sex or body image isn't the product itself (so not underwear ads or fitness ads) but more so in general advertisements where such things aren't at all related to the product being sold. The fact is that if I reference "bikini ads" you pretty much know what I mean, even if automobile dealer ads are not always of that type (and of course I never said they were). But I'm sure you've seen them whether it's for beer or website domain names. What you don't generally see are ads for products which have nothing to due with sex or body image which insert men in speedos purely as an advertising hook. And if you do it's pretty much a guarantee that there will be a woman in a bikini standing next to him. Unless maybe it's a parody or trying to be ironic.

***ETA***
I should disclose that I don't have cable or satellite TV and haven't for several years so I don't watch a ton of traditional TV ads anymore. So maybe things have drastically changed in the last 5 years or so since this thread was started.

Forty Two · **#165** by **Forty Two** » Jul 13, 2015 6:44 pm

Fallible wrote:

Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.

Skinny Puppy · **#166** by **Skinny Puppy** » Jul 13, 2015 6:45 pm

Fallible wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Fallible wrote:Forty Two always talks about how upset other people are for no discernible reason.

In completely unrelated news, isn't it sweet how a budgie will sit in front of a mirror, tapping it and singing to it, thinking its reflection is another budgie?

Thank you for pointing out that there is no discernible reason for anyone to be upset here. That's good to know.

Can we all agree that nobody posting here on this thread is upset with me for any reason, discernible or otherwise? And,can we also agree that nobody is accusing me of having posted here improperly?

Much obliged.

Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.
Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.Attention.

Holy shit! :doh:

Just when I thought I had enough study material to last a lifetime... an even more detailed analysis is posted. Woe is I! Perhaps, hmmm... perhaps I’ll hire a study assistant. Might work. :think:

laklak · **#167** by **laklak** » Jul 13, 2015 10:08 pm

They're fucking adverts. Since when have adverts borne any relationship to reality? Look at a Micky D's ad - does that delicious looking burger resemble the smooshed, greasy, lukewarm cow pat you get at the drive in window? Check out car ads, they're always tooling along some gorgeous coast highway or drifting across the Bonneville salt flats, never once do you see someone stuck in 8 lane traffic on I-85 in downtown Atlanta. I love men's razor ads - a six-packed, muscled up dude with great hair and a white towel around his waist smiles into the (slightly) fogged mirror while burnishing his chin with whatever 17-bladed throw-away injection-molded plastic skin scraper they're flogging. Bears little to no resemblance to hubby scraping his face while farting, does it?

Who gives a fuck? Just record the shows and fast forward through the adverts, they're optimized for people with a sub-80 IQ.

Scot Dutchy · **#168** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jul 14, 2015 6:41 am

laklak wrote:Who gives a fuck? Just record the shows and fast forward through the adverts, they're optimized for people with a sub-80 IQ.

Which is why I never watch commercial tv.

Darwinsbulldog · **#169** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Jul 14, 2015 7:05 am

Perhaps a compulsory course in critical thinking in all schools?
In the future, many, perhaps most people will be unemployed, and will have to earn revenue by having "soft-screen" adverts displayed on their skin and clothes [Ben Bova's idea??, I can't recall-some SF story].
Short answer, ads will be both ubiquitous, and even more stupid. Welcome to corporate globalism. Only the rich will be able to filter them out. Mostly ads will be in our faces for as long as we live.

SafeAsMilk · **#170** by **SafeAsMilk** » Jul 14, 2015 4:06 pm

I thought we were all going to live in giant tower complexes with a stipend from the government, desperately looking for ways to while away our time, doing tons of drugs and causing mischief while a small, elite force of Judges work 24 hours a day to keep some semblance of peace.

Forty Two · **#171** by **Forty Two** » Jul 14, 2015 4:52 pm

purplerat wrote:
I don't know that I made any specific claims. What I will say is that when sex is used in advertising it's usually seems to be women used to attract men.

Usually? Or, is it also women used to attract women (many ads for women's products have exclusively female characters in them), and aren't many ads to attract women also focusing on men's bodies too?

However, even if sex is used in advertising to attract men, so what? Why is that bad? I watched a video on youtube earlier today called "Women Play Grand Theft Auto for the First Time." One of the most common objections is that the game appealed to "the male fantasy?" So? What's wrong with the male fantasy?

purplerat wrote:

I'm referring more so to ads in which sex or body image isn't the product itself (so not underwear ads or fitness ads) but more so in general advertisements where such things aren't at all related to the product being sold.

Like Coca Cola? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... w-man.html

Is it "moreso" women depicted that way?

Salad Dressing? http://www.adweek.com/files/fea-hunk-05-2013.jpg

Air fresheners? http://www.adweek.com/files/fea-hunk-04-2013.jpg

Skin cream? http://33.media.tumblr.com/1774053550db ... r1ndqk.jpg

Kraft? http://iamnotthebabysitter.com/wp-conte ... zesty1.jpg

Dolce & Gabana? http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/ima ... 7rhpng.png

Scrabble game? http://objectificationofads.weebly.com/ ... 50.jpg?389

I haven't seen stats on it, but it seems to me that the burden of proof should fall on someone making the claim that objectification of women in ads is worse than that of men.

It seems to me, though, that objectification of men is kind of like violence against men. Kick a woman in the crotch, and it sparks outrage. Kick a man in the crotch, and it's a laugh. Objectification of women is outrageous. Objectification of men is no biggie.

Heck, feminists even object to fit women being depicted in fitness adverts, because using a fit model promotes an unhealthy body image..... http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/a ... ube-advert

purplerat wrote:
The fact is that if I reference "bikini ads" you pretty much know what I mean, even if automobile dealer ads are not always of that type (and of course I never said they were). But I'm sure you've seen them whether it's for beer or website domain names.

Sure, when beer is marketed to men, it's often marketed along side the things the target market likes -- beer, women, sports, barbecues, fishing, etc.

purplerat wrote:
What you don't generally see are ads for products which have nothing to due with sex or body image which insert men in speedos purely as an advertising hook.

I think I gave 5 or 6 examples above with links. There is an unending supply of the same kind of thing.

purplerat wrote:
And if you do it's pretty much a guarantee that there will be a woman in a bikini standing next to him. Unless maybe it's a parody or trying to be ironic.

Well, give me some examples of that. None of the examples that I linked to above have any bikini women in the ads at all.

purplerat · **#172** by **purplerat** » Jul 14, 2015 5:04 pm

I've not said there are no such ads with men, nor that men aren't objectified. I've said what my observations are and I don't see the point in trying to back it up with stats because it really doesn't matter to the point that I was making which as that men and women body images are treated differently even if both experience sexism and objectification.

In fact you actually help prove that point with your description of this woman being "fit"

Heck, feminists even object to fit women being depicted in fitness adverts, because using a fit model promotes an unhealthy body image..... http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/a ... ube-advert

when she actually looks down right scrawny to me (as do most models). You won't find a male with that body type in advertising because a scrawny man with no muscle definition wouldn't be considered "fit", whereas a woman with a muscular physic like those of the men in the ads you linked would be considered freaks.

It's this whole warped idea that what advertisers sell as "attractive" is actually healthy or "fit".

Forty Two · **#173** by **Forty Two** » Jul 14, 2015 5:38 pm

purplerat wrote:I've not said there are no such ads with men, nor that men aren't objectified. I've said what my observations are and I don't see the point in trying to back it up with stats because it really doesn't matter to the point that I was making which as that men and women body images are treated differently even if both experience sexism and objectification.

O.k., but how are they treated differently?

purplerat wrote:

In fact you actually help prove that point with your description of this woman being "fit"
Heck, feminists even object to fit women being depicted in fitness adverts, because using a fit model promotes an unhealthy body image..... http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/a ... ube-advert

when she actually looks down right scrawny to me (as do most models).

That's odd, because she's in very fit shape. The fact that someone would call her "scrawny" is, I think, a function of the fact that American and, yes, European, culture is getting very fat.

And, that model is a person, too. So, if we're not into criticizing body shape, why criticize hers? As she said, "I think nearly every ad campaign you have ever seen is open to interpretation. But saying the ad is body shaming by body shaming the image is very contradictory. Two wrongs don't make a right."

She weighs about 66 kg/145 pounds, and falls within "healthy weight" on the BMI chart for women. She's a rather fit weight, eats a healthy vegan diet, engages in outdoor sports and does strength/resistance training.

purplerat wrote:

You won't find a male with that body type in advertising because a scrawny man with no muscle definition wouldn't be considered "fit", whereas a woman with a muscular physic like those of the men in the ads you linked would be considered freaks.

Because women tend to look feminine and men tend to look masculine and each prefers the body-type associated therewith? So what? From that, it sounds to me as if they are both being treated substantially the same. You don't see a "scrawny" man because "scrawny" is not fit or attractive.

A woman who is as muscular as a man tends to look manly. http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2009 ... e_Bass.jpg

Scrawny men tend not to look manly: http://gamblersdata.info/wp-content/upl ... akling.png

purplerat wrote:
It's this whole warped idea that what advertisers sell as "attractive" is actually healthy or "fit".

It's not what advertisers sell, it's that being "fit" usually means that you don't have exvcess fat. Having a lot of fat is indicative of a lack of fitness. Nor is being fat "just as healthy" as being thin.

Now, that doesn't mean that one has to look like a model in order to be fit. It's possible to have too little fat, etc. But, what's happening in the world today is that people are getting upset that "overweight" is actually "overweight." And, in the US 65% of the population is "overweight." In the UK, they are right behind us at almost 60%. In Mexico, it's more than in the US. Continental Europe even pushes 1/2 the population being overweight.

Thommo · **#174** by **Thommo** » Jul 14, 2015 6:04 pm

Renee Somerfield is 178cm and weighs 52kg, which is not incomparable to Marathon runner Paula Radcliffe, who is 173cm tall and weighs 54kg, although slightly skinnier.

So, I am not sure we can look at her and say she's unfit or unhealthy. But she's certainly very far from representative of the distribution of "fit" women as a whole. A decent comparison could be made with Mo Farah, who is a male distance runner, who also features in advertising, though for his achievements rather than his body, I suspect.

It should be clear how skewed male models and female models are from their athletic counterparts.

purplerat · **#175** by **purplerat** » Jul 14, 2015 6:20 pm

It's also quite ironic how "important" it is that "fit" models be used to advertise products which are probably shit for your health anyways.

Forty Two · **#176** by **Forty Two** » Jul 14, 2015 6:30 pm

Thommo wrote:Renee Somerfield is 178cm and weighs 52kg, which is not incomparable to Marathon runner Paula Radcliffe, who is 173cm tall and weighs 54kg, although slightly skinnier.

So, I am not sure we can look at her and say she's unfit or unhealthy. But she's certainly very far from representative of the distribution of "fit" women as a whole.

So? Why would advertisements have to use models that are "representative of the distribution of fit women as a whole?" And, there is nothing unfit in her appearance. The funniest accusation I heard was when women were claiming that SHE was sending a message of "unhealthy body image" -- and what was needed was for overweight women to be depicted...so as to encourage... I guess... a healthy body image...

Thommo wrote:

A decent comparison could be made with Mo Farah, who is a male distance runner, who also features in advertising, though for his achievements rather than his body, I suspect.

Runners don't have the best bodies. And, a "general fitness" model or competitor has more of an all-around fit body shape. Just google "fitness model" https://www.google.com/search?q=fitness ... qICh0y2gvy - as many men as women come up, and they tend to be extremely fit looking models -- like athlete level fit. That's not to be compared with the average person on the street. These fitness models monitor their food intake down to the grams and ounces levels, and they work out in regimens that most of us could not even complete, for several hours a day.

Maybe what happens is that some folks look at the fitness models or the idealized images featured in ads and think it's a commentary on their own bodies, which it really isn't. It's more or less an example of how offense is usually taken, not given.

Forty Two · **#177** by **Forty Two** » Jul 14, 2015 6:31 pm

purplerat wrote:It's also quite ironic how "important" it is that "fit" models be used to advertise products which are probably shit for your health anyways.

Yes, generally they "cater to the male fantasy" -- which, of course, we know is bad because the "male fantasy" is bad.

What advertisers should do is this:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

purplerat · **#178** by **purplerat** » Jul 14, 2015 6:34 pm

Forty Two wrote:
purplerat wrote:It's also quite ironic how "important" it is that "fit" models be used to advertise products which are probably shit for your health anyways.

Yes, generally they "cater to the male fantasy" -- which, of course, we know is bad because the "male fantasy" is bad.

But I thought you were arguing that it's not skewed towards appealing to males over females? So is it catering to men or is it mostly balanced?

Forty Two · **#179** by **Forty Two** » Jul 14, 2015 6:42 pm

purplerat wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
purplerat wrote:It's also quite ironic how "important" it is that "fit" models be used to advertise products which are probably shit for your health anyways.

Yes, generally they "cater to the male fantasy" -- which, of course, we know is bad because the "male fantasy" is bad.

But I thought you were arguing that it's not skewed towards appealing to males over females? So is it catering to men or is it mostly balanced?

Advertising as a whole is mostly balanced, it appears to me. The ones like the Carls, Jr. hamburger advert, with two hot models mowing down on huge hunks of meat cater to "the male fantasy." However, other ads, like the Coke ads, the Kraft ads, etc, that linked to earlier "cater to the female fantasy." Not that every male and every female has the same fantasies, but in the same way that feminists refer to the male fantasy, we can also refer to the female fantasy, speaking in generalities.

Thommo · **#180** by **Thommo** » Jul 14, 2015 6:48 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Thommo wrote:Renee Somerfield is 178cm and weighs 52kg, which is not incomparable to Marathon runner Paula Radcliffe, who is 173cm tall and weighs 54kg, although slightly skinnier.

So, I am not sure we can look at her and say she's unfit or unhealthy. But she's certainly very far from representative of the distribution of "fit" women as a whole.

So?

So nothing. The only thing I find informative is your reaction to a fairly plain statement of fact that was carefully tailored not to point towards any particular conclusion.

Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Ads by Google

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Ads by Google

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Ads by Google

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Re: Curvy Women Lingerie Ads Not Allowed

Who is online