Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: JoeKitchen on August 16, 2019, 12:02:03 pm
-
Read this article the other day and kind of curious what people think.
First ads banned for contravening UK gender stereotyping rules (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/aug/14/first-ads-banned-for-contravening-gender-stereotyping-rules)
Personally, I found the first commercial to be quite good. The second commercial I just don't get; it does not make sense to me.
-
Fascism/socialism rising.
-
Although I am not taking it as far as you are Slobo, I do find this to be disturbing. These ads were not overtly negative, just mild jests, and, as John Cleese said, "all comedy is critical."
I feel like we are setting up a system where we will be sacrificing creativity at the expense to not offend the most easily offended people in our society, who can literally get offended by anything.
I would hate to be a creative director in the UK right now. I can only imagine what is going through their heads after seeing this.
Although not dealing with gender issues, kind of, I feel like this video pretty much sums up what the behind the scenes of future advertising campaigns will be in Britain.
The Invention of the Stop Sign (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wac3aGn5twc)
-
... this video pretty much sums up what the behind the scenes of future advertising campaigns will be in Britain.
The Invention of the Stop Sign (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wac3aGn5twc)
I so wanted to laugh at that, but having spent most of my career in the corporate world, it was too close to home to do so.
-
I feel like we are setting up a system where we will be sacrificing creativity at the expense to not offend the most easily offended people in our society, who can literally get offended by anything.
Surely you don't think the premise of either of those ads was creative?
-
Surely you don't think the premise of either of those ads was creative?
I liked the first one. I would not say it was the most amazing ad ever, but it was not bad.
The second, I really don't get at all. It just makes no sense. ???
The bigger point though is that these ads were pretty mundane. The fact that one could interoperate that the 2nd ad implies women should be passive simply because the female climber was a sleep is kind of remarkable. Same thing with the first ad; it was just a mild jest at men.
Working in the creative industry, I can tell you from experience creative directors are going to look at this ruling and be bewildered by it. It will cause them to second guess a lot of ideas for the fear of it not getting approved.
Lets look at the second ad. People took issue with the sleeping climber being a woman. Okay, so take her out. Then people will complain about where are all of the women in the first half of the commercial. Okay, lets have her be reading and the man sleeping. Then people will complain why a woman was not given one of the more active roles like the astronaut. How about the second half, which supposedly implies that women need to be caregivers. Well, the scene only has one person, so it must be represented by just one gender. If having a woman makes it an issue, replace her with a man. But then, since the woman could be described as not really paying attention, putting a man into that part could then lead people to think that the ad is implying what the first ad got in trouble for.
-
Fascism/socialism rising.
Keep calm and carry on.
-
Keep calm and carry on.
Frog boiling.
-
This just makes me think of the movement a few years ago trying to get normal looking people in fashion adverts.
The problem though is that people don't by cloths to look normal. They buy clothes to look sexy and attractive, so using normal people just does not work nearly as well in selling clothes. This has been proven. Companies have tested selling the same clothing using two different ads, one with an extremely attractive person and one with a normal looking person. In all cases, those ads that have the attractive person helped sell more clothes. I see this movement having the same effect, the creation of ads that don't work as well as they could. Certainly not in all cases, but enough for it to matter.
Now I am not saying we should be bringing back the overtly misogynistic ads of decades past, but these ad were not overtly negative by any stretch.
-
We lost the great ads years ago, when the tobacco and booze companies ran into bans.
All those delightful girls lurking on exotic beaches clutching coconuts, lying in hammocks, getting their tresses soaked beneath little waterfalls in Jamaica... even the perfume industry was hit because of an ad of a nice lady lying on her back with her clothes off. Sophie Dahl, she was.
Sex is evil. Many puritanical religions tell you so, so it must be true. Right?
The world is currently being run by idiots, yes, friggin' over-educated, underdeveloped mental midgets with their heads stuck up their butts.
When will folks wake up and toss these fools into the garbage, along with their dumb messages and perverted sexualities? We hardly need fear the coming of extreme religious fanatics from alien societies: we already pay huge salaries to our own nutters in quangos in self-inflicted efforts to curb our enjoyment of people who look better than most of the rest of us do. Envy of the beautiful lies behind a lot of this crap. Along with jealousy, envy is one of the more ugly emotions.
-
The ban wouldn't last in the USA. The SUpreme Court would throw it out when the government was sued for violating our right of free speech guaranteed in our Constitution. Free speech allows people to insult others, give opinions, hit ideas with irony, and laugh at others. Otherwise you can eventually ban everything a government official finds prejudicial, or anti-governmental policy, as they do in Red China.
-
Only moderators can ban these things. :)
-
The ban wouldn't last in the USA. The SUpreme Court would throw it out when the government was sued for violating our right of free speech guaranteed in our Constitution. Free speech allows people to insult others, give opinions, hit ideas with irony, and laugh at others. Otherwise you can eventually ban everything a government official finds prejudicial, or anti-governmental policy, as they do in Red China.
That's nice. Too bad you can't stop various states from making it more difficult if not impossible for women to control their own bodies. Which, to my mind, is a lot more important than being able to see nude women in perfume ads, not that I have anything against that. But not during the Super Bowl, nooooo, that's sacred. ;)
-
That's nice. Too bad you can't stop various states from making it more difficult if not impossible for women to control their own bodies. Which, to my mind, is a lot more important than being able to see nude women in perfume ads, not that I have anything against that. But not during the Super Bowl, nooooo, that's sacred. ;)
Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land. No individual state can violate it. In any case we're talking about free speech for individuals as well as free commercial speech as in ads. The point I was making was that Americans have more protection when it comes to saying what we want. I think that's a good thing. Europeans have accepted a more constricting government. They often can;t say what they want or wear what they wish to wear. Will the government in Europe soon start banning books that they feel stereotype people? You'll have to burn down half of your librairies.
Let's see. War and Peace. Gone! Dr. Zhivago. Gone!
-
We lost the great ads years ago, when the tobacco and booze companies ran into bans.
All those delightful girls lurking on exotic beaches clutching coconuts, lying in hammocks, getting their tresses soaked beneath little waterfalls in Jamaica... even the perfume industry was hit because of an ad of a nice lady lying on her back with her clothes off. Sophie Dahl, she was.
Sex is evil. Many puritanical religions tell you so, so it must be true. Right?
The world is currently being run by idiots, yes, friggin' over-educated, underdeveloped mental midgets with their heads stuck up their butts.
When will folks wake up and toss these fools into the garbage, along with their dumb messages and perverted sexualities? We hardly need fear the coming of extreme religious fanatics from alien societies: we already pay huge salaries to our own nutters in quangos in self-inflicted efforts to curb our enjoyment of people who look better than most of the rest of us do. Envy of the beautiful lies behind a lot of this crap. Along with jealousy, envy is one of the more ugly emotions.
Things are not so dire. It's just the usual tug of war, and I suspect the tug of war itself is just part of someone's marketing campaign. People pretend to be offended at (possibly) catching a fleeting glimpse of Janet Jackson's nipple, but have no problems ogling cleavages almost all the time on almost all TV shows. And I'm talking about prime time network TV.
And then there's this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZLfasMPOU4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZLfasMPOU4). I can't recall of anyone being up in arms about that.
Having said that, there probably are loads of groups who are jealous of the Taliban's cultural power and want some of that power for themselves. It's always good to stay vigilant.
-
Things are not so dire. It's just the usual tug of war, and I suspect the tug of war itself is just part of someone's marketing campaign. People pretend to be offended at (possibly) catching a fleeting glimpse of Janet Jackson's nipple, but have no problems ogling cleavages almost all the time on almost all TV shows. And I'm talking about prime time network TV.
And then there's this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZLfasMPOU4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZLfasMPOU4). I can't recall of anyone being up in arms about that.
Having said that, there probably are loads of groups who are jealous of the Taliban's cultural power and want some of that power for themselves. It's always good to stay vigilant.
Talk about Taliban and revealing clothing. These days a man can't find in North Americas a decent speedo or short swimming trunks. All you can get are those 2 1/2 feet long swimming trunks sponsored and approved by Taliban. OK for a January Polar Bear dip in Lake Ontario, but not suitable on a sunny day when trying to catch more Vitamin D.
-
The ban wouldn't last in the USA. The SUpreme Court would throw it out when the government was sued for violating our right of free speech guaranteed in our Constitution. Free speech allows people to insult others, give opinions, hit ideas with irony, and laugh at others. Otherwise you can eventually ban everything a government official finds prejudicial, or anti-governmental policy, as they do in Red China.
And ... click!! the Alan-bot jumps into action - "USA USA USA USA"
-
Talk about Taliban and revealing clothing. These days a man can't find in North Americas a decent speedo or short swimming trunks. All you can get are those 2 1/2 feet long swimming trunks sponsored and approved by Taliban. OK for a January Polar Bear dip in Lake Ontario, but not suitable on a sunny day when trying to catch more Vitamin D.
Isn’t it paradoxical? Women are increasingly wearing literally next-to-nothing G-string bikinis, while men are required to wear burqa-like trunks!? And if you show up in a speedo in the US, you must be a perv.
-
Isn’t it paradoxical? Women are increasingly wearing literally next-to-nothing G-string bikinis, while men are required to wear burqa-like trunks!? And if you show up in a speedo in the US, you must be a perv.
That's what I call American tragedy. Maybe the materials used for women's swimsuits are more expensive, so they have to make just tiny bikinis. Or women try to get preferrential treatments when it comes to harnessing Vitamin D. Either way, it is a blatant case of gender inequality.
-
That's what I call American tragedy. Maybe the materials used for women's swimsuits are more expensive, so they have to make just tiny bikinis. Or women try to get preferrential treatments when it comes to harnessing Vitamin D. Either way, it is a blatant case of gender inequality.
That's what IS was trying to address for us: cover 'em all up so that they can't tempt us with their evil curves and lips, and enjoy freedoms we refuse to enjoy for ourselves...
Regarding the swimming pants for men: many would have a hard time keeping the old styles on. Or even taking them off: creases can be stubborn hiding places for pants and germs. If folks continue to get fatter and fatter, they will either have to wear braces - in Miami tints of blue, yellows and creams - or wear full body suits instead. A full suit has the advantage that the huge belly may be mistaken for a gigantic air bubble; wait - that could be worse.
(Disclaimer: I love those curves and lips some ladies have - I am trying to make a point.)
Rob
-
Things are not so dire. It's just the usual tug of war, and I suspect the tug of war itself is just part of someone's marketing campaign. People pretend to be offended at (possibly) catching a fleeting glimpse of Janet Jackson's nipple, but have no problems ogling cleavages almost all the time on almost all TV shows. And I'm talking about prime time network TV.
And then there's this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZLfasMPOU4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZLfasMPOU4). I can't recall of anyone being up in arms about that.
Having said that, there probably are loads of groups who are jealous of the Taliban's cultural power and want some of that power for themselves. It's always good to stay vigilant.
Today they are not so dire!
Enjoyed your musical link, and firmly believe that had all kids access to such examples of divine older dream, youth crime would vanish at a stroke. Who's have the time to waste?
Thank you for posting; lunch out will taste the finer for it. If I remember where to find the link again, that is.
;-)
-
Talk about Taliban and revealing clothing. These days a man can't find in North Americas a decent speedo or short swimming trunks. All you can get are those 2 1/2 feet long swimming trunks sponsored and approved by Taliban. OK for a January Polar Bear dip in Lake Ontario, but not suitable on a sunny day when trying to catch more Vitamin D.
Olympic athletes can still get them, so they must be available somewhere.
There is one pair at MEC https://www.mec.ca/en/product/6000-470/Hexa-All-Over-Racer-Swimsuit (https://www.mec.ca/en/product/6000-470/Hexa-All-Over-Racer-Swimsuit).
-
Thank you for posting; lunch out will taste the finer for it. If I remember where to find the link again, that is.
Never mind the link, just remember "Stacy's Mom", that's what I search when I want to watch it again. :)
-
Never mind the link, just remember "Stacy's Mom", that's what I search when I want to watch it again. :)
It works!
:-)