dentyne ads. i buy gum a lot. they had a series of ads that were totally sexist. a girl, jumping on a boys lap, making out with parents sitting across watching. girls shirt flies off and hits dad in face. mom jumps on dad and starts making out. on family channel, when kids were young. everything about the message wrong for kids.

five years i have never picked up dentyne.

rebocks. bought them since a teenager. talking boobs and then talking boobs and ass. decades. i wont by another rebock.

victoria secret. would buy all bras and other stuff there. in the 90's they went from empowering women, marketing to women, women owning their sexuallity, to selling to the men with the hot young, near naked model to get your woman to look like that, too. 90's, quit buying their product.

i dont care what they say, that any controversy is good for a company. not true. if a company will not be respectful to me, they will not get my $. that simple

new coke. hmmmm. how well did that controversial product last.

I can think of a handful of products I've purchased after seeing an ad, but the majority of the time I'm thinking, 'Dang, I'm for sure not buying that crap now.'.

This will become less and less prevalent. For decades certain groups have worked very hard to water down or even counter the feminists and psychologists and sociologists who have decried this dehumanizing practice.

We have finally reached critical mass though, it seems. Finally people are starting to speak out instead of going along to get along.

Tom Ford Wants You to Be Okay With Penises
http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2008/04/tom_ford_wants_you_to_be_okay.html

But no, objectification of the male form isn't something I'm interested in or consider helpful.

There is also the fact that such portrayals do not serve the dominant group's interest at the expense of an oppressed group.

And here is an interview with Tom Ford:

Tom Ford, Cultivated Rebel, Speaks

<snip>

As much as I’ve tried, it has been consistently harder to get images of nude men onto magazine pages and billboards than it has nude women. In a society where images of brutal violence are consumed during breakfast, the male nude is one of our last taboos. There’s a double standard at play here: magazines that are happy to fund ads featuring an artfully lit female nude will balk at an image of her male counterpart.

<snip>



I have always found it ridiculous that, in America, if I wanted to run an ad of a woman with bare breasts I had to retouch her nipples. Now why would a woman’s bare breasts, created as nature intended, be more shocking than a bizarre pair of breasts with absolutely no nipples? What could be more perverse?

Think of how tough it must be to be a woman in our culture. Women are constantly judged by their bodies and the size of their breasts … Imagine … if our suits were entirely designed to show off our penises. Imagine if contemporary fashion demanded that you left your cock hanging outside your trousers, with perhaps just the head trussed up in a tiny pouch like a dick bra. Everyone would see our cocks all the time, in the same way that fashion features women’s breasts.

More:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/05/22/tom-ford-cultivated-rebel-speaks/

when its shown again later in a non giant size?

Also its unfair to display women's asses and not men's. Not that equality matters, let alone respect.

Would a Brazilian Butt Look Feminine on a Man?

asked 1 year ago by A1990 in Texas
Latest answer by B. Pat Pazmino, MD
Question viewed 16,614 times
Tags: male, shape

I mean man's butts are totally different than women's butts. seems to me that man's butt has like a hole on the side of each cheek. Are doctors able to create that shape?

More:
http://www.realself.com/question/brazilian-butt-femenine-man

Note: "Safe Search Off" brings up much more interesting stuff when you google "men's ass ad." I found this one with search set to "moderate."

If not, then its even more gratuitous than your first set.

You do realize we got the idea from the OP.

I appreciate the meaning of the piece you linked. I do think we all have a good idea of what's being discussed now.

See my post above. This isn't about male sexual imagery per se'. You made your point and I am asking you one last time to stop.

... they would have asked me to remove this one, if they saw a problem with it.

At least it doesn't seem to be based on that link. It looks like the kind of before/after pictures that doctors show prospective patients.

Surely you are aware of the distinction between that and paid advertising which is used for mass marketing.

To be intellectually honest, you would need to provide something that actually qualifies as a man's ass that is used in an actual advertisement.

Might as well remove it, as it doesn't apply to this thread anyway, and since you have been politely asked to by a member of this group, it is only the considerate thing to do.

Or you could be even more thoughtful and remove both the man's ass and the woman's ass pics as well.

As I said before, we get it. We didn't need more images before you posted, and we still don't.

And he just likes to show the before and after pictures as a hobby.

I didn't know that.

And in any case, I put it there because you said it was unfair to show a woman's ass and not show a man's ass.

... I've already had a talk with the host about what can stay and what cannot, and that ADVERTISEMENT for Brazilian Butt Surgery was not on the list of things that have to go.

So, I am asking you, in good faith, to take that one down. You've shown interest in interacting with this group in a constructive way... I appreciate that cooperation and your doing so now, as well.

I am happy to conform to the standards of the Feminist group.

But it would be nice if at least one person here, who I will not name, would understand that other groups they muck around in do not have to adhere to the standards of the Feminist group, and would just leave stuff alone.

I'm not demanding a quid-pro-quo. I have already done what you've asked. I'm just sayin' is all.

While I doubt any of us are in favor of objectifying men, it does not carry the same consequences as it does with women. Men will still be looked upon positively and retain their inherent position in our society, regardless of their being portrayed as less than their "whole" being, focusing only on an aspect of their body.

I am a host here and am asking you to respect a request to delete the larger photos, having made your point. I'd also ask that you realize the very different distinction being discussed here. Thank you in advance.

you would remove the images. I am not a host, just a member, but I do not like them here. Nor do I think that they are necessary.

But that Tom Ford ad is fucking disgusting.

I won't buy any products with stupid ads, sexist or not.

I *especially* won't buy products with sexist adverstising.

The term "breastvertising" made me though.

why did you ask if you already know?

I'm going to assume your mentioning it was not intended to relate to the topic at hand, nor did you mention it in order to seriously discuss it.

Why don't you try constructively engaging me, rather than trying to corner me?

You just threw it out there like a joke.

Your posts here leave me wondering what your intent is. Those pictures you included in your first response were unnecessary. Gratuitous, one might say. Then there was the post where you seemed to be redirecting the conversation towards the issue of why men *aren't* objectified to anywhere near the same extent as women. This is kinda obvious, isn't it?

You say I'm trying to 'corner' you, but I'm really just trying to figure out why discussing the OP doesn't seem to be something you're interested in.

But it would appear that he's not only willing to make money off that exploitation, but also bemoans the roadblocks preventing him from making money by physically exploiting men.

I think that the main obstacle to ending the gratuitous objectification and exploitation of the female form is not misogyny, but MONEY.

Because even people who agree with us on how awful it is, will use it to make a buck.

He just wants to be able to more freely use men's bodies as props, too.

The money definitely makes it harder to eliminate, but through awareness campaigns we can at least show .people the wrongness of it. And eventually may even get laws like they have in Denmark and Norway, which limit using bodies as props. At least they have begun to put a leash on advertisers there. Ultimately its up to the consumer though. Just like anything else, it's whatever the market will bear.

Why does there ALWAYS have to be some lame attempt at a male equivalent? See, this is a huge part of the problem. It never fails- whenever the sexist bs against females is brought up, men will jump in the with bs supposed male example. Here's a clue- Female exploitation isn't about YOU.

I remarked that I found the made up word "breastvertising" funny.

You countered with another made up word "cockmentaries".

I know feminists aren't supposed to have a sense of humor and I am supposed to be outraged, but I literally laughed out loud. It was funny to me.

But it turns out, as I googled later, that "Cockumentaries" has actually been used before.

But let's not start a whole sub-thread on that.

Somehow having a tenuously related blog linked, with a bunch of pictures that don't appear at that blog, including a giant close up of a woman's oiled-up crotch, which was so considerately and kindly included twice, just for good measure... having that posted here in a serious discussion.... I dunno, tends to deaden the ole sense of humor just an eensy weensy bit. For me, anyway. YMMV obviously.

Its an interesting topic, that I am sure will be debated for years to come. Sex sells that's what they have always said, and breasts for part of that world. The majority of men will happy take a look at propaganda featuring the woman form, but what about women? Isn't it strange though how many adds for women products feature the female form?

As for using the patriarchy-pleasing version of the female form to play on women's anxieties and insecurities, no, that isn't strange at all.

It's called marketing, and Wall Street is grateful for all the ass-covering that sexist, entitled assholes have provided all these many decades.

Soooo tired.

What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!

Can anyone tell me what the hell this type advertising does that is good for humankind? What good purpose does it offer us as a people?

What, can't anyone find a live person to admire? Or is the real point most real life people chose not to show every thing they physically have? Wonder why that is?

And please don't tell me you think it's ok that the 1% making money on our ignorance/lust is good. Please.

and it is a mistake (imo) that it has been allowed to be used to sell things and to allow people to make higher profits.

I once had a conversation with a surgeon in our suite not long ago. She had picked up a magazine in our patient reception area and was flipping through it before our pt. came in.

She mentioned that every add in that magazine had a Woman with parted lips, the kind of "come hither" thing. I was surprised and now I look and she was RIGHT! Pick up a People magazine and every add there is a Woman with painted parted lips. It's weird.

Why would they try to sell underarm deodorant depicting a Woman with painted up parted lips? SEX...SEX... SEX. Sorry, I don't think about SEX when I am applying secret "powder room" to my fucking armpits!

UGGG. And before anyone jumps on the anti-sex bandwagon, screw you. I love sex! Plan to have sex as much as possible until I die. Thank you.