LittleIzumi Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 posted in the comment section of the first link...... Kia Motors America Statement Regarding Inappropri*ate Advertisin*g Material From Brazil Kia Motors America (KMA) has become aware of an offensive piece of advertisin*g material that was created by an ad agency in Brazil that KMA has no business relationsh*ip with and has never worked with. This ad was not created in the U.S. by Kia Motors America or any of its marketing partners and does not reflect the opinions or values of KMA or Kia Motors Corporatio*n. The ad is undoubtedl*y inappropri*ate, and on behalf of Kia Motors we apologize to those who have been offended by it. We can guarantee this advertisem*ent has never and will never be used in any form in the United States, and our global headquarte*rs in Seoul, South Korea is addressing the issue with the independen*t Brazilian distributo*r. That doesn't seem to be official. I don't see it anywhere else and it is NOT on the Kia press release page http://www.kia.com/#/press/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowProphet Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Alan, for your perspective on this to make sense, we'd have to assume that a *young child* (as depicted on the left) is having se$ual fantasies about her teacher. That is just as offensive -- perhaps moreso, actually -- than looking at it as a teacher having fantasies about a student. No, we don't. That is again going based on the assumption that one side of the panel is real. I am telling you they are BOTH false perceptions. The panel on the left is the false perception of the teacher (seeing his student as innocent and eager to learn), and the right is the false perception of the student (thinking that the teacher may return her silly schoolgirl crush). As to my first post being this one, I've been reading posts here that a friend in home-schooling has been sending me for ages, and there have been a number of times I've wanted to post on more trivial stuff (PCs and Droid ftw), as well as more important stuff (like some of the parents complete lack of ability to effectively discipline their children), but every time there have been other people who have come on and covered the points I wanted to make. This is the first time where literally everyone on the site seems to be taking a specific (and very sexist, I'd add) view. Honestly, in my experience, girls have just as dirty minds as boys, and the idea that girls are prim, proper, and innocent compared to boys is an illusion furthered by previously sheltered girls who were told the same lies and given the same skewed expectations. I know lots of people who were homeschooled, but I was not. My general experience with girls that age were in public school, and they were easily as dirty minded and physically obsessed with boys as boys were with girls. All that being said, most of you are coming from a very similar perspective. For the most part this site is populated by morally sound, family-oriented mothers. Which is a good thing. But it also means that there are going to be times when you are all going to agree with each other because of a shared perspective that may not be entirely accurate. -Alan P.S. I was aware from the start most of you would brush off my statements as "oh figures, he's a male". But I'm not seeing anyone making any counterpoints other than "Do you have statistics to prove that?" I don't need statistics to prove that there are more school girl crushes than pedophiles in teaching. I was there, I remember how common it was. One good looking younger male teacher equals approximately 15-20 schoolgirl crushes per class, at 9 classes per day... figure in for a few students who have the same teacher for both home-room AND science (or math, or english, or whatever), and you're still looking at over 100 crushes on one teacher. In my school, it was the Phys. Ed./history teacher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 It does seem that Allan is right--it is the girl who is fantasizing, based on the sequence of the dialogue (at least in my interpretation). However, this doesn't make the add less offensive! Yet another lesson--visual and powerful--we take women's rights and women's status for granted here in North America. If the ad was approved in Brazil, I wonder what is their other ads are, and what young children are exposed to. So sad. Here is a selection of 25 vintage ads--not that vintage, actually. http://www.boredpanda.com/vintage-ads/ those ads are racist (highly so) and sexist, yes, but not hypersexualizing little girls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 All that being said, most of you are coming from a very similar perspective. For the most part this site is populated by morally sound, family-oriented mothers. Which is a good thing. But it also means that there are going to be times when you are all going to agree with each other because of a shared perspective that may not be entirely accurate. -Alan This thread has had women with very little in common in terms of faith and political beliefs, who all agree that the ads are reprehensible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 No, we don't. That is again going based on the assumption that one side of the panel is real. I am telling you they are BOTH false perceptions. The panel on the left is the false perception of the teacher (seeing his student as innocent and eager to learn), and the right is the false perception of the student (thinking that the teacher may return her silly schoolgirl crush). As to my first post being this one, I've been reading posts here that a friend in home-schooling has been sending me for ages, and there have been a number of times I've wanted to post on more trivial stuff (PCs and Droid ftw), as well as more important stuff (like some of the parents complete lack of ability to effectively discipline their children), but every time there have been other people who have come on and covered the points I wanted to make. This is the first time where literally everyone on the site seems to be taking a specific (and very sexist, I'd add) view. Honestly, in my experience, girls have just as dirty minds as boys, and the idea that girls are prim, proper, and innocent compared to boys is an illusion furthered by previously sheltered girls who were told the same lies and given the same skewed expectations. I know lots of people who were homeschooled, but I was not. My general experience with girls that age were in public school, and they were easily as dirty minded and physically obsessed with boys as boys were with girls. All that being said, most of you are coming from a very similar perspective. For the most part this site is populated by morally sound, family-oriented mothers. Which is a good thing. But it also means that there are going to be times when you are all going to agree with each other because of a shared perspective that may not be entirely accurate. -Alan P.S. I was aware from the start most of you would brush off my statements as "oh figures, he's a male". But I'm not seeing anyone making any counterpoints other than "Do you have statistics to prove that?" I don't need statistics to prove that there are more school girl crushes than pedophiles in teaching. I was there, I remember how common it was. One good looking younger male teacher equals approximately 15-20 schoolgirl crushes per class, at 9 classes per day... figure in for a few students who have the same teacher for both home-room AND science (or math, or english, or whatever), and you're still looking at over 100 crushes on one teacher. In my school, it was the Phys. Ed./history teacher. :iagree::iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) No, we don't. That is again going based on the assumption that one side of the panel is real. I am telling you they are BOTH false perceptions. The panel on the left is the false perception of the teacher (seeing his student as innocent and eager to learn), and the right is the false perception of the student (thinking that the teacher may return her silly schoolgirl crush). *Either way* it is playing to a male fantasy! The very fact that two (presumably) normal, average males THINK it's true shows how prevalent this fantasy actually is!! Again, I point to pop culture as evidence. Read Lolita. We are supposed to *know* he's a disgusting perv and therefore an unreliable narrator when he talks about being seduced by the young girl. Watch the movie American Beauty. Even teens/young women who *do* flirt outrageously with grown men often do so out of complete ignorance. Honestly, in my experience, girls have just as dirty minds as boys, and the idea that girls are prim, proper, and innocent compared to boys is an illusion furthered by previously sheltered girls who were told the same lies and given the same skewed expectations. I know lots of people who were homeschooled, but I was not. My general experience with girls that age were in public school, and they were easily as dirty minded and physically obsessed with boys as boys were with girls. All that being said, most of you are coming from a very similar perspective. For the most part this site is populated by morally sound, family-oriented mothers. Which is a good thing. But it also means that there are going to be times when you are all going to agree with each other because of a shared perspective that may not be entirely accurate. -Alan P.S. I was aware from the start most of you would brush off my statements as "oh figures, he's a male". But I'm not seeing anyone making any counterpoints other than "Do you have statistics to prove that?" I don't need statistics to prove that there are more school girl crushes than pedophiles in teaching. I was there, I remember how common it was. One good looking younger male teacher equals approximately 15-20 schoolgirl crushes per class, at 9 classes per day... figure in for a few students who have the same teacher for both home-room AND science (or math, or english, or whatever), and you're still looking at over 100 crushes on one teacher. In my school, it was the Phys. Ed./history teacher. I went to public school too, and I had the opposite experience. My 10th grade English teacher and my 11th grade Geometry teachers were constantly having objects thrown in their path so that they would bend over to pick them up. I only know of one teacher at my extremely large (I graduated with over 600 students) public school who was fired for having sex with a student and that was a male teacher (and it was long after I graduated, I only know about it because I had 3 younger sisters). But neither my experience nor your experience count for anything in a discussion like this. Both are both anecdotal, which means they have to be dismissed. That's why you have to come up with a study or statistics if you want to add any weight to your argument. those ads are racist (highly so) and sexist, yes, but not hypersexualizing little girls. :iagree: Edited June 24, 2011 by Mrs Mungo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) No, we don't. That is again going based on the assumption that one side of the panel is real. I am telling you they are BOTH false perceptions. The panel on the left is the false perception of the teacher (seeing his student as innocent and eager to learn), and the right is the false perception of the student (thinking that the teacher may return her silly schoolgirl crush). As to my first post being this one, I've been reading posts here that a friend in home-schooling has been sending me for ages, and there have been a number of times I've wanted to post on more trivial stuff (PCs and Droid ftw), as well as more important stuff (like some of the parents complete lack of ability to effectively discipline their children), but every time there have been other people who have come on and covered the points I wanted to make. This is the first time where literally everyone on the site seems to be taking a specific (and very sexist, I'd add) view. Honestly, in my experience, girls have just as dirty minds as boys, and the idea that girls are prim, proper, and innocent compared to boys is an illusion furthered by previously sheltered girls who were told the same lies and given the same skewed expectations. I know lots of people who were homeschooled, but I was not. My general experience with girls that age were in public school, and they were easily as dirty minded and physically obsessed with boys as boys were with girls. All that being said, most of you are coming from a very similar perspective. For the most part this site is populated by morally sound, family-oriented mothers. Which is a good thing. But it also means that there are going to be times when you are all going to agree with each other because of a shared perspective that may not be entirely accurate. -Alan P.S. I was aware from the start most of you would brush off my statements as "oh figures, he's a male". But I'm not seeing anyone making any counterpoints other than "Do you have statistics to prove that?" I don't need statistics to prove that there are more school girl crushes than pedophiles in teaching. I was there, I remember how common it was. One good looking younger male teacher equals approximately 15-20 schoolgirl crushes per class, at 9 classes per day... figure in for a few students who have the same teacher for both home-room AND science (or math, or english, or whatever), and you're still looking at over 100 crushes on one teacher. In my school, it was the Phys. Ed./history teacher. Seriously? And here I tried to ignore you because you've never posted before. I am on another thread arguing that it's within the law for a 50 yo male teacher to sleep with an 18 yo (student, but not of his school). The 18 yo seduced him, admits it, and was the pursuer. Matter of fact, when the teacher was called a predator, I said clearly he's not. SHE pursued him. I am NOT unaware of how horny a teenaged girl can be, nor am I unaware that there are such situations that go on. As for your own mental addition stats, those don't count. Link, please. They are not both false. Read the bottom of the ad, (what the ad thinks it's selling) in no where is it fantasizing anything-it's selling hot and cold, and the drawings are a symbolic portrayal of the hot and cold of its dual zone air conditioning. Cold (the left) to hot (the right) same scenario, hypersexualized. That ad is pedo soft porn. You read from left to right. If you were correct, than the picture on the left would be of a teenaged girl, drawn in a more cartoonish line (as the style of the little girl is) with the sexualized one on the right, a more realistic drawing, as it is. That is NOT what it is, it's of a little uniformed school girl. Edited June 24, 2011 by justamouse corraling rogue letters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowProphet Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 This thread has had women with very little in common in terms of faith and political beliefs, who all agree that the ads are reprehensible. Seriously? You are going to argue my point that most people on here are morally sound, family-oriented mothers? I didn't say you don't come from different backgrounds, or religions, I said quite specifically, "morally sound, family-oriented mothers". So pick which one you are going to argue. Are most here not morally sound? Are most here not family-oriented? Are most here not mothers? And with those three pieces in common, you are often going to share view-points from the perspective of "morally sound, family-oriented mothers". If you want to insult yourself or others on the site by arguing that, go ahead. -Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 This thread has had women with very little in common in terms of faith and political beliefs, who all agree that the ads are reprehensible. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I am amazed at the sexism I have been seeing here lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Seriously? You are going to argue my point that most people on here are morally sound, family-oriented mothers? I didn't say you don't come from different backgrounds, or religions, I said quite specifically, "morally sound, family-oriented mothers". So pick which one you are going to argue. Are most here not morally sound? Are most here not family-oriented? Are most here not mothers? And with those three pieces in common, you are often going to share view-points from the perspective of "morally sound, family-oriented mothers". If you want to insult yourself or others on the site by arguing that, go ahead. -Alan You are a terrible debater. Are you as young as our friend, tnt? It's not an insult to recognize the fact that you'd find variance in the definition of morally sound among our members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 Seriously? You are going to argue my point that most people on here are morally sound, family-oriented mothers? I didn't say you don't come from different backgrounds, or religions, I said quite specifically, "morally sound, family-oriented mothers". So pick which one you are going to argue. Are most here not morally sound? Are most here not family-oriented? Are most here not mothers? And with those three pieces in common, you are often going to share view-points from the perspective of "morally sound, family-oriented mothers". If you want to insult yourself or others on the site by arguing that, go ahead. -Alan She's not saying that. She's saying that despite many of us being flaming liberals and many of us being ultra conservative Christians, that this is an attack on little girls that we all agree is disgusting. What one mother might find moral, another might find within their allowance of freedom (such as the teacher/student thread where you can see that in action). We have those arguments here all the time. But you must know that, you've lurked quite a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Seriously? You are going to argue my point that most people on here are morally sound, family-oriented mothers? -Alan I agree that I should have clipped more of your post. We are not all coming from a similar perspective as your first sentence in that paragraph stated. That was all I meant. How rude you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowProphet Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Seriously? And here I tried to ignore you because you've never posted before. I am on another thread arguing that it's within the law for a 50 yo male teacher to sleep with an 18 yo (student, but not of his school). The 18 yo seduced him, admits it, and was the pursuer. Matter of fact, when the teacher was called a predator, I said clearly he's not. SHE pursued him. I am NOT unaware of how horny a teenaged girl can be, nor am I unaware that there are such situations that go on. As for your own mental addition stats, those don't count. Link, please. They are not both false. Read the bottom of the ad, (what the ad thinks it's selling) in no where is it fantasizing anything-it's selling hot and cold, and the drawings are a symbolic portrayal of the hot and cold of its dual zone air conditioning. Cold (the left) to hot (the right) same scenario, hypersexualized. That ad is pedo soft porn. You read from left to right. If you were correct, than the picture on the left would be of a teenaged girl, drawn in a more cartoonish line (as the style of the little girl is) with the sexualized one on the right, a more realistic drawing, as it is. That is NOT what it is, it's of a little uniformed school girl. Exactly. A realistic drawing of an older girl, and a cartoonish portrayal of a younger girl. But to insist that just because it's hot and cold means one is reality and one is fantasy still doesn't make solid sense. The hot/cold aspect of the ad is simply saying you can both have things your way. The first side is what the teacher sees, and the second side is what the student sees, and there you have your cold and hot. To the teacher it is a normal, eager student (cold), and to the student it is a fantasy (hot). I'm not saying it's not an awful ad. The drawing style on the right is gross, especially the eating the apple thing, but there are two possible perspectives on the drawing, one perspective is perverted (the idea that the right side is the teacher's fantasy), and the other perspective is natural (a girl having a crush on a teacher) if not still gross if pursued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 She's not saying that. She's saying that despite many of us being flaming liberals and many of us being ultra conservative Christians, that this is an attack on little girls that we all agree is disgusting. What one mother might find moral, another might find within their allowance of freedom (such as the teacher/student thread where you can see that in action). We have those arguments here all the time. But you must know that, you've lurked quite a bit. This really did surprise me. Why is it that most of you in this thread seem to see an attack on little girls that may or may not exist? I agree, if it were an attack on little girls, I would think it's disgusting. As it is, I merely think it is inappropriate and not classy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Exactly. A realistic drawing of an older girl, and a cartoonish portrayal of a younger girl. But to insist that just because it's hot and cold means one is reality and one is fantasy still doesn't make solid sense. The hot/cold aspect of the ad is simply saying you can both have things your way. The first side is what the teacher sees, and the second side is what the student sees, and there you have your cold and hot. To the teacher it is a normal, eager student (cold), and to the student it is a fantasy (hot). I'm not saying it's not an awful ad. The drawing style on the right is gross, especially the eating the apple thing, but there are two possible perspectives on the drawing, one perspective is perverted (the idea that the right side is the teacher's fantasy), and the other perspective is natural (a girl having a crush on a teacher) if not still gross if pursued. That isn't depicting a schoolgirl crush!! No schoolgirl ever fantasized about a teacher licking and drooling all over an apple like that!! That's why I'm saying it's nothing but a gross male fantasy *either way*. eta: Sheesh, at least Sting gave Nabakov a nod and therefore sort of identified himself as an unreliable narrator. The fact you two think this is how teenagers fantasize is as creepy as thinking of it the other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 That isn't depicting a schoolgirl crush!! No schoolgirl ever fantasized about a teacher licking and drooling all over an apple like that!! That's why I'm saying it's nothing but a gross male fantasy *either way*. Wow. Mrs. Mungo, I am very disappointed in you here. You are usually amazing with your ability to debate using facts and logic. This collectivism is beneath you. I had female friends in high school who had crushes on our teachers. True story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 Exactly. A realistic drawing of an older girl, and a cartoonish portrayal of a younger girl. But to insist that just because it's hot and cold means one is reality and one is fantasy still doesn't make solid sense. The hot/cold aspect of the ad is simply saying you can both have things your way. The first side is what the teacher sees, and the second side is what the student sees, and there you have your cold and hot. To the teacher it is a normal, eager student (cold), and to the student it is a fantasy (hot). I'm not saying it's not an awful ad. The drawing style on the right is gross, especially the eating the apple thing, but there are two possible perspectives on the drawing, one perspective is perverted (the idea that the right side is the teacher's fantasy), and the other perspective is natural (a girl having a crush on a teacher) if not still gross if pursued. You know, I am gobsmacked that you see this the way you do. It is NOT what the teacher sees/the student sees, it's not set up that way. That's just your rationalization. The *constant* in the ad is the *age* of the teacher. I fall back on testosterone poisoning. tnt, sexist? Pffft. You're young, I'll cut you some slack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowProphet Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 You are a terrible debater. Are you as young as our friend, tnt? It's not an insult to recognize the fact that you'd find variance in the definition of morally sound among our members. Not for nothing, but I'm not the one resorting to insults. Resorting to personal attacks, btw, is called terrible debating. I've made valid points, and the fact that no one can argue them without attacking me and my gender should show you that you are all being very irrational and emotional about this. So to take a hint from all of you, "what a typical female response." I wasn't going to go there, but you are all being so sexist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) Wow. Mrs. Mungo, I am very disappointed in you here. You are usually amazing with your ability to debate using facts and logic. This collectivism is beneath you. What is logical about two men dismissing the life experience of many, many women? That is possibly the most absurd statement you have ever made. If you want studies, you'll find more of them than you can shake a stick at under "fetish teen girls." Edited June 24, 2011 by Mrs Mungo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 No, we are saying that when an adult male is looking at a 17 or 18 yr old STUDENT of theirs, they most definitely look at them as the innocent child eager to learn, instead of what they really are, which is teenagers who have hormones and romantic fantasies. For some teachers, obviously that is very true. For some it isn't. You shared your experience with high school girls drooling over a teacher. Well, in my small, rural Bible belt high school a teacher got fired for having sex with a student. Pretty safe to assume he didn't see her as an "innocent child" (or if he did, that's even worse!). Don't pretend that men are perfectly innocent victims of pervy teenage girls. As far as the sleeping beauty cartoon, to say that the left side is a fantasy is NOT saying two adults are pretending to be little kids (duh?), it is saying that the left side is a figment of your imagination, whereas the right side more closely resembles how the real world often works. Okay, now that I can get. Honestly, I really didn't get the sleeping beauty one at all, but the cryptic comment that I replied to only left me more confused. This explanation, I can buy. But I will say that edgy and controversial may make for great art, but it makes for really stupid advertising. Fantastical perspectives, yes, but the first comic isn't about an eight year old with a teacher seeing them as a grown woman, nor is it about a grown woman being fantasized as a little girl. It's about a student (of indeterminate age) and a teacher, and how they both see the situation differently. Well, the "of indeterminate age" is exactly where the problem lies. On one side she's depicted as a pre-pubescent child and the other side as a lusty teen. That in and of itself IS a problem and is the reason that many of us have an instinctive revulsion to it. If their intention was what you say it is, they could very easily have chosen to depict the student on the left as a teenager -- the style of the cartoon still could have been very 1950's and innocent and prim and proper, but they could have made her look older. They didn't. They made her look like eight. Furthermore, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we read from left to right. The first panel that you read sets up the scenario, it establishes what is happening. It is very natural to read it that way, and the designers of this cartoon had to know that. I don't think it's coincidence that so many of us read it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 Wow. Mrs. Mungo, I am very disappointed in you here. You are usually amazing with your ability to debate using facts and logic. This collectivism is beneath you. I had female friends in high school who had crushes on our teachers. True story. You need to spend more time on the boards sharpening your skillz. NO ONE is saying that girls don't get crushes on teachers. NO ONE. Both of you are ignoring the plain fact that the cartoon depicts a LITTLE GIRL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Exactly. A realistic drawing of an older girl, and a cartoonish portrayal of a younger girl. :smilielol5: If you think the right side is "realistic" that explains a lot. The drawing style on the right is gross, especially the eating the apple thing, but there are two possible perspectives on the drawing, one perspective is perverted (the idea that the right side is the teacher's fantasy), and the other perspective is natural (a girl having a crush on a teacher) if not still gross if pursued. This is the 1st time you've said the drawing on the right was "gross"--you've seemed to be defending it. Imo, whether the images on the right depict the teacher's fantasy OR the student's, it's reprehensible, taken by itself. And I'll add that I've never encountered this idea that you describe of teenage girls having crushes on their teachers *in this way.* The details of the right-sided fantasy are particular to MEN. And whether it was intended or not, placing the young girl next to the older one the way this ad did DOES suggest a correlation. ANY thinking person will ask himself, WHAT??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 You need to spend more time on the boards sharpening your skillz. NO ONE is saying that girls don't get crushes on teachers. NO ONE. Both of you are ignoring the plain fact that the cartoon depicts a LITTLE GIRL. Only the left, innocent, side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Only the left, innocent, side. NO!!!! That is a *school girl* in a *school girl uniform* on the right side of the ad. Are you getting that? Whether she is a 16 year old or an 8 year old, she is being fetishized as a *school girl*. If you want to be angry at someone for being sexist towards men, then it should be the authors of the ad. Not those of us explaining it to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 The drawing style on the right is gross, especially the eating the apple thing, And that's why the right side cannot be the female student's fantasy/perspective, as you claim. Women do NOT fantasize about men drooling over fruit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 Only the left, innocent, side. OMG, you are making my eyes bleed. This is why I married an older man. Does it NOT have a little girl in it? You admit this, right? Do you read from left to right? Is the ad portraying cold to hot? When you read the panels, right to left, how does it read? The made the panels vertical so you wouldn't see it right away because your eye follows the style of the drawing/depiction. They got you. You fell for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Not for nothing, but I'm not the one resorting to insults. Resorting to personal attacks, btw, is called terrible debating. I've made valid points, and the fact that no one can argue them without attacking me and my gender should show you that you are all being very irrational and emotional about this. So to take a hint from all of you, "what a typical female response." I wasn't going to go there, but you are all being so sexist. Your only point has been, the girls in my high school were like this. That isn't valid because it's anecdotal. I explained it, so did others. Criticizing your debating skills is not a personal attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowProphet Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 My first response when looking at the ad was, in fact, "What the heck IS this?" It's not a good ad. It IS gross. (By realistic on the right, btw, I meant the artistic style was not cartoonish) I just very particularly see the left side of the cartoon as being the innocent way a teacher sees his student, and not a single other person on this site had made mention of that perspective -- they are all pointing the finger at men and saying "look how gross men are for sexualizing little girls" and I just don't see that going on here. That doesn't mean the ad isn't gross, but you guys are being vicious and aggressive with your responses... does that mean you all have testosterone poisoning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrapbookbuzz Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 That is truly disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 NO!!!! That is a *school girl* in a *school girl uniform* on the right side of the ad. Are you getting that? Whether she is a 16 year old or an 8 year old, she is being fetishized as a *school girl*. If you want to be angry at someone for being sexist towards men, then it should be the authors of the ad. Not those of us explaining it to you. Or an 18 year old? Or a 25 year old dressed up like that (I don't think that's what is going on here, it's just an example) for her husband? If you have an issue with the school girl fantasy concept in general, that is an entirely different matter. I thought we were talking about this ad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Oh for Pete's sake, both men and women, boys and girls can be perverted. Both those ads are perverted. We see them as morally repugnant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Or an 18 year old? Or a 25 year old dressed up like that (I don't think that's what is going on here, it's just an example) for her husband? What *do* you think is going on in these ads? To whom do you think they are intended to appeal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowProphet Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 And that's why the right side cannot be the female student's fantasy/perspective, as you claim. Women do NOT fantasize about men drooling over fruit. For future reference, neither do men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 My first response when looking at the ad was, in fact, "What the heck IS this?" It's not a good ad. It IS gross. (By realistic on the right, btw, I meant the artistic style was not cartoonish) I just very particularly see the left side of the cartoon as being the innocent way a teacher sees his student, and not a single other person on this site had made mention of that perspective -- they are all pointing the finger at men and saying "look how gross men are for sexualizing little girls" and I just don't see that going on here. That doesn't mean the ad isn't gross, but you guys are being vicious and aggressive with your responses... does that mean you all have testosterone poisoning? Do most women have a student/teacher sexual fantasy? No. Therefore, the ad ITSELF is playing into your sexist male fantasy. NOT the women on this board who are calling you out on it. Your perspective is wrong. Had the teacher not been the constant within the panels, I might be willing to see your POV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 Or an 18 year old? Or a 25 year old dressed up like that (I don't think that's what is going on here, it's just an example) for her husband? If you have an issue with the school girl fantasy concept in general, that is an entirely different matter. I thought we were talking about this ad. You are beyond frustrating. NO ONE here has said anything on how the school girl fantasy is wrong/bad. NO ONE. The thing you keep pointing out with every post you make, is that it IS what it's about for you because you refuse to acknowledge to depiction of the little girl within the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 What *do* you think is going on in these ads? To whom do you think they are intended to appeal? Like I have already said, I think they are inappropriate, classless, and ineffective advertisements. I don't think they have anything to do with pedophilia and are not outrageously "disgusting". It is showing a similar incident from two different perspectives, two different comics that have been stitched together for "humorous" effect. The left side shows sweet innocence of a little girl and her teacher in a more innocent cartoon style, the right side is designed to be sensual and maybe even erotic. I don't have a problem with those calling it soft-core porn. But not child porn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Like I have already said, I think they are inappropriate, classless, and ineffective advertisements. I don't think they have anything to do with pedophilia and are not outrageously "disgusting". It is showing a similar incident from two different perspectives, two different comics that have been stitched together for "humorous" effect. The left side shows sweet innocence of a little girl and her teacher in a more innocent cartoon style, the right side is designed to be sensual and maybe even erotic. I don't have a problem with those calling it soft-core porn. But not child porn. So, you aren't going to answer me because then you'd have to admit that even in *your* version it is fetishizing a school girl (of one age or the other)? Are you okay with the ad fetishizing a 16 year old girl, as per your *defense* of the ad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I don't have a problem with those calling it soft-core porn. But not child porn. Except for the CHILD in it. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Except for the CHILD in it. :glare: And, honestly, the *other* ad emphasizes the point because they are *both* children. It's totally inappropriate and disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowProphet Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Your perspective is wrong. Why thank you. And here I was thinking it was my perspective, and not trying to claim it as a fact. Honestly, I don't think MOST men have teacher/student fantasies either (at least not after they get out of school.) You ladies are offended by the ad, and therefore unwilling to look at it objectively. There is no sexualization of a little girl going on here. Inappropriate sexualization of a teenager, perhaps, which would explain you being offended, but not of a little girl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 So, you aren't going to answer me because then you'd have to admit that even in *your* version it is fetishizing a school girl (of one age or the other)? Are you okay with the ad fetishizing a 16 year old girl, as per your *defense* of the ad? No. And I am not defending the ad. I am opposing those on here who seem to think it has something to do with pedophelia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Why thank you. And here I was thinking it was my perspective, and not trying to claim it as a fact. Honestly, I don't think MOST men have teacher/student fantasies either (at least not after they get out of school.) You ladies are offended by the ad, and therefore unwilling to look at it objectively. There is no sexualization of a little girl going on here. Inappropriate sexualization of a teenager, perhaps, which would explain you being offended, but not of a little girl. No. And I am not defending the ad. I am opposing those on here who seem to think it has something to do with pedophelia. Then how do you two explain the other ad? The whole campaign is pitting childhood scenes against lurid sexual fantasies. It *does* lead one to think they are sexualizing the children in the ads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 As I previously mentioned, Sleeping Beauty has always been portrayed as an adult. Where it is showing her and the prince as young children is the false reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 As I previously mentioned, Sleeping Beauty has always been portrayed as an adult. Where it is showing her and the prince as young children is the false reality. Are you claiming Sleeping Beauty is a real person? Because this statement doesn't make sense otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Are you claiming Sleeping Beauty is a real person? Because this statement doesn't make sense otherwise. Of course not. It makes perfect sense. I meant "reality" in the context of the world of the ad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Then how do you two explain the other ad? The whole campaign is pitting childhood scenes against lurid sexual fantasies. It *does* lead one to think they are sexualizing the children in the ads. Yes. The teacher has the same color hair, and the girl has the same color hair in the "more realistic" pics. Can ya'll imagine if this ad was done with real pics of children/people? The fan wouldn't be able to turn anymore :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Of course not. It makes perfect sense. No, I'm sorry, it doesn't. What part of "Sleeping Beauty" is reality as opposed to the "false reality" imposed by the parts being played by children? Look, let me try to break this down one more time. In *each ad* the authors put an innocent girl in the first panel and fetishize her in the second panel. Explain to me how it is not repugnant. Explain to me how it is not fetishizing children when that is what is *depicted*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 No, I'm sorry, it doesn't. What part of "Sleeping Beauty" is reality as opposed to the "false reality" imposed by the parts being played by children? Look, let me try to break this down one more time. In *each ad* the authors put an innocent girl in the first panel and fetishize her in the second panel. Explain to me how it is not repugnant. Explain to me how it is not fetishizing children when that is what is *depicted*. OR, from a different perspective: The left side sees the world through rose-tinted glasses and assumes sweet and innocent intentions on all sides, and the right side is the more "realistic" version of what is actually going on! Not saying that is the intent or not, but the fact that most of you in here jumped immediately to worst-case scenario is sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 OR, from a different perspective: The left side sees the world through rose-tinted glasses and assumes sweet and innocent intentions on all sides, and the right side is the more "realistic" version of what is actually going on! That makes no sense in the context the drawings are being used-in an advertisement depicting HOT and COLD. Not saying that is the intent or not, but the fact that most of you in here jumped immediately to worst-case scenario is sad. I do not understand what case scenario is less bad. The scenario YOU argued for is *equally bad* in my eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.