Marylou Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 http://www.tellinitlikeitis.net/2009/03/the-sexualization-of-children-and-adolescents-epidemic.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dulcimeramy Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I'm only caught up to page 11 but I'm getting a very strong vibe that we really ought to quit talking about s3x on these boards. An awful lot of newbies show up every time we do and remind me why I took down my blog link. Moms, protect your families. The seamy underbelly of the internet finds even homeschool boards and camps out awhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 That makes no sense in the context the drawings are being used-in an advertisement depicting HOT and COLD. I do not understand what case scenario is less bad. The scenario YOU argued for is *equally bad* in my eyes. Ok fine. I give up, you are always right, I am always wrong. Forgive me for trying to have a different perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I'm only caught up to page 11 but I'm getting a very strong vibe that we really ought to quit talking about s3x on these boards. An awful lot of newbies show up every time we do and remind me why I took down my blog link. Moms, protect your families. The seamy underbelly of the internet finds even homeschool boards and camps out awhile. An awful lot of newbies? I can think of one. There may be another one or two that I missed, but I am not sure why you are thinking that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey 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! I'm sorry, but again--if you think the right-side panels are REALITY, you are watching too much porn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dulcimeramy Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 An awful lot of newbies? I can think of one. There may be another one or two that I missed, but I am not sure why you are thinking that. I am thinking that because it is my observation over a span of time. I'm not going to go prove it, but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I am thinking that because it is my observation over a span of time. I'm not going to go prove it, but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed. Okay, that may be true. I thought you meant in this particular thread. I'm sorry, but again--if you think the right-side panels are REALITY, you are watching too much porn. Well, any porn watching is too much porn watching, in my opinion. But, I meant it is a more realistic style of art, as opposed to the left side, which is clearly a cartoon style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Ok fine. I give up, you are always right, I am always wrong. Forgive me for trying to have a different perspective. You haven't described a scenario that makes sense within the context of the ad that doesn't sexualize either a young girl or a teen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 You haven't described a scenario that makes sense within the context of the ad that doesn't sexualize either a young girl or a teen. A sexualized 18 year old (or even 16 year old, if that's the age of the character in the right panel) is not pedophila. Can we agree to that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta 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. If you can concede that it's porn, then I don't understand why you can't concede that the mere presence of children in the depiction is at least problematic. Is it really that hard to understand why some of us are shocked at seeing children portrayed parallel to these highly sexualized images? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 For future reference, neither do men. :lol: Okay, that's good to know. But I keep coming back to this same point of confusion. You're saying that the right hand side of the add is portraying a common female fantasy. But at the same time, you're exasperated that the women here were all so offended by it. If it really were portraying women's fantasies, don't you think we women would have picked up on that, and would have reacted a little differently than we did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelanieM Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 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. Why is it that you can look at the ad and not be offended and therefore you're looking at it objectively, but if a group of people are telling you that it feels like it inappropriately targets children then we're all just off our rockers? That's what I think when I see the ad... it's not some twisted loss of objectivity on my part; it's how it makes me feel when I look at it. The bottom line is there are many women here, and our husbands, who see this as creepy and disturbing because of the fact that there are children in the ad. Whether or not you think it's normal is on one hand irrelevant, and on the other hand proving some of the points being made. This should not be something that is so normalized that a sane person is trying to argue that it is appropriate in any way whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 A sexualized 18 year old (or even 16 year old, if that's the age of the character in the right panel) is not pedophila. Can we agree to that? Nope. Why is lusting after a physically developed 16 year old okay? Where is the line that makes it pedophilia in your opinion? Again, many 10-15 year old girls are physically mature. This should not be something that is so normalized that a sane person is trying to argue that it is appropriate in any way whatsoever. This was the point I was trying to make earlier. For me, it is the worst thing about this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T'smom Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I'm sorry, but again--if you think the right-side panels are REALITY, you are watching too much porn. Aubrey, you are so funny and so spot-on all the time. I always love reading what you have to say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garga Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I think that each cartoon is separate. I do not think that you're supposed to assume that the Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming on the left are supposed to be the same Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming on the right. I do not think that you're supposed to assume that the teacher and student on the left are supposed to be the same teacher and student on the right. In each case, there is the innocent "cold" version of the fairy tale and teacher/student on one side....and then the "hot" version of the fairy tale and teacher/student on the other side. However it is not the same teacher (or student) having fantasies. They are entirely separate cartoons. The ad people took an innocent event and juxtaposed it next to the same event, done as a sexual fantasy. But the innocent people on the one side are not the same ones having the fantasy. And yes, if you read the words in the cartoons, the two events dovetail into each other, but I am convinced that it wasn't meant to infer that the child-like Sleeping Beauty (or Prince Charming) were the same Sleeping Beauty/Prince Charming on the "hot" side. It's just a re-telling of the same plot, with different characters. And, of course, it's not very American. I'm pretty sure that many of us know that ads in other countries are much racier than ads in America and that the "hot" side of the ad wouldn't generate much hoopla in other countries. Which is why it wasn't run in America. I do see the point of the hot teacher/student side objectifying girls and it's a soft-porn type of scenario and that's why it's distasteful. But I don't think that it's a pedophile-type thing. It's the comparison of pure innocence next to soft-porn. Hot vs cold, side by side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jami Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I think that each cartoon is separate. I do not think that you're supposed to assume that the Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming on the left are supposed to be the same Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming on the right. I do not think that you're supposed to assume that the teacher and student on the left are supposed to be the same teacher and student on the right. In each case, there is the innocent "cold" version of the fairy tale and teacher/student on one side....and then the "hot" version of the fairy tale and teacher/student on the other side. However it is not the same teacher (or student) having fantasies. They are entirely separate cartoons. The ad people took an innocent event and juxtaposed it next to the same event, done as a sexual fantasy. But the innocent people on the one side are not the same ones having the fantasy. And yes, if you read the words in the cartoons, the two events dovetail into each other, but I am convinced that it wasn't meant to infer that the child-like Sleeping Beauty (or Prince Charming) were the same Sleeping Beauty/Prince Charming on the "hot" side. It's just a re-telling of the same plot, with different characters. And, of course, it's not very American. I'm pretty sure that many of us know that ads in other countries are much racier than ads in America and that the "hot" side of the ad wouldn't generate much hoopla in other countries. Which is why it wasn't run in America. I do see the point of the hot teacher/student side objectifying girls and it's a soft-porn type of scenario and that's why it's distasteful. But I don't think that it's a pedophile-type thing. It's the comparison of pure innocence next to soft-porn. Hot vs cold, side by side. :iagree: I think they're completely revolting, idiotic ads, but I read them as you did Garga. Two separate versions of the same scenario; not related to one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I think that each cartoon is separate. I do not think that you're supposed to assume that the Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming on the left are supposed to be the same Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming on the right. I do not think that you're supposed to assume that the teacher and student on the left are supposed to be the same teacher and student on the right. In each case, there is the innocent "cold" version of the fairy tale and teacher/student on one side....and then the "hot" version of the fairy tale and teacher/student on the other side. However it is not the same teacher (or student) having fantasies. They are entirely separate cartoons. The ad people took an innocent event and juxtaposed it next to the same event, done as a sexual fantasy. But the innocent people on the one side are not the same ones having the fantasy. And yes, if you read the words in the cartoons, the two events dovetail into each other, but I am convinced that it wasn't meant to infer that the child-like Sleeping Beauty (or Prince Charming) were the same Sleeping Beauty/Prince Charming on the "hot" side. It's just a re-telling of the same plot, with different characters. And, of course, it's not very American. I'm pretty sure that many of us know that ads in other countries are much racier than ads in America and that the "hot" side of the ad wouldn't generate much hoopla in other countries. Which is why it wasn't run in America. I do see the point of the hot teacher/student side objectifying girls and it's a soft-porn type of scenario and that's why it's distasteful. But I don't think that it's a pedophile-type thing. It's the comparison of pure innocence next to soft-porn. Hot vs cold, side by side. :iagree: Thanks. I've just been catching up on this thread and while I appreciate that a lot of women here are having a problem with the ads related to the impression that they're encouraging a pedophilic view, I don't agree with that and I don't agree with a few of the generalizations I've seen that women here agree on that idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 :lol: Okay, that's good to know. But I keep coming back to this same point of confusion. You're saying that the right hand side of the add is portraying a common female fantasy. But at the same time, you're exasperated that the women here were all so offended by it. If it really were portraying women's fantasies, don't you think we women would have picked up on that, and would have reacted a little differently than we did? To be fair, this is not a representative sample of all women so even if no women here have fantasies related to the scenarios in the ads it means nothing in relation to the claim that it's a common female fantasy. I think that's beside the point though. Sexual fantasies are personal business and generally aren't great material for car ads and that's something this thread DOES makes clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I think that each cartoon is separate. I do not think that you're supposed to assume that the Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming on the left are supposed to be the same Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming on the right. I do not think that you're supposed to assume that the teacher and student on the left are supposed to be the same teacher and student on the right. In each case, there is the innocent "cold" version of the fairy tale and teacher/student on one side....and then the "hot" version of the fairy tale and teacher/student on the other side. However it is not the same teacher (or student) having fantasies. They are entirely separate cartoons. The ad people took an innocent event and juxtaposed it next to the same event, done as a sexual fantasy. But the innocent people on the one side are not the same ones having the fantasy. And yes, if you read the words in the cartoons, the two events dovetail into each other, but I am convinced that it wasn't meant to infer that the child-like Sleeping Beauty (or Prince Charming) were the same Sleeping Beauty/Prince Charming on the "hot" side. It's just a re-telling of the same plot, with different characters. And, of course, it's not very American. I'm pretty sure that many of us know that ads in other countries are much racier than ads in America and that the "hot" side of the ad wouldn't generate much hoopla in other countries. Which is why it wasn't run in America. I do see the point of the hot teacher/student side objectifying girls and it's a soft-porn type of scenario and that's why it's distasteful. But I don't think that it's a pedophile-type thing. It's the comparison of pure innocence next to soft-porn. Hot vs cold, side by side. :iagree::iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Nope. Why is lusting after a physically developed 16 year old okay? Where is the line that makes it pedophilia in your opinion? Again, many 10-15 year old girls are physically mature. This was the point I was trying to make earlier. For me, it is the worst thing about this thread. Well, pedophilia would a sexual attraction to someone who is pre-pubescent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Smith Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 http://www.tellinitlikeitis.net/2009/03/the-sexualization-of-children-and-adolescents-epidemic.html Thank you, that is a interesting article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 http://www.tellinitlikeitis.net/2009/03/the-sexualization-of-children-and-adolescents-epidemic.html You know, most of the time your one link posts infuriate me, but this one is spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricket Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I am thinking that because it is my observation over a span of time. I'm not going to go prove it, but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed. No, you aren't the only one. I took down the link to my blog a while ago as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 http://www.tellinitlikeitis.net/2009/03/the-sexualization-of-children-and-adolescents-epidemic.html Great article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 First thing DH said was that it was probably an ad that wasn't meant to run in American markets. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 You know, most of the time your one link posts infuriate me, but this one is spot on. I've learned that I can't type/spend as much time here as some folks. Most times I only have time for the one-click links! Definitely not trying to infuriate anyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleIzumi Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Dh's comments (when I told him to look at them & tell me what he thought, no info provided) were, "Pedophilia" and "Ick." He also said it's not artistic at all and that he saw the first one as what the little girl saw butted up to how the teacher saw the same situation. He also wants to know how the states are taking this ad, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommyofthree Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 What were they thinking????:eek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I think that each cartoon is separate. I do not think that you're supposed to assume that the Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming on the left are supposed to be the same Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming on the right. I do not think that you're supposed to assume that the teacher and student on the left are supposed to be the same teacher and student on the right Okay, then, sincere question. Is a page of a comic strip or comic book often (or even sometimes) read from top left corner DOWN and then top right corner down? Because that's just not the way I read things. I admit I have read exceptionally few comics in my life, but I'm sure I read them from top left corner ACROSS, then down to the next row, left to right, etc. That is how I read this ad, and that reading makes it pretty sick, imo. And the thing is, the dialog works if you read it that way, so I'm thinking it was intended to be read that way. After all, they did not separate it into two distinct columns, but smooshed it together like it was all one story. And, of course, it's not very American. I'm pretty sure that many of us know that ads in other countries are much racier than ads in America and that the "hot" side of the ad wouldn't generate much hoopla in other countries. Which is why it wasn't run in America. Well, maybe I'm more a product of my culture than I realize, but generally speaking "racy" doesn't offend me. But this had a really high ick-factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garga Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Okay, then, sincere question. Is a page of a comic strip or comic book often (or even sometimes) read from top left corner DOWN and then top right corner down? Because that's just not the way I read things. I admit I have read exceptionally few comics in my life, but I'm sure I read them from top left corner ACROSS, then down to the next row, left to right, etc. That is how I read this ad, and that reading makes it pretty sick, imo. And the thing is, the dialog works if you read it that way, so I'm thinking it was intended to be read that way. After all, they did not separate it into two distinct columns, but smooshed it together like it was all one story. Yes, you read comics across, so this is intended for you to read across. And yes, the words do dovetail. It's still jumping you back and forth between the two stories. The cold side and the hot side. It's the same scenario, but acted out two different ways. Yes, they could have had one version of the story at the top of the page and one at the bottom, but since the whole point is that the passenger and driver sit side by side and have dual controls, then the comics need to sit side by side. The feature of the car allows two people to ride in the same car, watching the same scenery, yet to experience two different temperatures. So--the comics are the same story with the same characters, yet each story is a different temperature. It's not as convoluted as "Well, this story is a secret fantasy that the man has--no, no--it's actually the girl's fantasy, blah, blah." In fact, it's not even all that clever. The whole Sleeping Beauty fantasy, or the Catholic school girl fantasy are both so overdone that this wasn't a big stretch for a creative team to come up with. One side has the tame version, the other has the men's magazine version. I could easily see this ad in a Maxim magazine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Nope. Why is lusting after a physically developed 16 year old okay? Where is the line that makes it pedophilia in your opinion? Again, many 10-15 year old girls are physically mature. Well, pedophilia would a sexual attraction to someone who is pre-pubescent. You did not answer her question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Yes, you read comics across, so this is intended for you to read across. And yes, the words do dovetail. It's still jumping you back and forth between the two stories. The cold side and the hot side. It's the same scenario, but acted out two different ways. Yes, they could have had one version of the story at the top of the page and one at the bottom, but since the whole point is that the passenger and driver sit side by side and have dual controls, then the comics need to sit side by side. The feature of the car allows two people to ride in the same car, watching the same scenery, yet to experience two different temperatures. So--the comics are the same story with the same characters, yet each story is a different temperature. It's not as convoluted as "Well, this story is a secret fantasy that the man has--no, no--it's actually the girl's fantasy, blah, blah." You read comics in the manner of the language in which they were written. Japanese comics are backwards but even the English versions retain that. This is written in English so it should be read across. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowProphet Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Okay, this will probably be my last post on this issue, it was never my intention to get in a big long debate over this, just a friend of mine who is home-schooled often sends me links to debates and/or complaints going on on these forums. I would have sent this earlier, but I had a wedding to go to... I agree whole-heartedly with Garga. I know that she was trying to distance herself from what I was saying by discarding the "it's a man's fantasy/it's a girl's fantasy" debate, and I think she was right to do so. I originally stated that with the intention of saying that, if you were going to insist it's someone's fantasy, I personally would think of it as a girl's fantasy, because the alternative is far more gross and twisted. The point I was trying to make was simply that one side of the comic is not a "hot" version of the other, and vice versa (one side is not a "cold" version of the other). Neither side of the picture is the initial state, they are both just two different takes on a similar situation. Take what you will of that. I'm sure, now that I've bothered registering, that you will see me on other posts which are no less heated (but less controversial). I enjoy reading the interesting opinions written on this forum, and hope that this initial disagreement won't prejudice you against my opinions in the future, lol. -Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) Okay, this will probably be my last post on this issue, it was never my intention to get in a big long debate over this, just a friend of mine who is home-schooled often sends me links to debates and/or complaints going on on these forums. I would have sent this earlier, but I had a wedding to go to... I agree whole-heartedly with Garga. I know that she was trying to distance herself from what I was saying by discarding the "it's a man's fantasy/it's a girl's fantasy" debate, and I think she was right to do so. I originally stated that with the intention of saying that, if you were going to insist it's someone's fantasy, I personally would think of it as a girl's fantasy, because the alternative is far more gross and twisted. The point I was trying to make was simply that one side of the comic is not a "hot" version of the other, and vice versa (one side is not a "cold" version of the other). Neither side of the picture is the initial state, they are both just two different takes on a similar situation. Take what you will of that. I'm sure, now that I've bothered registering, that you will see me on other posts which are no less heated (but less controversial). I enjoy reading the interesting opinions written on this forum, and hope that this initial disagreement won't prejudice you against my opinions in the future, lol. -Alan If it was the girl's fantasy then why was she the one who was so overly sexualized and not him? There is nothing there to indicate sexiness on his part. No sweater vest but a cardigan?? Really?? No argyle socks...no glasses, no clever showtunes and no kilt. He is just a dude in a cardigan, of course it is his fantasy. Edited June 25, 2011 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelanieM Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Garga, I actually agree with you that the ad is intended to be showing two different scenarios -- one hot and one cold -- and that they're not supposed to be the same story. The problem is, it feels really gross and inappropriate and icky to an awful lot of people, some of which are indeed reading it as the same story. Whether the intention was there or not, this ad has triggered a response that shows a large number of people think it objectifies girls and/or promotes inappropriate thoughts about children. I would probably find this ad icky if it was just the right side, but I wouldn't be surprised because it's not a unique fantasy in popular culture. But when you throw images of children in the middle of erotic imagery, it's just so wrong. And no doubt it *does* feed into the fantasies of pedophiles who are out there looking at it. That's the kind of thought that strikes me when I think about this, and what makes me feel ill about the whole thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nono Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Garga, I actually agree with you that the ad is intended to be showing two different scenarios -- one hot and one cold -- and that they're not supposed to be the same story. The problem is, it feels really gross and inappropriate and icky to an awful lot of people, some of which are indeed reading it as the same story. Whether the intention was there or not, this ad has triggered a response that shows a large number of people think it objectifies girls and/or promotes inappropriate thoughts about children. I would probably find this ad icky if it was just the right side, but I wouldn't be surprised because it's not a unique fantasy in popular culture. But when you throw images of children in the middle of erotic imagery, it's just so wrong. And no doubt it *does* feed into the fantasies of pedophiles who are out there looking at it. That's the kind of thought that strikes me when I think about this, and what makes me feel ill about the whole thing. :iagree: And, really, in either case, can we just go back to a woman (clearly over 18) draped across the vehicle, at least? Somehow, that seems a step forward from this ad... And then, for equal opportunity, may we please have a man in kilt draped across a vehicle????? PLEASE????????? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 If it was the girl's fantasy then why was she the one who was so overly sexualized and not him? There is nothing there to indicate sexiness on his part. No sweater vest but a cardigan?? Really?? No argyle socks...no glasses, no clever showtunes and no kilt. He is just a dude in a cardigan, of course it is his fantasy. And again, given the reactions on this forum: to whom is it meant to appeal? Obviously not women. Even Garga says she could see it in Maxim. Therefore, it is based in male fantasy land, no matter which way you take it. I would probably find this ad icky if it was just the right side, but I wouldn't be surprised because it's not a unique fantasy in popular culture. But when you throw images of children in the middle of erotic imagery, it's just so wrong. And no doubt it *does* feed into the fantasies of pedophiles who are out there looking at it. That's the kind of thought that strikes me when I think about this, and what makes me feel ill about the whole thing. I agree. But, again, when Sting did the schoolgirl song at least he mentioned Nabakov, thereby identifying himself as an unreliable narrator. I think that shows more understanding of the situation. :iagree: And, really, in either case, can we just go back to a woman (clearly over 18) draped across the vehicle, at least? Somehow, that seems a step forward from this ad... And then, for equal opportunity, may we please have a man in kilt draped across a vehicle????? PLEASE????????? ;) :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelanieM Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 And again, given the reactions on this forum: to whom is it meant to appeal? Obviously not women. Even Garga says she could see it in Maxim. Therefore, it is based in male fantasy land, no matter which way you take it. I agree. But, again, when Sting did the schoolgirl song at least he mentioned Nabakov, thereby identifying himself as an unreliable narrator. I think that shows more understanding of the situation. Agreed. That's not to say that there aren't some women who enjoy this fantasy, or who enjoy Maxim, etc. Just as there are men who *don't* enjoy this type of thing. But generally speaking, this is the stuff of male fantasy. Even the idea that it's a fantasy of young girls to want to seduce their teachers in such a way is (largely) a male fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne in TX Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 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. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) Garga, thanks for your reply/explanation. I do get that the side-by-side thing reflects what they're trying to get across about the car (though poorly!), but the two scenarios *are* intermingled, or dovetailed as you said, so I think we're all in agreement about that. I agree whole-heartedly with Garga. I know that she was trying to distance herself from what I was saying by discarding the "it's a man's fantasy/it's a girl's fantasy" debate, and I think she was right to do so. I originally stated that with the intention of saying that, if you were going to insist it's someone's fantasy, I personally would think of it as a girl's fantasy, because the alternative is far more gross and twisted. The point I was trying to make was simply that one side of the comic is not a "hot" version of the other, and vice versa (one side is not a "cold" version of the other). Neither side of the picture is the initial state, they are both just two different takes on a similar situation. Take what you will of that. I'm catching on, slowly but surely. :D But I still stand by my initial gut reaction that intermingling soft porn with very innocent looking cartoon images of children is creepy, and to put it mildly, shows exceptionally poor taste and poor judgment. I still say that they could have gotten the same idea across by using classic, cartoonish, 1950's style images on the left side without making it children. That's the part that makes me :ack2: . You wondered why some of us "jumped" to the conclusion of pedophilia. Well, that's why! Images of kids have no place in such highly sexualized material. Period. I really think that if the drawings had shown adults on both sides, I would have had a very different impression. I probably still would have thought it was boorish male fantasy ;), but I wouldn't have thought it was pedophilia! I'm sure, now that I've bothered registering, that you will see me on other posts which are no less heated (but less controversial). I enjoy reading the interesting opinions written on this forum, and hope that this initial disagreement won't prejudice you against my opinions in the future, lol. -Alan I guess I would say the same to you. :D Welcome to the boards! Edited June 25, 2011 by GretaLynne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kia Motors America Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Kia Motors America (KMA) has become aware of an offensive piece of advertising material that was created by an ad agency in Brazil that KMA has no business relationship 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 Corporation. The ad is undoubtedly inappropriate, and on behalf of Kia Motors we apologize to those who have been offended by it. We can guarantee this advertisement has never and will never be used in any form in the United States, and our global headquarters in Seoul, South Korea is addressing the issue with the independent Brazilian distributor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) Well, that clears it up :001_huh: ETA: This is TWTM Forum; please don't end sentences with prepositions or use apostrophes incorrectly! Edited June 26, 2011 by dmmosher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Well, that clears it up :001_huh: Yes, I think it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Yes, I think it does. If KIA had nothing to do with it, why are they apologizing to those who have been offended? I don't understand that at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 If KIA had nothing to do with it, why are they apologizing to those who have been offended? I don't understand that at all. Their name was attached to it and so they feel an obligation to apologize to their customer base. It's an Asian thing (and maybe other cultures too). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Their name was attached to it and so they feel an obligation to apologize to their customer base. It's an Asian thing (and maybe other cultures too). Okay. So, the truth is some ad agency made this ad without their consent and even got an award for it? And KIA knew nothing about it? Is that the way it is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Okay. So, the truth is some ad agency made this ad without their consent and even got an award for it? And KIA knew nothing about it? Is that the way it is? That's what KIA says. This exact same statement (listing KIA Moters America as the author) was in the comment section of the link on the ad itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 http://www.autonews.com/article/20110625/BLOG06/110629902/1503 Just Googled it. To me, it sounds like Kia knew it was an ad that was to be run outside the U.S. Kinda like the Anthony Weiner thing . . .they don't think the rest of us have internet :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unicorn. Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Am I the only one that has a problem with this sentence? How could you possibly guess that? ?? Because a female wouldn't find ped@philia funny. You have a picture of a grown man fantasizing about a young girl.. It's disgusting, and as a father of little girls, it should disturb you. jmho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted June 26, 2011 Author Share Posted June 26, 2011 Wow. The powers of the hive amaze me. 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.