'feminist terrorists'opposed bikini-focussed campaign because they a

1161719212229

Comments

  • Victim Of FateVictim Of Fate Posts: 5,157
    Forum Member
    primer wrote: »
    Yeah. I'm not even sure why graffiti is a crime.

    Oh, right. It's because it's someone else's property being defaced. Not a massively complex thing to get your head around, I would've thought.
  • Victim Of FateVictim Of Fate Posts: 5,157
    Forum Member
    Resonance wrote: »
    Really? So if someone spray painted your house or your car you wouldn't have a problem :confused:

    I think he's realised that he's wrong on the whole Protein World issue, so he's sulking in the form of juvenile comments.
  • primerprimer Posts: 6,370
    Forum Member
    I think he's realised that he's wrong on the whole Protein World issue, so he's sulking in the form of juvenile comments.

    I think I'd find it difficult to compete with this effort.
  • VeriVeri Posts: 96,996
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ...
    I'm absolutely sure it has. As the population has got fatter, film stars have got thinner and thinner. I should think people like Elizabeth Taylor would be astonished at the norm these days. You can even see how merciless A-list fashion has got: just look at the way she used to dress for the Oscars: http://www.hotinpakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Elizbeth-Taylor-1970.jpg with the way stars dress today: http://marieclaire.media.ipcdigital.co.uk/11116/000084ac7/fff7_orh1000w646/Kate-Hudson-Golden-Globes-G.jpg (and I could have chosen a picture with a lot more flesh on show). Christina Hendricks is feted purely because her body is SO different from the norm.

    There are also pictures without more flesh on show.

    Christina Hendricks is not feted purely because her body is SO different from the norm. Sure, some of the feting is because she has relatively unusual looks, but it also matters (for instance) that she's beautiful and seems to be talented.
    Probably, yes. I think it's an interesting comment. It suggests (which I think is true) that the High School ideal of beauty ISN'T very 'high fashion'; they prefer a more high-street look, like a pretty soap star. I mean if you look at Sugar magazine - and this is a first for me - they seem to have been fond of someone called Lacey Turner - http://i8.cdnds.net/14/38/450x450/108363365.jpg, who I would guess is perhaps 4 inches bigger all over than Renee Somerfield, maybe a little more. High school pupils are not famous for their tolerance, and many a future model has grown up feeling freakishly tall and skinny.

    Probably yes? :eek:

    You think Renee Somerfield probably looked like she does now back when she was growing up and getting a tough time for being thin? :confused: Like this, for instance? That's how she probably looked when growing up, in your view?

    Sure, many a future model has grown up feeling freakishly tall and skinny, but that doesn't mean they looked the same then as when they'd become an adult.
  • Victim Of FateVictim Of Fate Posts: 5,157
    Forum Member
    primer wrote: »
    I think I'd find it difficult to compete with this effort.

    Nah, you win hands down. Who's the big winner in the house? Primer!
  • primerprimer Posts: 6,370
    Forum Member
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    It's now very clear that this explosion of moral indignation you mention had absolutely nothing at all to do with a protein supplement being advertised despite attempts to imply thats what it was, when really it was all about a photograph of a girl in a bikini

    Whatever you think is clear to you, probably isn't clear to anyone else. Just saying.
  • Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    primer wrote: »
    Whatever you think is clear to you, probably isn't clear to anyone else. Just saying.
    Oh i'm sure it is actually....not that they will ever concede to it.
  • primerprimer Posts: 6,370
    Forum Member
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    Oh i'm sure it is actually....not that they will ever concede to it.

    Since I am the 'they' (it was my post you were responding to) I can assure you I havent a clue what you were on about. I only wish I cared enough to seek clarification.
  • Slarti BartfastSlarti Bartfast Posts: 6,607
    Forum Member
    The point is, we all have to accept that we're not going to look like film stars or cover models. Banning adverts which feature idealised images of the human form seems excessively paternalist to me.

    This is it in a nutshell.
  • Slarti BartfastSlarti Bartfast Posts: 6,607
    Forum Member
    Christa wrote: »
    There are many, many angry, jealous, insecure men in the world projecting their issues onto everyone around them. Sometimes onto other men, but particuarly onto women.

    Oh I see we're back to this little gem.
    Christa wrote: »
    Indeed. It's very difficult to care what misogynist twits on the internet think about this or indeed anything...

    And a ready made dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you. Quelle surprise.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Veri wrote: »
    Probably yes? :eek:

    You think Renee Somerfield probably looked like she does now back when she was growing up and getting a tough time for being thin? :confused: Like this, for instance? That's how she probably looked when growing up, in your view?

    Sure, many a future model has grown up feeling freakishly tall and skinny, but that doesn't mean they looked the same then as when they'd become an adult.

    No, true, she has obviously had a lot of styling since her teenage years. I just meant that her body shape probably isn't very different.

    My daughter had a high school friend who won a tv modelling rtv series, and she definitely wasn't any kind of Queen Bee at school. And when she did get a boyfriend, he was much older (and rich). I guess perhaps teenagers, not very confident themselves, tend to place a high value on people who are beautiful versions of the average, and not on people who are physically extreme in some way.
  • Pumping IronPumping Iron Posts: 29,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Christa wrote: »
    So if men complained about Armani's Calvin Harris ad and said: '67% of UK men are overweight or obese, there are increasing problems with gym addiction, steroid abuse, male anorexia, drug and alcohol abuse, depression and suicide, and this ad doesn't reflect reality'. You would say that this was a totally invalid pov?

    They don't have the right to say 'we don't want products to be marketed to us in this way, it doesn't speak to us'. They're just whingeing right?

    There are many, many angry, jealous, insecure men in the world projecting their issues onto everyone around them. Sometimes onto other men, but particuarly onto women. This forum has its fair share. Is it the case that nothing they say has any validity?

    Anger aside, the model does have a hot body though.
  • FrankieFixerFrankieFixer Posts: 11,530
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Christa wrote: »
    So if men complained about Armani's Calvin Harris ad and said: '67% of UK men are overweight or obese, there are increasing problems with gym addiction, steroid abuse, male anorexia, drug and alcohol abuse, depression and suicide, and this ad doesn't reflect reality'. You would say that this was a totally invalid pov?

    They don't have the right to say 'we don't want products to be marketed to us in this way, it doesn't speak to us'. They're just whingeing right?

    There are many, many angry, jealous, insecure men in the world projecting their issues onto everyone around them. Sometimes onto other men, but particuarly onto women. This forum has its fair share. Is it the case that nothing they say has any validity?

    If a toned guy in his pants is causing you that amount of anguish then your problems are deeper than seeing his abs and bulge. Banning it won't help much. What if you see a particularly ripped mannequin that 'triggers' you? Or some beefcake down the pool in a pair of speedos?

    I guess men don't get upset as much over trivial things like this as women do.
  • VeriVeri Posts: 96,996
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No, true, she has obviously had a lot of styling since her teenage years. I just meant that her body shape probably isn't very different.

    I would give that the same response as before, :eek:, :confused: and all.

    You think she had that body when she was growing up back and getting a tough time for being thin? At what age are you thinking the transformation took place, so that she would be "growing up", already looking like a model in her 20s? And what, apart from Sugar magazine featuring a picture of a relatively plain-looking Eastenders actress, has you thinking that she'd get a tough time for being thin, if she looked like that?
    My daughter had a high school friend who won a tv modelling rtv series, and she definitely wasn't any kind of Queen Bee at school. And when she did get a boyfriend, he was much older (and rich). I guess perhaps teenagers, not very confident themselves, tend to place a high value on people who are beautiful versions of the average, and not on people who are physically extreme in some way.

    There's a large gap between not being a Queen Bee and getting a tough time for being thin, and winning a tv modelling series doesn't say all that much about how she looked.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Veri wrote: »
    I would give that the same response as before, :eek:, :confused: and all.

    You think she had that body when she was growing up back and getting a tough time for being thin? At what age are you thinking the transformation took place, so that she would be "growing up", already looking like a model in her 20s? And what, apart from Sugar magazine featuring a picture of a relatively plain-looking Eastenders actress, has you thinking that she'd get a tough time for being thin, if she looked like that?



    There's a large gap between not being a Queen Bee and getting a tough time for being thin, and winning a tv modelling series doesn't say all that much about how she looked.
    I can't really say; there's too much I don't know. I guess if she has been a successful model since she was 14, her teenage years were just totally different from other peoples'. I remember someone who was at school with Gwyneth Paltrow saying that she wasn't liked at school because - rough quote - "she used to go into the changing rooms and look with disbelief at other body shapes". I am not saying she did that - and there is certainly no reason to suppose that Renee Somerfield did that - but I can see that fellow teenagers might look at the whippet-thin, teetotal, vegan model and think she is looking down on them. I am generally inclined to humph when women bleat about how tough it is to grow up beautiful, but that doesn't mean that every beautiful woman was considered beautiful when she was growing up.
  • VeriVeri Posts: 96,996
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I can't really say; there's too much I don't know. I guess if she has been a successful model since she was 14, her teenage years were just totally different from other peoples'. I remember someone who was at school with Gwyneth Paltrow saying that she wasn't liked at school because - rough quote - "she used to go into the changing rooms and look with disbelief at other body shapes". I am not saying she did that - and there is certainly no reason to suppose that Renee Somerfield did that - but I can see that fellow teenagers might look at the whippet-thin, teetotal, vegan model and think she is looking down on them. I am generally inclined to humph when women bleat about how tough it is to grow up beautiful, but that doesn't mean that every beautiful woman was considered beautiful when she was growing up.

    I can agree with all of that, but I would add that beautiful women often weren't beautiful when growing up, and it wasn't always clear they'd develop into beauty either.

    However, your argument had seemed to be that Renee getting a tough time for being thin while growing up helped show that "until quite recently, Renee Somerfield's body would have been seen as far too thin for perfect beauty."

    But if we take out the "perfect", since imo that qualification makes the claim too narrowly focused to be very interesting, I don't think it's true. Take, for instance, your Gwyneth Paltrow. She's quite tall and thin, though a bit less so than Renee. Yet she was still considered beautiful at least 19 years ago, which should cover a "quite recently" that's when Renee was growing up. Cameron Diaz is a similar example.

    Of course, it's possible to find some people saying Cameron or Gwyneth isn't beautiful. That can be done for pretty much any actress. But I don't think that shows they weren't beautiful, or even that they weren't generally considered beautiful.
  • Regis MagnaeRegis Magnae Posts: 6,810
    Forum Member
    Cleared on the image and accompanying text, banned on the weight loss claim.

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/01/protein-world-beach-body-ready-ads-asa
  • VDUBsterVDUBster Posts: 1,423
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So in other words, there was NOTHING wrong with the advert. Big surprise, not.
    That was just a fuss kicked up by jealous people, and was nothing more than body shaming.

    They just made false claims about their product.
    Not the first company to do so and nor will they be the last.
  • academiaacademia Posts: 18,225
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Bomb threats over a picture of a woman in a bikini? Feminism is dangerous.


    Is it feminists though? Sounds more like an ad man's idea to me.
  • DadDancerDadDancer Posts: 3,920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    academia wrote: »
    Is it feminists though? Sounds more like an ad man's idea to me.

    Yes it was the so called feminist organisation 'Object' who led the campaign against this ad. They basically want attractive women to cover up in the media as it makes them feel insecure. They don't like to admit this though and instead wheel out this objectification of women bullshit and put the blame onto men and how this imagery apparently warps our fragile minds.
    I am glad the advertising agency have seen sense this time. :)
  • GeneralissimoGeneralissimo Posts: 6,289
    Forum Member
    DadDancer wrote: »
    Yes it was the so called feminist organisation 'Object' who led the campaign against this ad. They basically want attractive women to cover up in the media as it makes them feel insecure. They don't like to admit this though and instead wheel out this objectification of women bullshit and put the blame onto men and how this imagery apparently warps our fragile minds.
    I am glad the advertising agency have seen sense this time. :)

    Yeah, of course it had nothing at all to do with them being fat and insecure.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    VDUBster wrote: »
    So in other words, there was NOTHING wrong with the advert. Big surprise, not.


    They just made false claims about their product.
    Not the first company to do so and nor will they be the last.

    Lol. So there was nothing wrong with the advertisement other than that it lied (by implcation) and has been banned by the ASA for lying.

    I think 'weight loss products' should be covered by the same level of advertising control as any other 'patent medicine', ie they should not be able to say or imply ANYTHING that they cannot back up with proper research figures. In fact I might line up my third submission on Raspberry Ketones if I feel energetic enough; their advertising continues to be unscrupulous and ridiculous.
  • DianaFireDianaFire Posts: 12,711
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DadDancer wrote: »
    Yes it was the so called feminist organisation 'Object' who led the campaign against this ad. They basically want attractive women to cover up in the media as it makes them feel insecure. They don't like to admit this though and instead wheel out this objectification of women bullshit and put the blame onto men and how this imagery apparently warps our fragile minds.

    If they've never said that, you're just putting words into their mouths. I could say that you tend to attack women because the thought of equality makes you feel paranoid and insecure. But since I have no proof of that, I don't say it.
    DadDancer wrote: »
    I am glad the advertising agency have seen sense this time.

    Pity they didn't see sense before making a false claim. But they're not the first and won't be the last. Some agencies just aren't professional.
  • Steve_CardanasSteve_Cardanas Posts: 4,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3062467/Bentley-driving-playboy-controversial-Beach-Body-bikini-posters-globe-trotting-millionaire-s-son-furore-extra-2m-sales.html

    bit of a SJW backfire, they have inadvertantly spiked a 2 million increase in sales after there moaning. Seems some women like the choice to be able to tone up their own bodies. Others of course want to ban their right to do so.

    I thought feminism was about freedom of choice for women including what they wanted with their own bodies.
  • grimtales1grimtales1 Posts: 46,685
    Forum Member
    They could at least have used a fit dude as well ffs

    I thought they did :confused:
    I dont get whats wrong with the poster - the girl looks healthy and fit, and she's attractive :) Of course theres nothing wrong with being a bit overweight/plump or whatever, but being overly fat/obese is dangerous, same as being dangerously thin.
Sign In or Register to comment.