Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    I agree with you that both are bad. The thing is that it just because something just as bad or worse is going on, doesn't mean the thing in question is something we should not care about. If it were a case that we had to have one or the other, then it would be a perfectly reasonable argument, but that isn't the case.
    I'm not talking about one or the other. As a monetary example, it's like complaining that a shop charging £10 for an item is a ripoff, but then not complaining (or even buying) the same item for £15 elsewhere. It doesn't make sense to complain about the lesser 'bad' but accept the worse one unless you have double standards, and such people who hold that double standard is who the OP is criticising.

    You could find both adverts completely acceptable but still note that to make the distinction the wrong way (i.e. clothes advert is worse than gambling advert) is stupid. In the same way you could be willing to pay £20 for the item in the shop but still note that complaining about it being £10 but buying for £15 is stupid.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    I literally typed it, then looked down at myself. I was in the middle of getting changed into pajamas.

    I was wearing a jumper, no underwear and makeup. :getmecoat:
    Er, why'd you use the computer haalf naked?

    And to be fair, didn't the model choose to be objectified? She obviously had no issue with posing like that, she was probably not forced to pull that pose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Meh, everyone is objectified to a certain extent. I don't mind men and women being objectified, it is after all human nature.

    What really makes me angry is the fem 'tards and society having outrages whenever women are objectified yet say nothing when men are objectified. This is what everyone's problem should be.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    I'm not talking about one or the other. As a monetary example, it's like complaining that a shop charging £10 for an item is a ripoff, but then not complaining (or even buying) the same item for £15 elsewhere. It doesn't make sense to complain about the lesser 'bad' but accept the worse one unless you have double standards, and such people who hold that double standard is who the OP is criticising.

    You could find both adverts completely acceptable but still note that to make the distinction the wrong way (i.e. clothes advert is worse than gambling advert) is stupid. In the same way you could be willing to pay £20 for the item in the shop but still note that complaining about it being £10 but buying for £15 is stupid.
    Oh, sorry, I was having trouble understanding you. It may be stupid, but it still doesn't them wrong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Meh, everyone is objectified to a certain extent. I don't mind men and women being objectified, it is after all human nature.
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Oh, sorry, I was having trouble understanding you. It may be stupid, but it still doesn't them wrong.
    But you are wrong if you complain about a mild 'badness' but not about a major one. Any arguments you use against the milder one immediately become disingenuous when you refuse to use them against the greater bad.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I'm pretty irritated by both of them, mostly because using sex appeal to sell is a very lazy marketing trick and some poor sap paid good money for that dross.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But that pink advert is meant to be funny, a bit of a piss-take.
    Adverts objectifying women are often serious.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pandabird)
    But that pink advert is meant to be funny, a bit of a piss-take.
    Adverts objectifying women are often serious.
    How is that any less serious? Men have masculine imagery shoved in their face every day, unrealistic expectations on what a 'real man' should be, or how we should 'man up' when it comes to certain things. And this advert embodies every aspect of what we put up with every day.

    And you can't simply criticise the principle for only group when it's the principle you're aimed at stopping. Otherwise you just create negative double standards.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    How is that any less serious? Men have masculine imagery shoved in their face every day, unrealistic expectations on what a 'real man' should be, or how we should 'man up' when it comes to certain things. And this advert embodies every aspect of what we put up with every day.

    And you can't simply criticise the principle for only group when it's the principle you're aimed at stopping. Otherwise you just create negative double standards.
    True.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SocksRock)
    I'm pretty irritated by both of them, mostly because using sex appeal to sell is a very lazy marketing trick and some poor sap paid good money for that dross.
    Yeah, unfortunately sex appeal is the easiest and one of the most effective way to persuade people. It's using one of our strongest drives against.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    No they don't, feminists now don't give two ****s about men's interest. Just look at that rally against Men's Rights groups. Modern feminism is a self-interested, hypocritical load of *******s that has no purpose to serve other than screaming 'SEXISM' in the faces of anyone who disagrees with them. If feminists truly cared about equality they'd be egalitarian.

    Emphasis extends to ignore anything male related. Feminists nowadays don't give a **** about male rights in the aspects of child custody, positive discrimination cases and the rare incidences of male rape. All they care about is power for women, nothing more, nothing less. And they have the cheek to call others fascists when they do anything to stop their opponents from speaking.

    Oh and cheers for the neg btw.
    I think you are generalising feminists a bit here....
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    The Huffington Post recently posted about adverts which objectify women, and here is one example:



    Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...#slide=2320826


    Now why is that more objectifying and unrealistic than this picture?



    I've seen this advert everywhere, on buses, on the internet, on billboard. Yet nobody has mentioned that that men could find it offensive.

    And it really makes me wonder if feminists would ever stop and consider that men are objectified just as women are on a daily basis.

    Having to see it everywhere can lower self-esteem when it is an unrealistic and unattainable physical form for your average guy. Women complain about the necessity for different sized models yet I haven't seen them bat an eye when it comes to the mental wellbeing of men on the topic of body image.


    So, guys: Do you find this image offensive and sexist for the aforementioned reasons? And girls, do you think that men deserve to have different models of different shapes in a way which is comparable to the way women have now got 'curvy' models?
    lets be honest, i find women attractive, unless im mistaken i think you find other women attractive, other men find women attractive (with the usual exceptions obviously), the same works the other way around. organisations such as general media and retailers are simply exploiting this. regarding objectification (in this context), is this so much of an issue? am i a sexist if i said i was sexually attracted to a woman?

    objectifying people as being sandwich makers or jar openers is more sexist than these IMHO. being attracted is not sexist and these ads do not suggest that men or women are only for sex and nothing else, they just exploit our horny weakness. its like tempting a chocoholic with a chocolate chip cookie while holding a sign saying "sign up for our casino" or whatever, people are just exploiting things

    the bit in bold i agree with for both men and women, but its not so much an issue with objectification but the problems that result due to the exploitation mentioned above... i also agree it is unfair to moan about barely dressed women in ads when barely dressed men ads exist.

    so no, i think this is not offensive nor sexist (the ads themselves), this is a marketing trick... yes this is clearly objectification, but that itself is not the issue/problem, not sexism, the bold is the issue.

    so while i disagree with your sexism thread, i still agree with the problems you raise.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    lets be honest, i find women attractive, unless im mistaken i think you find other women attractive, other men find women attractive (with the usual exceptions obviously), the same works the other way around. organisations such as general media and retailers are simply exploiting this. regarding objectification (in this context), is this so much of an issue? am i a sexist if i said i was sexually attracted to a woman?

    objectifying people as being sandwich makers or jar openers is more sexist than these IMHO. being attracted is not sexist and these ads do not suggest that men or women are only for sex and nothing else, they just exploit our horny weakness. its like tempting a chocoholic with a chocolate chip cookie while holding a sign saying "sign up for our casino" or whatever, people are just exploiting things

    the bit in bold i agree with for both men and women, but its not so much an issue with objectification but the problems that result due to the exploitation mentioned above

    so no, i think this is not offensive nor sexist (the ads themselves), this is a marketing trick... yes this is clearly objectification, but that itself is not the issue/problem, not sexism, the bold is the issue.

    so while i disagree with your sexism thread, i still agree with the problems you raise.
    Well part of the point is that you can't make one rule for one group and not apply it to the other when it has the same concerns. I'd rather see adverts like these banned for both sexes or neither, so long as there isn't a double standard created.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes it is natural and by that I meant that it is the human imperative to objectify people/objects to make a connection.. If you can change this natural imperitive then all the powerr to you.

    Also most female/male objectification isn't bad. I mean what's bad about seeing a man with a good body and vice versa for women?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Well part of the point is that you can't make one rule for one group and not apply it to the other when it has the same concerns. I'd rather see adverts like these banned for both sexes or neither, so long as there isn't a double standard created.
    agreed
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pandabird)
    But that pink advert is meant to be funny, a bit of a piss-take.
    Adverts objectifying women are often serious.
    So it's ok to objectify people as long as it's funny? I don't think you thought this through at all and just rushed to take what you perceive as "women's side."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you find the adverts offensive, why not write something about it? As well as threads, make your own articles, or blogs? Why not instead of whining at feminists for discussing problems that women can receive, there are also more pro-active people talking about the discrimination that men can receive? It makes no sense to hate that article because they were talking about one section of society and not yours. It's the same as hating an article for talking about the discrimination that specifically black people receive, or that bisexuals could, and then being outraged that they're ignoring the discrimination that, say, an Asian or a homosexual person could receive. It's disappointing that this thread could've actually been about the objectification of men, but it's just another thread where people are frothing at the mouth at feminists and doing the who-has-it-worse-in-discrimination Olympics. But I suppose that's TSR for you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by takingtime)
    So it's ok to objectify people as long as it's funny? I don't think you thought this through at all and just rushed to take what you perceive as "women's side."
    Maybe. But I don't think it's the best example, because the advert itself seems to be taking the piss of objectification. Buff men in pink trousers and pink belts...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I think that either it's okay to sexually objectify people in order to sell products, or it isn't. Gender is irrelevant.

    Right now, women are very frequently sexually objectified in order to sell products, and men are only occasionally objectified for the same purpose. So the solution is presumably to sexually objectify more men, until men and women are objectified equally in the name of profit. So this advert would therefore be a step towards a gender-equal world.

    Either that, or we objectify no one.

    That's what feminism means: men and women get treated the same, even if they are being treated equally badly.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.