Honda XRV Forum banner

21 - 40 of 174 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,170 Posts
That does seem to be the general tenor of your arguments though isn't it (that it's all harmless fun).

Then you couldn't be more wrong. The tenor of my arguement is that I don't find it acceptable for one persons views to be forced upon others. Like I said, I love breasts, but I've never bought The Sun. I have bought Superbike in the past, a mag that occasionally has a topless girl gracing a bike, but I never bought the mag because the image of her sold it to me, I bought it because I like bikes.



Then type that more clearly, it's not how it's come across. It would also seem to be related to another thread.

Well now, I would argue in court that you should read more clearly, or perhaps ask for clarification before assuming!


Actually it would be good if naked women could stop being used to advertise shower gel/olay etc. What about a naked man for a change?
Ooh yeah, I'll go along with that. What about a ripped naked hunk promoting little bottles of beer?


Ps glad you like co*k. That explains a few things ;)
"Like co*k? Jesus girl, I love co*k, why do you think I'm on here pretending to like bikes and stalking all these innocent impressionable men? There's nothing like a bit of Navy Cake to keep you warm on a cold winters night!!!



:toothy9:
 

·
Doh!!!!!
Joined
·
753 Posts
Why are you moaning about this now? 40 odd years too late me thinks. And on a bike forum?
Anyway I read a few different newspapers a day, page 3 doesn't bother me...I don't like or dislike it but I guess most people do like it or it wouldn't still be here and I must add no one is forced into revealing themselves to millions of readers!
Why moan about slavery now? It's been going on since Ancient times. Thousands of years too late if you ask me.

Why moan about racism now? It's been going on for thousands of years. The Ancient Greeks were adherents of it.

Why bother giving working class men from Essex the vote? They've always been exploited and only fit for labour. Why moan now? Hundreds of years too late.

If everyone had your attitude nothing would change and you wouldn't have the right to vote or to receive an education.

You'll find this is the chatter part of the forum, hence the non bike related threads. That should answer your question.

Lots of people do find it offensive. Hence a campaign to change it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,168 Posts
"Like co*k? Jesus girl, I love co*k, why do you think I'm on here pretending to like bikes and stalking all these innocent impressionable men? There's nothing like a bit of Navy Cake to keep you warm on a cold winters night!!!

:toothy9:
You b'stard.. You told me I was the only one.
 

·
Doh!!!!!
Joined
·
753 Posts
Yes. Lets have men advertising women's makeup and sanitary towels. It's only fair you know.

I suggest that when it comes to sexually exploitative images in advertising it's men that are usually the ones being exploited. The difference is you appear not to get too many men complaining about it as we don't tend to have the same inferiority complexes many women do when we see an image that portrays someone more attractive then themselves.
Except men aren't used to advertise products to the extent that women are as well you know. It is always a naked woman used for shower gel and shampoo, not a man. It would be nice if naked men were used to the same extent as women, but they're not.

Re sanitary towels- no one is naked. But hats off to you for having the testicles to mention such a product.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,168 Posts
Lots of people do find it offensive. Hence a campaign to change it.
It's one thing to campaign for something which is fundamentally unfair such as slavery, racism, votes for women and gay rights but it's quite another to seek to ban something that is perfectly legal just because you personally want to deny others a bit of pleasure.. Substitute page 3 for motorcycling (which incidentally probably causes much more "harm" in real terms) and you can see the folly of what you are campaigning for.

As I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I can think of many reasons why I wouldn't buy a copy of the Sun but the boobs on page 3 isn't one (or should that be two) of them?
 

·
Doh!!!!!
Joined
·
753 Posts
Then you couldn't be more wrong. The tenor of my arguement is that I don't find it acceptable for one persons views to be forced upon others. Like I said, I love breasts, but I've never bought The Sun. I have bought Superbike in the past, a mag that occasionally has a topless girl gracing a bike, but I never bought the mag because the image of her sold it to me, I bought it because I like bikes.
That's an argument about censorship then. Which skips over what I've said about what the images represent. Perhaps the Sun could have a naked man each day? Full frontal as mens only value is decorative. You're all thick and only fit for sex right?!:confused:

Well now, I would argue in court that you should read more clearly, or perhaps ask for clarification before assuming!
Type more clearly!

Ooh yeah, I'll go along with that. What about a ripped naked hunk promoting little bottles of beer?
he's not advertising. He's a naked rugby player.
I love co*k
good for you. You have something in common with Mr Carr. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Why moan about slavery now? It's been going on since Ancient times. Thousands of years to late if you ask me.

Why moan about racism now? It's been going on for thousands of years. The Ancient Greeks were adherents of it.

Why bother giving working class men fro
Essex the vote? They've always been exploited and only fit for labour. Why moan now? Hundreds of years too late.

If everyone had your attitude nothing would change and you wouldn't have the right to vote or to receive an education.

You'll find this is the chatter part of the forum, hence the non bike related threads. That should answer your question.

Lots of people do find it offensive. Hence a campaign to change it.
Slavery and racism are far different from a lady who wants to take her top off and get paid to do so. Surely if the model is offended she wouldn't do it. If the reader is offended then choose a different style of paper and let the people who want to read it get on with it instead of trying to be a superhero and save the world from page 3!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,168 Posts
Except men aren't used to advertise products to the extent that women are as well you know. It is always a naked woman used for shower gel and shampoo, not a man. It would be nice if naked men were used to the same extent as women, but they're not.
That's because most advertising is aspirational and most buyers of shower gel are women and they aspire to be just like the models. Showing a man showering would infer it's a men's product and would appeal less.

It's a sad fact but up until recently there were very few black people in adverts as it was felt in advertising circles that few people aspired to be black.

Generally speaking ad agencies aren't racist or bigoted. They spend a huge amount of cash doing market research as to what maximises the return on the investment and it's just the case that images of good looking women sell toiletries better then men.

Anyway have a look at the ad below then reverse the roles.. How would you feel about a bunch of men assembling to spy and sexually objectify a scantily clad woman who is only trying to do her job? Do you think that would be acceptable?

Advert 2: Diet Coke - 11.30 Appointment - YouTube
 

·
Doh!!!!!
Joined
·
753 Posts
It's one thing to campaign for something which is fundamentally unfair such as slavery, racism, votes for women and gay rights but it's quite another to seek to ban something that is perfectly legal just because you personally want to deny others a bit of pleasure.. Substitute page 3 for motorcycling (which incidentally probably causes much more "harm" in real terms) and you can see the folly of what you are campaigning for.

As I say. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I can think of many reasons why I wouldn't buy a copy of the Sun but the boobs on page 3 isn't one (or should that be two) of them?
Then you too fail to see that the problem is what it represents- that women are sex objects and only decorative. That's offensive and just as pernicious as racism. Racism along with slavery was legal but it didn't make it right anymore than the legality of Page 3 makes it's defensible. It's not harmless fun (there are by the way many who would argue racist jokes are just fun). The racist joke maker is indulging in that which gives pleasure. Still offensive to some though isn't it? And no I don't see folly in this campaign.

Folly by the way is what those opposed to Women's suffrage called they're campaign. Attitudes change.

Now I hope it's ok for naked men to be on the front page of a newspaper (like the Star) everyday and on page 2. Oh and used to advertise everything whilst naked.

Any volunteers here? ;) you're all dumb pretty creatures anyway...,;)
 

·
Doh!!!!!
Joined
·
753 Posts
Slavery and racism are far different from a lady who wants to take her top off and get paid to do so. Surely if the model is offended she wouldn't do it. If the reader is offended then choose a different style of paper and let the people who want to read it get on with it instead of trying to be a superhero and save the world from page 3!
Many disagree with you on the racism front. As said to Boris, quite a few see it as harmless or just freedom of speech. Again it's what it stands for so just buying a different paper isn't the answer (go see a different comedian from the Racist one). It isn't totally different to racism and slavery- it's what the pictures represent that's the problem.

As to the women who have they're picture taken- that raises the question as to why their only way to make decent money is to take their clothes off and make men happy. It also raises questions about their self esteem.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,168 Posts
Then you too fail to see that the problem is what it represents- that women are sex objects and only decorative.
Some women have decorative qualities that's for sure but if someone can't see past that to their other qualities then I suggest the problem is theirs and not the fault of the photograph or model. I suppose the same could be said about topless sunbathing or breastfeeding. There will always be someone that sees little more than a pair of boobs yet that's no reason to ban the practice.
 

·
Doh!!!!!
Joined
·
753 Posts
That's because most advertising is aspirational and most buyers of shower gel are women and they aspire to be just like the models. Showing a man showering would infer it's a men's product and would appeal less.

It's a sad fact but up until recently there were very few black people in adverts as it was felt in advertising circles that few people aspired to be black.

Generally speaking ad agencies aren't racist or bigoted. They spend a huge amount of cash doing market research as to what maximises the return on the investment and it's just the case that images of good looking women sell toiletries better then men.

Anyway have a look at the ad below then reverse the roles.. How would you feel about a bunch of men assembling to spy and sexually objectify a scantily clad woman who is only trying to do her job? Do you think that would be acceptable?

Advert 2: Diet Coke - 11.30 Appointment - YouTube
Why can't a naked man advertise shower gel? It's not just an aspirational thing. It would certainly be memorable. Women would respond to a naked man and you never know, men might wash more ;)

As to the diet coke ad- are you voicing disquiet and complaint at a man being leered at and portrayed as a sex object? ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,168 Posts
As to the women who have they're picture taken- that raises the question as to why their only way to make decent money is to take their clothes off and make men happy. It also raises questions about their self esteem.
So it's the fault of men and good looking women who pose topless.

Anyone else?
 

·
Doh!!!!!
Joined
·
753 Posts
Some women have decorative qualities that's for sure but if someone can't see past that to their other qualities then I suggest the problem is theirs and not the fault of the photograph or model. I suppose the same could be said about topless sunbathing or breastfeeding. There will always be someone that sees little more than a pair of boobs yet that's no reason to ban the practice.


See my comment above re self esteem and women's pay. Yes it is sad that's how some choose to make a living. Some men are decorative too (the world's best rugby union hooker for a start).

I don't think you really believe you can equate breast feeding with Page 3.

Now where are my male volunteers for naked advertising/my avatars :confused:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,168 Posts
As to the diet coke ad- are you voicing disquiet and complaint at a man being leered at and portrayed as a sex object? ;)
Not at all. I couldn't care less but I'm happy with my lot and don't have low self esteem. If women want to leer at men and the man is happy to be leered at then what business is of of mine?

I was just wondering if you thought it was acceptable and would your views be different if the roles were reversed?
 

·
Doh!!!!!
Joined
·
753 Posts
So it's the fault of men and good looking women who pose topless.

Anyone else?
Asking why women choose to do that and raising a query as to why it seems the best option is a valid question. A point was made that if the women were offended they wouldn't do it. That naturally leads to the question of why they engage in such action.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,168 Posts
I don't think you really believe you can equate breast feeding with Page 3.
I don't... but some people do and that's no reason to ban it. ,

Just like page 3 in fact.
 

·
Doh!!!!!
Joined
·
753 Posts
Not at all. I couldn't care less but I'm happy with my lot and don't have low self esteem. If women want to leer at men and the man is happy to be leered at then what business is of of mine?

I was just wondering if you thought it was acceptable and would your views be different if the roles were reversed?
Perhaps because men aren't used to advertise everything whilst wearing no or very few clothes and not treated as sexual objects you view such adverts differently. Have you considered how you'd feel to such adverts if it was a case of naked men being used all the time? How you'd view such matters if the only way for you (men) to get a decent wage was to take your clothes off? If you were viewed only as decorative. In essence if men were in the role of women. As we all know, the personal is political.

Perhaps I'd just like some equality in advertising. And wages. And an end to sexism.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,168 Posts
Asking why women choose to do that and raising a query as to why it seems the best option is a valid question. A point was made that if the women were offended they wouldn't do it. That naturally leads to the question of why they engage in such action.
Err.. Because they are not offended and they get paid for it... A bit like a job in fact

I'd much rather get my jugs out that work 11 hours a day but alas my jugs cant compete... Maybe we should campaign that page 5 should be kept aside for fat blokes and ugly birds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: East Coast
21 - 40 of 174 Posts
Top