Not offensive. Boring and lazy as crap.
It reminds me of my local radio station that gets the same woman to do the voice on all their in house produced ads. Every freaking one has the whispery voice and sexy innuendo. She sells everything from local restaurants to power tools. It reeks of low budget, B grade product. I would have thought a power company would have more cash to hire an agency that knows what they’re doing.
[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
Not offensive. Boring and lazy as crap.
[/quote]
Exactly.
That’s funny.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I saw this driving through Atlanta.[/quote]
This one is funny. It’s almost like a ‘dad’ joke.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I can’t get worked up over it, personally. But I like seeing men advertising underpants, so maybe I’m part of the perv market. In answer to Representative Fiola’s question about how one responds to children asking about it, I would simply label it a dumb joke. If that didn’t answer the question I would explain, no big deal: “Some people think legs are sexy, and ‘turned on is another word for sexy’ and it’s also what you do with power, see? A joke.” Ba da bum.
One thing I do get worked up about is the photoshopping of virtually every photo of women we see. Eyes widened, legs lengthened, waist/hip ratio increased, etc. . . I think this stuff is incredibly damaging to young girls and women generally. Truly an impossible ideal.[/quote]
As far as kids, people worry way too much about these sorts of things for kids. This is the kind of joke that either you get it or completely don’t get it but don’t realize you’re missing something.
Could you explain why idealized images of women are damaging to girls but idealized images of men are not damaging to boys?[/quote]
Idealized are fine, wildly falsified are damaging. The same would be true of boys, I suppose. I think there hasn’t been an industry previously that was centered on altering men to fit impossible standards, but same applies to an extent. However, there are plenty of unattractive men in the spotlight for boys to admire. Romantic leading men can be a 7 on a 1-10 scale, for example, where you almost never see a female romantic lead who is not a 9 or 10.
[/quote]
You’re contradicting yourself. 9s actually exist and they look smoking hot without lighting, makeup, or photoshop. That’s not wild falsification. It’s just picking the talent.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I can’t get worked up over it, personally. But I like seeing men advertising underpants, so maybe I’m part of the perv market. In answer to Representative Fiola’s question about how one responds to children asking about it, I would simply label it a dumb joke. If that didn’t answer the question I would explain, no big deal: “Some people think legs are sexy, and ‘turned on is another word for sexy’ and it’s also what you do with power, see? A joke.” Ba da bum.
One thing I do get worked up about is the photoshopping of virtually every photo of women we see. Eyes widened, legs lengthened, waist/hip ratio increased, etc. . . I think this stuff is incredibly damaging to young girls and women generally. Truly an impossible ideal.[/quote]
As far as kids, people worry way too much about these sorts of things for kids. This is the kind of joke that either you get it or completely don’t get it but don’t realize you’re missing something.
Could you explain why idealized images of women are damaging to girls but idealized images of men are not damaging to boys?[/quote]
Idealized are fine, wildly falsified are damaging. The same would be true of boys, I suppose. I think there hasn’t been an industry previously that was centered on altering men to fit impossible standards, but same applies to an extent. However, there are plenty of unattractive men in the spotlight for boys to admire. Romantic leading men can be a 7 on a 1-10 scale, for example, where you almost never see a female romantic lead who is not a 9 or 10.
[/quote]
You’re contradicting yourself. 9s actually exist and they look smoking hot without lighting, makeup, or photoshop. That’s not wild falsification. It’s just picking the talent. [/quote]
I’m not talking about “omg, why do they pick pretty women and ugly men?? it’s totally, like, FAKE!”
They digitally alter footage. Period. In print and film. Whether they do it to men, too, I don’t know. I’m making two separate points: 1) women in ads are digitally altered in ways that are both expected, e.g. smoothing cellulite a/o blemishes, and in ways that are unrealized by most people, e.g. changing eye shape and lengthening limbs, and 2) boys are given a greater variety of role models.
There is no contradiction in these two points.
Edit: pics are of Jessica Alba.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I can’t get worked up over it, personally. But I like seeing men advertising underpants, so maybe I’m part of the perv market. In answer to Representative Fiola’s question about how one responds to children asking about it, I would simply label it a dumb joke. If that didn’t answer the question I would explain, no big deal: “Some people think legs are sexy, and ‘turned on is another word for sexy’ and it’s also what you do with power, see? A joke.” Ba da bum.
One thing I do get worked up about is the photoshopping of virtually every photo of women we see. Eyes widened, legs lengthened, waist/hip ratio increased, etc. . . I think this stuff is incredibly damaging to young girls and women generally. Truly an impossible ideal.[/quote]
As far as kids, people worry way too much about these sorts of things for kids. This is the kind of joke that either you get it or completely don’t get it but don’t realize you’re missing something.
Could you explain why idealized images of women are damaging to girls but idealized images of men are not damaging to boys?[/quote]
Idealized are fine, wildly falsified are damaging. The same would be true of boys, I suppose. I think there hasn’t been an industry previously that was centered on altering men to fit impossible standards, but same applies to an extent. However, there are plenty of unattractive men in the spotlight for boys to admire. Romantic leading men can be a 7 on a 1-10 scale, for example, where you almost never see a female romantic lead who is not a 9 or 10.
[/quote]
You’re contradicting yourself. 9s actually exist and they look smoking hot without lighting, makeup, or photoshop. That’s not wild falsification. It’s just picking the talent. [/quote]
I’m not talking about “omg, why do they pick pretty women and ugly men?? it’s totally, like, FAKE!”
They digitally alter footage. Period. In print and film. Whether they do it to men, too, I don’t know. I’m making two separate points: 1) women in ads are digitally altered in ways that are both expected, e.g. smoothing cellulite a/o blemishes, and in ways that are unrealized by most people, e.g. changing eye shape and lengthening limbs, and 2) boys are given a greater variety of role models.
There is no contradiction in these two points.
Edit: pics are of Jessica Alba.[/quote]
THEY GAVE HER POINTY KNEES!!!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
Could you explain why idealized images of women are damaging to girls but idealized images of men are not damaging to boys?[/quote]
Idealized are fine, wildly falsified are damaging. The same would be true of boys, I suppose. I think there hasn’t been an industry previously that was centered on altering men to fit impossible standards, but same applies to an extent.
[/quote]
Well, my first thought to this is, there certainly is “unobtainable standards” thrust on boys throughout childhood. Look at HeMan toys, or any comic book directed towards boys. Professional athletes loaded up on any PED they can. If I cared enough I could come up with a 1000 things marketed to boys that is a similar idea.
The difference is, boys and girls are different. Not better or worse different, just different. And that is good.
Youthful male insecurity is an entirely different beast than female insecurity. Female insecurity seems to be much more, devastating, for lack of a better word, and male tend to just accept it, and power through, instead focusing on other things like making money, hanging with your boys and smoking weed.
EDIT: in short because it isn’t damaging to boys. And even if it makes me sexist, boys need to suck it the fuck up and get over it already if they feel “inadequate” because some ideal they will never reach is on TV. Turn off the fuckign TV. And no, I’d never tell my daughter this in these words. I would try and comfort her, and then tell her to turn off the fuckign TV [/quote]
There’s nothing I disagree with in this.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
There’s nothing I disagree with in this.[/quote]
Good, lol.
I was nervous I’d catch shit for being sexist or whatever. (Not that anyone on this board is tumbldr feminist or anything.) It’s just… Harder for girls I think, and they can be treated with a bit more empathy in that area while there is nothing wrong with telling boys they need to get over themselves.
In fact, I’d say it’s important for young boys to be told to suck it up and deal. It’s healthy to not give them the coddling. AT least IMO, but iANALoAD
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
There’s nothing I disagree with in this.[/quote]
Good, lol.
I was nervous I’d catch shit for being sexist or whatever. (Not that anyone on this board is tumbldr feminist or anything.) It’s just… Harder for girls I think, and they can be treated with a bit more empathy in that area while there is nothing wrong with telling boys they need to get over themselves.
In fact, I’d say it’s important for young boys to be told to suck it up and deal. It’s healthy to not give them the coddling. AT least IMO, but iANALoAD[/quote]
Of course, very few women would tell a boy to suck it up. We’d be sympathetic regardless of gender.
I respect your opinion, despite the fact that idonotANALOAD like you. 
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Edit: pics are of Jessica Alba.[/quote]
My point is that pre-photoshop she still looks amazing. Photoshop is a red herring that gets blamed because it’s harder to argue that incredibly attractive women have a damaging effect on women and girls sans any sort of touching up. Moreover, part of the photoshop has to do with shadows and lighting, which are a weird artifact of pictures anyways (ie. you’re just touching up the picture to make it look more like what it looked like in real life). The biggest change in attractiveness between the two pictures is probably the re-touching of the waist and that actually has a lot to do with the clothing she is wearing not fitting right in the first picture.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
Could you explain why idealized images of women are damaging to girls but idealized images of men are not damaging to boys?[/quote]
Idealized are fine, wildly falsified are damaging. The same would be true of boys, I suppose. I think there hasn’t been an industry previously that was centered on altering men to fit impossible standards, but same applies to an extent.
[/quote]
Well, my first thought to this is, there certainly is “unobtainable standards” thrust on boys throughout childhood. Look at HeMan toys, or any comic book directed towards boys. Professional athletes loaded up on any PED they can. If I cared enough I could come up with a 1000 things marketed to boys that is a similar idea.
The difference is, boys and girls are different. Not better or worse different, just different. And that is good.
Youthful male insecurity is an entirely different beast than female insecurity. Female insecurity seems to be much more, devastating, for lack of a better word, and male tend to just accept it, and power through, instead focusing on other things like making money, hanging with your boys and smoking weed.
EDIT: in short because it isn’t damaging to boys. And even if it makes me sexist, boys need to suck it the fuck up and get over it already if they feel “inadequate” because some ideal they will never reach is on TV. Turn off the fuckign TV. And no, I’d never tell my daughter this in these words. I would try and comfort her, and then tell her to turn off the fuckign TV [/quote]
I think there is a very delicate balance when raising children. You need to convey the message that you love your children and that they are valuable as people and as your children just because. On the other hand, you need to motivate them to change themselves for the better and make them believe that they can. This presents challenges as you have to let them know there is room for improvement.
I think by sheltering our daughters too much, we handicap their ability to realize that they are not perfect but have the power to make themselves better. While certain amounts of female attractiveness are God given, most women will look incredibly attractive if they stay in shape, observe proper hygiene, and learn how to dress and wear makeup to complement their bodies. Man up may be belittling in some ways, but it is also empowering in that it implies that the hearer has the ability to change. Sheltering our daughters implies that they can’t change and when eventually they realize they don’t look like Kate Beckinsale they don’t understand that they have the ability to change for the better.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
…you almost never see a female romantic lead who is not a 9 or 10.
[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
Yeah, I could name half a dozen leading ladies off the top of my head that aren’t 9s, but I think it distracts from the real point.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
There’s nothing I disagree with in this.[/quote]
Good, lol.
I was nervous I’d catch shit for being sexist or whatever. (Not that anyone on this board is tumbldr feminist or anything.) It’s just… Harder for girls I think, and they can be treated with a bit more empathy in that area while there is nothing wrong with telling boys they need to get over themselves.
In fact, I’d say it’s important for young boys to be told to suck it up and deal. It’s healthy to not give them the coddling. AT least IMO, but iANALoAD[/quote]
No, that was terribly sexist.
It is just, I am a sexist too.
And of course sophisticated.
Of course it’s sexist. Sexism is the normal state of humanity. Not treating males and females differently is disfunctional.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
Of course it’s sexist. Sexism is the normal state of humanity. Not treating males and females differently is disfunctional. [/quote]
Or hilarious.
Just treat women who insist on equality, like an actual equal.
The sheer amount of butthurt…
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Idealised images of men are not damaging to boys.
They are essential to boys’ development into men.[/quote]
I’ve never understood how looking an image of Superman could make a boy healthily strive to be something bigger and better than he is, without turning him into a neurotic bundle of body obsessed nerves, while Barbie is supposed to be the cause of rampant anorexia in young women.
Sorry, Em. I don’t get it.
Of course I posted before having read the rest of the thread, and now I have to go.
