 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
 |
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Calc II
and woman moaning like shes been given a good lovin isnt implication of sex?  |
*Sigh...* Again, reread what you've quoted.
Let me be blunt: I don't approve of ANY AD that "implies" ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH SEX. You can imply the naked Human form WITHOUT alluding to ANY act of sex. Underware ads are in that grey area. Many are "sexy" without aluding to someone "giving attention" to the model. I don't think it's appropriate for underware and lengeraie (sp?) ads to be put on public display where anyone (re:children) can see, but I'm not gonna raise a fuss about it because they're still clothed, meaning their "naughty bits" are fully covered by cloth, though physical contours might be visable, which could be problematic depending on how they are handled in the particular ad.
If the women's breats are covered only by her arms, as far as I'm concerned she's nude. If the women's or man's nether-regions are obscured only by a bottle of shampoo, as far as I'm concerned they're nude. If a wet, white towel is the only thing covering their nekked skin, they're walking that line but they're NOT nude in my opinion, just really close, too close perhaps. If you're making sounds that you normally only make while engaged in acts of sex, you're being nasty and need to shut your noisehole.  If you're kneeling facelessly in front of another faceless person with globs unidentified white stuff on you're knee, you're being a nasty model who by all rights shouldn't go far in this world if you agree to do nasty-minded ads like that.
Because these ads are being printed in magazines, aired on TV, and maybe making appearances in the movies, chances are minors are going to see them. The adults who think this is a good thing are the ones that decide to make those ads in the first place. There's no arguing their way out of that; they know DAMN well kids are going to see this stuff if they put it out there. If they actually cared, we'd only see such things on late-night TV, in R-rated movies, and in adult magazines.
Obviously, they don't care about children, just making money.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zero
|
 |
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Let me be blunt: I don't approve of ANY AD that "implies" ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH SEX. You can imply the naked Human form WITHOUT alluding to ANY act of sex. |
quote:
Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Gaa, those Herbal Essence commercials tick me off too, but they (unfortunately) DON'T cross the line because there's no nudity even. Sure, she's screaming like there's no tomorrow and she's gonna' make the best of it, but the ad doesn't go far enough to cross the line. |
You just said few pages ago that it doesnt go far enough to cross the line... so then which is it?
Anyway Back to before this statement.
You're being just like Ted. You dont even know what you're arguing agst. Same thing I said to Ted applies to you. And you keep telling me these annoying crap about how these things are immoral and not for childrens eyes. God, I've heard enough of it for the day!
Last edited by Zero on 09-03-2003 at 09:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
|
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Calc II
im afraid u misunderstood him. He said, you can show nude bodies and still not imply sex. So he would say your example is okay. |
Exactly, thank you Calc. That example IS ok because it isn't showing a bunch of teenage girls fondling each other, or even "implying" as much, it's showing the intended audience how to conduct preventative medicine on themselves. Nothing "sexy" about that. If someone WERE to take such videos to imply sex...well...they've got problems that are outside the scope of this thread...
Educational videos are another grey-area, but for them it really IS a matter of HOW they present the material, not the material per ce. They're trying to educate people on the realities of Human sexuality, not the glorifications and misrepresentations you often see in magazines, in the movies, and on TV.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
|
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Calc II
quote:
Let me be blunt: I don't approve of ANY AD that "implies" ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH SEX. You can imply the naked Human form WITHOUT alluding to ANY act of sex. |
You just said few pages ago that it doesnt go far enough to cross the line... so then which is it?
Anyway Back to before this statement.
You're being just like Ted. You dont even know what you're arguing agst. Same thing I said to Ted applies to you. And you keep telling me these annoying crap about how these things are immoral and not for childrens eyes. God, I've heard enough of it for the day! |
With the Herbal Essense commercials, she isn't just standing there bare shouldered (maybe a bare calf-and-foot combo, nothing more)...she's standing there, bare shouldered SCREAMING like she's having an orgasm, as someone else put it earlier in this thread. It's not the bare shoulders implying a naked body that makes that commercial smutty, it's the orgasmic screaming that needn't be there. And, as I said before, bare shoulders and fully-covered-in-cloth "naughty bits" walk the line to varying degrees, but don't necessarily cross it. What material is presented does count, but so does HOW it's presented. The Herbal Essense commercials could have walked the line, but chose to take it that much further. Does it cross? Probably should, but that particular example is too close for me. Part of me says damn straight it crosses, and another says it doesn't. For the sake of arguement, I'll stick by my originally posted statement on that matter.
Further, if Ted and I "don't know what we're arguing against" please enlighten us...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zero
|
|
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
It's not the bare shoulders implying a naked body that makes that commercial smutty, it's the orgasmic screaming that needn't be there. |
Right. It is the orgasmic moaning that is focus of the discussion. Which is why I swapped your words to fit the puma commercial. (Non nude implication VS non nude implication)
My point is that if Herbal essence isnt crossing the line, than Puma wouldnt be, and if that herbal is crossing the line, Puma is... unless you show me a reason why herbal doesnt cross the line but puma does.
quote:
Originally posted by Calc II
Well if you have been reading my posts, all I have been arguing for is that in our world that this ad could run. |
Last edited by Zero on 09-03-2003 at 10:21
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-03-2003 09:10
This isn't an easy topic, but it's very easy to misread things others have posted...hell, I've already done it at least once in this thread already... 
|