Renzatic on 15/3/2011 at 01:43
Well, volunteer to be a contestant in a pageant. Shame you weren't, though. It would've made for a few good stories, I'm sure.
AR Master on 15/3/2011 at 02:09
none of these ads are offensive; the most offensive thing is that they're considered "shocking" nowadays
but the people whining about how "sexist" or "racist" the past was based on advertisements (not necessarily here, but in reference to the target consumer of this fw:fw:fw:re:fw: the 50s were sexist!!!!!!! list) don't seem to understand these are a portion of media purposefully filtered for a specific audience by a specific (unrepresentative) group
we often don't notice this problem because when we look at a newspaper or magazine published today, we read it in the context of current events and daily experiences and entire memories of life up until this point- its ability to skew our picture of the world is highly limited and we can discount anything which contradicts our own experiences. someone looking at the same article 50 years from now will be reading it without the benefit of that context- typically only having the retroactive context of their contemporary views. thus the past, however well documented, becomes more mysterious as it recedes, and there is a point, a demarcation related to living history, when it suddenly becomes subject to ideological pressures which exceed our practical ability to debunk them.
this filtering problem comes into play when attempting to "read" any period before our own coming of age. it suggests that we should be extremely cautious when looking at past records as evidence of the times. advertisements may say more about advertising (or publishing) culture than about the audience they are marketing to. news and commentary may only reflect the prejudices and conventional thinking of those writing it. what is not recorded can be as important as what is recorded, and who is recording it, and why. we have a hard enough time remembering the debates that happened five years ago- they tend to be speedily rewritten to form simple narratives. the human mind is in love with narrative, which is how we periodically bring our societies to the brink of crisis.
mad men is a cool show though, mid century was the last good aesthetic ideal
Tocky on 15/3/2011 at 02:21
Quote Posted by Kolya
Today's hypocritical anti-paedo-hysteria, is way more screwed up than that ad.
Of course that girl looks cute and sexy. You didn't want to dispute that, did you?
Call me hypocrit if you want but I don't pop a boner over a 10 year old in makeup. What I see is a world that is taking thier innocence too early. They may have a natural curiosity and developing sexuality but that ad is exploitation of the worst most sordid cynical sort.
Quote Posted by Kolya
Young girls exert a natural attraction on men. The main point of attraction isn't even the new and firm flesh, but the promise of a youth that we once had. A longing that's
"less for her than for the way you were", to say it (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_jRDVStzOY) with J. Richman.
I would love to be 10 years old again, fishing, camping, reading 2 minute mysteries, and all of it including learning about little girls but I don't want to do it at my age mentally. That's just damn sad and pathetic. You have to grow up to be an adult and need to take some pride in doing so.
Quote Posted by Kolya
Those have a sexual bias that for all we know is as unchangeable as hetero- and homosexuality. Of course this bias is incompatible with society and they have to learn to suppress it. But treating them as monsters and sub-humans and threatening them with death, whether they act on their bias or not, as is common in these hysteric times, is not just not helping. It betrays a very inhumane aspect of ourselves.
So they get a free pass to scar the most vulnerable that need protection most? As long as they suppress it and don't feel the need to put thier perversion in my face then that's fine but if they act on it then I will act and I accept my monster just as they do. Hey, give me a free pass I'm just made that way and can no more help it than a gay right? You can't change me. It's just these hysteric times that think violence against adults is worse than rape of children.
I just had to edit to say AR Masters post is the most observant and intelligent thing I've read on here in a while. It is every bit truth except that my personal mores and filters tell me some are offensive of course.
ZylonBane on 15/3/2011 at 03:05
Quote Posted by AR Master
none of these ads are offensive; the most offensive thing is that they're considered "shocking" nowadays but the people whining about how "sexist" or "racist" the past was based on advertisements (not necessarily here, but in reference to the target consumer of this fw:fw:fw:re:fw: the 50s were sexist!!!!!!! list) don't seem to understand these are a portion of media purposefully filtered for a specific audience by a specific (unrepresentative) group
(
http://img156.imageshack.us/i/buzzkillingtoni.jpg/)
Inline Image:
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4935/buzzkillingtoni.jpgKoki on 16/3/2011 at 12:14
Quote Posted by Kolya
Of course that girl looks cute and sexy. You didn't want to dispute that, did you?
Well I don't know about him but I sure as hell would. Nothing cute about a little girl in strong makeup, and she sure as hell isn't sexy.
fett on 17/3/2011 at 00:17
That's because you like boys.
Kolya on 17/3/2011 at 01:55
In April 1974 Love Cosmetics began to make a line of Baby Soft products meant for adults. The items were scented with an innocent fragrance most often associated with babies. There was a Baby soft talc, a body lotion, and a foam bath. A marketing slogan read "Sexy in a very special way". Baby Soft products were priced from $2 to $2.75. (source (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Cosmetics) Wikipedia)
At that time their advertising was done by (
http://www.wowowow.com/the-women/mary-wells/) Mary Wells Lawrence, who also created the "I ♥ New York" slogan among several other iconic ads. She retired in 1990 after working 62 years as one of the most successful women ever in advertising.
When you (
http://www.tineye.com/search/20ce63937654b675e85c0ce8d61a735034012740/) look up where that ad appears nowadays on the net, it's in a barrage of at least 20 almost completely identical blog articles on different websites, all named "The 10 worst ads", "Bad old times" or similar, using largely the same set of pictures and the same indignant stance.
Tocky on 17/3/2011 at 06:15
Quote Posted by fett
That's because you like boys.
Well sure, boys in a lot of makeup.
That's only partly a joke. You see, emphasizing big lips, long lashes, symetrical features and the like, is supposed to produce a pavlovian reflex. It doesn't always. For an example of what I mean take the girl in the ads age back a year and is she still "sexy" to you? Then take it another year. Then keep going until she ceases to be sexy. Hopefully sometime before one she will have ceased to be but then for some makeup on a sperm and unfertilized egg will still be hot. For me it had already happened by the time of the picture.
Part of my reaction may be that I am far from any single digit age gap between me and the little girl. Part of it may be terminology. But I think the biggest part is that I have raised a beautiful woman who was a beautiful child. It changes ones sensitivities. Also there is the fact that I hate paedos with the white hot intesity of a thousand suns and the only thing holding back that monster is when my granddaughter puts her hand on my arm while we build a leggo castle and says "Papaw, you are my best friend" and I know I have to be out of jail to protect her.
I have no idea what warped thinking Mary Lawrence had or what produced it in her mind. Hell, she loved NY fs. ;) I do know women love the smell of a baby.
fett on 17/3/2011 at 23:44
Quote Posted by Tocky
Also there is the fact that I hate paedos with the white hot intesity of a thousand suns and the only thing holding back that monster is when my granddaughter puts her hand on my arm while we build a leggo castle and says "Papaw, you are my best friend" and I know I have to be out of jail to protect her.
This. I've dealt with enough of these sub-humans to last me a lifetime. Statute of Limitations pisses me right the fuck off, and if I didn't have kids, I'd be one messed up Batman motherfucker running through Saline County, Arkansas with a sawed off shotgun and a machete.
Wait, have we had this conversation before?
Tocky on 18/3/2011 at 01:34
Most likely. For all the enormity of my anger it's still just a low wall around a deep pit. Thanks for the hand up btw. I know I told you about Glen and how much I wish I had broken his neck that night I dropped him on his head. I would have had I known he and his brother would trade meth to a 3 year olds mother for the use of her. I think of her whimpering without a soul to save her while they took from her the ability to have children of her own and I wish so much I had finished him. There is just no way to know the future or the depth of depravity in some people.
"Brave little shit", he called me. No. I think that type count on our fear of leaving those we love to fend for themselves. They somehow know enough to use our compassion against us even when it's something they lack.
