|
On March 27 2013 06:05 Veldril wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 05:58 Shiragaku wrote:On March 27 2013 05:53 Acritter wrote:On March 27 2013 05:50 Veldril wrote:On March 27 2013 05:30 Shiragaku wrote:
This is pretty disappointing and incredibly degrading to both men and women, but at least it is not sexual repression. In my opinion, we got stuck halfway in the sexual revolution. Sexual revolution doesn't really exist in Asia. Chinese women don't have their feet bound any longer, and women aren't bought and sold as wives. At least, not too often. That's a start, right? Also birth control is much more available as well as pornography. East Asia really threw away the pseudo-Victorian idea of the modest woman. On March 27 2013 05:54 andrewlt wrote:
Too much ado over nothing. I, for one, would rather have society evolve where we can view sex as a natural activity instead of something that is inherently sinful. Using sex to sell products is really no different than using greed, flashy colors, a desire to fit in/be different, the desire for security or any of the other advertising tropes that marketers continually use to appeal to people. Victorian prudishness is not my idea of an utopia. I agree completely as many people would. Sexual repression is incredibly dangerous and if anyone has read any of the Victorian sex stories, you can see why. But I think society could do better if it was sexually liberated and not perverted at the same time. It's better than the past, that's for sure. But if you compare to the change in the EU/US, I would not say it is really a sexual revolution as a whole in Asia (which include India and middle east, as they are still very conservative in this regard). I would say that Japanese might be the sole exception in this regard but I don't really know about the ex-Soviet countries in this regard, though.
Haha, my bad, I was mostly talking referring to Japan and China. Sadly, because China is so big, a lot of reform is still needed. Out of all evil things Mao did, he brought some women's liberation but he is kind of like a Democrat in a way meaning that he thinks of him as a liberator of women because he opposed foot binding just like a Democrat would think of himself as a liberator of woman because he condemns Todd Akin. But on the bright side, sexual ethics in China have been changing :D
|
On March 27 2013 04:36 Thrill wrote:
The problem here is targeting non-professionals. I think everyone is ok with using models but preferably hiring should be handled through an agency, not directly with the talent her/himself.
Hire professionals, not "random hotties". Your business model sucks ass.
It's so much cheaper not going through agencies though especially in Japan. Have you guys seen the requirements for non-Asian models there? It will mess with your mind, but I can see how you would want proper representation. That's why when I was a recruiter for Nightlife promotions I would sit down and interview everyone I thought would make a good candidate.
|
Making 1000~10000 yen ( $10~$100 or so) per day is not bad when you don't need to sacrifice any time for it.
Anyways, I have a problem with these ads. I don't care about insult or whatever. It's more of the fact that these women are comfortable about men looking at their Absolute Territory. Yes, it is attractive, but IMO it is a package deal with supposed "Don't blatantly stare at me" attitude from women. With ads, they announce to the public that they are ok with random men looking at their Absolute Territory, which makes them less attractive in and of itself. Taking a glance at Absolute Territory without letting her know about it, assuming she doesn't like it should be the manner and philosophy behind. When I can just stare at it because of ads, it's not fun. Having to be hesitant in looking at it is a part of why it looks sexy, at least in public. Ads ironically hurts this.
|
Forehead is next,get ready to get payed ! 
|
On March 27 2013 06:21 Orek wrote:
Making 1000~10000 yen ( $10~$100 or so) per day is not bad when you don't need to sacrifice any time for it.
Anyways, I have a problem with these ads. I don't care about insult or whatever. It's more of the fact that these women are comfortable about men looking at their Absolute Territory. Yes, it is attractive, but IMO it is a package deal with supposed "Don't blatantly stare at me" attitude from women. With ads, they announce to the public that they are ok with random men looking at their Absolute Territory, which makes them less attractive in and of itself. Taking a glance at Absolute Territory without letting her know about it, assuming she doesn't like it should be the manner and philosophy behind. When I can just stare at it because of ads, it's not fun. Having to be hesitant in looking at it is a part of why it looks sexy, at least in public. Ads ironically hurts this.
I'd struggle to explain why I find this so funny.
|
On March 27 2013 06:21 Orek wrote:
Making 1000~10000 yen ( $10~$100 or so) per day is not bad when you don't need to sacrifice any time for it.
Anyways, I have a problem with these ads. I don't care about insult or whatever. It's more of the fact that these women are comfortable about men looking at their Absolute Territory. Yes, it is attractive, but IMO it is a package deal with supposed "Don't blatantly stare at me" attitude from women. With ads, they announce to the public that they are ok with random men looking at their Absolute Territory, which makes them less attractive in and of itself. Taking a glance at Absolute Territory without letting her know about it, assuming she doesn't like it should be the manner and philosophy behind. When I can just stare at it because of ads, it's not fun. Having to be hesitant in looking at it is a part of why it looks sexy, at least in public. Ads ironically hurts this.
You've never been to Japan. Have you? Japan has all sorts of crazy shit. My best friend went to Kyoto university and it was always a lot of fun to visit him.
|
|
|
On March 27 2013 06:00 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 05:54 andrewlt wrote:
Too much ado over nothing. I, for one, would rather have society evolve where we can view sex as a natural activity instead of something that is inherently sinful. Using sex to sell products is really no different than using greed, flashy colors, a desire to fit in/be different, the desire for security or any of the other advertising tropes that marketers continually use to appeal to people. Victorian prudishness is not my idea of an utopia. There IS a difference, and it is that sex is often used to objectify people. Like, let's say you're selling an energy drink with an athlete, or selling an investment firm with a successful businessman/woman. That is focusing on their accomplishments as a reason for you to buy the product. On the other hand, selling a product with attractive men or women often is just based on turning them into someTHING to look at rather than someONE to look at. They aren't a person any longer, but just a collection of sexually exciting body parts. Sex itself is not bad. Turning people into things is very, very bad.
It's not turning people into things. It's admiring their beauty. Sex is natural. Expressing something natural with a beautiful natural (or even unnatural) body is a form of art. They are not just "a collection of sexually exciting body parts". They are sexually appealing individuals who's beauty is appreciated. Of course you will not see a person's personality from a picture.
|
On March 27 2013 06:31 Thor.Rush wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 06:00 Acritter wrote:On March 27 2013 05:54 andrewlt wrote:
Too much ado over nothing. I, for one, would rather have society evolve where we can view sex as a natural activity instead of something that is inherently sinful. Using sex to sell products is really no different than using greed, flashy colors, a desire to fit in/be different, the desire for security or any of the other advertising tropes that marketers continually use to appeal to people. Victorian prudishness is not my idea of an utopia. There IS a difference, and it is that sex is often used to objectify people. Like, let's say you're selling an energy drink with an athlete, or selling an investment firm with a successful businessman/woman. That is focusing on their accomplishments as a reason for you to buy the product. On the other hand, selling a product with attractive men or women often is just based on turning them into someTHING to look at rather than someONE to look at. They aren't a person any longer, but just a collection of sexually exciting body parts. Sex itself is not bad. Turning people into things is very, very bad. It's not turning people into things. It's admiring their beauty. Sex is natural. Expressing something natural with a beautiful natural (or even unnatural) body is a form of art. They are not just "a collection of sexually exciting body parts". They are sexually appealing individuals who's beauty is appreciated. Of course you will not see a person's personality from a picture.
So men who only think of women as things to fuck are "admiring their beauty?" Because those people exist.
|
Now let's be honest here.
Men are likely to look at the girls' legs either way because... well, they are men.
Might as well put an ad there right? The girl gets money, the company gets its ad to its target audience. Everyone is happy. Except the men who wanted to just check out some legs.
Poor men.
|
On March 27 2013 05:58 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 05:53 Acritter wrote:On March 27 2013 05:50 Veldril wrote:On March 27 2013 05:30 Shiragaku wrote:
This is pretty disappointing and incredibly degrading to both men and women, but at least it is not sexual repression. In my opinion, we got stuck halfway in the sexual revolution. Sexual revolution doesn't really exist in Asia. Chinese women don't have their feet bound any longer, and women aren't bought and sold as wives. At least, not too often. That's a start, right? Also birth control is much more available as well as pornography. East Asia really threw away the pseudo-Victorian idea of the modest woman. Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 05:54 andrewlt wrote:
Too much ado over nothing. I, for one, would rather have society evolve where we can view sex as a natural activity instead of something that is inherently sinful. Using sex to sell products is really no different than using greed, flashy colors, a desire to fit in/be different, the desire for security or any of the other advertising tropes that marketers continually use to appeal to people. Victorian prudishness is not my idea of an utopia. I agree completely as many people would. Sexual repression is incredibly dangerous and if anyone has read any of the Victorian sex stories, you can see why. But I think society could do better if it was sexually liberated and not perverted at the same time. I really do get upset when people excuse their perversion because it is opposing the harmful beliefs of sexual repression.
However, (at least on the West) historically we come from sexual opression/repression (which causes pervertions), so I feel rather predictable that as a first step before gaining actual sexual maturity, the unexpected freedom causes pervertion to taint liberation, sort of saying "Pervertion was caused by previous status Quo, so the current one should not be blamed, but rather made responsible of fixing the previous state's faults"
|
On March 27 2013 06:37 Zephirdd wrote:
Now let's be honest here.
Men are likely to look at the girls' legs either way because... well, they are men.
Might as well put an ad there right? The girl gets money, the company gets its ad to its target audience. Everyone is happy. Except the men who wanted to just check out some legs.
Poor men.
This just gives women an excuse to dress like a whore. I don't live in Japan so I cannot speak for what it is like there personally, but I'm hoping ultra short skirts aren't the standard... But that is a valid point, that there is not very much changing here, except there's more advertisements.
|
On March 27 2013 06:36 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 06:31 Thor.Rush wrote:On March 27 2013 06:00 Acritter wrote:On March 27 2013 05:54 andrewlt wrote:
Too much ado over nothing. I, for one, would rather have society evolve where we can view sex as a natural activity instead of something that is inherently sinful. Using sex to sell products is really no different than using greed, flashy colors, a desire to fit in/be different, the desire for security or any of the other advertising tropes that marketers continually use to appeal to people. Victorian prudishness is not my idea of an utopia. There IS a difference, and it is that sex is often used to objectify people. Like, let's say you're selling an energy drink with an athlete, or selling an investment firm with a successful businessman/woman. That is focusing on their accomplishments as a reason for you to buy the product. On the other hand, selling a product with attractive men or women often is just based on turning them into someTHING to look at rather than someONE to look at. They aren't a person any longer, but just a collection of sexually exciting body parts. Sex itself is not bad. Turning people into things is very, very bad. It's not turning people into things. It's admiring their beauty. Sex is natural. Expressing something natural with a beautiful natural (or even unnatural) body is a form of art. They are not just "a collection of sexually exciting body parts". They are sexually appealing individuals who's beauty is appreciated. Of course you will not see a person's personality from a picture. So men who only think of women as things to fuck are "admiring their beauty?" Because those people exist.
The concept of "objectification" is bullshit, and nothing more than a demonization of male sexual desire. Why is it inherently wrong to be interested in someone sexually without being interested in them for other reasons? Why are you morally elevating non-physical attraction over physical attraction, and forcing others to subscribe to your Victorian ideals?
If a girl meets a guy in a bar and wants to have a one-night stand with him (no interest in being friends or a relationship) is that okay? And yet, flip the genders around, and white knights start screaming "objectification".
Women sexually objectify men far more (if you disagree, take a look at the stats/studies/surveys on women, dating, and men's height), and in any other ways to (as walking credit cards or status objects). Yet we accept there's nothing wrong with that as a normal part of female sexual desire, so why the big deal over men's desires?
|
To a certain degree, this sort of advertisement already exists. The AE, Armani, AA, Gap, etc. of the world all make crappy products that sell well due to extensive advertising on the bodies of non-professional 'models.' Unless, of course, you think there's another reason to plaster logos on the seat of someone's pants or the chest area of shirts.
|
On March 27 2013 06:45 Blargh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 06:37 Zephirdd wrote:
Now let's be honest here.
Men are likely to look at the girls' legs either way because... well, they are men.
Might as well put an ad there right? The girl gets money, the company gets its ad to its target audience. Everyone is happy. Except the men who wanted to just check out some legs.
Poor men. This just gives women an excuse to dress like a whore. I don't live in Japan so I cannot speak for what it is like there personally, but I'm hoping ultra short skirts aren't the standard... But that is a valid point, that there is not very much changing here, except there's more advertisements.
First of all, I'm okay with that. It's like having Halloween every day of the year.
And secondly, they aren't even dressing like whores. Look at the picture of the two women in the OP. They're not exactly "scantily clad".
|
On March 27 2013 06:36 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 06:31 Thor.Rush wrote:On March 27 2013 06:00 Acritter wrote:On March 27 2013 05:54 andrewlt wrote:
Too much ado over nothing. I, for one, would rather have society evolve where we can view sex as a natural activity instead of something that is inherently sinful. Using sex to sell products is really no different than using greed, flashy colors, a desire to fit in/be different, the desire for security or any of the other advertising tropes that marketers continually use to appeal to people. Victorian prudishness is not my idea of an utopia. There IS a difference, and it is that sex is often used to objectify people. Like, let's say you're selling an energy drink with an athlete, or selling an investment firm with a successful businessman/woman. That is focusing on their accomplishments as a reason for you to buy the product. On the other hand, selling a product with attractive men or women often is just based on turning them into someTHING to look at rather than someONE to look at. They aren't a person any longer, but just a collection of sexually exciting body parts. Sex itself is not bad. Turning people into things is very, very bad. It's not turning people into things. It's admiring their beauty. Sex is natural. Expressing something natural with a beautiful natural (or even unnatural) body is a form of art. They are not just "a collection of sexually exciting body parts". They are sexually appealing individuals who's beauty is appreciated. Of course you will not see a person's personality from a picture. So men who only think of women as things to fuck are "admiring their beauty?" Because those people exist.
I feel this is the kind of stuff that swamps the whole thing. The contemplation of a pair of beautifull legs doesn't have to be purely platonic to be OK, nor the guy who insta-thinks sex is by analogy a perverted. If a girl or man gives stares at the other gender's sexual appeal, even without dissimulating, it should be socially considered as "meh". If the staring party attempts a more phisical or verbal approach and this is not liked, then moral reproach (or even legal consequences, depending on how bad the approach was) could be in place.
|
On March 27 2013 04:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 04:10 Qwyn wrote:
Why would it be insulting to women? It's voluntary.
I still don't think it will accomplish anything. The next generation is already programmed to completely and utterly ignore ads of any kind. Sex will always sell though. Ads with hot girls (or guys) are surely more enticing than random, boring pop-up ads.
Yes, but when the market is supersaturated with ads depicting sexual content (that the vast majority of the time does not even relate to the product advertised) then it just becomes more of the same. It is the norm. And the next generation has trained itself to become very, very good at "completely and utterly" ignoring ads.
|
On March 27 2013 06:45 Blargh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 06:37 Zephirdd wrote:
Now let's be honest here.
Men are likely to look at the girls' legs either way because... well, they are men.
Might as well put an ad there right? The girl gets money, the company gets its ad to its target audience. Everyone is happy. Except the men who wanted to just check out some legs.
Poor men. This just gives women an excuse to dress like a whore. I don't live in Japan so I cannot speak for what it is like there personally, but I'm hoping ultra short skirts aren't the standard... But that is a valid point, that there is not very much changing here, except there's more advertisements.
yes, they wear short skirts, which is common. no, they are not whores. also, they wear bikinis. holy fucking christ!?!? burn them at the stakes, whores!
|
In regards to the poll, both.
However, what astonishes me is the title "hot legs", as Asian girls for the most part don't have nice bodies. Hot legs is a bit of an oxymoron in this situation.
|
On March 27 2013 07:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 06:45 Blargh wrote:On March 27 2013 06:37 Zephirdd wrote:
Now let's be honest here.
Men are likely to look at the girls' legs either way because... well, they are men.
Might as well put an ad there right? The girl gets money, the company gets its ad to its target audience. Everyone is happy. Except the men who wanted to just check out some legs.
Poor men. This just gives women an excuse to dress like a whore. I don't live in Japan so I cannot speak for what it is like there personally, but I'm hoping ultra short skirts aren't the standard... But that is a valid point, that there is not very much changing here, except there's more advertisements. yes, they wear short skirts, which is common. no, they are not whores. also, they wear bikinis. holy fucking christ!?!? burn them at the stakes, whores!
Disillusioned feminists gonna be disillusioned.
I'd bet 50 bucks or even any amount of money that most women who do choose to do this kind of stuff care far less about some perceived "degradation of women" than whiteknights on the internet seem to imply.
^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
