Admittedly, this is the ad age. An adage reads thus: “Doing business without advertising is like winking at a girl in the dark. You know what you are doing, but nobody else does.”
How true. When you consider that most gents have made it somewhat of a daily duty to “wink” at sultry ladies ad nauseam, it was only a matter of time before the ad agencies broke out the “babe ads.”
Advertisement featuring “babes” have been around since prehistoric men naughtily colored out buxom beauties in those cave paintings we’ve heard about, but these have become banal. It’s already hard for ads with really witty messages to get noticed or even get placement or airtime in the super-saturated media, so “hot” girls are thrown into the mix. Still, the results aren’t coming.
Here’s where the Japanese advertising company Absolute Territory PR broke that old mold. The group figured that, in an ad-blind land laden with people unaware of billboards and Internet banners, there’s still a critical mass of oglers, and a whole lot of inexpensive space — on shapely thighs. Enter “babe ads.”
When you have a targeted male audience, it’s the ultimate ad — a walking hoarding, interactive as ever, making for ad infinitum prime time viewing. Absolute Territory rents the legs of pretty, young Japanese girls as ad space, a clever marketing strategy that is reported to be a big hit with brands and businesses across Tokyo, especially among the men folk. Not surprising at all.
Girls who are interested in the campaign will have to get their legs “stamped” with an ad, after which they can go about their diurnal routine. They will have to sport the ad for eight hours or more per day to get paid, and will be required to wear miniskirts and knee-length hoses, preferably. To prove that they are “advertising” the brands, participants must also post photos of themselves wearing the stick-on ads on Facebook, Twitter or other social networking sites, periodically.
Eichi Atsumi, a spokesperson for the ad company, said the only two requirements for the job are that the registered people “should be connected to at least more than 20 people on some social network, and that they are over 18 years old.”
According to The Daily Mail, about 1,300 girls had already “registered their legs as ad space” with Absolute Territory PR (as far back as November 2012), and the numbers are niftily increasing.
The male gaze is something we’ll have to endure or embrace (depending on your stance) for as long as it takes before some rogue planet crushes Earth to terrene powder. Steuart Henderson Britt’s simple words warns execs: It’s a cutthroat world out there; the only way to outpace the competition is to embrace change.
To embrace all those long, sexy legs…
What do guys think ? Maybe works in japan, cause I dont think 'soft porn' is really seen as taboo ( I may be wrong) but i guess rest of asia and even EU/USA this will be like wtf
Poll: Your view?
Clever marketing (126)
79%
Insulting to women. (34)
21%
160 total votes
Your vote: Your view?
(Vote): Insulting to women. (Vote): Clever marketing
On March 27 2013 04:03 synapse wrote: With regards to the poll: why not both?
Not having both implies that one who answers clever marketing has no moral reservations with these kind of ads while one who answers "Insulting to woman" has. I guess.
I think it's both clever marketing and insulting to women, although I don't think people should have too much of a problem as long as no one is tattooed without consent. If a girl wants to rent out her skin, then I guess she has that right.
Maybe works in japan, cause I dont think 'soft porn' is really seen as taboo ( I may be wrong) but i guess rest of asia and even EU/USA this will be like wtf
On March 27 2013 04:06 ThomasjServo wrote: This is something that would only fly in certain markets.
I think the most interesting idea would be if contraception ads, brands, and logos, started being tattooed on volunteers.
That would be an interesting sector to break into, especially given the generally more risky ad lines they tend to take. I am sure there is something clever that could be done with it.
I just don't think Jusco, or other large Japanese retailers are going to be clamoring to stamp their logo on someone, and pay them to ride public transit all day though. Then again, at least for American personalities, their Japanese commercials for the longest time were kept very much separate from those they were known for in the states. Who knows? We may see Bruce WIllis doing this for whatever Die Hard they are on next.
On March 27 2013 04:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think the most interesting idea would be if contraception ads, brands, and logos, started being tattooed on volunteers.
Well, there are probably too many who involuntarily advertise for contraceptives already.
This is one is so good you get advantage of the man looking at sexy women, and women get free income, in before some fat/ugly women start saying its bad cause she can´t make cash of her looks.... of course shes gonna say its because its bad for women.
Dont mean to be disrespectfull its just how usually goes, example.- women working on Hotters with sexy cloths because they want to its honest job gives good cash, then come feminist saying is bad... how the hell is bad if they wanna work there.
On March 27 2013 04:17 checo wrote: This is one is so good you get advantage of the man looking at sexy women, and women get free income, in before some fat/ugly women start saying its bad cause she can´t make cash of her looks.... of course shes gonna say its because its bad for women.
Dont mean to be disrespectfull its just how usually goes, example.- women working on Hotters with sexy cloths because they want to its honest job gives good cash, then come feminist saying is bad... how the hell is bad if they wanna work there.
I think you underestimate the marketability of plus sized models. There are a number of things I would think bigger girls are good at selling
I really really like this idea. I dont see how this is an insult to women. They were born hot so some men ogle them. This certainly isnt as insulting as prostitution (which is a whole other debate). Its just a leg, and those women would wear mini skirts anyway. As people mentioned above me, we are programmed to ignore ads (i wouldnt even pay attention to the ad myself, just acknowledge that it exists).
It's just as insulting to men, but men don't realize it.
Such a pitiful advertising culture we humans have. Where is adblock+ when you need it most?? And, this generation does not completely ignore ads. But, due to how abundant they are, their effect has declined. It's still used all over (literally) today, so it has to be profitable.
On March 27 2013 04:30 Blargh wrote: It's just as insulting to men, but men don't realize it.
Such a pitiful advertising culture we humans have. Where is adblock+ when you need it most?? And, this generation does not completely ignore ads. But, due to how abundant they are, their effect has declined. It's still used all over (literally) today, so it has to be profitable.
The silliness of others and their willingness to make money off their bodies need not insult anyone, lest you walk about in shame in the face of mankind.
MSI had to remove a campaign where they were encouraging girls to send in videos of themselves as part of a 'competition' to become booth babes at Dreamhack.
The competition was subsequently removed following an outrage in media and mocking video parodies uploaded by men.
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.
If you think there are some shitty deals in eSports (which we hear about all the time, from casters and players alike) and agree that agencies and organizations help clean up the industry, then i think you see my point.
While Japan might be ready for this, the rest of the world certainly isn't.
Hire professionals, not "random hotties". Your business model sucks ass.
Not gonna lie, I find this really weird. I don't think it's insulting to women because they're the ones choosing to use their legs as ad space. I suppose it's clever marketing but my main response is that this is so silly lol :S
On March 27 2013 04:36 ImAbstracT wrote: If you need to rely on sexism and the objectification of women to sell your product its not a good product to begin with.
If you're not using a legal advantage that competitors use to sell their products, you may be taking the moral high ground, but you also might not be as successful in advertising your product (regardless of whether or not it's a good product).
On March 27 2013 04:30 Blargh wrote: It's just as insulting to men, but men don't realize it.
Such a pitiful advertising culture we humans have. Where is adblock+ when you need it most?? And, this generation does not completely ignore ads. But, due to how abundant they are, their effect has declined. It's still used all over (literally) today, so it has to be profitable.
The silliness of others and their willingness to make money off their bodies need not insult anyone, lest you walk about in shame in the face of mankind.
I'd rather society not revolve around sex and idiocy. But, I have little say in the matter. Next thing you know, we'll have nude women holding signs for shit out in the public. And before long, we'll just be having orgies everywhere. Or something like that. It'll be just like Brave New World!
It mainly season dependant but clever marketing; over 9000+. Anything that will let a man look at a woman for more than 2 seconds w/o beeing perceive as a degenerate, will get you a direct profit in any kind of field heh.
Edit: Nature has given us a good example of society revolve around sex and "idiocy"... and it seems to work pretty well; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo ~~
On March 27 2013 04:30 Blargh wrote: It's just as insulting to men, but men don't realize it.
Such a pitiful advertising culture we humans have. Where is adblock+ when you need it most?? And, this generation does not completely ignore ads. But, due to how abundant they are, their effect has declined. It's still used all over (literally) today, so it has to be profitable.
The silliness of others and their willingness to make money off their bodies need not insult anyone, lest you walk about in shame in the face of mankind.
I'd rather society not revolve around sex and idiocy. But, I have little say in the matter. Next thing you know, we'll have nude women holding signs for shit out in the public. And before long, we'll just be having orgies everywhere. Or something like that. It'll be just like Brave New World!
I can see your point, but it is not as though this is a new phenomena. It was only something like 1800 years ago that Rome declared the Bacchanalia illegal
Well, can't say I'm surprised, and it is pretty clever. It sure as hell is more likely that I'll look at a girls thighs than it is that I'd look at a billboard.
Blargh the fact really remains that there will always be a fiscally attractive demographic on which this type of campaign will be effective. It may not be many people on TL, but think of the thousands on FB who share posts because, "the guy who won the Powerball, will pick a random winner to get $5,000."
Advertising revolves around the lowest common denominator, at least as far as advertising that would utilize this kind of baser sex appeal to move product.
Also the broader dialog will always have sex and idiocy for two reasons; In general humans like the former and the former has a large, helping hand in encouraging the latter. It is a vicious cycle.
I remember discussing a short story in German class about advertising on a person's skin.
We debated wether it were plausible and all agreed that it's a preposterous notion and none of us would ever see that in our lifetimes. That was about 12 years ago...
If it works, then it's automatically clever. I don't know whether it works, so I can't say for sure about that.
Whether it's insulting to women? Really, I think it's more insulting to men, because it implies that all we care about is how women look. Then again, you can say that it's insulting to women because of how it implies that all they're good for is attracting the attention of men, and that's a good point too. The advertising method seems crude to me, and so it just seems generically insulting as well, but that's just me.
So I can't choose either option on the poll, because the first requires knowledge I don't have and the second is too limited in its scope.
On March 27 2013 05:07 ThomasjServo wrote: Blargh the fact really remains that there will always be a fiscally attractive demographic on which this type of campaign will be effective. It may not be many people on TL, but think of the thousands on FB who share posts because, "the guy who won the Powerball, will pick a random winner to get $5,000."
Advertising revolves around the lowest common denominator, at least as far as advertising that would utilize this kind of baser sex appeal to move product.
Also the broader dialog will always have sex and idiocy for two reasons; In general humans like the former and the former has a large, helping hand in encouraging the latter. It is a vicious cycle.
Indeed, and I would never argue that. But, I would argue against the usage of such advertising, as a person with dignity. Sometimes, degrading society into an even larger piece of shit isn't worth making more money. Many will disagree I'm sure. But, I personally hope, for the sake of humanity, people will not support advertising schemes as tasteless as this.
@kafkaesque Stupidity spreads like a wildfire! I wouldn't be surprised if societies of the past used similar forms of advertisement! Progress in society is so hard to come by nowadays. : (
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.
On March 27 2013 05:07 ThomasjServo wrote: Blargh the fact really remains that there will always be a fiscally attractive demographic on which this type of campaign will be effective. It may not be many people on TL, but think of the thousands on FB who share posts because, "the guy who won the Powerball, will pick a random winner to get $5,000."
Advertising revolves around the lowest common denominator, at least as far as advertising that would utilize this kind of baser sex appeal to move product.
Also the broader dialog will always have sex and idiocy for two reasons; In general humans like the former and the former has a large, helping hand in encouraging the latter. It is a vicious cycle.
Indeed, and I would never argue that. But, I would argue against the usage of such advertising, as a person with dignity. Sometimes, degrading society into an even larger piece of shit isn't worth making more money. Many will disagree I'm sure. But, I personally hope, for the sake of humanity, people will not support advertising schemes as tasteless as this.
@kafkaesque Stupidity spreads like a wildfire! I wouldn't be surprised if societies of the past used similar forms of advertisement! Progress in society is so hard to come by nowadays. : (
It can't ever be thought as appropriate to execute hard enforcement of good taste on society. That way tyranny lies. What you CAN do, though, is execute soft enforcement. First, boycott companies that use such advertisement. Second, talk to your peers about how disgusting that type of advertisement is. Essentially, do your own part in changing cultural response to such things. The alternatives are to simply accept it or to limit freedom of speech in what ways suit your own tastes.
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.
Pretty much this.
It always amazes me that people think we're supposed to shame women into not doing things that they want to do because they are "degrading".
Prostitution is degrading because it is a form of selling your body, but I don't think it should be banned. Just because I dislike something doesn't mean I think it should be illegal or culturally maligned.
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.
Pretty much this.
It always amazes me that people think we're supposed to shame women into not doing things that they want to do because they are "degrading".
Prostitution is degrading because it is a form of selling your body, but I don't think it should be banned. Just because I dislike something doesn't mean I think it should be illegal or culturally maligned.
There's a pretty huge difference between maligning something and making it illegal. Personally, I find prostitution rather immoral. I'm not against having it be legal, but neither do I think there's anything wrong with considering it rather degrading to women. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by cultural malignancy.
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.
Pretty much this.
It always amazes me that people think we're supposed to shame women into not doing things that they want to do because they are "degrading".
Prostitution is degrading because it is a form of selling your body, but I don't think it should be banned. Just because I dislike something doesn't mean I think it should be illegal or culturally maligned.
There's a pretty huge difference between maligning something and making it illegal. Personally, I find prostitution rather immoral. I'm not against having it be legal, but neither do I think there's anything wrong with considering it rather degrading to women. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by cultural malignancy.
Cultural malignancy is when something is so hated in a culture that it is impossible to be/practice that thing and still be part of society. People won't treat you like you're human. I guess you could compare it to being Untouchable in the old Indian caste system.
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.
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?
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.
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. I really do get upset when people excuse their perversion because it is opposing the harmful beliefs of sexual repression.
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.
Totally agree with your post above Acritter. That's why I'm posting on a forum about how I disapprove ^_^.
Anyway, the ethics of this are similar to the lottery. It's abusing stupidity in order to make a profit. Should it be illegal? Well, I think it should, but since I'm no dictator or ruler, that will not ever happen. I'm okay with oppression if it's aligned with my beliefs, ya know :D? But really, I can tolerate this kind of stuff being legal, but I think society should put forward the effort of opposing it (much like I do!)
I do not know what all effects this has on women, equality, other miscellaneous ethical shit, but I doubt it's improving it any.
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.
On March 27 2013 06:00 Blargh wrote: Totally agree with your post above Acritter. That's why I'm posting on a forum about how I disapprove ^_^.
Anyway, the ethics of this are similar to the lottery. It's abusing stupidity in order to make a profit. Should it be illegal? Well, I think it should, but since I'm no dictator or ruler, that will not ever happen. I'm okay with oppression if it's aligned with my beliefs, ya know :D? But really, I can tolerate this kind of stuff being legal, but I think society should put forward the effort of opposing it (much like I do!)
I do not know what all effects this has on women, equality, other miscellaneous ethical shit, but I doubt it's improving it any.
You can make a very good argument against the legalization of practices that abuse stupidity for profit, as they encourage activity that lowers the average sensibility of humans and thus undermine democracy. Of course, I take the reverse view of this and say that instead people should be educated, assuming that educated individuals aren't as susceptible to such crude advertising.
On March 27 2013 04:03 synapse wrote: With regards to the poll: why not both?
Not having both implies that one who answers clever marketing has no moral reservations with these kind of ads while one who answers "Insulting to woman" has. I guess.
Clever marketing is just that though. As long as people notice it that means it's working regardless of what you or I think.
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
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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. 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 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 06:37 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 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 04:10 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 06:37 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 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.
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.
^^
well, the thing is that most females in Japan already wear skirts, and a lot wear short skirts (usually younger), so nothing really changes about their dress code with this ad campaign. and despite judicatorhammurabi's post, they are beautiful and have amazing bodies. japan is a lovely place to live when you are young and single.
i hate the term white knight, but that is irrelevant.
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.
Now now, lets not go into the women dress like a whore thing just for wearing a miniskirt (I mean seriously, they're not even half naked or somethig, lol). It'll get you in trouble. Just know that they're just expressing themselves because they know they look attractive.
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.
So? You'll find all kinds of degraded humans who care far less about it than people who are fighting those injustices. How does that change anything?
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.
^^
well, the thing is that most females in Japan already wear skirts, and a lot wear short skirts (usually younger), so nothing really changes about their dress code with this ad campaign. and despite judicatorhammurabi's post, they are beautiful and have amazing bodies. japan is a lovely place to live when you are young and single.
i hate the term white knight, but that is irrelevant.
You obviously haven't seen or been with many girls haha :/ . Asians are very minimal in terms of curves, breasts, and other female bodily features considered attractive. There are a few exceptions here and there, but uncommon. Also, most aren't beautiful either. The girls in OP's picture... no. If all you know for the most part are Japanese girls, then, your perspective is very narrow. Japanese girls having amazing bodies compared to Japanese girls is a useless statement.
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.
^^
well, the thing is that most females in Japan already wear skirts, and a lot wear short skirts (usually younger), so nothing really changes about their dress code with this ad campaign. and despite judicatorhammurabi's post, they are beautiful and have amazing bodies. japan is a lovely place to live when you are young and single.
i hate the term white knight, but that is irrelevant.
I agree, I think there's something dignifying about calling them knights when in reality they're just confused males seeking to obtain validation from females by undermining and suppressing their own masculinity, which contrary to their intention renders them quite unattractive to the females they try to impress. ^^
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.
^^
well, the thing is that most females in Japan already wear skirts, and a lot wear short skirts (usually younger), so nothing really changes about their dress code with this ad campaign. and despite judicatorhammurabi's post, they are beautiful and have amazing bodies. japan is a lovely place to live when you are young and single.
i hate the term white knight, but that is irrelevant.
You obviously haven't seen or been with many girls haha :/ . Asians are very minimal in terms of curves, breasts, and other female bodily features considered attractive. There are a few exceptions here and there, but uncommon. Also, most aren't beautiful either. The girls in OP's picture... no.
you obviously are an idiot to think that because i like the way asians look that i "havent seen or been with many girls." however, if you want to whip out our e-peens and compare conquests, lets do it!
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.
^^
Gee, everything that is remotely sympathetic to women is considered white knighting and feminism to you.
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.
^^
well, the thing is that most females in Japan already wear skirts, and a lot wear short skirts (usually younger), so nothing really changes about their dress code with this ad campaign. and despite judicatorhammurabi's post, they are beautiful and have amazing bodies. japan is a lovely place to live when you are young and single.
i hate the term white knight, but that is irrelevant.
You obviously haven't seen or been with many girls haha :/ . Asians are very minimal in terms of curves, breasts, and other female bodily features considered attractive. There are a few exceptions here and there, but uncommon. Also, most aren't beautiful either. The girls in OP's picture... no.
you obviously are an idiot to think that because i like the way asians look that i "havent seen or been with many girls." however, if you want to whip out our e-peens and compare conquests, lets do it!
Why are you getting pissed off for no reason? If you think japanese girls are the most beautiful and have amazing bodies, then you obviously haven't seen much man. Asian women are naturally disposed to having less in terms of breasts and curves, and in terms of looks, on average, they're not good, and if you find a decent-looking one facially (in comparison to girls across the board, and not just to asian girls), there's a decent chance she's had plastic surgery. Are you Japanese/Asian and you're mad about what I said? No need to be aggressive over it.
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.
^^
Gee, everything that is remotely sympathetic to women is considered white knighting and feminism to you.
It goes both ways. From what I've noticed in your posts, everything that dares to be overtly masculine is degrading or sexist to you. It's a matter of perception. ^^
Here in Barcelona there's a clothes shop that's fucking crowded every day, because all the dudes who work there are hot and wear minimal clothes (no shirt, etc).
Ok, we've been through Japan you so crazy, does this actually work, white knighting, and have now moved on to how attractive Asian women are and what it means about you. I think this has run it's course.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eq52WPs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m4VHcMVaiu4/Ty8CHPpqlOI/AAAAAAAAAyU/D9Rqah919cM/s320/internet-go-daddy-version-released-co.png)
