Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can we please get rid of the nasty, sexist, rational responders ad

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:32 AM
Original message
Can we please get rid of the nasty, sexist, rational responders ad
url is www.rationalresponders.com . I pm'd this earlier and know there was a thread several days ago. Please get rid of this trashy ad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. Oh, not this shit again.
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
63. Can I have some of that popcorn you're holding under your burka?
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
94. You left out the graphic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmik debris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. What's the problem?
I have the ads turned off so that I don't see them.

Please explain the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. These are the ads at the bottom of a thread
which I didn't think could be turned off. In any case it is a barely clad women cop, think stripper cop, saying belive in God we can cure that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Get Firefox. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmik debris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
19. So your only problem is the way the cop is dressed?
I guess you've never been to the beach or to a swimming pool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. context matters
Here she is the only scantily clad person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
40. I don't see any ads at the bottom of threads on my screen
:shrug:

This one does sound pretty bad though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
54. Hey! I don't see her!
Why don't I see her? x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
4. I have ads disabled, so I turned them on to see. It isn't "nasty,"
unless you think women are disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. If I want to see strippers I will go to a strip joint
Here I think women should be respected for their brains not their boobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Are you kidding?
Seriously? A woman dressed in a satin tank top equals porn to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I wouldn't equate it to porn
but I think it is pornesque.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. Why?
Because she has large breasts? Blonde hair? Would you be as upset if they replaced her with one of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugar Smack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I can't even see the ad, and I don't have "ads" turned off.
I wish I could see what everyone's talking about. I'm curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. The ads shows up randomly at the bottom of a page,
below the regular DU content
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
36. In other words, the OP is going out of their way to be offended.
I've looked for it but can't find it. Now I'M offended.....hurumph!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #36
42. Here you go
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. That's it?
Edited on Fri Nov-23-07 11:38 AM by Kingshakabobo
I would think the text would be more offensive. Especially to a member of DUs "god squad." I think someone is being a little disingenuous.


Edit to add: I think I'll register over there. Hey it worked!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. The OP couldn't be giving them more potential new members
Edited on Fri Nov-23-07 11:50 AM by blogslut
if he was working for them. It is a nice site, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #42
56. Uhm... She's practically dressed like a nun...
At least, compared to what I expected when I read the OP.

She looks no different than a girl on a regular billboard or in a regular advertisement.

I was expecting soft-porn, the way the thread-starter reacted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. I don't think the problem is a woman in a satin tank top.
The problem is the use of a photo that is obviously suggestive of porn (the classic women strippers acting as cop routine) as a sexist marketing tool. (objectification of women for profit)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Ahh, I see
Blonde hair & large breasts equals stripper. Got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #18
28. Nice try, but no.
It's the camera angle and cropping, plus combination of clothing choice with police hat.

You can play stupid on this all you like, but unless you've been living in a cave, you're aware that's a stereotypical stripper routine, and not so much a standard police uniform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. thank you you sexplained it better than I
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. I'm just waiting for someone to claim
that I'm offended by DU profiting off the sexploitation of women's bodies because I have a problem with atheists.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #35
79. You have a problem with atheists? Please elaborate. -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #79
84. Ha, no.
That's not where I was going at all with that. I definitely don't have a problem with atheists. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. You mean the woman, instead of dressing up like an actual cop,
Edited on Fri Nov-23-07 11:12 AM by Basileus Basileon
dressed up like a popular parody of a cop, aware that her physical attractiveness would draw the eye's attention, in order to redirect that attention to a site in which she would attempt to further her cause using logic and rational thought?

PORNO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. How adorable
I'm playing stupid. Do you know what I do for a living, M'am?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SyntaxError Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #34
83. Stripper?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #28
55. So?
If that's offensive, I wonder how you make it through an average day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
62. You very utterance of the phrase "satin tank top" has distracted me.
I will now lose about 40 minutes in idle fantasization of women in satin tank tops. And it's all your fault!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. The cop thing is their site gimmick.
Edited on Fri Nov-23-07 10:56 AM by Basileus Basileon
The woman in question seems to be a major member of the site. If you look through the site, she's quite intelligent, and at the same time very secure about using her body to grab people's initial attention. I think there's a world of difference between a stripper and an intelligent woman dressing up like a cop to promote a website dedicated to challenging false beliefs. I don't think it's "nasty" at all.

In fact, the only way I could see calling it "nasty" would be if you think women with large breasts are "nasty."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
74. I belong to a Rational Response Squad...
Edited on Fri Nov-23-07 07:29 PM by IMModerate
At our local meetup, one of the women has purple hair, full tattoos, weighs about 250, and wears low cut clothes.

She also has a masters degree, and a razor wit, and is a great mom to her 4 yo. son. She is treated with great respect, which she deserves.

You are too interested in how a person looks. (Me, I favor Catholic school uniforms.) But I think that if it was a shampoo ad, you would not have noticed.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #6
95. Well... I've been in plenty of late night, cheap, Pakistani owned mini-marts in my life...
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 01:10 AM by D__S
and speaking from experience, I have yet to see any "Women With Big Brains" magazines kept discreetly (somewhat), behind the counter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
7. Why don't you explain your problem with the ad. because I don't get it.
Edited on Fri Nov-23-07 10:49 AM by aikoaiko

eta: I see you did. I don't see the ad like you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
8. Click often.
DU gets paid every time you do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
77. Really? I didn't know that was how it worked. I'll click often -- and pay more attention --
to the ads here. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
15. I think someone is trying to misapply the term "sexist" ...
because a call to censor an ad by an atheist wouldn't get the same support around these parts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Agreed.
At least the last thread about this was honest in that the op admitted she was offended as a theist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
20. tell us the REAL reason you want to keep the rest of us from
seeing that ad. I suspect you don't like things critical of religion. Just a suspicion.

anyways thanks for posting the link, I wouldnt have known of that site otherwise. it's a great resource!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. I haven't complained about any other athiest ads
of which there have been several. This ad is flat out offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. I think in order for something to be "offensive," it has to offend
more than one person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #24
39. I personally don't find the human body offensive.
Edited on Fri Nov-23-07 11:26 AM by jonnyblitz
I have been on so many gay sites with gratuitous pictures of scantily clad or naked guys in my face all the time perhaps I am jaded and immune to scantily clad or naked bodies in general. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #24
78. In all sincerity, I'm sorry it offends you. But honestly, I never even noticed
it was THERE until you mentioned it.

Maybe you should just treat it like irksome posters -- ignore. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugar Smack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #20
31. I clicked on the link, too.
That site is beautifully put together. A lot of work has gone into it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
21. Why is it nasty or sexist?
It seems like a very normal atheist site to me. If we have to live with Christian ads every time a discussion of religion or God comes up, then it certainly seems fair that Christians should have to live with atheists ads when believe in rational thought comes up. It's freedom of speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Best I can figure, it's because there is a woman in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #22
29. It is because the woman is barely clothed
She looks like the stripper parody of a cop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. To the repressed, perhaps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
58. "Barely clothed"?? She's practically dressed like a nun!
The only way she could be wearing more clothes would be if she'd be wearing a burqua!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #29
70. Some paintings of Christ on the cross portray him as shirtless.
For example, there's one attributed to Donatello and thought to have been painted in the early 1400s.

How would you feel if prints of such paintings were advertised on DU?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
26. Oh noes, teh opressed religionists are being opressed by teh Evil Atheist Conspiracy!!!1!!11!
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. It worse than that. The Atheists have a woman with large breasts on their side.
And as we all know, intelligent atheist bloggers with blonde hair and large breasts are all actually porn stars and strippers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
37. If this is the ad, I don't see anything nasty, sexist, or trashy.



I could see how someone who believes in the existence of God my find it offensive that someone wants to fix them -- is that the problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. I think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. yeah, I can see where "we can fix that" would rub a believer
the wrong way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #41
47. It's the same mentality that "fixes" gay people.
They're so much like fundies it's unreal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. That comparison is not apt.
It is possible, through persuasion, to change beliefs. It is not possible to change sexual orientation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #48
50. I said the mentality is the same, not the objects.
The mentality is that other people are broken because of who they are and they need to be "fixed."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #50
64. That is like suggesting that an auto mechanic and a gay converter have similar mentalities.
They do, but one is harmful, and one is benign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. "When pressed, be thickheaded...
Refuse to acknowledge their points; deliberately misconstrue their statements."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. I'm serious. Your comparison is simply bogus.
Your failure to understand why your logic is flawed does not equal my inability to grasp it. I understand where you're going. You're wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. fighting BS is the same mentality as McCloset & Co.? RIIIIIGHT...
The persecution complex of Religionists is hilarious. Believing in supernatural BS or in an invisible man in the sky is NOT equivalent to being gay. Religion is an idea in people's minds, sexual orientation is a biological/instinctual phenomenon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. Allow me to proselytise a moment for the cause of reading comprehension.
Read my reply to the other poster.

Apparently you're fine with the idea that people aren't "okay" the way they are, and that they need people to "fix" them. And you don't like the hypocrisy of that idea being pointed out. Tough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #57
65. *shrug* I believe rapists and sex offenders aren't okay the way they are.
Edited on Fri Nov-23-07 06:47 PM by Basileus Basileon
I believe alcoholics ought to be rehabilitated. I also think that telling homosexuals, who cannot change themselves, that they ought to stop being gay is cruel. Is that hypocrisy? Only if you like false equivalence.

As for telling religious people they can be changed? I'd place that between alcoholics and gays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #57
90. You obviously don't get the distinction between beliefs (religion) and biological urges (being gay).
When someone says the Earth is flat I correct them and thus "fix" that person's error. Why should the idea of religion be put out on a higher pedestal then believing some other assertion? Philosopher Daniel Dennet in his new book Breaking the Spell explains this putting of religious ideas on a higher pedestal that makes it obscene or rude to question said religious ideas as part of a complex of memes he calls "belief in belief," that is, memes that protects a belief from scrutiny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
44. I'll have to remember this the next time someone here
tells me how atheists don't proselytise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #44
61. .........
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #44
96. How about this- Next time a busty, scantily clad Christian blonde who looks like this


comes to my door talking about "the good news", I promise not to complain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
45. What's the big deal?
And since when is the female body "nasty?" I know I know, I'm only saying that because I want all men to like me. :rofl: (An actual accusation thrown at me when I was defending a woman's right to celebrate her sexuality.)

Typical fundy stance: "I don't want to look at it so you can't look at it either! Niener niener!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qdemn7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
49. Not just NO, but HELL NO!!!
You don't like it, don't look.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
51. I find the fact that you're taking offense at this ad rather odd
You're claiming that the woman is dressed in stripper's garb, yet in reality, if you look at the outfit, she is exposing no more cleavage than a lot of college students, or other females do, day in day out, at school, at work, and out on the town.

Sorry, I don't get your faux outrage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
53. Strangely. it's actually selling
a service of brains and logic, including those of the woman in the pic. The "rational response squad" badge may also be a clue they are using cop schtick as part of that service.

So in fact we have a women who is objectified only inasmuch as she is (accurately as far as I can tell) represented as the face of a group offering intelligence, reason and logic. Hell I would be proud to be objectified in such a way. I hope she is too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamahaingttta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
59. I think the chick in the ad is hot!
Because she's an athiest! I think athiests in general are hot because they have brains, and aren't afraid to use them. The brain is, after all, the biggest sex organ in the human body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
60. You have characterized the ad as "nasty" and "sexist".
Edited on Fri Nov-23-07 01:26 PM by SimpleTrend
Unfortunately, I either cannot see or find the ad, so cannot comment directly, and can only make inferences based upon your characterization, which I will presume is a truthful judgment of perception for you.
~In general~
It is common for advertisers to appeal to a natural sense of sexual desire to create and associate an expectation that if we 'buy', the associated desire will be fulfilled. The important thing to remember is the advertisement is nothing more than a lie wearing a mask of appeal to extract something else from us, without ever giving us resolution toward the associated desire created.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #60
89. I've had a long term search ongoing to find an online essay I read years ago
Edited on Fri Nov-23-07 11:46 PM by SimpleTrend
on this subject. I thought I'd share a couple of essays I found today with the group (it may or may not be on topic, if not, my apologies):

THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONSUMER CULTURE OF MARRIAGE

Let me put Consumer Marriage in a bigger context. Around 1880, the mass manufacture of consumer goods brought mass advertising and a new era in American history. The era of the consumer was born. Advertisers realized that the key to successful marketing was convincing potential customers that they couldn't do without the product. Sometimes this meant defining new problems, such as bad breath and hairy legs, that new products would fix. If a company's product was indistinguishable in quality from another's-say, with gasoline, soft drinks, or cigarettes-then advertisers learned to sell an image, a sense of belonging, of having made it, of being with it. We came to define ourselves by what we bought, and exposure to an estimated three thousand ads per day helps us to decide who we are.

http://marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2000/August/c...


It's interesting to view the rise of corporatism, once again, in the timeline of the last quarter of the 1800s, and to tie it in with the creation of false desires.

"pursuit of Happiness", anyone?

The Role of Dissatisfaction

I earnestly believe that some degree of dissatisfaction is innate in people, and absent our modern society, the chance that someone would fall to his knees in wonder at the sight of a wildflower is marginal. But I can say with assurance that modern advertising makes this possibility disappear entirely, for most people in most places, because in order to consume as we do, we must first be programmed to regard everyday experiences as completely unsatisfactory.

This aspect of marketing has a lot in common with traditional religious practices:

* The truth is hidden from view.
* Your reward lies in the hereafter.
* True happiness in only available to the initiated, the "insiders."
* Everyday reality is a sham, a waste of time, an illusion.
* We are all defective, our personal experiences have no legitimacy without the validation of priests.

http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/consumerangst.html


Anyway, like I said, probably mostly off topic, but I find these two essays somewhat interesting as a way to understand the lack of happiness that we are constantly subjected to, and that they are products of mass advertising, which happened to arise with the mass manufacturing phenomenon and the early years of corporatism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mudesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
66. Oh no! Not a breast!
Women have breasts. It's not nasty nor sexist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
67. I don't see ads - I use Firefox with the Adblock extension
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
71. .
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
72. DU has no control over the Google ads...
I'd take it up with the organization being advertised, and not DU. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Not exactly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

They can reject them after they appear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. Okay... so they have a little control...
...BUT, it's an ad against theocracy. Given the theocratic influences in our government for the last 27 years, I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of the website being advertised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. No, it isn't against "theocracy"
The original incarnation of the ad read: "Believe in God? We can fix that." That has nothing to do with Bush or neocons or RWers, it is a statement that there is something wrong with everyone with religious inclinations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #76
80. Yes, the site is promoting atheism because THEISM has infiltrated our secular govt...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Book Lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
81. Thank you for your concern about sexist ads
Now that you have shown yourself interested in this issue, may I point you to some ads that actually do offend women? I am sure you'd want your energy directed toward alerting folks to an ad campaign that actually does insult women, as opposed to this one, which does not.

First, some background. http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article41.html

# 1 Superiority.
Three common tactics used to establish superiority are size, attention and positioning. Notice how both men and women in the Hanes ad appear subservient because of their positions below and behind their partners. The Gable Film Festival poster lends historical reference to the stereotype that women, like the one in back, fawn over men yet cannot hold their attention.

# 2 Dismemberment.
Women's bodies are often dismembered and treated as separate parts, perpetuating the concept that a woman's body is not connected to her mind and emotions. The hidden message: If a woman has great legs, who cares who she is?

# 3 Clowning.
Shown alone in ads, men are often portrayed as secure, powerful and serious. By contrast, women are pictured as playful clowns, perpetuating the attitude that women are childish and cannot be taken seriously.

# 4 Canting.
People in control of their lives stand upright, alert and ready to meet the world. In contrast, the bending of body parts conveys unpreparedness, submissiveness and appeasement. The Capri ad further exemplifies head and body canting. The woman appears off-balance, insecure and weak. Her upraised hand in front of her face also conveys shame and embarrassment.

# 5 Dominance/Violence. The tragic abuse-affection cycle that many women are trapped in is too often glorified in advertising. Is the Revlon ad selling lipstick and nail polish or the idea that a woman must be kept under control? Note the woman's affectionate reward for her pleasant cooperation in being choked with her own pearls. It's not funny, Frank.


Also take a look here: http://www.jointhemediacircus.co.uk/mediacircus/2007/10... for examples of ads which actually do offend feminists. You might want to check out http://www.umich.edu/~sapac/sia/2007 / too.

Again, as a feminist, I thank you for your concern but I assure you, in this instance, it is misplaced. The image you are worried about shows a woman pretty well covered, and in an assertive pose (in fact, if you clicked through to he site, you'd see that she's pretty much in charge). She isn't poised to serve a man, she isn't shown as ready to strip off her clothes, and she isn't emaciated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
82. What about those ads of the shirtless buff guys, can we get rid of those, too?
They're sexist.

I see them popping up in gay-themed threads all the time and it offends me.

Well not really, but yeah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DLnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
85. It's the ugly picture of shrub, with Condi drooling in the background,
prominent on both the Greatest and the Latest page, that we need to shitcan.

I honestly find this picture quite offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
86. DU has been quite prudish as of late
What's up with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
87. What's the problem here?
I guess I understand... oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Froward69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
88. I agree that hillary
www.You Go Girl.com add is offensive too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
91. Smell The Glove.
Bobbi Flekman: You put a *greased naked woman* on all fours with a dog collar around her neck, and a leash, and a man's arm extended out up to here, holding onto the leash, and pushing a black glove in her face to sniff it. You don't find that offensive? You don't find that sexist?

Ian Faith: This is *1982*, Bobbi, c'mon!

Bobbi Flekman: That's *right*, it's 1982! Get out of the '60s. We don't have this mentality anymore.

Ian Faith: Well, you should have seen the cover they *wanted* to do! It wasn't a glove, believe me.

:smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
92. If people keep complaining about it, I'm going to have to turn the ads back on.
Damn that fiendish firefox!

Scantily clad atheists. Yes, I'm outraged. Outraged, I tell you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
93. How dare that jezebel expose her arms and top third of her breasts!
(Away, nasty thoughts....away, nasty thoughts!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fly by night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
97. Thanks for your effort. Insulting anyone's spiritual beliefs does not belong on DU.
As I said in my earlier thread, they are not my beliefs. But I don't have to believe something to be offended when the beliefs of others are belittled.

Some get that. Others (too many) here don't.

I also wouldn't want an ad on DU admonishing atheists to repent or burn in hell (even if it included a nun showing cleavage).

Neither are appropriate for ths forum. Unless we are no better than any other money-grubbing web-sites who would post anything to make a buck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
98. dsc, using attractive women to attract attention to atheism is the progressive thing to do
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 11:39 AM by cuke
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hidden Stillness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
99. "When Will They Ever Learn?"--Another Day, Another Attack of Male Hate
I am so sick and tired of reading--especially on this "liberal" website--whenever a woman tries to make a protest against the constant degrading exploitation of male capitalism, the immediate, as-if-coordinated bellowing attack against her, until she either submits or leaves. It is "trivial," you are not even smart enough to know what oppresses you or makes you feel abused by the bigoted and the privileged, you are "repressed," you "hate males," you "hate women," you "hate the human body," you are "vindictive," you are "a prude," "What the FUCK, Not THIS AGAIN" as if you do not have a right to protest and this is not your country. Males and anyone bigoted against women are deluding themselves if they believe that women and girls are not angry and fed up at this corporate pseudo-culture that humiliates us, and you would do well to stop your manipulations and browbeating long enough to actually realize, apparently for the first time, that women often do not have the same perspective as males, at all.

The woman is an object, set up as being sold from one male to another male; she is not "celebrating her own sexuality," as males often stupidly put it, any more than the battered Linda Marchiano "enjoyed" making porn movies, as she described it all in "Ordeal." So obstinate are they in their own routine, so unwilling to listen, they they often, (and did again here), actually tell the woman, right to her face, that she has only "faux outrage," that she DOES NOT EVEN KNOW "what insults women"--and all of this, as according to the only experts on women, males! We have been listening to one form or another of this routine from arrogant, self-absorbed males all of our lives: our concerns will only detract from the real issues, why are you so extremist/vindictive/sexually repressed, for not submitting to a male-only standard of public society, etc. You don't even know what's good for you, if women win, we all lose, you should wear a BURQUA--haw! haw! haw!, as if there is no ground at all between male exploitation by semi-nudity and porn positioning, and, male oppression by complete covering and removal from society.

We are apparently only "allowed" to really fight, when males agree with us; when we turn to them and say, "You, too," and try nervously to explain their own bigotry and hypocrisy to them, and their enjoyment of our abuse, and our rage at this endless and unaddressed humiliation, (and if you think it is only this religion-hating website, then you lie again), then you understand the angry, hopeless feeling that millions of women have. Yelling and laughing at us won't make it go away this time either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. So are you against the ad or for the ad?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
101. She should wear a Burka! Then she'd be a respectable lady!
Did it ever occur to you that the woman in the ad works for rationalresponders, and CHOSE to dress that way for the ad? In a free, open society, woman can do that.

The only sexist, nasty people here are the ones that expect women to adhere to their strict religious dogma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
102. Beloved dsc, my most excellent Christian brother...
The fact that the infidels must resort to images of buxom women in very tight shirts in order to draw sheep from the flock is indicative of the weakness of their position. Unable to make an intellectual stand against the wisdom of God, the Apostles, and the Church Fathers; they must resort to the basest of weapons to inflame the lusts of those weak in the faith and draw them to perdition. May God, having mercy on their souls, move their hearts to repentance, that they may further receive His grace and not be damned.

Benedicat tibi Dominus et custodiat te
Ostendat Dominus faciem suam tibi et misereatur tui
Convertat Dominus vultum suum ad te et det tibi pacem,
JVS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 24th 2014, 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC