Hot young women is just too much for the British people

Information Analyst said:
I'm sure I'm not alone is not having a clue what "churchladydom" is supposed to mean.
Click to expand...
Churchlady is a concept based on an SNL character who basically each week picked another stupid/pointless/ incompetent/idiotic thing ("her" opinion) that other people did and turned out a hellfire and misery pronouncement on the evil of it often (as in I never saw one end without) the notation/mention of "Could it be. I don't know......SATAN!!!!!" i.e. nutcase busybody with nothing better to do than make pointless accusations against others because they actually had rational standards instead of idiot ones. Churchladydom would be a place where one churchlady type could always get their way. Not a nice place at all.
 
Interestingly, thongish model in second item can be magnified to the point where it can be verified the apparently translucent thong is actually lined. Curiousity........ I considered airbrushing first.
 
Darat said:
How is it open to abuse?
Click to expand...

Considering that they came to the conclusion that a clearly well developed and post-pubescent young woman "sexualizes children", a conclusion completely divorced from reality, there's nothing to prevent anyone from reporting all of the other images on their webpage and potentially getting them censored as well with the same motivation.
 
Darat said:
Well yes, here is just the first three sites my google search brought up for the word "buy thong". Obviously in the USA these are NSFW, but they are all mainstream major retailers in the UK who seem to be able to advertise underwear not aimed at under 16 year olds with very clear images that leave little to the imagine - look at the 2nd Amazon link for male thongs!
Click to expand...

So where exactly does American Apparel advertise underwear to "under 16 year olds"? I didn't exactly see a "sexy clothes for underage jailbait" section on there. I guess i must have missed it.
 
fuelair said:
Churchlady is a concept based on an SNL character who basically each week picked another stupid/pointless/ incompetent/idiotic thing ("her" opinion) that other people did and turned out a hellfire and misery pronouncement on the evil of it often (as in I never saw one end without) the notation/mention of "Could it be. I don't know......SATAN!!!!!" i.e. nutcase busybody with nothing better to do than make pointless accusations against others because they actually had rational standards instead of idiot ones. Churchladydom would be a place where one churchlady type could always get their way. Not a nice place at all.
Click to expand...

Not a stereotype that would particualrly resonate in the UK, then.
 
Arcade22 said:
Considering that they came to the conclusion that a clearly well developed and post-pubescent young woman "sexualizes children", a conclusion completely divorced from reality, there's nothing to prevent anyone from reporting all of the other images on their webpage and potentially getting them censored as well with the same motivation.
Click to expand...

You mean apart from the ASA's remit of course.....
 
Arcade22 said:
So where exactly does American Apparel advertise underwear to "under 16 year olds"? I didn't exactly see a "sexy clothes for underage jailbait" section on there. I guess i must have missed it.
Click to expand...

The ruling is linked to above. And you seem to be yet another person who believes explaining means the same as defending!
 
Darat said:
The ruling is linked to above.
Click to expand...

Where in the ruling does it say that they advertised it to "under 16 year olds"? From what i can see there's no such conclusion at all.

The thing they objected to was:

We considered the model had a youthful appearance and that some consumers were likely to regard her as being younger than 16 years of age. The model was shown looking back at the camera over her shoulder with her buttocks visible. We considered that readers were likely to interpret the model's expression and pose as being sexual in nature. In conjunction with the youthful appearance of the model, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and was likely to cause serious offence.
Click to expand...

Nothing about marketing sexy underwear towards "under 16 year olds". Their objection is about how the model "looks young", had a "sexual pose" and how that could "offend" British sensibilities.
 
Arcade22 said:
Their objection is about how the model "looks young", had a "sexual pose" and how that could "offend" British sensibilities.
Click to expand...
No, their objection was that to some she might look underage and in conjuction with, "the model's expression and pose as being sexual in nature," it therefore, "could be seen to sexualise a child."

Saying it's a question of "looking young" rather than looking underage is disingenuous.
 
Darat said:
You mean apart from the ASA's remit of course.....
Click to expand...

I have been looking through their website and i can't see anything keeping them from essentially making a larger "report" if there are enough complaints about a specific advertiser, although "censor" is probably the wrong word to use.

They cannot legally demand that they remove any offending material from any website and bring any non-compliant advertisers to court, but there's still strong pressure to have said material removed.
 
I honestly find the contrast between the comparable Swedish advertising industries "self-regulatory" agency and the British one really striking. There's hardly any published complaint about "sexualization" at all.

The majority of complaints published online seem to be about "sexual discrimination", which encompass using sex or sexiness to market something without it being motivated, so in this case i think it would have been found to be acceptable.

The one i saw which was close to this British complaint was one complaining about underwear advertising from Björn Borg:

A complainant has written that the pictures are grossly sexist and adjacent to child pornography offenses when the girl looks to be under 18 years.

---

The third notifier considers that the underwear ad in the Stockholm subway is terribly objectionable, offensive and distasteful in these pedophilia times. Children, girls in mighty young age, has been instructed to pornographic poses with fetishistic plastic stuff that offer extra spice.
Click to expand...

The issue that the Board ultimately have to decide is whether the notified advertising is contrary to Article 18 of the ICC Rules. Article 18 applies according to the article's first piece for such a marketing communication addressed to persons who are minors, ie below 18 years. The Board notes that the advertisement shows a model who is a young woman. The woman, however, is reportedly 21 years old and does not provide the impression of being younger. The advertisement as such is, according to Board's opinion, not designed in such a way that it specifically targets children and adolescents under 18 years. Article 18 does not apply to advertising, which means that advertising does not infringe Article 18 of the ICC Rules.
Click to expand...

http://reklamombudsmannen.org/uttalande/bjorn_borg_
 
Information Analyst said:
You're only saying that because the fact that she is actually 20 is so well established. Despite that, plenty of people here have said she looks older/younger, and I would hazard a guess that that would have been more pronounced had her actual age not been known.
Click to expand...
I don't appreciate being called a liar simply because you don't want to accept that someone could have a different viewpoint from you. Unlike others, I actually made the effort to find a full-sized copy of the picture. She looks about her age, period.

No, I'm pointing out the function of the organisation, and the climate in which it operates.
Click to expand...
Which is crap. Everyone is clearly aware of the function of the organization and the climate in which it operates. That has never been in dispute, so I don't understand why you feel you need to keep dredging that nonsense back up so frequently. No one is confused about why they did what they did, they just think it's stupid for the most part.

What has religion got to do with it? As myself and The Don has repeatedly pointed out, the ruling is in reaction to public concerns, and they are not overtly driven by any religious motivation.
Click to expand...
How do you know that? Since this was a complaint by a single person, how do you know it wasn't religiously driven? It's clear to a great extent that there is an inherently religious foundation to much of how Anglosphere countries deal with nudity and sexuality, even if objections are not specifically religious in nature. It certainly underlies great swaths of American culture, and my experience is that it's foundational to much of the UK culture as well. There certainly is no objective reason or criteria being used to make these strange pronouncements.
 
Information Analyst said:
No, their objection was that to some she might look underage and in conjuction with, "the model's expression and pose as being sexual in nature," it therefore, "could be seen to sexualise a child."

Saying it's a question of "looking young" rather than looking underage is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

No it's not, because it is part of the stated reason. If it wasn't for the patently ridiculous accusation of "looking underage", it could not in any possible way be (miss)-interpreted as "sexualizing a child".

And this is the same sort of nonsense that led the Australian government to ban all pornography featuring small-breasted women, because they might be mistaken for underage girls by paedophiles.

It makes no sense, and does nothing whatsoever to "protect children". It just makes a few self-righteous prudes and emotionalist witch-hunters feel like they've done something worthwhile, while outright ignoring the things that are a real threat to children.
 
luchog said:
It makes no sense, and does nothing whatsoever to "protect children". It just makes a few self-righteous prudes and emotionalist witch-hunters feel like they've done something worthwhile, while outright ignoring the things that are a real threat to children.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, what adverts do you think the ASA is unable/unwilling to take action on that are a real threat to children?
 
luchog said:
I don't appreciate being called a liar simply because you don't want to accept that someone could have a different viewpoint from you.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? Where did I call you a "liar"? I don't have any issue with someone who doesn't think the model looks underage, but it seems that you and a a few others do have an issue with the fact that some people - in the absence of a clear indicators otherwise - might think she looks as if she is.

Unlike others, I actually made the effort to find a full-sized copy of the picture. She looks about her age, period.
Click to expand...
That's just your subjective opinion - not more of less valid that some else who thinks she is older or younger.

Which is crap. Everyone is clearly aware of the function of the organization and the climate in which it operates. That has never been in dispute, so I don't understand why you feel you need to keep dredging that nonsense back up so frequently. No one is confused about why they did what they did, they just think it's stupid for the most part.
Click to expand...
So why do some parties keep trying to reduce it to the bogus "sexy woman offends Brits" that started with the very first post?

How do you know that? Since this was a complaint by a single person, how do you know it wasn't religiously driven?
Click to expand...
I was talking about the general concerns, not this specific complain. I and others have posted links to similar manifestations of such concerns, most if not all of which are utterly devoid of any reported religious element whatsoever.

It's clear to a great extent that there is an inherently religious foundation to much of how Anglosphere countries deal with nudity and sexuality, even if objections are not specifically religious in nature. It's clear to a great extent that there is an inherently religious foundation to much of how Anglosphere countries deal with nudity and sexuality, even if objections are not specifically religious in nature. It certainly underlies great swaths of American culture, and my experience is that it's foundational to much of the UK culture as well. There certainly is no objective reason or criteria being used to make these strange pronouncements. There certainly is no objective reason or criteria being used to make these strange pronouncements.
Click to expand...
Well, I can't speak for the rest of the "Anglosphere," but in many respects the UK certainly seems to be far more relaxed about nudity and sexuality in general than the US is (cf. Janet Jackson). But then this isn't about nudity and sexuality "in general," but rather perceptions of sexuality specifically relating to children, real or imagined.
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
No it's not, because it is part of the stated reason. If it wasn't for the patently ridiculous accusation of "looking underage", it could not in any possible way be (miss)-interpreted as "sexualizing a child".

And this is the same sort of nonsense that led the Australian government to ban all pornography featuring small-breasted women, because they might be mistaken for underage girls by paedophiles.

It makes no sense, and does nothing whatsoever to "protect children". It just makes a few self-righteous prudes and emotionalist witch-hunters feel like they've done something worthwhile, while outright ignoring the things that are a real threat to children.
Click to expand...

So basically you're annoyed because the ASA is working within its remit, but not doing anything that would be outside that remit? What next? Complaining that traffic police don't do enough to combat fraud?
 
Arcade22 said:
Where in the ruling does it say that they advertised it to "under 16 year olds"? From what i can see there's no such conclusion at all.

The thing they objected to was:



Nothing about marketing sexy underwear towards "under 16 year olds". Their objection is about how the model "looks young", had a "sexual pose" and how that could "offend" British sensibilities.
Click to expand...

Very bad wording by me, so I'm not going to defend how I put it. Should have just quoted from the report and not try to use my own words! Sorry for that.
 
Arcade22 said:
I have been looking through their website and i can't see anything keeping them from essentially making a larger "report" if there are enough complaints about a specific advertiser, although "censor" is probably the wrong word to use.

They cannot legally demand that they remove any offending material from any website and bring any non-compliant advertisers to court, but there's still strong pressure to have said material removed.
Click to expand...

I think some of the (perhaps mainly the non-UK contributors?) haven't realised that the ASA is part of the self-regulation of the advertising industry in the UK, it's not government dictated, controlled or otherwise interfered with. Indeed the "industry" funds the ASA to regulate the industry.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
And I think that's absurd that they can make a ruling that is based on possible perception with a sublime disregard for the actual age of the model.
Click to expand...

That's what the industry wants. Should we perhaps stop the industry regulating itself and instead let the government do so?
 
luchog said:
No it's not, because it is part of the stated reason. If it wasn't for the patently ridiculous accusation of "looking underage", it could not in any possible way be (miss)-interpreted as "sexualizing a child".

And this is the same sort of nonsense that led the Australian government to ban all pornography featuring small-breasted women, because they might be mistaken for underage girls by paedophiles.

It makes no sense, and does nothing whatsoever to "protect children". It just makes a few self-righteous prudes and emotionalist witch-hunters feel like they've done something worthwhile, while outright ignoring the things that are a real threat to children.
Click to expand...

Remember this is not the government saying or doing anything.
 
If an adult that is attracted to an adult woman that looks like a 15 year old is "pedophilia", then what about adults that are attracted to 15 year old girls that look 20?
 
Information Analyst said:
I think you'll find that's your stereotype, not really ours.
Click to expand...
Since I have seen a lot of British comedy with similar characters I am a bit uncertain as to your position. Most of the Carry Ons and St. Trinian's have someone of this type (may be male or female or both). A number of episodes of various Brit mysteries have. It is not at all uncommon. And my observation of that media is limited - I suspect that in the types I don't watch I would find more. Note: the British ones may not note it from a religious angle specifically as often (latest Father Brown does though - the housekeeper almost every episode), but they certainly hit the morality one just as hard and stupidly as the US version!!!

With no offense, by the way - I study this, I have most of the books including studies of it (in general) it and many of the films/shows I get my data from. None of the countries any information is reasonably and sufficiently available from lack this type of character in literature and cinema> Because of US politics we do play it out more - because they have stifled fun harder and longer more recently than happened in older civilizations - and make the characters blatantly *******'

And, as I have brought her name up often before: Mrs. Whitehouse - who had (has?) a naughty magazine named for her.
 
thaiboxerken said:
If an adult that is attracted to an adult woman that looks like a 15 year old is "pedophilia", then what about adults that are attracted to 15 year old girls that look 20?
Click to expand...

A situation that has tricked many men into jail................ Especially bad - and should prevent same if the girl was in an age controlled location due to using a fake but very well done ID.
 
fuelair said:
A situation that has tricked many men into jail................ Especially bad - and should prevent same if the girl was in an age controlled location due to using a fake but very well done ID.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is why a person's age, and not what age they look, is the important factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom