to not want my DS to be confronted with this large poster when we go to cinema?

[HubbaBubbaMum]

Went to cinema this week with DH, planning to take DS and his brother tomorrow for birthday treat. I can't believe that in 2016 we will be forced to walk past this poster and that they have even called the film Dirty Granpa!
www.movieinsider.com/posters/277857/

Really??? Letching older man perving young woman's suggestively raised arse whilst other man holds 'petrol nozzle' pointing at her?? I don't want my sons seeing this sexist shit.
(only one cinema in our town btw)

Oh, god, I just saw the tagline.

"They're hitting the road.
And everything on it."

Considering Did you hit that? is a popular way of men asking other men Did you have sex with that woman?, I'd say their use of "hitting [it]" only reinforces the objectification aspect. "That." Not Amanda or Jessica or Veronica. That. That vagina. That nameless woman.

Ugh. I have so much fun ahead of me helping my DD navigate this gross society.

The consequences of objectification disproportionately effect women.

I'm guessing Lord has never had his arse groped and leered at by random strangers as he's walking down the street simply minding his own business.

Of course, I've got hang ups about sex and am a massive prude and that's why I think having a poster with men gawping at a female arse is totally shit.

Yanbu. And the prevalence of yabu replies on this thread is proof, if any were needed, that Mumsnet is massively dumbed down and rapidly becoming the chat forum equivalent of the Jeremy Kyle show.

Mate, you seem to be steering dangerously close to saying that rapists aren't proper people. You aren't...aren't... objectifying them, I hope."

Of course not. I was merely referring to their status as a minuscule minority and to the fact that their behaviour is criminal.

I don't see how the behaviour of these people should have any impact on how the everyone else is expected to behave.

Yes, it does lord. That's the point of public order offences. They cover the area where an activity that may be legal and acceptable in one context, becomes offensive to the general public in others and may disturb public order.

Sure, you were.

I don't see how the behaviour of these people should have any impact on how the everyone else is expected to behave.

Ok, I shouldn't feed the troll, but ...

Since you obviously had trouble seeing your way around this issue, I used the extreme example of rapists to help you understand. (Waste of time, obvs.)

The sad fact (that will dispute anyway) is that lots and lots and lots of men think like this anyway. That is why street harassment is so rife (to use another semi-extreme but very commonly-occurring example). Lots of men objectify women in a way that makes women subject to comments about their clothes, body and makeup, physical and verbal abuse, or even just subtle (or not-so-subtle) sexism in the workplace.

But you think that's not a thing, so no one here can really help you.

YANBU. It's totally sexist. The fact that most women have accepted this sad social reality is why things don't change (sigh). Whether or not children get the innuendo is besides the point - they see it and accept it - and so it goes on. It flies in the face of educating kids (girls and boys) about respecting themselves and others. But where do we register our protest? (aside from this thread?) Ofcom?

I think it's the Advertising Standards Authority.

"no connection between the sheer volume of these kind of images of women (there are not even 1% of the volume of images of men in this way) with many mens idea of womens value and place in society."

Correct. Unless you can demonstrate how sex crime has increased proportionate to the population alongside proliferation of sexualised imagery.

Oh Robert de Niro how far you've fallen.

Next we'll see Daniel Day Lewis in the Fast and the Furious vol. 86.

"Since you obviously had trouble seeing your way around this issue, I used the extreme example of rapists to help you understand. (Waste of time, obvs.)"

Yes, you used an extreme example. Surely you know that hard cases make bad law.

Your argument boils down to - sex crime exists therefore all sexualised imagery is bad.

In answer to my own question -- this is where to complain about offensive adverts:
www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/What-we-cover.aspx

I saw the ad on a local bus -- thought exactly what you did Hubba but didn't stop to think about it deeply enough at the time.

And for those who think yabu - maybe this is like Family Guy - ok - but kids in particular can't be expected to differentiate between satire and reality. Everyone needs to think a little more about the message they're putting out and whether appropriate for all ages/audiences.

Street harassment of women is not an "extreme" example. It happens everywhere, everyday.

thanks goodnightdarth - missed your post in my excitement :)

The tagline on the poster is "They're hitting the road - and everything on it". "Everything" - not even "everybody". That poster really is absolutely fucking vile in so many different ways - and Bob, what have you become? Was Godfather 2 for nothing?

I thought the petrol pump was penis related but in a 'cant get it up because hes an older man' kind of way?

It's not great, and if you have very inquisitive, observant children, it could prove difficult to explain. But aside from not letting you child leave the house what can you do?

The horrid wolf whistlers are worse, rather than worrying about this, you would be better to use the time to explain to your children how to respect women and treat each other in the way that they would like to be treated

The horrid wolf whistlers are worse, rather than worrying about this…

The two are related, surely?

I don't want modern day prudes shaping the world for everyone else, mystifying sex, demonising sex and having things banned for everyone else because it doesn't fit with their hang ups.

But is it prudish or demonising sex or even a hang up to expect women to be willing and engaged participants in sex or sexualised activity? The issue is that she is not participating, it is that she has been reduced to an object.

I am extrapolating, but surely if someone considers it normal and healthy for women to be sex objects that is not only dehumanising but also a bit, well some might say it comes across as a bit rapey?

"Street harassment of women is not an "extreme" example."

Nobody said otherwise.

If you object to the premise of the poster, your safest bet it to write to the owners of the place where it's displayed and register your objection with the ASA.