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)

No worries, sonuma

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

Oh, dear, no. No. If you can't even read the words I wrote then there is really is little point in me even posting ...

AS I said, I used the example of "sex crime" as an analogy. But my actual argument is that, well, men objectify women and we (as women) see it every day. It happens, therefore, a lot of men (not all, thank goodness) see women as walking breasts, vaginas and asses that exist purely for them to give their opinions on, or wank about, etc.

I can see how easy it would be to believe that something doesn't exist if you've never seen it. I for one have never seen a sparrowhawk, so personally I think it's all a big birdy conspiracy designed to oppress other birds.

I don't think sexuality is bad. I don't think all porn is bad. I don't think sexual images, sex toys, or sexy clothing are bad. I think images, mindsets and issues that oppress and dehumanise a particular gender, to the point where it affects that genders' happiness, career progression, daily activities, mindset, etc etc ... well, I think THAT is bad.

I want to teach my DD to have healthy attitudes towards sex, men and her body. I want her to be aware that not everyone will think the way she does, and that those people can range for ignorant (in the sense of "uninformed) to "I know it's wrong but I don't give a shit because thinking this way makes me happy and reinforces my worldview".

Only say they are worse because this is an image as opposed to someone in RL whistling to you, it's quite intimidating.

www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain/Online-Form/Step1.aspx

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.

Boom.

All you can do is answer your DS's questions and explain that it isn't a film that id appropriate for him. DS (12) would just blush and smile at a picture like that. DD (6) would just giggle and say something about bums. It may seem a sexist poster but if you explain it to your DC it needn't be sexist. Good luck!

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

So for you, it's fairly simple - all you want to see is a nice line chart, with two lines tracking each other? Plenty of them available on this website - knock yourself out.

Unfortunately cause and effect on complex issues tends to be ever so slightly more complicated than that. It may not be possible to establish such a direct correlation as you would like and if it were, it may not even mean anything. We need to give the issues rather deeper, more intelligent consideration if we're to have a hope of coming up with anything useful on it.

It may seem a sexist poster but if you explain it to your DC it needn't be sexist.

I don't think it hurts at all to explain this in the context of "this isn't how nice men behave". The nuances of why that is (objectification, consent, etc.) can come later.

So for you, it's fairly simple - all you want to see is a nice line chart, with two lines tracking each other? Plenty of them available on this website - knock yourself out.

Holy fuck, that website is amazing.

Isn't it? And sometimes it really helps get a point across

I, personally, am EXTREMELY suspicious of Nicolas Cage and all his activities, on screen and off.

I still think he's a vampire.

Robert de Niro does Benny Hill.

The nineteen seventies are upon us again. What a golden age for women that was.

Sigh.

Haven't rtft but YANBU. And Robert de Niro should be hanging his money grabbing head in shame.

"Surely its what the film is about an old man who treats women as just arse and legs and how his grandson deals with it?"

Probably, yes. It's probably a film about men, who are people, and their relationships with each other, with women as symbolic objects to act as ciphers in their interactions.

why is the grandson "dealing with it"? What about being a woman ogled by a man? How does she "deal with it"? What effect does it have on her? How does she feel? How does it affect how she comports herself in the world? her confidence at work? Her judgement in relationships? What's that, a big huge shrug? Oh right, nobody gives a fuck about her. Sorry. Silly me.

"But the whole message of the film is that decent men don't behave like this. The gandpa is "dirty""

Judging by that poster, the whole message of the film is that older men and younger men have interesting and hilarious different takes on how to treat those mute impersonal objects, "women"

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

Well, no because it is held by Zac Effron who is looking exasperated/disgusted with his grandfather.

DeNiro should be ashamed of his recent film choices....christ.

but I think your DS is rather more likely to notice this poster anyway....

static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/565dd971e4b0c7adbbae6127/1448991094408/deadpool-international-poster-bad-ass-smart-ass-great-ass?format=750w

which is also sexual and offensive i guess!

"But my actual argument is that, well, men objectify women and we (as women) see it every day. It happens, therefore, a lot of men (not all, thank goodness) see women as walking breasts, vaginas and asses that exist purely for them to give their opinions on, or wank about, etc."

I reject this argument. If a woman sees a man walking down the street and noticed he has nice bum, that doesn't mean that she instantly believes that this person is no longer a person but but a walking object/penis for her gratification.

Men are no different in this regard. A man might look lustfully at a woman, but that does not mean he loses sight of her humanity in doing so.

This is the case for the vast majority of normal adult men and women. Rapists and sex criminals shouldn't be our bellwether in terms of how society works.

"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."

If a woman looks at me lustfully without my knowledge, this does not reduce me to the status of being a object. I'm sure she is capable of reasoning that I am still in fact a person.

Does Robert de Niro have massive bills to pay or something? I just can't understand why he makes these shit-tastic films.

Men are no different in this regard. A man might look lustfully at a woman, but that does not mean he loses sight of her humanity in doing so.

I didn't say ALL men. I said "a lot of men". Maybe I'm doing men down - maybe it's more like "half of all men" or "a third of all men". Maybe even a quarter. I live in hope. Sadly, when women encounter a lot of negative / sexist comments from men in the course of their lifetime, it can skew perception of the actual figures, and all the men who objectify women don't tend to own up to it on surveys.

Fact is that images and viewpoints in society that denigrate, reduce, belittle and objectify women are far more common than those that don't. Posters like this aren't a rare victory over the "prudes" (because it's not like images like these are LACKING in society, is it?), but a reinforcement of those views. Subtle visual cues (semiotics - I mean, come on, I learned about this at GCSE level) point to markers which point to meanings about how a person is portrayed and viewed.

Anonymous woman, no face, no opinion, just a set of hot looking legs and ass = represents any hot young woman. The penis-as-petrol pump, held ready in a penetrating position = from behind, no consent needed to penetrate ... I could deconstruct this poster to death. It's pretty classic. I could also give you countless examples where even the female actresses in a movie are reduced to ass / tits, because that's all we need to see to get the message of young, hot, fuckable, who even cares what her face looks like?

I'm sure you think that's an overthinking analysis of the film poster. However, having studied semiotics, I can tell you that makers of these posters have done this analysis a million times, trying to hit on the right combo of markers to sell the movie, hit their target audience, and make their money. This shit is carefully thought out.

"You think degrading imagery has no societal impact."

That's not what I think. But I don't consider imagery to be degrading simply because it is sexual imagery.

"You seem to think a picture of a headless female bing leered at by a grand father is sexy?"

I don't think that at all.

Totally agree re the tagline. TBH I find that more troubling than the picture.

Unless of course Grandpa also turns out to be a really bad driver...

LordBrightside is on my list for tit of the week.

Robert de Niro does Benny Hill

Amen.