To think these ads are offensive to all women and should be banned by a minority of them?

[Vittoria]

msmagazine.com/spring2009/nocomment.asp

I think the first one is quite funny actually. And probably very true. Just because men like to think about casual sex more than women think about romance, I'm not offended!

The secoind one I imagine is offensive to some conservatives per se, but when are they known for reading rolling stone magazine? And soince when does one person getting personally offended by an ad in a mag they never read have the right to dictate what the rest of us see?

ooh stop, i can almost smell the stale cigarette and beer smell of their breath...

...gag

ugh and old sweat stains

women who object to pornography often get told they must just not like sex
it's a bit of a crass argument imo

interestingly i am just reading twilight myself
it's very crude s+m romance so far
and hopelessly patriarchal and all that

I think the CK ad is ok. I think because the men look very non-threatening. I would have had a very happy time think about them in bed on my own in my teens. Real life doesn't have those sort of calm men.
Brook Shields ad reminds me when jeans use to fix and were higher on the waist, lovely & comfortable. So comfortable you could do the splits without your knickers showing

Too hungover to go into this whole argument again but agree with everything Franny has posted. (Everywhere, ever, probably.)

Try doing them with your knickers off starbear

F&Z, I think if some women were saying they loved reading Twilight because they enjoyed masochism I wouldn't be as bothered! It is the fact that people treat it as a lovely romance that I find odd. And it has sold loads of copies.

The film is nowhere near as S and M ish.

yes Milly i am with you there
i've got no problems if people are into s+m but be honest about it! and buy something a bit better written

FandZ - I think reading trashy literature is part of the m thing, unless it's read to you which would be s

wonky i have been doing a mediocre job standing in for you here
hungover indeed
stay behind after school

lol tattifer
i am slogging through it regardless you note
my m side always quite strong

shouldn't the m side be weak and submissive?

I got drunk at the school. The school is the problem.

ah there's more to submission than being weak surely? when it is consensual
anyway enough talk of trashy novels, drunken schoolgirls , etc
am off back to wholesome vegland

Yes Fand Z in fact I'd say it has very little to do with being weak - I was being glib.

I've not read Twilight.

The film is directed by a woman however and I think it shows burgeoning female sexuality in a way that would be too subtle for male directors.

It is what Colin Firth captured in P & P - the look of love - and we all know what a phenonenon that was.

I know there are other negative aspects and I am not discounting them. But like Tatt says, in discussing the negatives we forgetr therer are also a lot of positives. There is a huge amount of give and take in sex and realtionships.

Had to look back, couldn't remember saying anything that sensible (must have been in a lucid moment).

One of the threads last night started with the subject of "bumsex" (quoting from thread title, not being coy). I expect that's a pretty good way of separating those who see sex with good associations (empowering demonstration of mutual trust and affection) and and those who tend towards the negative (power play).

There does seem to be a tendency amongst the banner waving spare rib feminists (we'll stick to the predominantly british variety on mn for the sake of no being too sweeping) to see women as victims and persecuted waifs who have had no part or power in their fate. It seems very sexist if not even a little misogynistic.

LOL

Well, I kind of paraphrtased your post that said 'we're not going back to 'all sex is evil' - what I took from it anyway.

There is a need for a womsn's lobby - but feminism is a huge cash cow for a very few women, and we need to look skeptically at that - who is it serving - women or those feminists within the hinterland?

I don;t htink it should be too much for anyone to admit to being wrong about some things, but for most feminists, it just sticks in theoir throats. On a fundamental level, that can't be good for women.

We have learned alot about the battle of the sexes and female and male serxuality in the last 3 decades - where they converge and where they diverge. Feminism is refusing to look at this evidence becasue to do so it would have to admit some of their ideas were just wrong. But a lot of them were right too. The problem of denying anything and everything just corrupts it all though.

don't see anything wrong with either ad.

its about perspective. genuinley shocked that fairly early on into this debate someone mentioned that the second one was akin to gang rape - it hadn't occred to me

even the term gang bang - even though perhaps its technically correct ( i dunno for sure)seemed to me to be a harsh description.

whilst it seems that lots of people immediatley saw this as a woman being objectified and even'used' by three men.

i saw it as a nice twist on the usual objectification of women in the avertizing industry, where one might see a man and three women, and i thought that it was empowering. if a sexy girl wan't to fuck 3 sexy guys in jeans - good for her.

however that said, i do agre with F&Zs assessment that porn is becomming more mainstream. and no matter what way you look at the second one - it is the mainstreaming of a pornographic image.

but again - it comes back to US as Parents to tell our daughters and our sons - that this stuff - whilst in the public realm, might proport to imatate a utopian sexual society ( as the advertisers see it) butreality isn't quite like that - just as one wouldnt imitate wile.e. coyote and blow up people or animals we dont like becuase we are frustrated and can't get out own way, we wouldn't necessarily do the sexual acts suggested by the media and hyped up by friends.

its s as parents that need to do that. there neds to be perspective and its our job to put it there.

tha doesn't make the medium of porn in itself wrong.

if a child watched tom and gerry and thought that using a hammer was appropriate - we would correct them

if they hear you swear and copy you - you correct them

there are many many examples throught a childs life where you say - look, this is what you see or hear - but it isn't what you do necessarily.

and it is us as parents that guide them

This is interesting, Vittoria:

"We have learned alot about the battle of the sexes and female and male sexuality in the last 3 decades - where they converge and where they diverge. Feminism is refusing to look at this evidence becasue to do so it would have to admit some of their ideas were just wrong. But a lot of them were right too. The problem of denying anything and everything just corrupts it all though."

What evidence about male and female sexuality has emerged in the last 30 years? And which feminists do you think are refusing to look at it?

"some of their ideas were just wrong"

that would only be human after all. Also, as with everything in life, times change. Sticking to the British scenario (because that's what I know) I think times have changed sufficiently to warrant dramatically rewriting any manifesto. I don't see that being acknowledged by some on this thread.

If the battle has changed, then change with it or you'll lose.

How would you like a rewritten feminist manifesto to look, tattifer?

MN someone will be offended for sure.start banging on about male hegemony and misogyny and the sexualisation and representation of wimmin and how all men are gits who just want to subjugate and oppress wimmin