Cancer isn't sexy.

[KarmaViolet]

Why are so many cancer research campaigns focused on sexualised images of women? Whatever possessed this lot - does anybody really think "mmm, disembodied crotches and a side helping of body-hair-shaming, that reminds me I really ought to donate to cancer research?"

It really boils my piss.

This tumblr is interesting about men and occupying public space.

I was thinking about that. I don't know why women tend to sit/stand differently but women do tend to cross their legs/ankles more and so on. I was thinking it must be anatomical not conditioning because I couldn't think of any conditioning but then remembered the age when girls start to be told not to flash their knickers. Now they aren't told to cross their legs as such but I suppose that would be a natural progression from being told not to sit with your legs apart etc. So yes, to some extent I do see that women are conditioned into that. Add to that the culture in film etc to have women be or become more gentile than the men and yes I can sort of get on board with that view.

I do agree that the people in the pic are chosen to be aesthetically pleasing. Again that doesn't push me to see sex though.

Bras over the tshirt (ie moonwalk) are massive sponsored events (hence the donations) and at least have their genesis in fancy dress at the marathon etc. Race For Life and Shine are now done in regular t shirts, I think?

Does a bra over the t shirt see the same level of sexuality to you as disembodied crotches? This is fascinating!

I do think that sex is implied by the rottenly cynical advert though: pubic waxing isn't generally seen as a universal hygiene requirement, but the preserve of younger people who are sexually active and doing it to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex. It kind of references a porn aesthetic.

Bof, in a few of those pictures men were being rude and taking up more than reasonable amounts of space. In most of them though, to me, they seem just to be using space that's available to be comfortable. I sit sideways, spread out etc when space allows. I don't see anything wrong with that?

Why do you think those prticular bodies are aesthetically pleasing, then? Why aren't bodies over 30 aesthetically pleasing? Why aren't women with pubic hair aesthetically pleasing? Why are women with nail polish aesthetically pleasing?

And then think about why this company has chosen bodies that are aesthetically pleasing. Why would it like you to associate aesthetically pleasing bodies with its company? Might it be because aesthetically pleasing bodies make us think of sex? And we all like sex, right? Have you never heard the expression that sex sells? And have you never noticed that it is overwhelmingly women's bodies being suggestive of sex which sells? So therefore this is a typical sexualised image? It isn't just people who happen to look nice standing about without their clothes on.

Yonic, to me the bra over tshirt has no sexual whatever - just like people without clothes - because there is no sexual intent so it's not sexual iyswim. However my point was that using something that some people see as sexual as a grab point for raising funds for cancer research isn't new and has been shown to work very well for them.

Add message | Report | Message poster TooMuchCantBreath Sun 12-Oct-14 23:28:39
Bof, in a few of those pictures men were being rude and taking up more than reasonable amounts of space. In most of them though, to me, they seem just to be using space that's available to be comfortable. I sit sideways, spread out etc when space allows. I don't see anything wrong with that?

How easy would it be for somebody who just boarded to sit down without having to effectively ask permission for a technically empty seat though?

I suppose that women are sometimes guilty of a similar rudeness, mind, when they dump their handbags on an adjacent seat. I'm not convinced though that this is quite so intimidating, but I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts.

Oh crossed posts again. So you don't understand the analysis of this advert being a sexualised image and now you don't understand the analysis of how men and women are socialised/conditioned to take up public space differently?

There have been lots of threads on here recently about both these concepts (very well explained and discussed by clever posters!) so maybe you could read them and see if it any of it becomes any clearer to you?

Rosa, I said that they were chosen to be aesthetically pleasing, not that I personally find them pleasing over and above other bodies. It seems to me the nail polish is just to link the pink, especially as the man is wearing it too.

I'm sorry, your last paragraph just runs off too fast for me. I don't leap straight to sex from nudity, whatever the body. Maybe I'm not seeing it the way others do because I don't think it the way others do? Perhaps that's why I can't make the leap? I don't know.

Some of what people are saying makes sense and it's certainly interesting hearing it. It's interesting connecting the dots in my own head on some things and clarifying my view on others thank you for taking the time to respond, again sorry for for being pissy before.

Yes I take your point about it being intimidating bof, maybe not intimidating but erm entitled? Sorry I'm scrambling for language here.

To me it would be important how they reacted when someone got on, if they were aware and shifted so the person could easily use the space then that would be fine, if they were unaware then it would indicate they felt entitled to use that space regardless of others. So yes, I can see something in that.

Rosa, I am doing my best to understand it, sorry if that's not good enough for you. At least I am trying rather than just writing it all off as hysterical clap trap and moving on like many people do.

Yes, I think it's good to spend time listening to different points of view without getting exasperated and writing them off.

Toomuch, is this pink bikini clad body sexualised?

goodfilmguide.co.uk/sponsored-video-win-a-trip-to-chaos-island-with-lynx/

(To your eyes)

Yonic, yes. In part because of the thong bikini but mostly because of the tag line. Without the tag line I'd say that yes most people would see it as sexual. Now you'll wonder why I can see sexual in that picture and not the one above and the answer is I don't know I can't verbalise it which frustrates me, the best I can do is that the bikini picture intends to be sexual and therefore is whereas the waxing picture doesn't (to me) intend to be and therefore isn't (to me).

It's a very difficult thing to explain and I'm sorry I'm doing such a bad job of it!

Nudity shouldn't equal sexualised. But in the society we live in it has in many ways been co-opted to mean sexualised. There are some limited ways to portray nudity in a non-sexualised way in our current society - that advert is not one of them

Ugh, at Paddington Station last week there were Playboy bunnies for breast cancer. It felt very wrong to me, almost like open advertising for Playboy becoming acceptable because it is linked to charity.

TooMuch, another point is that "nudity/sex sells" is an insufficient argument. Lots of campaigns are successful without it - Movember, no makeup selfie - it's not a justification in itself.

Yes it's the means to an end argument. I would say that even if something misogynist raises lots of money it isn't justified, because it reinforces a less equal society.

(In the same way that I objected to the rugby club DP belonged to raising money through stripper nights. It raised a shitload of money that was much needed, but that didn't justify the means)

Don't apologise, you haven't upset me by not "getting it" at all! Sorry if my post was "too fast," it's just that I don't always have a lot of time and there seems so much to say in such a short space, that's why I was saying take time to read what others have posted on other theads - I mean because you may find it interesting and you may see what we are getting at, not because "you are not getting it" if you see what I mean.

It might just be that you don't agree - and that's fine too. Although, of course, people will try to change your mind!

Typed big post and lost it.

Nomakeup selfie wasn't started by CRUK and donations went to general research not female cancers.

Ice bucket challenge was unisex and raised funds for Macmillan and ALS.

Hmm.

Well then. Would it be OK for the advert to feature 4 13yo posing in that way, in our society? If not, why not? Have a think around that maybe, oblivious poster.

Also a bit boggled at "women do stand like that". No they don't! Have you ever seen any women? Standing at a train station or something? And lol @ number 3. The only time I have seen a female stand like that is when my children are desperate for a wee!

I am also a bit baffled by the idea that women have more to "cover up" in their genital region than men Surely the reverse is true? Men have penises and walloping great scrotums dangling around. Women, um, don't. Further, I would imagine that women working as "pants off waxing models" are likely to have particularly neat labias etc so I am a bit baffled by what parts are in danger of flopping out if they don't have their legs squashed together. I would go with rosabud coy vulnerable vs manly vigour on that one.