Audi drops not to subtle paedophile car advert!

[Knoxinbox]

There is no way this was just badly thought through....

I think this comment sums it up

“Let's add it up: Red=eroticism, sports car=substitute for potency, animal print mini-skirt=sex appeal, banana=phallic symbol. But sure this is all just accidental...”

Do you think this was someone testing the waters so to speak about how society might respond to something like this? I’ve read quite a few things on here about how the MRA has as its core aim to normalise paedophilia as just another sexual preference (eg minor attracted person) and this was what immediately jumped to my mind with this ad.

What do you think??

I don't think anyone is trying to say that the target audience was paedophiles and that they're trying to sell them the car too in order to make money. I think the point is that there is evidence more generally in society of attempts to normalise the sexualisation of children and the erosion of safeguarding boundaries, and that it's just as likely to be a person in power than the stereotypical creepy guy down the street you were warned about as a child.

I understand this and I do agree.
I know that sexualising children is a real thing. I would definitely have an issue with it if the little girl was in inappropriate clothing or had loads of make up on. Not because she’s near a car or holding a banana but because I think make up and inappropriate clothing on a child is wrong.

I just think if the car is specifically designed and aimed at families they are not going to purposely use an image that some families might feel uncomfortable about. And as Audi is a massive company then surely loads of people would have had to check the advert? And surely if the advert is not a hit they might lose sales and whoever agreed to it might lose their jobs (I can see the person who put the slogan on twitter will). If it was a smaller company then I would think maybe it was more likely to be intentional/subconscious.
I can’t know this for sure as I’ve never worked in advertising so I wouldn’t really know how many do need to agree/disagree before it is sent out.

Looking at your my entire life revolves around children I think that perhaps you might need to consider a career change.

Do you work in safeguarding?

nauticant

Who am I shutting down?

My posts have been asking why PPs think a certain way or what would they think if one thing was changed. And explaining what my opinions are like everyone else does.

The advert is a bit, meh, I mean the pose isn't very child like, it's a bit odd, but could be meant to be a reference to family life and kids thinking they're all grown up and cool. Not a great ad, but not all that paedophilic.

However, the "heart beat faster" headline over the image of car and girl? That tips it over into creepy. That is what "makes" it, as far as creep factor goes. I think that's what people are seeing.

After writing a response and then deleting Sunrise234 I think I'll leave it to others to engage with you.

nauticant

Ok

Nice to read we're all paedophiles on MN.

No, I'm female and was born in the 80s and remember the Cadbury's flake ads. I know through experience not to eat bananas in company with men and I recognise phallic imagery in advertising. Particularly for cars.

Do you work in safeguarding?
You evidently dont

It's a bit like someone using an aubergine emoji in a text and going 'doh sorry I didn't realise it meant something else.' Advertising agencies know all about symbolism and that's what makes it very creepy and obvious.

Gurufloof

And you do?

But personally, bearing in mind some police officers for example are trained in this and can spot stuff and victims maybe able to spot stuff and people who work with victims may be able to spot stuff, i think its really stupid to say that anyone spotting the ‘danger’ in adverts is a paedophile

Really stupid, like those who don’t spot racism and then say to people who think something is racist that the only reason they’ve seen the racism is because they are racist

I agree, Rufus. Anyone with experience in safeguarding would recognize these red flags. Those without experience who have had the training will probably recognize them because most of them are in the training materials.

Thanks tehbewildrness

I’m just pleased someone made it through the ‘stuff’ 😳

www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/how-kinds-will-groom-society/

The Pedophile Manifesto, just dropping here because. well. Read the "Desensitisation" section.

It does seem that there is a semi-organised PR campaign for pedophiles constantly running online, you see it in action on Reddit all the time, there are clearly chatrooms where they find places that pedophilia is being discussed and jump into action to muddy the waters and introduce confusion or ridicule or namecalling or DARVO into the discussion. Worth bearing that in mind as you read this thread.

I just think if the car is specifically designed and aimed at families they are not going to purposely use an image that some families might feel uncomfortable about. And as Audi is a massive company then surely loads of people would have had to check the advert? And surely if the advert is not a hit they might lose sales and whoever agreed to it might lose their jobs

It doesn't work like that. Look at the doll situation. A button on her genitals which makes sexy sounds.

That made it onto the shopfloor, no problem. Now withdrawn. Sales lost, careers in jeopardy, reputations trashed - all worth it.

Also, could someone give me the logic behind the idea that if you see this as dodgy, it makes you a paedophile?

It's the people calling it dodgy who are getting it withdrawn!

From Kantastic's link

Desensitization: Dull the public’s sense of panic and fear whenever the subject of children and sexuality comes up. The principle behind this is clear: Any behavior becomes more acceptable the more people talk about it or see their friends talking about it.

And I'm stating, right now, that I find that advert unacceptable. And no less acceptable than the troll doll.

Likewise teen Vogue teaching children of 13 how to have anal sex, and the sex lessons in school that don't condemn the use of underage porn, teach children how to shove things up their arses, and which never seem to have any sections on boundaries and how girls can say no with assertiveness.

Paedophiles imagining that people merely talking about this sort of behaviour will make it more acceptable, have not come across the women on mumsnet, obviously.

Another essay coming I’m afraid, but the tl;dr version is at the bottom.

Not because she’s near a car or holding a banana but because I think make up and inappropriate clothing on a child is wrong.

To me it's more of the same. Why is make up or certain clothing ‘inappropriate’? To the child it’s just dress up. As far as I’m concerned it’s because of what the make up and the clothes mean to the adults. A child should never be been deliberately styled in a manner typically used for grown women who are intended to be sexual. It’s that simple. That’s why it feels uncomfortable - not because you personally find a child in make up to be sexual but because of what the symbolism of it means and the fact that someone out there will. It doesn’t benefit the child one iota, so it’s all for the adult gaze. It applies whether it's a full face of make up, specific clothes, a certain pose, or a mixture of any thing else. A child shouldn't be posed or styled in a way that could even suggest a hint of sexualisation for an adult gaze and it’s evident from the general response that many, many people can see that is what has been done when considering the wider context of society and accepted imagery. All so a company can make money.

I suppose it's like one of those magic pictures - once you see it you can't unsee it, but likewise you can't force yourself to find the hidden image if it isn't apparent to you.

I really wish I could agree with your premise that big companies wouldn't do something like this in case it hurt their bottom line, but I think it's very naive at best. The ad has got people talking. They have generated millions of hits, coverage in papers, and it wouldn't be unusual for a story like this to make tv too. Many people will spend a day or two talking about it and then forget about the controversy very quickly. Others won't care and think it's all a fuss over nothing. Others will become desensitised to the image after multiple viewings and go from ‘this makes me uncomfortable’ to ‘there’s really no issue’. I wouldn’t be surprised if they sell more cars with a controversial ad campaign that dances on the edge like this, than a standard one that's forgotten in a day or two. Causing a huge commotion then swiftly taking it back, holding their hands up and saying 'we messed up, we hear you and we're sorry' is a winner as long as it doesn’t happen too often. It helps them look like they care about their potential customer base because they retracted the image, sweeps the controversy under the rug, and as an added bonus now I know that Audi has a flash looking, high power car with a big enough boot space for a family to sit in and I wouldn't have known about it before.

Businesses sometimes do dirty things to make money. If someone has to be held accountable then what's one or two members of staff in the scheme of millions?

Of course I’m not for a second saying that it’s all definitely intentional. I’m saying I find it difficult to believe that advertising experts with resources like Audi's at their disposal wouldn't have been able to see this response coming. I think it’s important to try and understand why they didn’t (and therefore what education they and other business might benefit from so as to avoid this happening again because like it or not it does contribute to the desensitisation effect), or why they did see it and went ahead anyway.

Tl;dr - businesses will do shady things for money. We don’t know whether this was intentional or accidental but either way it’s important to raise awareness of desensitising society to these tactics and normalising the sexualisation of children.

Thank you for the kind words nauticant and guru

That's a great link Kantastic. Terrifying read, but important all the same.

I’m annoyed that there are people questioning my training when my entire life revolves around children. My colleagues who have a more hands on safe guarding role also don’t see an issue but it is not because they are peado pleasers. - your training should have included how to spot sexualisation in children.

I worked in a school a few years ago, and I had training in this - and a small girl eating a banana, posing in that pose, even in a school playground, would have rung bells in my mind. If a child is sexualised to the extent that she is doing this, then she is most likely being abused, or at least exposed to abuse (which is the same thing).

Your life might revolve around children, but your safeguarding skills are way off. You are potentially missing all sorts of red flags. You need more training to be able to spot these and protect them, not just teach them.

It doesn't work like that. Look at the doll situation. A button on her genitals which makes sexy sounds.

The troll doll is ridiculous and I’m in agreement it should be pulled from the shelves. It is hard enough to teach little ones about private areas without things like that.
But the button is not designed to be touched it is designed that the doll makes noises when it sits down.

It was a very bad judgement on their part and god knows how it got to the shelves but I do not believe for one second it was done with peados in mind or to sexualise children as again their target audience are parents, their entire brand is aimed at parents with young children so they’re not going to purposely do anything that will stop them getting money.

The same as the mermaid t-shirt. Do I think it should be pulled off shelves? Absolutely!
Do I think Tesco did it purposely just to offend or start a race war? Absolutely not!

I worked in a school a few years ago, and I had training in this - and a small girl eating a banana, posing in that pose, even in a school playground, would have rung bells in my mind

So were bananas banned on your school then or the playground?
My school allows bananas still and I’ve not heard any other school banning them. Are they allowed to hold them? As the girl wasn’t eating the banana in any of the photos?

Your life might revolve around children, but your safeguarding skills are way off

If it was just me then i may agree with you but as I’ve said and as you can see other people also do not see a sexual element to it including those working in safeguarding.

A child shouldn't be posed or styled in a way that could even suggest a hint of sexualisation for an adult gaze and it’s evident from the general response that many, many people can see that is what has been done when considering the wider context of society and accepted imagery.

I 100% agree that a child shouldn’t be posed or styled in a way that suggests a hint of sexualisation. Which is why I would be against her provocatively leaning on the bonnet staring at the camera in inappropriate clothing or make up as this IS what car companies have done with women to sell cars.

But just as many people either don’t find it sexually offensive OR want it banned because it is dangerous at she’s standing in front of the car.
A few people have said on this thread that they don’t agree it is sexual and I believe that more people would be commenting if they weren’t going to be labelled as pleasing the peados or having their training questioned. If you look on SM you can see that it is quite an even 1/3 split.

I am genuinely interested in the reasons behind why people think it is sexual and why is it that those who have more training in spotting red flags are seemingly more likely to think it is not sexual.

I think she's dreaming of driving the car. The banana is a red herring, so to speak.

Shame its such a lame people mover and not the sports car she deserves.

@Sunrise234

I worked in a school a few years ago, and I had training in this - and a small girl eating a banana, posing in that pose, even in a school playground, would have rung bells in my mind

So were bananas banned on your school then or the playground?
My school allows bananas still and I’ve not heard any other school banning them. Are they allowed to hold them? As the girl wasn’t eating the banana in any of the photos?

Your life might revolve around children, but your safeguarding skills are way off

If it was just me then i may agree with you but as I’ve said and as you can see other people also do not see a sexual element to it including those working in safeguarding.

Nah. You're saying they're not doing it on purpose.

The point about all of this is that there is plausible deniability. So trying to nail down accountability will often be completely futile.

Something which that paedophile instruction manual explains at length.

The whole reason they talk about desensitisation is so that you don't just jump up and down in outrage, and get someone arrested. It's so that these images, and discussion around them, happen more often, and more comments like, I think that's wrong, or I don't see that, or you're just being a prude, become commonplace to the point of banality.

Personally, I couldn't care less if people are disagreeing that it's sexual. As long as enough people see it as the moving of the Overton window it is, and the process is stopped.

Which is why I would be against her provocatively leaning on the bonnet staring at the camera in inappropriate clothing or make up as this IS what car companies have done with women to sell cars.

Perhaps you should read that paedophile manual. That's certainly not something they would ever suggest. As it is far too obvious and does nothing to normalise the insidious creep of sexualising children.

@Sunrise234

It doesn't work like that. Look at the doll situation. A button on her genitals which makes sexy sounds.

The troll doll is ridiculous and I’m in agreement it should be pulled from the shelves. It is hard enough to teach little ones about private areas without things like that.
But the button is not designed to be touched it is designed that the doll makes noises when it sits down.

It was a very bad judgement on their part and god knows how it got to the shelves but I do not believe for one second it was done with peados in mind or to sexualise children as again their target audience are parents, their entire brand is aimed at parents with young children so they’re not going to purposely do anything that will stop them getting money.

The same as the mermaid t-shirt. Do I think it should be pulled off shelves? Absolutely!
Do I think Tesco did it purposely just to offend or start a race war? Absolutely not!

Have you watched the video of that doll? That is not a button that would be triggered by placing the doll on a surface. You would have to press in between the doll's legs.

twitter.com/SamParkerSenate/status/1290986237315039232?s=09

There is something very odd going on with that doll because she is official merchandise for a film, with different hair and clothing from the star character. Normally, that just does not happen. Toys are exact replicas of film characters. That's the point of official merchandise.