A really creepy ad campaign
Wed, 2008-02-06 06:20
#1
A really creepy ad campaign
Wed, 2008-02-06 06:20
#2
[url=http://copyranter.blogspot.com/2008/01/statutory-rape-d-cupped-right-int... of COPYRANTER:[/url]
quote:
The Family Violence Partnership in Milwaukee, via ad agency Serve, has launched a print campaign to, uh, lift awareness of the crime of statutory rape. Well, I guess we can give them credit for not using a too-subtle method to visualize the problem. Buuut, super-fetishizing young girls, maybe, is not the smartest approach?
Wed, 2008-02-06 06:50
#3
Good GOD. Those ads are despicable!
Wed, 2008-02-06 06:53
#4
I was going to paste them into the thread, but they truly creeped me out so much that I didn't want them to be the first thing people saw when entering. Can you imagine drawing up an advertising campaign and THAT is what you come up with?
Wed, 2008-02-06 08:36
#5
remind
They are reallyyyyy creepy. Those girls faces are not the age demographics the organization is trying to target to stop rape against. If someone is raping girls the age that the faces represent, they are actually paedophiles. And as for putting those bodies on those faces, wtf? They are sexualizing younger girls than what age gradient they are trying to target. Plus, further objectifying those women who do have breasts that size.
How do these ads target those who are doing the raping?
[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Wed, 2008-02-06 13:24
#6
I imagine it's been discussed on Babble before, but personally, I tend to avoid the word "p(a)edophiles" - a psychological category - to refer to child rapists. I believe that most p(a)edophiles do not act out their compulsions, and that most child rapists also have so-called "normal sex" with adults so it's not as if they were driven by a slective compulsion. Also, pointing to a psychological identity instead of a criminal act tends to provide child rapists with an automatic psychological defense, doesn't it?
[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Wed, 2008-02-06 13:33
#7
remind
Oh for fuck sakes martin, you view the child rapists, how you want to, and I will view them how I want to, okay?
Wed, 2008-02-06 14:06
#8
Of course. I am sorry if my post was read as some kind of putdown; it wasn't in my mind.
Don't you think it's an important distinction though? Can we agree, as an analogy, that if we ceased talking about wife assault and took the lead of the men's movement and of pop psychology to recast the issue as one of "anger-prone men", this would derail what little social accountability and intervention there is, focussing all attention on the abuser and any support away from the people he assaults?
Wed, 2008-02-06 14:14
#9
remind
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Of course. I am sorry if my post was read as some kind of putdown; it wasn't in my mind.
Don't you think it's an important distinction though?[/b]
No, it is mentally sick men, which are a by-product of patriarchy, who are doing both.
quote:
[b] Can we agree,[/b]
No.
quote:
[b]...focussing all attention on the abuser and any support away from the people he assaults?[/b]
It is either way.
[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Wed, 2008-02-06 14:31
#10
... back to the ads. ugh. I'm guessing someone got caught up in their photoshopping skills and stopped thinking about what exactly it would mean to attach those heads and bodies together.
The third body especially: Tell me her waist to breast ratio isn't faked by some digital trickery.
Wed, 2008-02-06 14:49
#11
remind
Is the message trying to say: "Just because [b]the girl's bodies[/b] look like that of a mature woman, they are still children"?
Wed, 2008-02-06 17:05
#12
maybe? probably? perhaps?
... skinny, airbrushed n' objectified *mature women*
Fri, 2008-02-08 08:58
#13
how are those images supposed to stop statutory rape ? creepy, makes no argument [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2008-02-08 09:08
#14
I'm guessing they were created with good intentions by a group who thought they were coming up with something very impactful, leading edge, hard hitting and creative. It kind of shows how fine the line can be between doing just that, and missing it by a mile.
I showed them to someone the other night who's a CAS intake worker. I had enlarged the posters so I had to scroll down which I suppose made them worse, but she sort of shuddered.
I don't know who this is supposed to reach, but it sure misses.
Fri, 2008-02-08 09:49
#15
The advertising company Serve has a history of shock-over-substance ads. I don't know what they were thinking with this one...
Agreed. Creepy.
[edited because when I'm angry and disgusted, I say the most tactless stuff.]
[ 08 February 2008: Message edited by: OMeNerves ]
Fri, 2008-02-29 10:15
#16
[url=http://www.racialicious.com/2008/02/27/sex-and-youth-why-we-need-communi... myths about statutory rape, race and class[/url]
Via Racialicious:
quote:
The ad does garner attention, but by using a photoshopped image of a girl, as opposed to an actual teenager it fails to reinforce the actual message.However, the ad itself isn’t what prompted me to write this post. The responses to the ad on mainstream feminist blogs did. As I scrolled through the comments in each thread, I was shocked to see how many women were willing to dismiss statutory rape as an issue of mistaken identity. While there were definately some commenters who spoke up as to why the ads were needed, I was astounded to see how many feminists defended the poor men in this situation, who were tricked by these age-bending teens into having sex. The prevailing assumption was that these girls were somewhere they had no business being, doing grown adult things and most of this statutory rape stuff was just an innocent mistake. Some women even threw in their own accounts of looking tragically underage and having to deal with being endlessly carded or having men leave them alone because they looked so young. Tough life.
But not as tough as a fifteen year old trying to cope with a grown man’s affections.
Fri, 2008-02-29 11:06
#17
Makwa
Yes, I agree, that ad campaign was very creepy and weird. Nasty, too. What is is about 'edgy' imagary that seems to hearken back to standard tropes of old boys porn? Too many levels of self-referencing irony or merely shit in your face cruelty? Thinking of my daughter as a young adolescent, it hurts me to see images of young female children being defaced in such a way, despite the concept of whatever the concept is, because it confuses and repulses me, quite frankly. Colour me confused and irritated, once again.
[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Makwa ]