View Full Version : The Slasher approach to advertising!!

9th May 2001, 00:06
An airline advertisement which made a reference to oral sex is offensive, say industry watchdogs. Ryanair offered two return flights for 69 in the regional press under the headlines "Blow Me! (These fares are hard to swallow!) and "Satisfaction

Each advert featured two pairs of feet, one pair on top of the other. Three people complained. The Advertising Standards Authority considered the innuendos about oral sex likely to cause "serious or widespread offence" and asked Ryanair not
to repeat the campaign.

The ruling came after three members of the public complained that the adverts were "sexually suggestive and offensive".

Ryanair said the advertisements were published to coincide with Valentine's
Day, which was a celebration of relationships, and were intended to be humorous within that context. It agreed they were suggestive but denied they were offensive.

The publishers said they did not see the advertisements before they were published, but once they became aware of the content they decided not to repeat them.

Source http://www.ananova.com/business/story/sm_286329.html

"You did WHAT"?!

Hersham Boy
9th May 2001, 12:57
In a similar vein, an old campaign for Club 18-30 that was banned within about 15 seconds of it's launch (I would hazard a guess - deliberately!)...

Tha campaign was outdoor poster sites and press ads with text only, such as:

"One swallow does not a Summer make"
"At the end of the holiday, I asked myself if I would ever come again" (or words to that effect)

Class in a glass....

I'm just a teenage dirtbag, baby

9th May 2001, 18:27
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The ruling came after three members of the public complained that the adverts were "sexually suggestive and offensive".</font>

THREE people complained? Shock! Horror! What a farkin landslide ... a veritable erathquake of discontent! :rolleyes:

I'm left with one very idiotic, non-PC question here ... how many people DIDN'T complain? http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

Dispela olgeta samting i pekpek bilong bulmakau!

9th May 2001, 19:39
OK, Mriya, it was a reasonable question obviously slanted towards everybody agreeing with you and laughing at the primitive attitudes to sex of less enlightened people. Let me take the bait.

Even though I didn't see the ad concerned, from your description of it I thought it was funny. I also thought American Psycho was funny. Likewise Debbie Does Dallas, Spanking the Monkey, Al Goldstein and Howard Stern. My own personal value system says that as long as children are not involved, anything goes. In short, children are the only reason for any censorship to exist.

But this doesn't apply only to kiddie porn; it applies to what children are confronted with, and yes, I'm talking 13/14/15 year olds too, because they are still children, no matter how much they may disagree.

I used to sneer at the same neanderthal ideas as you are now. MY children would never be repressed by such narrow-mindedness. They would all grow up with a HEALTHY attitude to everything sexual. Playboy and Penthouse would lie around my house freely because the sanctity and beauty of the human body is completely natural ...blah blah blah.. (perhaps if Playboy had ever shown a female with a zit...)

25 or so years later, I look back at my attitude and cringe. Not because sex should be considered dirty or unhealthy or anything of the sort. Simply because I now realize that my lofty ideals were framed to influence people's opinions of ME. I wanted to be thought of as progressive, liberal, cool, trendy.

Then I got married and had kids. Four daughters in fact. I have watched them as each of them slept, and there is no more innocent or defenceless sight in the world than a small child asleep. I thought about the trust our daughters naturally expected because they knew no different, then I thought about children of the same age who were being battered and sexually abused, and my protectiveness grew towards mine while I cried inwardly for the others.

I have watched them when they asked a question and concentrated all their being on processing the answer, their little minds becoming used to the process of learning.

I have watched as they learned lessons in life from playing sport. I have wondered just what the hell sort of father I am; how on earth did I get this much responsibility? I'm not equipped for it, somebody please give me an instruction book.

I have suffered the agony of watching my top two girls going through the societal disease of anorexia, and I worry about the next two. Will society's eternal messages of physical beauty and constant sex cause them to go the same way?

Above all, I have to some extent sheltered them, deliberately, from the outside world while they are still children, because I have experienced the magic of childhood myself and I have experienced adulthood, and I honestly don't think real life as an adult has that much going for it. There is plenty of time for them to be adults; they are children for just a heartbeat, and I have taken it upon myself to let them enjoy those few short years.

With that in mind, yes, I have censored. I don't let 10 year olds watch Ally McBeal or Sex and the City. This may be treated as a case of denying reality, and yes, that's exactly what I am doing if you believe that TV programmes have anything to do with reality. For God's sake, at least let them have those few years where they are not assailed by shows and images that insist that unless they are thin, beautiful, glamorous and rich they are failures.

And the ad you mentioned? Yes, it's funny, but I simply don't want to be forced into the position of answering a ten year old who says Daddy, what's a blow job? If that makes me a repressed hypocrite, so be it.

9th May 2001, 23:26

When I first looked at this thread, I thought as many probably did that putting a little sex into an ad is pretty clever and I would have defended that decision.

However, after carefully reading your posting on the subject, I can not disagree with you. You make a very good case for yourself and your children.

Then again I had two boys and when they asked dad how to go about it, dad would say "just don't get caught and don't get her pregnant." If I would have had girls, I would have said something completely different, like "under no circumstances don't even let him touch you -- anywhere!"

My two boys are out of the house and are married and have children of their own, so I just simply don't think about these ads as being too overly suggestive.

Thanks for jogging my memory into gear.

9th May 2001, 23:46

I have two little ones and two words for you,


10th May 2001, 00:53
This news alert wasn't designed to provoke conflict--I merely thought it would be something that Slash might get a kick out of...

But since we've embarked on the journey, I suppose I'll just have to play along.
I speak not only as the one who posted the alert--but also as one whose youthful innocence was preyed upon by a sexual predator--well, two actually; but hey, once the damage is done, the repeat exposure(s) almost becomes a moot point.

Firstly, let's keep in mind that the "offensive" advert has been grounded and no longer presents a "threat" to anyone--anywhere. Secondly, let's consider the fact that your child would, in all likelihood, tune out the ad--even if it ran a hundred times a day--precisely because it's content is specifically targeted to adults.
What a child might pick up on, as they so often do, is your reaction to the ad--which may very well lead to more questions; not because your child has any interest whatsoever in what a "Blow Job" is, but because they're trying to understand what it is that has you upset.

This is something that's always pissed me off about the parents of today; why should content, perfectly appropriate for my age/maturity be screened from me, simply because you're too cowardly or lazy to 'deal' with potentially uncomfortable situations with your child.
Children (if everything goes fairly well) have no framework for sexuality--it's just the kind of thing that just gets lumped into the "icky" category--UNLESS they're cueing in on your behaviour.

Incidentally, no child was ever molested by a advertisement. Children are molested because their parents/guardians are not paying attention. The fact that your child's welfare is still of paramount importance to you bodes well for your kids. The spineless bastards that'd prey on their innocence and trust don't have the courage to make a target of a child who's clearly being "looked after"--that's why they're screwing kids to begin with.

10th May 2001, 05:24
Thank you for those thoughts Mriya, however you must surely acknowledg that my post was not aimed specifically at that particular ad, nor indeed was it about sexual abuse as such. It was purely an opinion that I have come to hold strongly about material my children are being force-fed, and I thought this was the place to do that.

As somebody with no children, your demand that nothing be screened from you if it be suitable for adults is disingenuous, especially coming as it does without inherent limitations. In civilized societies, measures are taken to ensure that a screening process does apply; the breadth of these parameters varies from the extremely liberal, such as Sweden and Holland, to the reluctantly liberal, such as USA, Australia, and UK, to the repressive, such as Singapore and most Muslim countries, but they all have some limitations.

I think I made it perfectly clear that, like you, I don't want to be told I can't watch American Psycho or Romance or Debbie and Her Doggy for that matter, but I would object most strongly if any of them were being broadcast on a public screen accessible to anybody.

I also know that my kids are going to hear from Kindergarten onwards language I didn't know existed till I was about 11, but I am not down at the school demanding the teachers put a stop to it.

I simply stated that if I had my druthers, my children would have the opportunity to avoid being forced into adult status. Sorry that "pisses you off", and I will give some more thought to your opinion that I am cowardly and/or lazy for holding that view.

10th May 2001, 07:00
I'm with Bins on this one, I don't think anyone here so far has disagreed with Mriya on what she or another adult can watch or read. The potential problem for me is identical to those which Bin's has expressed so well.
As a parent of a 4 year old girl (no handbook or operating manual supplied either), I want her to enjoy the freedom of being a child for as long as possible. Even over the short 4 years of her life so far, Tv images on the news have become more graphic, the UK's foot and mouth and Middle East conflict coming to mind immediately, so as a parent it's not always easy to prevent a child seeing or hearing things that you would prefer them not to see. In my opinion some responsibility lies with the media to help here (no offence intended latvia).

Mriya states she was preyed upon in her younger years, she has my deepest regret that she found herself in that terrible position, and I hope that my daughter, or anyone elses for that matter never has to go through any similar ordeal. Bin's comment re the sleeping child are spot on, 5 years ago I would not have readily related to his comments, now I can.

All I want is the best quality of life I can provide for my child if that means I have to give up the pleasure of reading a Viz comic at home, or not read an ad I might find funny, thats a price I will willingly pay.

10th May 2001, 07:38
Whoa, there!!

First of all--I don't care how ratcheted up the tensions get between myself and another on this forum (or anywhere for that matter). You're quite right, this is the palce to banter around and engage in debate.

Secondly--My reference to 'cowardly and lazy' parents was absolutely not intended to be read as a pointed slam against you; I apologize for not making that more clear.
I, for one, see a lot of cowardice and laziness on the part of parents, esp. in American society. It's become easier for people to legislate the environment than it is for them to spend time with, and create boundries for, their own children. Some of that is a natural by-product of the dual income necessity--but some of it isn't; that's what pisses me off.

And lastly--I don't need to have children to speak with authority on this particular issue... The paramount concern for any parent wanting to protect their children from predators, should not be engaging in a futile crusade to change the environment; it should be the day to day observation of, and interaction with, your children. I worry more about why some adults (however seemingly well intentioned) would want to spend an innordinate amount of time around your kids than the advertisements your kids are exposed to. But, admittedly, my experiences have shaped my suspicion.

I see your point about wanting your childrens' innocence to remain intact, and wholeheartedly agree with you. I think, though, that the very fact that you're making it a priority is the best possible measure of success.
Just as you know that you can't keep your children from growing up at their natural pace; you're not going to be able to sheild them from all influences that may accelerate their maturity either. The only thing you can do, is be there and aware.

Regardless of whether we agree or not; my apologies to you for not taking the time to make myself more clear earlier.

"You did WHAT"?!

10th May 2001, 08:27
Apology accepted with pleasure, Mriya. I (almost) always enjoy your intellect and input.


10th May 2001, 09:50

Your post was me exactly, even down to the numbers. I never wanted to protect my girls from predators, just to preserve the innocence of childhood for as long as possible. They all bothered me with embarrasing questions eventually - you can't stop them growing up. But at least they were able to keep a child's view of the world for as long as possible.

Think of the blind terror when they started going out at night with their friends. "11 o'clock? But Dad, I'm 16 now! Don't be so boring!"

Later "How old were you and Mum when you first started going out together" I think of the answer and blanch. We were married at that age!

I think that there will never be a day when I don't worry about them and the dangerous world we live in. But that is no reason to expose them to it too early; children have a right to be children, its part of growing up after all. The hormones kick in eventually with the inevitable results. Adulthood? You can keep it. Childhood was much more fun!

Through difficulties to the cinema

10th May 2001, 10:34
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">. Adulthood? You can keep it. Childhood was much more fun!</font>

I'll second that!! :) Does anybody else miss being able to do stuff like slump to the floor dramatically, when you're completely bored or put out?! Ahhh, those were the good days! :)

10th May 2001, 11:15
I've read this thread with interest.

I too, will admit to being swayed by Bins convincing argument.

I don't have children, yet I believe that society IS creating a lot of problems for itself, in the future.

The one thing really bothers me, is that I and everyone here in this forum, IS society.

I look back and remember my childhood. I remember what we kids used to do and it just wouldn't be safe today.

IMHO, everyone here must take some of the resposibility for allowing this to happen.

WE are the electorate.
In most democratic Countries, WE set the political agenda.

Stay cool, stay longer.

10th May 2001, 15:37
I've taken on board everything said so far. I don't have any children that I'm aware of, but have a mighty fine niece and a super terrific nephew. I was lucky enough to be able to watch them grow from birth -- to age 13 in the case of my niece and age 10 with my nephew. I would've done anything to protect them from the perils of the world.

They are both young adults now and I still want to protect them. Only, these days, it has to be called "helping", of course. And not so much that you get in the way of them having a good time. As has been pointed out here already, they grow up.

My original question was not so much about that as about censorship. That's what it was, nothing surer! And to think that a sum total of THREE complaints brought about this censorship leaves me (almost) speechless!

If there really is a "silent majority" out there who agree with that outcome, I believe they have a responsibility, indeed a duty, to lodge a complaint. So the question that naturally arises is "why the fark didn't any of them complain, in support of the THREE who did?"

If the "silent majority" did NOT see it as offensive (and you have to figure that at least some of them also have children), then was this example of censorship appropriate?

All I ask is, have we taken censorship too far? Perhaps that question could be a thread all of its' own. It'd probably end up bigger than the "Limerick" thread! If we haven't taken it too far yet, then how is it that a mere THREE complaints can achieve this result? And where ... oh where (!) ... were all the other complaints?

Msybe there can never be an answer to these questions. After all, it would be MOST unreasonable to expect any of the THREE complainants to be on the Forum, huh!

Dispela olgeta samting i pekpek bilong bulmakau!

Feeton Terrafirma
10th May 2001, 16:06
Well what a change in the context of this thread!

I came here looking for light relief as I frequently do in JB. I usually avoid the serious threads as I get enough of that sort of stuff other places, and then I read Binoc’s post.

Binoc, you have expressed your case very well and in many ways I must agree with you when you say that a sleeping child portrays such innocence, and that you wish to protect that innocence.

I however disagree with your approach to protecting that innocence and in that even, I think my concept of the “innocence” that I want to protect is different to yours. My ultimate goal is to protect the child / teenager / young adult from the harsher realities of life, such as Myria has experienced. To that end I believe that one of the best protection devices I can offer is awareness.

I look to my own childhood experiences and note that I was “protected” by my parents. They did not mention sex, conception, girl / boy relationships or anything else in anyway until I walked in one day and announced my engagement. (shock horror!). I learnt a lot more than they would believe “behind the shelter shed” at school, and thru experimentation with others of my age group. Whilst I perhaps was not specifically aware of SEX in an adult context, I was certainly aware of girls being different and that I was curious about that from an age of around 7 or 8 and took it upon myself to “examine the differences” with a number of girls that I knew over a period of many years. It was literally, you show me yours, I’ll show you mine, and there was no harm done in this that I’m aware of.

…… checking………… no, I don’t think I’m any different to anyone else!

By the same token, I clearly remember at the age of about 16 being acutely embarrassed one day when out driving with my father. A panel van pulled out in front of us, the type with curtained windows, and a flashy paint job which were popular in the late 60’s. I said, “Dad look at that shaggin wagon” and then Dad explained what “shaggin” meant! Was I bright RED!

As I said earlier, I have based my approach to this topic on my own experiences, and believe that if a teenager is aware of the fact that sex exists, that it happens etc., without necessarily specifically aware of the details, then they are now protected from nasty shocks and traps such as an approach by strange men, or even relatives.

If that means that they are again aware that some advertisements portray sex, I would have to say that this is a small price to pay, and perhaps even no price at all.

Are your children really as innocent as you think when they reach the teen years?

By now you’re probably ready to assume that I don’t have kids. Well, I have 3 sons, aged from 11 to 19. I also have a very close friend, a young lady whom I came to know through my sons. Whilst we are not blood relatives she is in every respect a member of our family and I love her as a daughter. My point is that she does not have a father anymore. He’s in the slammer for molesting her (which occurred before we met). Had she been more aware at an earlier age that this type of thing could occur, (again without needing to know details) she may well have been better prepared to defend herself. All it needed really was for her to tell her mother or grandmother of an inappropriate advance and it would have all been over before it really got started.

So I suggest that sexual awareness is both an appropriate and desirable thing, but I also acknowledge that the level of awareness is something that should slowly grow with age.

Flood Control Victim

11th May 2001, 08:41
"Show me yours and I'll show you mine" The back of the bike shed -- These are part of childhood innocence. Natural. Fun. Exhilerating because its "forbidden territory" In a world where everything is exposed and nothing is forbidden something of childhood is lost.

Do I think there is not enough censorship? Sure I do. Censorship is even needed in PPRuNe to keep it on track. But the level of censorship needed here is not the same as that needed on the high street. Or the television that is beamed into our homes. I'm driving down the road in my car and there's some guy singing "...there we were, both buck naked banging on the bathroom floor..." and my 14 year old niece turns puce and squirms in embarrasment. We both know the score but 14 year olds are made that way. Do you remember being 14?

What children need to know "officially" about sex is enough to protect them from unwanted pregnancy or disease. That doesn't require going as far as adult humour in the classroom or at home. I'm not against a bit of subtle suggestiveness, I even appreciate a bit of porn in the right circumstances, but lets keep childrens' and adults' worlds seperated please. Until they become adults. Its in both our interests as a matter of mutual respect.

Through difficulties to the cinema

11th May 2001, 09:21
Mriya, what do I miss about childhood? well Mrs jumpseater would probably say not a lot, especially after taking me to casualty after an unsucessful jump on my mountain bike! :)

11th May 2001, 11:49
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif Yeeeeooouuucchhhhhh!

Some of those "boffo's" can get awfully nasty jumpseater... But then, what's life for if you don't have the brass to take a risk once in a while! :)

"You did WHAT"?!

11th May 2001, 16:07

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">I'm driving down the road in my car and there's some guy singing "...there we were, both buck naked banging on the bathroom floor..." and my 14 year old niece turns puce and squirms in embarrasment. We both know the score but 14 year olds are made that way. Do you remember being 14?</font>

Things were quite a lot different when I was 14? :rolleyes: The era of The Beatles ... and all those James Bond movies. To the best of my recollection, there were at least as many girls in the audience as boys for all those 007 flicks, so I reckon we were all well and truly aware of the nature of sex by that age.

I also vividly recall how I found it necessary to feign ignorance of sex - and even embarrassment - when with my parents. After all, that's the sort of thing one just HAD to do in those days. So, sure, I can imagine how a 14 y/o girl, in the company of a parent, might want to feign embarrassment, offence and even horror, at a song such as that one.

But I'm also prepared to bet she knows each and every word of it. I knew LOTS of songs when I was 14... http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

Dispela olgeta samting i pekpek bilong bulmakau!

11th May 2001, 17:33
My point exactly. The generation gap is natural. Mums and Dads never have sex, all daughters are virgins...

I know she knows, she knows I know she knows. But if its not shoved in our faces wherever we go, everyone gets on nicely, mutually respecting each other.

BTW was there any sex in James Bond? I don't remember any, but then I wasn't usually watching the film...

Through difficulties to the cinema

12th May 2001, 19:15
Blacksheep... what can I say? You MUST be a lot older than I am! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif I never would've thought it possible... :)

[Editted for mixing my metaphors, or something...]
Dispela olgeta samting i pekpek bilong bulmakau!

[This message has been edited by OzExpat (edited 12 May 2001).]

14th May 2001, 08:56
Older? Of course I am.

I was IN "Thunderball" actually. Ernie Leatherbarrow and I were 'starter crew' for the Vulcan when it left Waddington. The shooting took all day and the scenes they made from the day's filming lasted all of ten seconds on screen. You can see me and Ernie in the background as the Vulcan makes its first turn. In the first take Ernie annoyed the director by waving to the aircraft as it left. Spoilt the authenticity he said. We asked if we should give it the customary "V" sign instead, but the director preferred us to disappear altogether. The aircraft captain refused to taxi a Vulcan out onto the peri-track without somebody taking the chocks out, and the the crew chief refused to do such a menial task himself, so we both got to stay.

I was a 19 year old 'junior magician' then so you can work out how old I am from that. Weren't the sixties fab? Groovy Baby!

Through difficulties to the cinema

[This message has been edited by Blacksheep (edited 14 May 2001).]

14th May 2001, 18:55
Blacksheep... sh!t mate, here was me expecting to read that you and Ernie got to do the drowning scene together! :) I didn't hit my teens until close on the middle of the 60s, so the early part of it was pretty dreary for me.

But, yep, it's amazing just how much the 60s improved after I was into my teens! It was my first taste of real life ... and a few other things too! :)

Dispela olgeta samting i pekpek bilong bulmakau!

21st May 2001, 05:25
In London women's groups are criticizing an advertising campaign by a divorce lawyer. The divorce lawyer's posters say-- 'Ditch the Bitch'.

A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.