| |
|
this in a newspaper today.
when do these authorities get off insulting our intelligence? i mean, we consider that the ad is in danger of implying that the drink may bring sexual/social success, because the man in question looks quite attractive and desirable to the girls. - really?
first, while it seems pretty clear that women are able to see other women in light of their likely attractiveness to men, neither women nor men are able to do this of men. primarily because the attarction of men to women is not strictly physical [sure, there are probably physical markers of health, which if missing are unattractive, but mostly it is perceived power that attracts female humans to males]
second, and more importantly, it implies what? all it is showing [from what i can infer] is an obvious show of theatre to make the product attractive to consumers. i doubt very much the claim that it is 'implying' anything else, as mooted by the advertising standards authority. i think we have more intelligence about what advertising is. i do! this line of public authority reasoning insults me.
and third, what about 'sexy women' used to sell everything and about everything else since about time immemorial. is this not also wrong? where has been the hue and cry about poor men being duped into thinking that a few pints will help them pull racquel welch or keira knightly?
smacks of the awful atrocities that public authorities too often hold. but how should we otherwise discuss the standards in advertising? what level of public input should there be - and should the loud voice of a few be taken to be enough to silence a campaign that really, i mean really!, doesn't offend almost everyone else?? |
|
|
