Announcement

**Peacemaker** · March 9, 2003, 00:45

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Bull****. Just the opposite.

So how many teens will decide to have sex after seeing this ad?

**mactbone** · March 9, 2003, 00:46

Do you really believe that an ad like that will be seen by even a simple majority of people under the age of 13? This ad is targeted for teens and up - it won't appear in Nickolodean or any of those other magazines. Since Puma is advertising I would guess it would be in a sports or fashion magazine - aka Sports Illustrated (which already has a Swimsuit edition) and the other magazines I referenced, FHM, Maxim, and their ilk.

Little kids would not be seeing this ad just as they would not see ads that are only shown after 10 PM.

**Zero** · March 9, 2003, 00:49

Originally posted by Peacemaker

Show we shouldn't show teenage girls a video how to give themselves breast exams if it involves showing a woman's breast.

im afraid u misunderstood him. He said, you can show nude bodies and still not imply sex. So he would say your example is okay.

**DRoseDARs** · March 9, 2003, 00:58

Originally posted by Calc II

im afraid u misunderstood him. He said, you can show nude bodies and still not imply sex. So he would say your example is okay.

Exactly, thank you Calc. That example IS ok because it isn't showing a bunch of teenage girls fondling each other, or even "implying" as much, it's showing the intended audience how to conduct preventative medicine on themselves. Nothing "sexy" about that. If someone WERE to take such videos to imply sex...well...they've got problems that are outside the scope of this thread...

Educational videos are another grey-area, but for them it really IS a matter of HOW they present the material, not the material per ce. They're trying to educate people on the realities of Human sexuality, not the glorifications and misrepresentations you often see in magazines, in the movies, and on TV.

**Ted Striker** · March 9, 2003, 01:02

Originally posted by Peacemaker

So how many teens will decide to have sex after seeing this ad?

Ohhh let's say 456.384738

I'd say quite a few are going to "feel the urge."

It's the same thing with violence. Has the same kind of influence.

**jdd2007** · March 9, 2003, 01:03

Originally posted by Peacemaker

So how many teens will decide to have sex after seeing this ad?

only if she has pumas

**Peacemaker** · March 9, 2003, 01:04

I'm sorry I misread your statment. I read it as "you can't show nudity without implying sex."

**DRoseDARs** · March 9, 2003, 01:08

Originally posted by Calc II

Let me be blunt: I don't approve of ANY AD that "implies" ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH SEX. You can imply the naked Human form WITHOUT alluding to ANY act of sex.

You just said few pages ago that it doesnt go far enough to cross the line... so then which is it?

Anyway Back to before this statement.

You're being just like Ted. You dont even know what you're arguing agst. Same thing I said to Ted applies to you. And you keep telling me these annoying crap about how these things are immoral and not for childrens eyes. God, I've heard enough of it for the day!

With the Herbal Essense commercials, she isn't just standing there bare shouldered (maybe a bare calf-and-foot combo, nothing more)...she's standing there, bare shouldered SCREAMING like she's having an orgasm, as someone else put it earlier in this thread. It's not the bare shoulders implying a naked body that makes that commercial smutty, it's the orgasmic screaming that needn't be there. And, as I said before, bare shoulders and fully-covered-in-cloth "naughty bits" walk the line to varying degrees, but don't necessarily cross it. What material is presented does count, but so does HOW it's presented. The Herbal Essense commercials could have walked the line, but chose to take it that much further. Does it cross? Probably should, but that particular example is too close for me. Part of me says damn straight it crosses, and another says it doesn't. For the sake of arguement, I'll stick by my originally posted statement on that matter.

Further, if Ted and I "don't know what we're arguing against" please enlighten us...

**jdd2007** · March 9, 2003, 01:09

its just good advertising really...

**DRoseDARs** · March 9, 2003, 01:11

Originally posted by jdd2007

only if she has pumas

*DRoseDARs groans at the pun and reaches for an asprin...*

At least the obvious joke came quickly and clearly.

Sidenote: Are you and I ok now, jdd2007? I understand now what you were "ewwing" and apologize for my quick judgement.

**DRoseDARs** · March 9, 2003, 01:13

Originally posted by Peacemaker
I'm sorry I misread your statment. I read it as "you can't show nudity without implying sex."

You're forgiven.

This isn't an easy topic, but it's very easy to misread things others have posted...hell, I've already done it at least once in this thread already...

**Peacemaker** · March 9, 2003, 01:15

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Ohhh let's say 456.384738

I'd say quite a few are going to "feel the urge."

It's the same thing with violence. Has the same kind of influence.

No this as will no make anyone "fell the urge."

Both sex and violence are basic human urges that thrive with or without a stimulant.

If ads like this make people act in a certian way, if we start runnig more ads for going to church and living a "moral" life would we have a sudden rush on all the local churchs? I don't think so.

**Zero** · March 9, 2003, 01:16

It's not the bare shoulders implying a naked body that makes that commercial smutty, it's the orgasmic screaming that needn't be there.

Right. It is the orgasmic moaning that is focus of the discussion. Which is why I swapped your words to fit the puma commercial. (Non nude implication VS non nude implication)

My point is that if Herbal essence isnt crossing the line, than Puma wouldnt be, and if that herbal is crossing the line, Puma is... unless you show me a reason why herbal doesnt cross the line but puma does.

Originally posted by Calc II
Well if you have been reading my posts, all I have been arguing for is that in our world that this ad could run.

**jdd2007** · March 9, 2003, 01:16

Originally posted by DRoseDARs

*DRoseDARs groans at the pun and reaches for an asprin...*

At least the obvious joke came quickly and clearly.

Sidenote: Are you and I ok now, jdd2007? I understand now what you were "ewwing" and apologize for my quick judgement.

yes, we're cool now. i just messed up a little joke, making you misunderstand

**Static Universe** · March 9, 2003, 01:18

I like the blue one better.

Announcement

Commercial Graphic & Advertising buffs - how about Puma's new campaign???

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment