When I first moved to Paris in May 1999, there were ads from Benetton on every light post and Metro wall of American Death Row inmates........under their pictures (and they chose the best looking inmates you could find) was written anything good they could find to say about them. Message: These are great guys who just happened to kill their wife and should be better understood...and look how handsome they are! They simply couldn't have done that and they must be let go for the sake of loving our brothers. I couldn't believe it.
Now THIS? And kids pass these posters on the street every single day. I call this DISGUSTING. What do you call it?
Gad, I hope I can get that image out of my mind ..... and SOON.
FOR THE RECORD; NOBODY THOUGHT THIS WASN'T PHOTOSHOPPED! I DIDN'T THINK OBAMA OF HU JINTAO WOULD ACTUALLY DO THIS! :-)!!
z
40 comments:
Ugh.
I can't think of another printable comment.
Pushing the homo frontier... they'll be doing much more than kissing in ads in 10 years.
I call it advertising.
Benetton's ads have always pushed it but they work.
Tip: They are really hoping the homo haters give the campaign a lot of attention.
Z - It' no secret that I like Barack Obama - on a personal level - even though I've never met him.
But I've never had the desire to kiss him on the lips.
Frankly I'm not a lip kisser - although I might be if I choose that. :)
Speedy - 'they'll be doing much more than that in ads in 10 years'
only in your vivid imagination
"Frankly I'm not a lip kisser "
Sue!
These are the same people that glorified the art exhibit of the dog that was starved...eventually to death.
Anyone who claims to like Barak Obama is showing their true lack of character. Art is secondary.
Shock-crap to sell crap:
Look at us look at us look at us!!!
They put up something offensive and then soak up the free advertising. I'm actually half-expecting that China puts this dog down.
I wonder if it will have the same effect as it did when I was in high school.
(Everyone wearing Benneton clothing in the late 1980s were called by the technical term "polesmokers")
These are the same people that glorified the art exhibit of the dog that was starved...eventually to death.
If that's true that's worse than Obama and the Chinese guy kissing. And they'll never get one penny of mine b/c I love pets.
They also ad advertising with HIV tattoos on a butt.
Benetton's ads have always pushed it but they work.
Glad you're celebrating capitalism.
Tip: They are really hoping the homo haters give the campaign a lot of attention.
"Homo haters" use the word "homo". You must be one of them.
FrogBurger, did you read in my post what I found upon first moving to Paris? Imagine that surprise?
SpeedyG, you can count on that...
Ducky, I doubt that. Thankfully, there are too few "homo haters" as you put it, to give anything much attention.
We're talking decency here and ads all over a city in front of children. Remember, most Conservatives aren't pushing any gay agenda on small children.
And, most Republicans don't 'out' Democrats they don't agree with as gay like you do, either.
Sue, if you think they won't be doing more in 10 years, you're sleeping today, which is part of society's problem.
Divine, you're so right. I can't get past the lack of character in voting for Obama, either........to vote for someone with almost no credentials, who had the kutzpa to try to campaign in BERLIN (BOY, was THAT city ticked off...you never heard that here, of course), to vote for a LIAR? WOW.
FB, I can't tell you how those ads I described in my post affected me in Paris; it made my stomach turn.
I'm thinking only people with very little character see ads like that and run to Benetton to buy a sweater. Sadly, that number is mounting (pardon the expression!)
Bob - Frankly - I'd rather be a lip
kisser than a b*tt k*ss*er - although I have to work on that.
:)
Z - When I said to Speedy that it was in his mind that 'they' would be doing more than that is 10 years - I was refering to the ads.
'They' will be doing who knows what in 10 years if 'we' don't watch it.
And believe me Z - I'm not sleeping.
Sue, thanks, that's exactly what I meant. Who knows what the ads will be showing in 10 years.
And, if not, why not, the way things are going?
We all need to wake up.
Here it is. Fresh out of my email inbox. Now, you can gear up for the 2012 elections with official Obama stuff.
Here's the link to the official store.
I wonder why you can get women's running shorts and shirts, but there are no men's equivalent? Obama is smart. Let the legs and chests of pretty women joggers advertise his bid for re-election.
Who needs hairy legged and hairy chested men advertising Obama. Maybe no decent man in America would vote for him, anyway.
I was shocked when I first saw the photos and didn't know they were Photoshopped! lol But immediately after, my thoughts on the matter were generally along the lines of Ducky's.
Of course now we're gonna see a FLOOD of nerdy Web content providers producing THEIR renditions of this ad.
Look for a depiction of Sarah Palin with an NBA player sooner or later.
to no one in particular:
I am more concerned with what kids learn at home than what they see in ads.
This is where we learn our basic values - and we do not soon forget them.
Try as we may.
'They' will be doing who knows what in 10 years if 'we' don't watch it.
Better said, than done, unfortunately.
I was clicking through channels, and there it was, so I had no choice but to see it, even if only momentarily.
Even though on a news program they said that the pictures were photoshopped, it was no less disgusting to see.
I can't imagine anyone finding them amusing, or even approving of them, and it certainly makes me want to never buy anything from this company.
Ducky, one doesn't have to be a 'homo hater' to find them disgusting...they are just, generally, in very bad taste.
It never crossed my mind not to think they're photoshopped.
I think a lot of what's going on with our kids today reflects some of the responses here. It's good to see it up close and personal.
I didn't realize there were people who don't think what children see affects them. WOW.
No, Jan, one doesn't have to be a hater of gays (even as much as Ducky) to realize this is in sorely poor taste. Excellent point.
Yes, Ducky, if you'd read the articles and get up on the subjects, you'd know that Merkel is portrayed with a male world leader; I don't remember which one.
And no, Sue.......no matter how well raised our kids are, they're being indoctrinated away from faith and from good, sound values in schools. Sadly, we can't count on what they get at home anymore, in general. There are exceptions, many of whom I'm related to. And yes, what they got at home was better.
This is disgusting and there isn't another GROOVER, MORE COOLLY LIBERAL WAY to address it if you care about decency at all.
Ducky, I've just decided to delete one of your comments. I'm not having it here anymore. You go spew your hate elsewhere. THanks.
BYEEE, DUCKY! :-)
But it kinda begs the question:
Is the scandal here the homosexual angle? Or the fact that it's two people who are not in fact together being portrayed as if they were?
Or is it because we're toying around with world leaders?
When I came up with my "Palin/NBA Player" idea, I thought, "Well, interestingly, that could be worse because of how disrespectful it would be to the actual spouses of those people."
But if someone Photoshopped Palin kissing her own husband, no one would care, right?
What if it were a depiction of Obama kissing another woman besides his wife? Would that be better or worse or the same?
What if it were Hillary-Pelosi? Or Cain-Gingrich?
I'm starting to think the only real shock value here is the explicit gay male suggestion. Just curious how others see it.
Net, to tell you the truth, the homosexual thing didn't really hit me...
Odd, it looks like Ducky was the first to bring that up here.
I just think that screwing around with photos of world leaders is really inappropriate and Obama kissing the Chinese guy on the lips is sickening.
I think it would ABSOLUTELY be just as egregious if it showed Obama kissing another woman on the lips. Great point.
It's just not decent.
I just saw for the first time a huge billboard with a guy laying in bed with jockey shorts on and nothing else except a dumb smile....there are about four women or maybe six whose legs are on his body, feet around his shoulders.......the title of a new HBO show it's advertising is HUNG and I just now Googled it and it's about a struggling suburban Detroit high school baseball coach who resorts to male prostitution.
Nice messages we send America, isn't it?
The HUNG billboard is extremely suggestive and I guess you and some others here don't care, but I do care very much what kids and teens are subjected to seeing. We give them NOTHING of substance, of goodness and healthy living. NOTHING>
Excerpt from the article in Z's post:
The images are digitally manipulated but they send a pointed message. The newly unveiled UNHATE Foundation seeks to promote a culture of tolerance and combat hatred around the world, the company said in a news release.
From net observer:
Is the scandal here the homosexual angle? Or the fact that it's two people who are not in fact together being portrayed as if they were?
net..your observations are interesting, but to me, the scandal here is that they did it, at all.
It seems that an Italian clothing firm would be interested in selling clothing, not in trying to bring about World Peace.
I get it that it's supposed to be world leaders not in complete accord with other world leaders, 'getting along,' but any way you look at it, it is in such poor taste.
Why photoshop anything, at all?
Why not, if they feel that they must express their desire for more tolerance, just show them shaking hands, or breaking bread, or whatever--unless it was meant to provoke even more controversy?
If they had, indeed, photoshopped Palin/NBA player, it would have been, most definitely, because of her alleged tryst with one, and would have been most offensive, I assure you.
They are promoting more tolerance, alright....more tolerance of what THEY find acceptable, and who knows where that will end?
It is getting to the point where if one does find anything personally offensive, that they should be ashamed, and not the other way around.
But, it's a free country.
So far, anyway.
"if they feel that they must express their desire for more tolerance, just show them shaking hands, or breaking bread, or whatever--unless it was meant to provoke even more controversy?"
Of coursed it's meant to spread more..."controversy". It's all about rattling and shaking up the principle foundations.
It's all about the homosexual / queer agenda. Period.
And I'd rather skip the "or whatever" as it seems that this is nothing more than permission to let it all go.
MAN, Jan! this is brilliant "It is getting to the point where if one does find anything personally offensive, that they should be ashamed, and not the other way around."
Amen to that, my friend.
How terribly sad.
You make excellent points....this is particularly cogent. thanks
This is the same outfit that did the Ronald Reagan with Aids sores.
I only wear clothes from the LL Beamish Catalog. LL Beamish clothes for patriots that kick @$$$.
Kid 1: You Mother wears combat boots
Kid 2: She sure does it goes well with all of her weaponry.
Kid 1: I wish my mother packed heat.
They are not really kissing, they are part of a larger ad campaign by some group. They had the Pope kissing some Imam, and a bunch of others, it's all photoshopped.
Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
Sorry, Ducky, this time, Speedy G beat you to it. I stand corrected. Does it negate your stance? I don't think so.
Debbie, HI!
Yes, we all realize it wasn't photoshopped. I hope my post didn't give the impression I thought they were actually kissing!?
All good points, people.
Z, to the contrary, I am quite concerned about the messages we send to, not only our youth, but to everybody. However, sometimes, oftentimes, life isn't so simple.
No doubt, this was a weird image to see; and if I were a parent, I'm sure I would have immediately fallen into damage control mode.
But when I find out the source was a company with a history of shock ads, it was hard to do anything other than roll my eyes and dismiss it.
At some point, I can no longer say, "OMG, did you hear what Howard Stern said today?!" Eventually, I start to say, "Well, that's Howard Stern. That's what he does."
He's free to do his thing and I'm free to change the channel and criticize him ad infinitum. It's the tradeoff of a free society.
net, would you sit down with your child who just walked by the poster on a wall (Benetton's all over Paris, as I said in my article..absolutely on EVERYTHING) and tell them "Well, this company ALWAYS does that...no worries!"? Or say "there goes Howard Stern again!" if a kid happens to hear something particularly unsavory?
I think we do have a responsibility to protect kids but I guess I wish we didn't even have to have this discussion; who'd have thought, five years ago, that a company would photoshop this stuff and people'd be defending them?
I think we've let so much slide there isn't much left; and then we wonder why our kids act out.
It's like, I understand the spirit of your thoughts, Z. But I guess, truthfully, after giving it some fair and serious thought, I don't see this as, ultimately, ALL that offensive.
Indeed, these pictures are very "shock jock"-ish -- and weird -- and very, VERY, "Whoaaa!! WTF?!?" -- for lack of a better term.
And make no mistake about it. As a heterosexual man, I will likely always have a similar reaction to such imagery.
Having said that, I am also very much an advocate of homosexuals having the right to be themselves. Ergo, I find myself in somewhat of a dilemma.
I have to first acknowledge, honestly, what's really bothering me here, and that would be, first and foremost, the totally unexpected pictures of two guys kissing -- NOT the phony depictions of world leaders or whomever. And trust me when I say, that's a heterosexual guy thing more than anything else, Z.
So, once I understood that, I was then able to deal with the more objective issue, which, in my view, was the creation of fake, suggestive pictures of unsuspecting celebrities used solely for commercial marketing purposes.
I think that is VERY disgusting.
But when I later discovered that the creator of these pics was a bit of an equivalent to a "shock-jock", I had to roll my eyes and dismiss them for who they were. And if the vast majority of the populace is similarly "not amused" or "disgusted"...well...then, maybe this isn't necessarily a sign of the downfall of our society. Maybe it's just some rogue company with enough cash to buy an ad in a peculiar place.
I remember back in the day, whenever CNN reported on developing tragedies, oftentimes, some kook from some shock radio show would call in, under fake pretenses, to sneak in a dumb promo for their dumb show. It was very sick, very stupid, beyond-puerile behavior.
But it was also par for the course for sick, stupid, puerile shock-jocks.
But most people, by far, were repulsed by their actions, even though these shock-jocks were popular; they still didn't represent the minds of MOST Americans -- far from it.
Think about it. I can find a lot of racist and anti-Semitic content on the Web, but it's m,ore than obvious that the vast majority of Americans don't respect such filth.
As long as decency continues to overwhelmingly outweigh indecency, I'm relatively comfortable with the situation.
Of course, we can always argue over whether or not that is the case =). And we can always improve. But on issues like this particular ad campaign, I think Americans are generally on the right side of the issue.
Net says, " I think Americans are generally on the right side of the issue."
I generally agree with that statement, but Z does have a point. Even though you and I can pass off the photo-shopped pictures as egregious shock advertising, there is a whole generation of vulnerable brains being polluted.
I don't care if we have to explain sex to kids, that's our job as parents, anyway. The big problem to me is, how do we teach our kids good taste and acceptable conduct?
Homosexual activity has existed forever, and your children will either get their education about it on the street, or from you. The same thing goes with the ultra-bad taste and ridiculous stuff.
Like you, I am not so much bothered by the pictures. We cannot control what appears in the media, or on bathroom walls, which is sometimes about the same thing.
net...I thought I was pretty clear in my last comment about why I disagree with you? Bob says reiterates and I agree with him, except as I said before, children are NOT in general getting the good stuff WE got at home anymore.
You say now "I have to first acknowledge, honestly, what's really bothering me here, and that would be, first and foremost, the totally unexpected pictures of two guys kissing -- NOT the phony depictions of world leaders or whomever. And trust me when I say, that's a heterosexual guy thing more than anything else, Z.
(Z; TRUST ME, IT'S A HETEROSEXUAL WOMAN THING, TOO)
you continue "So, once I understood that, I was then able to deal with the more objective issue, which, in my view, was the creation of fake, suggestive pictures of unsuspecting celebrities used solely for commercial marketing purposes."
Z: Ya, I wish children had that maturity to "Understand that"...they don't. They're young and vulnerable and I don't care WHAT people do in private or in ads in mature adult magazines (I don't mean porn, I mean Esquire or Vogue, etc.), but this is a bit too much. In my opinion. I'm not changing on that.
I find the entire campaign disgusting. Look, I'm no fan of Obama, but I can't even imagine how his girls feel about this display.
Well, it's not like I ever expect to change anybody's opinion around here =) If anything, I found myself having to re-think my OWN position.
I get your point, Z, but I suppose I am just as immovable as you. Parents should protect their children from unwanted influences; that's the bottom line for me. And it's up to parents to decide what is and isn't okay for their children. And whether we like it or not, those standards of decency vary, even among decent people.
Having said that, I concede that you and Bob have a point when the content is SO starkly positioned in ALL our faces that it more or less demands society overall to chime in.
But I must share a anecdote. I remember as a child my pops wouldn't allow us to watch "The Little Rascals" because he thought "Buckwheat" was unforgivably racist. I'd like to know how many white parents in the 70s had similar feelings. I suspect almost none, and I don't fault them in any way for seeing it differently.
But is this ad worse than "Buckwheat" to a black person in the early 70s? Maybe it depends on who you ask.
For lack of any words, eewwwwwwwwww! Gag me, Gross! Yuck! Nasty! Disgusting.
net, sometimes you just tick me off :-)
I am NOT immovable on some subjects, I hope you know that; you can convince me from time to time! Not on this one, however!
you said "Having said that, I concede that you and Bob have a point when the content is SO starkly positioned in ALL our faces that it more or less demands society overall to chime in."
That is my point.
As for Buckwheat; I look back now and I cringe a little, to tell you the truth. But, I SWEAR I looked at him THEN as cute and black and kind of dumb/naive, but not because he was BLACK, but because they made his character that way...does that make sense?
Maybe I am naive when it comes to race? to me, it was "isn't he adorably cute?" and Dad and Mom might have felt the same way. Dad was the least racist man I ever met, I think.
Mom had a twinge of fear toward American blacks when she arrived from Cairo because they reminded her of the darker Arabs whom she'd been shown empirically she SHOULD fear. Until Grandma's cleaning girl Minnie, the sweetest woman I knew to date (other than Grandma!) came to work for us and Mom relaxed with the lovely black Minnie's kindness and sweetness.....that's the truth, I have to admit. Sometimes we still talk about Minnie and I think she stopped working for us when we moved in 1957 or so!
Maybe they're pushing a homo angle in this.
I thought that was photoshop.
EEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW as the ladies say.
Geez.
Post a Comment