|
Oh sweet baby jesus..again...
|
[ New Topic]
|
|
|
| Senior Member |
 |
| 10922 Posts |
| Mostly |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
 |
| 4288 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
| posted by smog 13 days ago (edited 13 days ago) |
 |
I'm not quite sure what your point is. I'm basically with the response from "JonFrum". I don't see anything particularly wrong with the Disney poster from China (without knowing what the text on it says, obviously, so that might change things).
___________________________
http://smogsblog.wordpress.com for more of the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Senior Member |
|
| 10922 Posts |
| Mostly |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by Load Toad 13 days ago (edited 13 days ago) |
|
Do you not think a girl that looks about 12 dressed in a bra and panties advertising Disney is just a touch f**king weird?
You'll have to excuse me but I don't have any experience at looking at underwear catalog's specialising in under age girls.
The Monkees were better than The Beatles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4288 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
| posted by smog 13 days ago (edited 13 days ago) |
|
Not really, no, given that the bra and panties are what they are trying to sell. I don't see it as any better or worse than that big guy up on the side of the Ritz Carlton.
And I don't have any such experience either, but it seems reasonable to me that in order to sell a product you need to advertise it and I don't see anything wrong with this advertisement. It doesn't seem in any way salacious or explicit or revealing.
If Disney doesn't want to be associated with underwear then they shouldn't license their brand for it.
Would you have the same problem if it was a swimsuit that the girl was wearing? If not then why not? They would reveal the same amount of flesh if that is what is bothering you... In fact maybe that is a bikini not underwear? I'm not au fait with these things enough to be sure.
___________________________
http://smogsblog.wordpress.com for more of the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 2643 Posts |
|
| posted by bunthorne 13 days ago |
|
Interesting in today’s SCMP - the judge’s decision to dismiss the ‘wet T-shirt- appeal (teenage ‘starlet’ snapped in a wet T-shirt for a magazine cover) – arguing there was no chance of securing a conviction. “If I passed this magazine around in the courtroom and showed it to a member of public and asked them whether it is child pornography, do you think they would say ‘yes’?” …clearly the judge decided not – he pointed out she was wearing a half-inch-thick skin-coloured bra under her shirt.
Same applies here – and what’s ‘spooky’ about the hand puppets? – eye of the beholder I fear.
‘reclining’ ‘bra and panties’ - well-chosen words to spice it up a bit.
With that black frame in the way it’s hard to see exactly what’s upset him, or what he finds suggestive/risqué. Ill-advised in the present climate maybe. 'Stories' like this are at a premium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Senior Member |
|
| 11084 Posts |
| Tagalogged |
|
| posted by The Cerne Abbas Giant 13 days ago |
|
Here's the pic in question, for those who can't be arsed clicking the link...
Watchu talkin' about Willis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 6281 Posts |
| over the hill |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by puyi 13 days ago (edited 13 days ago) |
|
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/11/2214334.htm
"I mean there's the obvious sexualisation of very young girls ... but also the reason that they are using them so young because they haven't actually developed women's bodies yet. And that is a whole other part of the business that's a problem," Clements said.
"They want them so thin they have to get them pre-pubescent.
worth reading
darren rudd is a sinophile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4288 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
| posted by smog 12 days ago |
|
Are people suggesting that they feel the girl in the Disney picture is somehow "sexualised"? I simply don't see that.
Now the Vanity Fair picture mentioned in the original article is a different matter...
___________________________
http://smogsblog.wordpress.com for more of the same
|
|
|
|
|
| Junior Member |
|
| 2483 Posts |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by EmilyBronte 11 days ago |
|
I think if they were seriouslyt advertising a branded underwear set for tween girls, they could have easily done without the make up and the fake fur rug recline. Its been done in catalogues and tween stores for years without being so odd. Aside- I would never let my daughter do that shoot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Senior Member |
|
| 10922 Posts |
| Mostly |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by Load Toad 11 days ago |
|
smog - it's a bloody 12 year old girl being portrayed very wrongly.
The Monkees were better than The Beatles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Senior Member |
|
| 11084 Posts |
| Tagalogged |
|
| posted by The Cerne Abbas Giant 11 days ago (edited 11 days ago) |
|
quote:
Originally posted by EmilyBronte
I think if they were seriouslyt advertising a branded underwear set for tween girls, they could have easily done without the make up and the fake fur rug recline. Its been done in catalogues and tween stores for years without being so odd.
Not to mention the bunches and the bow in her hair, which looks more like the Lolita-style fetishistic images you get on porn sites. I mean, not many 12 year olds actually present themselves this way do they?
Watchu talkin' about Willis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Senior Member |
|
| 7565 Posts |
| tagnutting |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by Paps of Jura 11 days ago |
|
Just a question .. what's with the cage type thing in front of her
It's wrong anyway in my eyes
Looking at life through rose tinters
|
|
|
|
|
| Junior Member |
|
| 2483 Posts |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by EmilyBronte 11 days ago |
|
Its to keep all the japanese blokes in line once they see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 6281 Posts |
| over the hill |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by puyi 11 days ago |
|
isnt it a viewing platform for smog
darren rudd is a sinophile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Senior Member |
|
| 11084 Posts |
| Tagalogged |
|
| posted by The Cerne Abbas Giant 11 days ago |
|
You don't need a viewing platform to see smog in Beijing. It's bloody everywhere.
Watchu talkin' about Willis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4288 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
| posted by smog 11 days ago |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Load Toad
smog - it's a bloody 12 year old girl being portrayed very wrongly.
I heard you say so the first time, but I simply don't see it. Can you articulate what you feel is wrong about it?
To me it isn't sexualised, revealing or anything else that I feel is bad.
___________________________
http://smogsblog.wordpress.com for more of the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Senior Member |
|
| 10922 Posts |
| Mostly |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by Load Toad 11 days ago |
|
On the one hand you don't like a certain 2@ with an 'entertainments' company exploiting young girls. On the other you can't see that a picture of a reclining underage girl in a padded bra and panties made up - in as mentioned by Giant - as a 'Lolita' - isn't well out of order. FFS. Would you want your child portrayed in that way?
The Monkees were better than The Beatles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4288 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
| posted by smog 11 days ago |
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Cerne Abbas Giant
quote:
Originally posted by EmilyBronte
I think if they were seriouslyt advertising a branded underwear set for tween girls, they could have easily done without the make up and the fake fur rug recline. Its been done in catalogues and tween stores for years without being so odd.
Not to mention the bunches and the bow in her hair, which looks more like the Lolita-style fetishistic images you get on porn sites. I mean, not many 12 year olds actually present themselves this way do they?
Bunches are bad?
What about this picture (trivially found very quickly on the main Disney site):
Is camel toe OK? (This also just directly from the Disney site)
___________________________
http://smogsblog.wordpress.com for more of the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Senior Member |
|
| 10922 Posts |
| Mostly |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by Load Toad 11 days ago |
|
I'm not really comfortable commenting about underage girls in swimsuits.
The Monkees were better than The Beatles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4288 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Senior Member |
|
| 10922 Posts |
| Mostly |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by Load Toad 11 days ago |
|
What I started the thread for was to draw attention to f**kwit Disney portraying kids as sex objects.
Maybe next time I see something I disprove of and I find sick I'll just turn a blind eye and keep out of it cos it isn't my problem. Much the same with drawing attention to Alberts 'entertainment' business.
The Monkees were better than The Beatles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
