|
Oh sweet baby jesus..again...
|
[ New Topic]
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 428 Posts |
| roller derby |
|
| posted by elektra 62 days ago (edited 62 days ago) |
 |
Submission as in forcing someone onto their back and the Disney girl is almost on her back. The viewer is looking down upon her, she is less than. Furthermore, she's a person, flesh and blood. The reclining buddha (?) is a symbol (with disproportionately large feet, BTW).
There's a big difference between a 12 year old and a 15 year old girl--the difference is probably more like 5 years. Just ask a 15 year old girl if she'd even consider hanging out with a 12 year old girl and you'd have your answer. There's a generation gap.
I see the Disney girl as dressed to approximate a 12 year old, whether the model is 14 or 15 is irrelevant, she's supposed to be 12 and appeal to like minded girls. A 12 year old girl is not fully grown, typically, although exceptions occur. Full height is achieved 2 years after menarche. Further, a 12 year old girl may not have the ability to reason as an adult, that requires formal operations thinking, and she probably couldn't understand the implications of her pose. This 12 year old was placed in this pose by an adult photographer.
A 15 year old girl is probably full grown, barring the one off growth spurt that some girls experience. I infer Ms. Cyrus is a full grown young woman, with the ability to reason, and her emerging sexuality in this photo is much more palatable to me. She was asked by an adult photographer to pose in this photo and agreed to do so at the time. She may or may not have fully understood the implications of her pose. She may or may not have felt coerced--that's difficult to know.
As I said earlier, it's the manner in which Ms. Cyrus' makeup is smeared that disturbs me, it reminds me of corpses, but that's subjective opinion.
I try to always come from a place of love. But sometimes you just got to break it down for a motherf**ker. -RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
 |
| 4604 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
| posted by smog 62 days ago |
|
I feel you're reading far too much into this. Most likely the primary reason she's reclining is that the vast majority of billboards are "landscape" orientation so to get the biggest possible image she simply has to be!
___________________________
http://smogsblog.wordpress.com for more of the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Senior Member |
 |
| 8410 Posts |
| in Bhutan |
|
| posted by Juno Watt 62 days ago |
|
quote:
Originally posted by elektra
it's the manner in which Ms. Cyrus' makeup is smeared that disturbs me, it reminds me of corpses, but that's subjective opinion.
Well done -- I was trying to work out what made that photo so oddly unattractive to me, but you may have nailed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 428 Posts |
| roller derby |
|
| posted by elektra 62 days ago |
|
quote:
I feel you're reading far too much into this
I feel you're not reading enough into this. That's what makes a difference of opinion, hmm?
I try to always come from a place of love. But sometimes you just got to break it down for a motherf**ker. -RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 310 Posts |
| Hong Kong |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by 2hot2handle 62 days ago |
|
look everything is wrong , hk developers show beautiful green landscapes, beauty seaviews in show flats, no one talks about it. why a girl in underwear is suddenly submissive and sexual?
the wrong here is with the viewerwho interprets it wrong.
for food pictures we pour motor oil on lettuce, we pour soap bubbles on crispy bacon and we use mashed potato or marzipan to show of our ice creammmmmm
anybody complains?
Ex Freak on a Leash & Killer Tomato Soup, sorry but had to change as was being chased down by the spelling bee masterchampionships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4604 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 310 Posts |
| Hong Kong |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by 2hot2handle 62 days ago |
|
usually underaged too
Ex Freak on a Leash & Killer Tomato Soup, sorry but had to change as was being chased down by the spelling bee masterchampionships
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Senior Member |
|
| 7525 Posts |
| Wet 'n' salty |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by AKA 62 days ago |
|
quote:
Originally posted by smog
quote:
Originally posted by AKA[simply so you can go on and on and on and basically pontificate in that utterly pompous pontificating way that you do
If you don't wish to engage in discussing a subject then don't. It's as simple as that. Someone else (LT) brought the subject here for us to discuss and that's what a number of us have been doing. Only you have felt the need to descend to personal abuse and libel, without adding anything to the debate either.
its not libel - on this very forum you have confessed to googling for naked pictures of emma watson, and smiled broadly about being able to "lech over her legally"
if you really don't think that the girl in the disney picture is being sexualised, then I am happy to say we have a difference of opinion on that
all I'm advising you is to be careful
yeah, yeah, yeah
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Senior Member |
|
| 11338 Posts |
| Homicidal |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by Load Toad 62 days ago |
|
I'm finding it difficult to understand how people can not see what's wrong with the picture in question. If we lived in some age of innocence, a utopia where children were not abused or taken advantage of I could almost understand it. But that photo crosses a boundary I would hope that people understand exists - defining exactly why it is wrong is difficult and hard to exactly qualify but to me it creates discomfort - it's enough to know it is wrong without me writing an essay explaining every aspect of it that disturbs me.
A corporation such as Disney should be able to advertise kids clothes without straying into an area which is dangerous and totally unnecessary.
Perhaps I can sum it up by saying that not only do I find the way she is dressed and posed to be disturbing it is the manipulation and presentation of a person who is also presented to us as of an age where comprehension and understanding are not yet fully developed; irrespective of what age she is biologically it is a child presented as an adult. It inner right.
You used to speak the truth.
But now you're clever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4604 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
| posted by smog 62 days ago |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Load Toad
But that photo crosses a boundary I would hope that people understand exists - defining exactly why it is wrong is difficult and hard to exactly qualify but to me it creates discomfort - it's enough to know it is wrong without me writing an essay explaining every aspect of it that disturbs me.
I am sure that such a boundary exists in every reasonable person's mind. The problem is, as responses to this thread have shown, it isn't easy to define the boundary, and it clearly is different for different people. If I were in a minority of one here I could see that perhaps I need to do some serious rethinking, but in fact a number of other posters (Tiger Lily, Beauty Queen, Bunthorne, Killer Tomato) don't seem to feel that it is "submissive" or "sexualised" either. (Whether it is a good advertisement is a separate and irrelevant question). That being so, given that the photo must have been taken with the full consent of the girl and her parents, isn't it right in a free society to tend towards freedom of expression rather than suppression of images?
___________________________
http://smogsblog.wordpress.com for more of the same
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 310 Posts |
| Hong Kong |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by 2hot2handle 62 days ago |
|
ok then this, our HK Ladies & Cuisine team, which just won gold medal in singapore got a letter from new zealand complaining that the HKCA is sexist and putting the ladies like a piece of meat for lust on a pedestal.
off course i can only imagine that its send by a 400 Lbs Jealous git, and yes the girls in question are pretty, young and active so what?
You can see sex in anything if you want, its still i say up to the viewer! if you get naughty thoughts with looking at that pic, then i just feeol sorry for you.
Ex Freak on a Leash & Killer Tomato Soup, sorry but had to change as was being chased down by the spelling bee masterchampionships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Senior Member |
|
| 11338 Posts |
| Homicidal |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by Load Toad 62 days ago (edited 62 days ago) |
|
I don't get any naughty thoughts looking at the pic. I think I've explained well enough why I don't like it cheffie.
Also - go back and read the link I posted at the beginning of the thread - what I also don't like is Disney's attitude - they basically admit it is wrong and not how they want Disney portrayed but then say that as they have so many licensees they aren't able to control what happens; they can take the money - they just can't be bothered to adequately enforce their standards - corporate c**twits as usual.
You used to speak the truth.
But now you're clever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 2730 Posts |
|
| posted by bunthorne 62 days ago |
|
Well, perhaps I’ll admit to a little naivete in this – after all, I never was good at picking out coke bottles as phallic symbols, or figured out that men smoked cigarettes because they’d been underweaned. I was amazed to find myself surrounded by so much pulsating sexuality.
However, I’m beginning to think this is more about big bad business and the demonizing of Disney rather than protecting youngsters from exploitation. Like other multinationals, they hand out franchises around the world and leave it to the respective local companies to market the brand appropriately. It’s instructive that it took a foreigner to point out to the Chinese the error of their ways. Like me, the Chinese are naïve about these things.
Regarding children's rights to an uncorrupted childhood , I’m sure all here would applaud – and trust your solicitude extends to other matters, such as substance abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 26 Posts |
| Swingin Low |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by The Dogs Bollocks 62 days ago |
|
I see nothing sexual whatsoever in the Disney underwear advert (or the other photos). And it wouldn't have crossed my mind, but for this thread. I think there are several people here TRYING to find something salacious and objectionable, when it doesn't really exist. Methinks they do protest too much. In this case I think it says more about the minds and thoughts of those who object, than it does about the actual picture.
Now I'm not accusing anyone of being a monster, rather that in these politically correct times, there seems to be a paranoia about being SEEN to NOT be a paedophile. But I find the almost Mary Whitehouse-style outrage to be wholly unfounded.
Apart from the slightly weird make-up (which I suspect is a thing for young girls, in the same way as a trainer-bra), the photo avoids any hint of sexuality - no overt curves, no provocative position (indeed, the crotch is in no way visible), no suggestive expression.
If your company makes underwear for children - and in this case branded goods - how the hell are you supposed to promote your products without using such a picture?
I'm not surprised at Disneys reaction. After all, ANY hint of sleaze, even simply in the perceptions of some people, must be taken seriously by such an organization.
One country, no f*cking system.
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 9 Posts |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by Piewacket 62 days ago (edited 62 days ago) |
|
Hi everyone, I'm new. This is pretty interesting debate.
It is not Disney that is doing these racy photos. it's Shanghai Zhenxin Garments Co. Ltd which is already creating a storm over other marketing campaigns it runs. See http://redhotscandals.com/disney-miley-cyrus-back-bad-barely-legal-lingerie-models-good/
I think what sexualizes that photo are the facts that the girls pubic region is exposed, has a full frontal exposure and the girl is laying down. But I guess that the full poster exposes more than what we can see in the photo. This photo could be quite ok if the cropped the photo not to show her pubic region or posed in a way that is not giving a full frontal exposure or was not laying down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4604 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
| posted by smog 62 days ago (edited 62 days ago) |
|
Having looked at the link (and the link to TMZ from that) I find nothing wrong with the photos there either.
Bunthorne and The Dog's B ollocks are pretty much right about this issue in my view. I feel that a lot of the furore over Disney on the websites linked is driven by the extreme Christian right wing in the USA trying to impose its version of morality on the rest of the world.
(And why is "B ollocks" OK as an alias but not in text?)
___________________________
http://smogsblog.wordpress.com for more of the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 4604 Posts |
| of trenchancy |
|
| posted by smog 62 days ago (edited 62 days ago) |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Piewacket
I think what sexualizes that photo are the facts that the girls pubic region is exposed, has a full frontal exposure and the girl is laying down.
This is just ridiculous. The girl's pubic region is NOT exposed - it is extremely well covered by very thick and non-revealing clothing. "Full frontal exposure" means no clothes; this girl has plenty. If you genuinely believe what you write then you must regard beaches full of girls lying sunbathing in swimsuits to be hugely sexualised environments? If so then I feel you have a serious problem.
And don't, whatever you do, accidentally Google "naturism". What you would see might cause an apoplectic seizure!
___________________________
http://smogsblog.wordpress.com for more of the same
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 310 Posts |
| Hong Kong |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by 2hot2handle 62 days ago |
|
i think most of the people who say this is sexual especially as she reclines, would probably like to see her more playing a game for people her age, called twister ...........that would be more apprppriate, as then it would be clear she is a playful girl playing a game.
Ex Freak on a Leash & Killer Tomato Soup, sorry but had to change as was being chased down by the spelling bee masterchampionships
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 6486 Posts |
| over the hill |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by puyi 62 days ago |
|
what can we expect of disney when their characters dont wear underwear or even pants ..............
darren rudd is a sinophile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 428 Posts |
| roller derby |
|
| posted by elektra 61 days ago |
|
With regards to advertising.
I think when dealing with kids in order to advertise a brand, the company needs to take a higher ethical stance. The last thing a company should do is focus attention on the kid as the product as opposed to the actual bra set they're wearing.
I also believe I’m a customer not a consumer and I purchase products with an eye to the process by which they are manufactured and advertised. In other words, if I don’t love the process, I won’t buy the product.
I try to always come from a place of love. But sometimes you just got to break it down for a motherf**ker. -RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
|
