The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > S*xualised bre*st cancer campaign sending the wrong message > Comments

S*xualised bre*st cancer campaign sending the wrong message : Comments

By Melinda Tankard Reist, published 10/9/2010

Many of the slogans used in bre*st awareness campaigns are about saving boobies, hooters or jugs.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All
Oh FFS who cares who has and hasn't had cancer or who has or hasn't known someone like that. If your points don't stand up unless you have cancer it's getting ridiculous.

Why must one be a big bundle of empathy to debate the logical (or non-logical as it were) assertions of the author or other posters?

Sex is used in this campaign to get attention, but it needn't and doesn't override the true purpose of the campaign. ie saving women form cancer.

To assert that a bunch of guys are encouraged to mourn the possible death of mammary glands over the death of women is bu11shit. To think you could encourage men like this is laughable, and to assert that this advert leads to "insidious forms of physical, structural and mental violence.” is even more laughable.

Then, that "Thousands of violent acts against women, including battery, rape and murder, are committed because the perpetrator views his victim as nothing more than an object created for his pleasure. " is at best speculation. Unless you ask thousands of murderers how they view their victims and find they have al depersonalised their victims to this degree.

In the end, as benk said, 'The distrustful attitude that Melinda and others have towards male sexuality is a key issue arising from the original article.'

I would say it is THE issue. Just look at the whole second page. The campaign is just an ACA standard segue to the main purpose of MTR's article; To explain that mens sexual desire is predatory, perverted and abusive, and cannot be expressed without reducing women to an object. This campaign is just example used to further that hypothesis.

The article can be summed up as "Men who are attracted to women they don't know personally (ie all heterosexual men) are guilty of objectifying women, so are the cause of 'Thousands of violent acts against women, including battery, rape and murder'.".

The author cares no more for breast cancer survivors than a politician using the death of a pink batts installer to further their political aims.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 13 September 2010 12:09:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In our culture breasts are treated as sexual objects. Ad's don't sexualise them, they are already well and truly sexualised.

If Melinda want's breasts to be less sexualised she should be working to make the sight of them so common place that they are no bigger deal than a male chest (only really notable in exceptional circumstances).

There is plenty of debate about the reasons why many women dress in way's which draw attention to their breasts - to attract men, to impress other women, because they like the look etc and that probably varies from individual to individual but I suspect that a percentage of women will respond better to ad's about the appeal of their breasts than yet another health message.

Those who respond to messages based just on the health issues have probably already got the message.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 13 September 2010 12:34:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houie,
Well said old son!

The author could spend her time far better writing about things that really matter to women.

To whinge about an advertisment is really pathetic. Women go out of their way to enhance their attractivness to men. It is an inbuilt 'desire to be desired'
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 13 September 2010 12:47:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert

Excellent post, you forgot to mention that human females are the only primates to always have breasts - other mammals don't develop breasts until they are feeding young. Thank god for evolution.

Melinda Tank-whatever is Catholic is she not? One of the most sexually repressed of the Christian faiths.

Antiseptic

You're quite correct about the spelling - I guess it is the position I have had to assume so many times for examination.

OK, you have sisters, and if I remember correctly an ex-wife and a daughter, yet still on OLO you never express any respect for women - particularly on a topic which would surely evince compassion from even a self-confessed mistreated male like yourself.

Instead you continue to rabbit on about how men are downtrodden and blah, blah, blah.
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Monday, 13 September 2010 1:00:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re Antiseptic's post on Johnny Rotten's prostate cancer -

This is the kind of post that makes me think I'm going to give up reading and engaging with the forum.

I thought this was a place for debate, even robust debate, as long as it's debate.

You might not be using bad language, but your post is abusive.
Posted by briar rose, Monday, 13 September 2010 4:59:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Johnny rotton,
If you look back through the author's articles, I don't think they have ever made a single positive comment about men. Every comment has been negative.

This is another one of those articles, and she uses any excuse to portray men as being abusers or oppressors of women.

She is free to do that and indulge in that type of bigotry and prejudice, although it would be a different matter if she was being paid with taxpayer’s dollars.

Come to think of it, it reminds me of some individuals being employed at taxpayer’s expense in universities.

Briar rose,

Don’t say your bailing out. Why is it that when the going gets tough, so many women give up or claim oppression.

Considering the language Johhny rotton and other such as the one and only C J Morgan have used in the past, you must have a prejudice against Antiseptic.

Don’t say your prejudiced and unwilling to listen to all sides of a debate.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 13 September 2010 5:38:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy