Offensive advertising

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Tastelessness reaches a new high.

The iron cross in the advertising is the wrong symbol, by the way.  The GESTAPO would have insisted on a Swastika.  Not only is the a stupid effort, they didn't even get it right.

The ad agency probably has no one, even in the executive offices, old enough to remember the atrocities this echoes.  Also, the book by Phillip K. Dick was a Science Fiction Book Club selection sometime in the late 1950s or early '60s.  I had a copy of it in my library, and I must say that I found it rather opaque.

Something with more swash and buckle was the story 'The Day After Tomorrow' by John W. Campbell in about the same time frame.  This one was very strange science fiction.  "The Disciple is Coming".

[TekindusT 3,809]

Probably they didn't use the swastika because it would "even more" offensive to those who felt offended. Strangely, nobody said a word about the unknown but also philo-fascist and imperialistic symbolism on the war flag of the Imperial Japanese Army which appears modified at the other side of the car.

I'm quite an advocate of not banning or illegalizing any kind of symbols. Everytime you see an swastika or an iron cross you have the opportunity to tell a child or somebody who is not familiar with it, what ideas were or are behind the symbol. What did those who used the symbol do and why they were condemned by History. What kinds of attrocities happened under that symbol and why shouldn't they repeat themselves. But yeah, the society needs to be mature and knowledgeable enough for that; and our Western society is currently lacking of both qualities. 

The swastika and the Iron Cross might the most prominent of them, but same goes for the Roman salute (used by Nazis, Fascists, Francoists and those who still believe in those "ideas"), the Communist Hammer and Sickle and the face of Lenin, the Spanish Cross of Burgundy or the Yoke and Arrows, the American Confederate Flag, the East German Hammer and Compass and so many more...

  Edited November 25, 2015 by TekindusT  

[krbe 193]

I personally find the ad campaign distasteful if not offensive; although it'd take a bit of an effort to offend me. 

The aesthetics of the series is beautiful in its banality. I'd watch it for the visuals alone. And rest assured, the swastikas are there when you tune in.* However - my biggest problem with this campaign is how wasted, in-your-face it is. The 42nd St Shuttle only has two stations and a limited number of trains -- instead of having to choose whether your bottom ought to rest on a badly-changed American Nazi flag or the flag of the rising sun, why not go all out: Change the signage of stations and trains to match the aesthetics of the series, using the ad space sparingly as a split 'in-series' ad (celebrating Nazi visit or something like that) and Amazon Prime information. Presto, people will know the series and the creator, as well as getting a glimpse of life as it might have been (maybe staff wearing more uniformy uniforms as well...)

* Swastika American flag: http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/54c6846469bedd2c708b4569-2048-1152/nazi-america-the-man-in-the-high-castle.png
* Map of the series: http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-11-22-1448161136-2327667-themaninthehighcastleamericamap.jpg
* Swastika above New York: http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-11-25-1448411913-2244030-highcastle.jpg
* Nazi Times Square: http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-11-21-1448128091-1563621-maninthehighcastle.png
* Swastikas everywhere room!: https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*pycCacYjPssuAd12Pdm1sA.png
* And my personal favourite - Nazi Lufthansa Concorde: http://www.trekonomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Amazon.com-The-Man-in-the-High-Castle-airplane-2.png

[Easy Bakes 253]

Its just a TV show.

"On the television program, which explains this is the notion of an America controlled by Hitler, you get that context. On the train, seeing the American flag paired with a Nazi symbol is viscerally offensive because there is no context as to what it means. The fact that the flag is spread across the seats only compounds the effect."

Except the prominent poster right there for the show  itself?

I read this book, alternate history SF is not a new premise ( well maybe it was when PKD wrote the story) i rather liked the book myself.

but I am not paying amazon for the "privilege" of watching their show.

Syfy is showing their take on Childhood End on starting Dec14th in a 3 part mini series.if they stick to the story it should be pretty good.

wonder if they have wrapped  subway cars with the image of "aliens" from that series yet?
 

 

 

 

[AkemiAzula 280]

I have long held certain aspects of 'fascism' to be pretty, such as uniforms and salutes etc. I think the swastika is a pretty symbol whether in the nazi manner or not, it is simple but powerful.

The flags are not ugly, heck I reckon the actual American flag is a bit meh what with all those stars. But having every seat painted with a flag?

Not only is it an ineffective advertisement, why not just replace the American flag on the side of the cars that already exists, or give a train a livery change if but panels not full carriage sprays. But it is also distasteful.

I like fascism in some ways and think the flags and ideals of nazis and romans have their prettyness, but Hitler would find this distasteful.

You don't plaster every square inch with flags. Flags are special revered objects, idols of ones nationality. To sit on a flag... is distasteful.

I would have just added some panels to the sides of the cars like 'reichstransit wagner avenue line' or something with prominent swastikas at carriage centre and a flag replacing the US one where there already is one.

Pity the redbirds are deadbirds, as then you could with panels have red white and black nazi colors without a full car spray. Also they had flat sides before the graffiti took over.

Sorry if I rambled but I have a penchant for trains and fascism. I find both agreeable and pretty.

At any rate if they wanted to offend people they could just have the disabled seats stamped with stars of david. Yes I have a dark humour.

[Duke87 1,070]

However - my biggest problem with this campaign is how wasted, in-your-face it is. The 42nd St Shuttle only has two stations and a limited number of trains -- instead of having to choose whether your bottom ought to rest on a badly-changed American Nazi flag or the flag of the rising sun, why not go all out: Change the signage of stations and trains to match the aesthetics of the series, using the ad space sparingly as a split 'in-series' ad (celebrating Nazi visit or something like that) and Amazon Prime information. Presto, people will know the series and the creator, as well as getting a glimpse of life as it might have been (maybe staff wearing more uniformy uniforms as well...)

The MTA would not do this because... well, because they're a government bureaucracy. The 42nd Street shuttle trains routinely get wrapped inside and out with advertising like this, but it is the only place in the system the MTA is willing to do that much.

Bear in mind as well that this is very tourist-heavy territory, outright redoing everything as a mockup would probably confuse a lot of people.

 

Another interesting bit of background here: there have been some people blasting the MTA for allowing these ads to run, but they have no choice. The MTA used to have a policy against ads that were deemed racist, sexist, etc.-ist. A few years ago they rejected some provocative ads referring to Israel's enemies as "savage" on these grounds and the group seeking to run them filed a lawsuit saying that their first amendment right to free speech/press was being violated. The courts agreed with them and told the MTA they had to run the ads and revise their policy.

More recently the MTA attempted to block a new set of ads from the same group on the grounds they might incite violence, and the courts smacked them again.

If the MTA had refused to run the ads for this show and gotten sued, they inevitably would have lost. Their hands are tied.

The issue here is that since subway trains are public property, the government agency responsible for them is not allowed to block anyone from running ads which are protected free speech under the first amendment. If you can legally say it or display it on your property, you can legally run an advertisement in the subway showing it.

 

As for the ads themselves, I do find it somewhat amusing that the version of the flag on the train used an iron cross instead of a swastika, in a cheap attempt to make it less overtly provocative by using a symbol that is not as widely recognized. And I don't see what the big deal is. The subway in New York has featured graphic and gross anti-smoking and anti-obesity ads which no one made them pull. If people can deal with that, they should be able to deal with a few Nazi symbols used in a non-Godwin's law context.

Meanwhile, the ads have been pulled on King Governor Cuomo's orders.
 

[krbe 193]

 The MTA would not do this because... well, because they're a government bureaucracy. The 42nd Street shuttle trains routinely get wrapped inside and out with advertising like this, but it is the only place in the system the MTA is willing to do that much.

Bear in mind as well that this is very tourist-heavy territory, outright redoing everything as a mockup would probably confuse a lot of people.

I realise that, but I still think it'd be a fantastic idea. Not ground level; but as soon as you got down it'd lead you to another time and place. With two stations on the entire line it'd be the perfect place to test stuff (both commercially as a setting and for the MTA itself). As for being a 'tourist heavy territory' the shuttle could just as well be the one place and a destination in itself if it was known as such a place. For those who use it every day it would of course not be any trouble.

  Edited November 27, 2015 by krbe  

[Sabretooth78 808]

"On the television program, which explains this is the notion of an America controlled by Hitler, you get that context. On the train, seeing the American flag paired with a Nazi symbol is viscerally offensive because there is no context as to what it means. The fact that the flag is spread across the seats only compounds the effect."

And yet, some people in this country, perhaps even some who complained about this advertising, are considering voting for Donald Trump.  Those who refuse to learn from history...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The Donald fits the dictionary description of a mountebank

"Never smile at a crocodile.
"Never tip your hat and stop to talk a while.
"Don't be taken in by his welcome grin.
"He's imagining how well you fit within his skin."
                 -- Disney song from Peter Pan.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I find it odd that the same people who argue that the people who say that Wilson was a racist and that the university shouldn't have named a building after him are politically correct cry babies, are now complaining about a show using 'offensive' advertising. 

What has changed? Well the imagery this show draws upon is inspired by the Third Reich and the Third Reich killed mostly white people, so thats offensive. 

The double standards here are unbelievable. You start a movement that mostly kills white people, and that movement and its iconography is forever unacceptable, tasteless and offensive. Start a movement that kills black people, and people will defend its iconography with claims that the movement was misunderstood, stands for historical heritage, pride in said heritage or it happened to long ago for us to pass judgement on it. 

[krbe 193]

he Third Reich killed mostly white people, so thats offensive.

I'm pretty sure you've heard of the concept of Untermenschen, and I'm also pretty sure you are aware that Europe had its population of Jews, Gypsies and Slavs, whereas American mostly had black slaves.

Then, if you really want to be intellectually honest about what you're putting forward, you can think long and hard about the difference between death factories such as Auschwitz and Treblinka and a plantation economy. When you have run the figures and made sure just how expendable slaves were in comparison to Untermenschen, you may want to change your answer?

I for one wonder how America manage to have a black population of 15.2% when evidently they are on the same team as the Reich. Is it just inefficiency that made America lose in that league?

[LexusInfernus 908]

I'm pretty sure you've heard of the concept of Untermenschen, and I'm also pretty sure you are aware that Europe had its population of Jews, Gypsies and Slavs, whereas American mostly had black slaves.

Then, if you really want to be intellectually honest about what you're putting forward, you can think long and hard about the difference between death factories such as Auschwitz and Treblinka and a plantation economy. When you have run the figures and made sure just how expendable slaves were in comparison to Untermenschen, you may want to change your answer?

I for one wonder how America manage to have a black population of 15.2% when evidently they are on the same team as the Reich. Is it just inefficiency that made America lose in that league?

The fact that Europe didn't have that many black people living there for the Nazis to murder doesn't change the fact that they mostly killed white people. 

And perhaps you should consider the question you are asking. You want me to compare a system that turned murder into an industrialized process and employed it against certain minorities against a system that turned people into marketable commodities, kidnapped them from their homes, transported them to another continent like they were cattle and sold them to people and treated them, even after they were liberated from slavery, as lesser human beings and this went on for more than 3,5 centuries and who still feel the effects of that system to this very day. I see no point in comparing the two because both are absolutely awful systems, both are examples of humanity at its worst, picking one and saying its 'objectively worse' is idiotic.  

Which also means I will not change my answer, because people here act outraged over the use of iconography of one group of scumbags, but are fine or even defend the use of iconography of the other group of scumbags. That indicates a massive double standard. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

How on earth did this devolve into discussing racism?  Playing the race card is a distraction indicating that someone has run out of things to say that are relevant to the topic.

[LexusInfernus 908]

No one is discussing racism, I'm including slavery and segregation both of which are political systems and government policies, to make a point about double standards.

  Edited November 30, 2015 by LexusInfernus  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The world is full of double standards.  Listen to the nonsense that The Donald is spouting.

[raynev1 1,887]

   To get back on topic about offensive advertising . Unrelated to the article cited above , but still about offensive advertising . My girlfriend and I were watching something on the ABC Family network a few weeks ago . It was a movie , the title escapes me at the moment. But anyhow , the first advertisement ten to twelve minutes into the program was about women's undergarments . The same commercial must have aired a half a dozen times before the movie had ended . My girlfriend says , "what a family channel" , she got very offended and I don't really blame her . Why would she want to see a woman posing in bra . Now if we were watching this film with children present , I too may had been a bit upset . I don't think children need to be exposed to nearly naked people parading around .

   Children tend to do what they see . 50 years ago or so little boys and even girls use to play Cowboys and Indians . 30 years ago they played Cops and Robbers . Now they play Porn stars . Why ? Because they stay up all night watching late night television or cable , you know like HBO or Showtime . Even free broadcasting has gotten quite trashy in my opinion , yet people act as though we are wrong for thinking that way .

   Then people don't know why they can't keep conservative clothing on their 13-15 year old daughter or why their 16-18 year old son has a couple of children to different girls but don't have a job to support them . I just don't understand . 

   Anybody else have the same feelings about the content , that children have at their fingertips ? Or is it just me ?

 

[MintberryCrunch 83]

   To get back on topic about offensive advertising . Unrelated to the article cited above , but still about offensive advertising . My girlfriend and I were watching something on the ABC Family network a few weeks ago . It was a movie , the title escapes me at the moment. But anyhow , the first advertisement ten to twelve minutes into the program was about women's undergarments . The same commercial must have aired a half a dozen times before the movie had ended . My girlfriend says , "what a family channel" , she got very offended and I don't really blame her . Why would she want to see a woman posing in bra . Now if we were watching this film with children present , I too may had been a bit upset . I don't think children need to be exposed to nearly naked people parading around .

   Children tend to do what they see . 50 years ago or so little boys and even girls use to play Cowboys and Indians . 30 years ago they played Cops and Robbers . Now they play Porn stars . Why ? Because they stay up all night watching late night television or cable , you know like HBO or Showtime . Even free broadcasting has gotten quite trashy in my opinion , yet people act as though we are wrong for thinking that way .

   Then people don't know why they can't keep conservative clothing on their 13-15 year old daughter or why their 16-18 year old son has a couple of children to different girls but don't have a job to support them . I just don't understand . 

   Anybody else have the same feelings about the content , that children have at their fingertips ? Or is it just me ?

 

Obviously this is getting off topic, but just thought I'd chime in. Keep in mind I'm a teenager, so take what I say with a grain of salt. 

First of all, I've never heard of young kids playing "porn stars", but maybe we don't do that here in L.A. (Should also note that if something's not done in L.A., then it's not done anywhere--"anything goes" here). 

Yes, I do think that there's too much sexualization in the media and that especially girls are pressured to be "sexy" and obsessed with appearances too early and that kind of thing doesn't help at all. But the problem of teen pregnancy and all that is a complicated issue and can't just be blamed on television and the media. Furthermore, what parent allows their young kid watch HBO late at night? Parents have to step in too. They can't just let their kids do whatever they want and then blame the media for how they turn out. The kids I know who have the most problems almost always have had bad relationships with their parents: divorce, absent parents, alcoholic parents, etc. (Economic factors play a role as well). 

My parents are involved, but not overbearing. I know it's not impossible to be that way--I experience it. They're not perfect, but they've done a great job. 

  Edited December 1, 2015 by MintberryCrunch  

[AkemiAzula 280]

I don't think a girl in underclothing in itself is offensive, any more than a boy in shorts or a naked dog or a tree.

But I do think sexualizing is a cultural problem. Not only does it make girls into objects but it is vulgar and makes being stupid and simple popular.

People grow up wanting to have sexual relationships and become a rockstar instead of seeking marriage and a career. Sexualisation is similar to junk food and television itself. Cheap easy hedonism for the masses.

Bread and circuses pretty much.

Certainly not an issue that was born in our time but also hardly something to be encouraged any more than ISIS.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It really depends on what one considers offensive.  Of late advertisers have been popping ads up in the 'entertainment' portion of programs in the lower left border of the image.  I consider this an intrusion, even though there is no sound associated with these ads.  Another thing that offends me greatly is repeating an ad more than once in the same commercial break.  I consider this to be a crime against humanity.

The advertising people have always been brash, but this brashness is getting out of hand.  There are getting to be more and more commercial breaks, and the content is repeated so often that it causes me to think about boycotting the advertised products ad infinitum no matter how much I might need the product. 

The most obscene advertising IMHO is the advertising for prescription drugs.  The drug companies have detail men who call on physicians, and lots of advertising in medical journals.  Laying their case before the public requires them to list all the adverse side effects of the drug.  By the time they get through listing all of them, I am generally turned off.  This is a waste of my time and the money spent on such nonsense.

It is about time that the advertising industry stopped playing their ads to the people with IQ below 90.  Only a moron would be taken in my some of the nonsense that fills our airwaves, cable frequencies, and other media.

Children's channels should be free of come-ons for the latest toys, but especially from underwear ads. 

I seriously object also to advertising for contraceptives on any channel at any time.  This is such a private matter that it has no business on the air.  Everyone should please remember that the Trojans lost the battle and the city was devastated.

[LexusInfernus 908]

   To get back on topic about offensive advertising . Unrelated to the article cited above , but still about offensive advertising . My girlfriend and I were watching something on the ABC Family network a few weeks ago . It was a movie , the title escapes me at the moment. But anyhow , the first advertisement ten to twelve minutes into the program was about women's undergarments . The same commercial must have aired a half a dozen times before the movie had ended . My girlfriend says , "what a family channel" , she got very offended and I don't really blame her . Why would she want to see a woman posing in bra . Now if we were watching this film with children present , I too may had been a bit upset . I don't think children need to be exposed to nearly naked people parading around .

Whats wrong with bras? Why would that be offensive? Are breasts offensive and therefor by extension the clothes used to support them? Why would breasts be offensive? Every women has them, they are as natural as arms, legs, eyes or fingers. Why would nakedness be damaging to children? Think of the message that sends, that their bodies, the things they are born with, are somehow offensive, disgusting, unnatural and damaging. Thats one sure way to give kids a very warped view on their own bodies. 

   Children tend to do what they see . 50 years ago or so little boys and even girls use to play Cowboys and Indians . 30 years ago they played Cops and Robbers . Now they play Porn stars . Why ? Because they stay up all night watching late night television or cable , you know like HBO or Showtime . Even free broadcasting has gotten quite trashy in my opinion , yet people act as though we are wrong for thinking that way .

No kid ever plays 'porn star'. Literally no one does that. Anyone that tells you kids do that is lying to your face. 

   Then people don't know why they can't keep conservative clothing on their 13-15 year old daughter or why their 16-18 year old son has a couple of children to different girls but don't have a job to support them . I just don't understand . 

   Anybody else have the same feelings about the content , that children have at their fingertips ? Or is it just me ?

That has nothing to do with the media and everything to do with the fact that people turned sex into some sort of forbidden fruit. They tell kids not to ever have sex unless they are married and then never to use condoms or the pill because that stuff supposedly doesn't work. They tell kids all kinds of lies about how awful sex outside of marriage is. Not that this ever stops teens from trying it because hormones are not so easily impressed by blatant scaremongering nonsense. But because they weren't taught how to have sex in a safe manner, they end up pregnant or sick. 

Its a very simple comparison, compare the rates of teen pregnancy and STD's in areas that teach abstinence only to the areas that teach actual sexual education. The damning conclusion is that in places where sexual education is actually taught, STD rates and teen pregnancy rates are much much lower. Basically, the better you inform children about sex, the less problems sex causes. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Some of this conversation makes me think of this skit:

[MintberryCrunch 83]

Additionally, in the days of streaming and TiVO and all that (not to mention AdBlock for internet ads), I think TV ads are becoming less relevant. 50 years ago, they also used to blatantly advertise cigarettes to kids on TV. It's not like everything was golden back then. 

Also @A Nonny Moose I also read a recent news story about a call for prescription drug ads to no longer be shown on TV. It would be interesting if that actually happened. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There is nothing wrong with ads for brassieres in the right setting.  Human anatomy is part of living, and nudes of either sex don't bother me at all.  What does bother me is that the advertising world is using the basic human sex drive to sell products that have nothing to do with sex.

[raynev1 1,887]

@MintberryCrunch It seems your parents have done a fine job . When you said "Furthermore, what parent allows their young kid watch HBO late at night? Parents have to step in too. " Many parents seem to have blinders on , and assume their children wouldn't behave that way. That said , I agree that parents need to step in. But there are many under educated people out there , and don't understand rating systems the networks use . Also you said "The kids I know who have the most problems almost always have had bad relationships with their parents: divorce, absent parents, alcoholic parents, etc. (Economic factors play a role as well)" . That seems to be the biggest factor I believe . Not to mention a single parent has a lot on their plate with trying to raise a child today . 

@LexusInfernus I noticed in many topics you tend to propose arguments with facts . Well you said , "No kid ever plays 'porn star'. Literally no one does that. Anyone that tells you kids do that is lying to your face." . I beg to differ , is this a lie ? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/third-graders-oral-sex-tallulah-elementary-school_n_1375399.html . So I presented fact . And the same kind of act occurred on a school bus with middle school students in my hometown . And I know it to be true , because it just so happened to involve my nephew's daughter sad to say . Oh , and by the way my nephew is a single parent holding down two jobs to support his children . Just because it doesn't all make mainstream media ,doesn't mean it is not happening . You also said "Whats wrong with bras? Why would that be offensive? Are breasts offensive and therefor by extension the clothes used to support them?" I'm not offended , but some people are raised with different morals and I respect that . And I wouldn't be very happy if I had my girlfriend's grandchildren on the sofa watching "Despicable Me" , a cartoon at that being interrupted by a bra commercial . Not to mention again , it came on a half a dozen times before the movie had ended . And you said "They tell kids all kinds of lies about how awful sex outside of marriage is. Not that this ever stops teens from trying it because hormones are not so easily impressed by blatant scaremongering nonsense." I'm saying hormones are being aroused a bit prematurely with so much skin being flashed in these children's faces today .

@A Nonny Moose I have to agree with "The advertising people have always been brash, but this brashness is getting out of hand.  There are getting to be more and more commercial breaks, and the content is repeated so often that it causes me to think about boycotting the advertised products ad infinitum no matter how much I might need the product." Yeah , the same ad repeating multiple times and even back to back is very annoying to me too . Especially the ones for those prescription drugs . All those side effects . And your doctor feels the benefit outweighs the side effects , really . Or is it he/she has stocks in the product ? And needs to build up a good retirement account . I don't know why prescription drug abuse is running so rampant here in the US . It's so bad here where I live , that the President had to pay a visit here to make a statement about it . 

Sorry for this huge post , just felt the need to get it off my chest . Maybe all these advertisements are some sort of subliminal messaging perhaps . 

[LexusInfernus 908]

@LexusInfernus I noticed in many topics you tend to propose arguments with facts . Well you said , "No kid ever plays 'porn star'. Literally no one does that. Anyone that tells you kids do that is lying to your face." . I beg to differ , is this a lie ? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/third-graders-oral-sex-tallulah-elementary-school_n_1375399.html . So I presented fact . And the same kind of act occurred on a school bus with middle school students in my hometown . And I know it to be true , because it just so happened to involve my nephew's daughter sad to say . Oh , and by the way my nephew is a single parent holding down two jobs to support his children . Just because it doesn't all make mainstream media ,doesn't mean it is not happening . You also said "Whats wrong with bras? Why would that be offensive? Are breasts offensive and therefor by extension the clothes used to support them?" I'm not offended , but some people are raised with different morals and I respect that . And I wouldn't be very happy if I had my girlfriend's grandchildren on the sofa watching "Despicable Me" , a cartoon at that being interrupted by a bra commercial . Not to mention again , it came on a half a dozen times before the movie had ended . And you said "They tell kids all kinds of lies about how awful sex outside of marriage is. Not that this ever stops teens from trying it because hormones are not so easily impressed by blatant scaremongering nonsense." I'm saying hormones are being aroused a bit prematurely with so much skin being flashed in these children's faces today .

Kids having sex is not the same as them 'playing pornstars'. And while such incidents do happen on occasion its not like such things happen on a very regular basis or is something a lot of children do. 

And again, why would it be bad if children saw a bra commercial? How is that any worse than them seeing a commercial for jeans or cars? What makes bras so much worse than any other advertised product? What are the inherent qualities of a bra that do this? 

Finally, no, hormones are not 'aroused prematurely' because so much skin is visible, thats not how biology works. On top of that, controlling teenagers sexuality has never worked. Abstinence only programs try it and the results are clear, the areas where such programs are used have more teenage pregnancies and more wide spread STD rates than areas that don't bother with trying to control teens sexuality. 

  Edited December 1, 2015 by LexusInfernus  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Teen aged children going through puberty are always tempted to experiment with sex.  However, some communities are fairly successful in suppressing getting a home run, so to speak.  In fact the communities that don't succeed very well are largely responsible for the plethora of single mothers, deadbeat dads, and bastard children wandering around our society.

One of the most important things that can be impressed on impetuous boys that society (should) consider them responsible for any illegitimate offspring.  Yes, I know it takes two to tangle, but the more importunate is usually the male and the urging of not only hormones but peer pressure.  One of the things that need to be impressed on all pubescent children is the cost (morally and fiscally) of that roll in the hay with honey.  If kids must sew wild oats, they might not get back the oat cake they were expecting.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

1. Nothing offends me besides people who stubbornly hold onto untrue (outdated, inaccurate, biased, or the like) beliefs that shape their lives and impact the lives of those they interact with. No jokes, advertisements, etc can ever cross any of my lines since I have none for input (I exercise extreme caution for output).

2. The culture of the current civilization has been on a steadily worsening (quadratic, not linear) decline since the mid 20th Century. Innovations in medicine, laws, and the STEM fields are the only things pushing us forward.

[Easy Bakes 253]

@LexusInfernus I noticed in many topics you tend to propose arguments with facts . Well you said , "No kid ever plays 'porn star'. Literally no one does that. Anyone that tells you kids do that is lying to your face." . I beg to differ , is this a lie ? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/third-graders-oral-sex-tallulah-elementary-school_n_1375399.html . So I presented fact . And the same kind of act occurred on a school bus with middle school students in my hometown . And I know it to be true , because it just so happened to involve my nephew's daughter sad to say . Oh , and by the way my nephew is a single parent holding down two jobs to support his children . Just because it doesn't all make mainstream media ,doesn't mean it is not happening . You also said "Whats wrong with bras? Why would that be offensive? Are breasts offensive and therefor by extension the clothes used to support them?" I'm not offended , but some people are raised with different morals and I respect that . And I wouldn't be very happy if I had my girlfriend's grandchildren on the sofa watching "Despicable Me" , a cartoon at that being interrupted by a bra commercial . Not to mention again , it came on a half a dozen times before the movie had ended . And you said "They tell kids all kinds of lies about how awful sex outside of marriage is. Not that this ever stops teens from trying it because hormones are not so easily impressed by blatant scaremongering nonsense." I'm saying hormones are being aroused a bit prematurely with so much skin being flashed in these children's faces today .

Kids having sex is not the same as them 'playing pornstars'. And while such incidents do happen on occasion its not like such things happen on a very regular basis or is something a lot of children do. 

And again, why would it be bad if children saw a bra commercial? How is that any worse than them seeing a commercial for jeans or cars? What makes bras so much worse than any other advertised product? What are the inherent qualities of a bra that do this? 

Finally, no, hormones are not 'aroused prematurely' because so much skin is visible, thats not how biology works. On top of that, controlling teenagers sexuality has never worked. Abstinence only programs try it and the results are clear, the areas where such programs are used have more teenage pregnancies and more wide spread STD rates than areas that don't bother with trying to control teens sexuality. 

probably no worse then the overwhelming number of ads for boner pills.

 

[MintberryCrunch 83]

^Ugh, love when one of those comes on while I'm watching TV with my parents -_- 

[AkemiAzula 280]

Attitudes to sexuality are naturally diverse through timespace but my personal attitude in a nutshell is that sex is fast becoming a vestigial activity and the plethora of embellishments that grow from this basic drive are as tasteful or useful as adding new decorations to a temple to an ancient god.

My parents split before I was born and both by choice were unemployed throughout my childhood. I learnt about sex before I learnt times tables and simple arithmetic.

When I was four I first liked a girl who happened to be a teenager. I remember asking her to take off her jeans...

When I was seven and living at a trailer park I almost engaged in sexual activity with another kid but we were discovered.

I through my intelligent cunning avoided the desires of a priest who liked me.

Then before I turned ten I fell in love with a girl only half a year older than me. We kissed on the lips and it was a thousand times better than an orgasm. It was not a hedonistic laugh but a romantic act.

So her parents had to move across the continent as her father worked in the navy. Her parents didnt let her read my letters to her...

So despite growing up in poverty and surrounded by the culture that comes with that I became before puberty a very tasteful and polite person and never engaged in sexual activity.

I would never dream of doing so without marrying.

As to the media I was exposed to, suffice it to say that as early as four I can remember my neighbour and mother drinking and watching porn while I was in the room. 

I do not approve of restricting access to knowledge or restricting debate, but I have always found sex culture to be ugly, no better than toilet humour or ethnic jokes.

Advertising exists purely for capital gain. As such I never liked any advertising, however pretty. It is distracting and mostly brain shrinking... like much capitalist products...