• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

The Most American Thing. Ever.

Status
Not open for further replies.
cfives said:
While I do not feel that the bikini model was particularly egregious for advertising, or even the main selling point of the ad. However, having a scantily clad actor in an ad without any dialog, really does embody objectification, IMO.
Click to expand...

It may be that you are not fully understating the meaning of what objectification is. The logical fallacy that more and more people fall into these days is the assumption that using sex to sell things is objectification. It is not, and using sex to sell is not a negative social practice. For example, you make an add where a megahot model introduces herself, uses a sultry voice, speaks about her personal experience with a product while undressing. She explains how she felt while using the product, and gets completely naked in the process of telling you that it is an amazing product and you should totally buy it so you can enjoy it, just like her, that is not objectification. It is overtly sexual, but not degrading or dehumanizing.

Objectification, which is socially negative, is the practice of presenting a person in a way that dehumanizes them and reduces their value in said presentation as an object less than human, while presenting their human value such as sexuality or identity. The presentation of said person reduces them to an object of lust or anger or whatever is meant to be portrayed in the presentation, without any acknowledgement of that person’s humanity, reducing them to the status of an object. A perfect example would be the aforementioned infamous Paris Hilton Car Wash Carl’s Junior ad.

This ad portrays a woman with a name, an identity, a relationship to the viewers, and describes her as a professional at what she is doing. It simply is not objectification by any rational description of the term. The only person being objectified in the video is the Bull Rider, who is presented as a nameless object of, “Yee Haw,” that is not humanized in any identifiable fashion.

Melissa said:
I love how you go from one point to another and connect them as if it were true.
You are kind of a master of words.
Click to expand...

Thanks? I mean, it is easy in this case, because they are.
 
Last edited:
Eldritch said:
You are falling into the same trap of suggesting that using attractive people to promote things is objectification. That is simply not what that is.

Now, the Paris Hilton CJ's commercial, THAT was blatant objectification. In this one, the female participant, is named, given an identity, recognized that her appearance is professional in nature, is not degraded in any way (no classic dumb model persona) and is not gratuitously sexualized. SHe isn't even being diet shamed, because she is shown eating total fatty garbage for fun.

It simply is not that. Suggesting that it is, is to dive into that lunatic fringe of feminism that suggests women who wear make up and look like the woman in the video is somehow inherently oppressive to women. The feminazis who say that women shaving their legs is somehow degrading.
Click to expand...

What you're talking about is the equivalent of a tiny legal disclaimer that's not even legible, willy wonka etcetera etcetera kind of thing. Maybe ever so slightly technically correct, but their audience sees titties and burgers and *most important* they know the audience sees tities and burgers and that's where the objectification occurs. That knowledge voids the etcetera etcetera. I actually think you're falling into the trap of believing what they want you to believe and ignoring what they want you to ignore.
 
Eldritch said:
Thanks? I mean, it is easy in this case, because they are.
Click to expand...

You have jumped to a conclusion that is incorrect. Incorrect because in your mind the 2 issues are connected and incorrect because as I just did, you appear to have no consideration for my opinion.

It's difficult carrying on a discussion with an individual who is not "woke"
 
HappyHighwayman said:
This commercial seems more like parody than objectification.
Click to expand...

It's not one or the other though. The comedic/self-parody aspect doesn't change the titties/burger relationship for the bulk of the audience. Again, this is about perspectives, because I don't think the impact of objectification fully applies to you. For you, this is like a gust of wind that takes you from 75mph to 74.9mph and then you right back up to 75 again, but with the average idiot American, it's a full stop at bonertown and they know it. The objectification lies within that knowledge.
 
byke said:
It's not one or the other though. The comedic/self-parody aspect doesn't change the titties/burger relationship for the bulk of the audience. Again, this is about perspectives, because I don't think the impact of objectification fully applies to you. For you, this is like a gust of wind that takes you from 75mph to 74.9mph and then you right back up to 75 again, but with the average idiot American, it's a full stop at bonertown and they know it. The objectification lies within that knowledge.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm too ignorant of that slice of society. Willfully ignorant perhaps.
 
byke said:
What you're talking about is the equivalent of a tiny legal disclaimer that's not even legible, willy wonka etcetera etcetera kind of thing. Maybe ever so slightly technically correct, but their audience sees titties and burgers and *most important* they know the audience sees tities and burgers and that's where the objectification occurs. That knowledge voids the etcetera etcetera. I actually think you're falling into the trap of believing what they want you to believe and ignoring what they want you to ignore.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Precision of language DOES matter, because specific language invokes specific social reference. Using imprecise language undermines the rational value of a statement. A great example would be all the people these days who say that the current Republican hostility towards Latin American immigrants is, "Racist," when that is impossible, because, "Latin" is not a race.

Melissa said:
It's difficult carrying on a discussion with an individual who is not "woke"
Click to expand...

Wow. It is difficult for my programming to even respond with a rational analysis of that statement. Allow me to be succinct in telling you that individual perspective is meaningless, reality is a binary equation, no one deserves individual validation, all personal experiences are meaningless outside the mind of those who had said experiences, and leave it at that.
 
Eldritch said:
Not at all. Precision of language DOES matter, because specific language invokes specific social reference. Using imprecise language undermines the rational value of a statement. A great example would be all the people these days who say that the current Republican hostility towards Latin American immigrants is, "Racist," when that is impossible, because, "Latin" is not a race.
Click to expand...

And like I said, I think you may be technically correct, just not when it comes to the impact of the commercial to the masses and they know that and knowing that is where the objectification comes from, imo. I don't think the objectification exists for you.
 
I believe that individual perspective is very meaningful. It allows depth in a conversation about something that includes data and interpretation. We are not robots nor have we been replaced by them.
yet.
 
HappyHighwayman said:
America didn't invent the hamburger
Click to expand...

Britain did not invent curry but they have tikka masala as their national dish.


Also I really want to try the burger. Chips in a burger actually work well. I dunno about the hot dog though, but only one way to find out.
 
Eldritch said:
Not at all. Precision of language DOES matter, because specific language invokes specific social reference. Using imprecise language undermines the rational value of a statement. A great example would be all the people these days who say that the current Republican hostility towards Latin American immigrants is, "Racist," when that is impossible, because, "Latin" is not a race.



Wow. It is difficult for my programming to even respond with a rational analysis of that statement. Allow me to be succinct in telling you that individual perspective is meaningless, reality is a binary equation, no one deserves individual validation, all personal experiences are meaningless outside the mind of those who had said experiences, and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

barf's Karl Hungus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top