Sexy pot ads provoke debate over medical marijuana goals

[The Straight Story]

Sexy pot ads provoke debate over medical marijuana goals


In 2009, as Los Angeles' booming medical marijuana economy inspired an emerald city of weed, Vanessa Sahagun found a business opportunity as "Chacha Vavoom," maven of the 420 Nurses.

Chacha and her "nurses" became a pot culture phenomenon. They savored bong hits on YouTube, modeled skimpy outfits to promote marijuana dispensaries – and stirred young men at medical pot shows teeming with sexual imagery.

"I was proud I was opening up a market creating 'green jobs' for these ladies," said Sahagun, 25.

But now, the sexual marketing of medical marijuana – with racy promotions that often trump the beer industry's swimsuit models – is at the center of an uncomfortable debate in the medicinal cannabis community.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/28/4083460/sexy-pot-ads-provoke-debate-over.html

[truedelphi]

1. Oh Please. I had a Big Pharma rep as a roommate once.

She dressed up like Dolly Parton, and complained about how if she didn't wear bras that thrust her breasts skyward, she could lose her job.

Show me a frumpy, fifty year old matron who is a Big Phara rep, and I will eat my shirt.

BTW, my roommate became addicted to the samples - which I have heard is a very common occurrence.

Sex sells everything - from cars to computers, to motor oil.

Are we to ban all products that have used sex to sell?

[redqueen]

3. No, don't ban the products. Ban the objectification in ads.

Norway and Denmark have already done it. I can't wait for it to catch on.

[truedelphi]

4. OH I would love it too.

It annoys me no end that it is teenage girls in every ad in the magazines. Even the wrinkle removal ads.

But what I dislike is the notion that the Med Marijuana industry is being abhorrent for doing something every other industry does.

[redqueen]

5. I read it as them wanting to be extra careful in image management...

due to the obvious stigma associated with it, the fact that voters didn't support recreational use, etc.

I think anyone who uses such tactics is abhorrent, but I've become completely intolerant of this stuff now.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. It's about 'toning it down', obviously.

Really, we should end the charade, and legalize it for consenting adults. You know, similar to the way that consenting adults can look at pictures of other consenting adults fucking. :think:

[redqueen]

25. .

[Major Nikon]

112. The thinkpol is working on that one too

It's just a matter of time.

[Taverner]

11. Oh brother, here we go again...

:eyes:

And you say you're anti-censorship...

[Warren DeMontague]

13. I thought it was about 'education', not 'banning'?

Guess not.

[redqueen]

21. Pornography != objectification in advertising.

FFS.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Oh, okay. So you're NOT in favor of banning "porn", just 'objectification in ads'

what about ads for porn?

How would such a 'ban' work in the US, specifically, particularly given that pesky 1st Amendment?

[redqueen]

23. We put restrictions on all kinds of ads. (nt)

[Upton]

24. Oh, so now it's "restrictions", huh?

why don't you just stop playing word games and come out and tell us all what you are really for...CENSORSHIP..of any and all images you don't approve of.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

79. "I don't know what objectifying is.....

.....I just know it when I see it!"

:rofl:

[redqueen]

81. Who doesn't know what it is?

People who can't stop being disingenuous about their understanding of fairly basic concepts on a message board in order to avoid being thoughtful and perhaps reconsidering their privileged viewpoint?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

88. No, you've made a decision and formed an opinion as to what is....

....that you expect everyone to agree with, not be "thoughtful" about. But first you'd parse through every scenario, story and picture like a moral arbiter, saying "That's ok.....that's ok.....that's borderline......that wrong!"

Why should I accept your opinion anymore than I'd accept John Ashcroft's or Tipper Gore's?

[redqueen]

89. Since this conversation originated when I mentioned the laws

in Norway and Denmark, then logic would dictate that the definition in question is the one used by those countries.

This really isn't that complicated. Are you intentionally trying to muddy the waters, or is it accidental?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

92. Trust the government to define those things?

Not on anyone's life. And especially with the group in Congress now.

It's still arbitrary and subjective. Someone has to make those decisions. Why should I trust them?

I'm sorry if you think what I said is complicated. I know pretending to be obtuse is a rhetorical device for you when you're presented with something you can't answer.

[redqueen]

93. Are you not trusting them to define discrimination?

This makes no sense. So you don't trust the government, so we shouldn't let them pass any laws?

Or is it (more logically, of course) that even as badly as they may define things like 'consumer protection', the laws we have are better than no laws at all?

You're all over the map trying to twist this conversation into whatever vague concepts you seem to think are worth discussing. It'd be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

As for pretending to be obtuse, that's quite rich coming from someone who can't seem to comprehend the difference between the origin of objectification and how it relates to porn vs. laws in Norway and Denmark about very specific advertising practices.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

95. There are plenty of folks who would wish to defund....

....the National Endowment for the Arts who would agree with your call for more laws on the concept of "objectification". By any means necessary, after all.

I'm asking you to think who you are crawling into bed with. You consistently ignore that these people exist and that they often fall in line with your viewpoints.

I'd argue that the concept of discrimination or consumer protection is easier to define than what you consider objectification.....but also a concept that must be allowed to evolve over time through trial and error. I fear laws on objectification in a sexually puritanical society such as ours would lead to more "Cover the statue" moments. We are not Denmark. Maybe they can handle this by keeping the religious nutjobs in check. I don't care what they do. I care about here.

[redqueen]

96. Do you sincerely believe that Norway and Denmark are in bed with the far right?

Really?

REALLY?

I'm 'crawling into bed' with some of the most progressive countries in the world.

Seriously. Think about this. This isn't about covering up art. This is about curtailing the ability of advertisers to use sexualized images (women and men, but women are overrepresented by a 5:1 margin here) to sell products.

This isn't about art. This is about capitalism. This is about the portrayal of women in the media, and the way we view each other as human beings (or, you know, not).

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

97. Didn't say that.....guess you are being obtuse again or just can't read thru your vitriol

....I'm saying that maybe those countries can manage to keep the crackpots out of it. We can't. I'm asking you to address the people you are going to be crawling into bed with in this country if you want this to be reality....not elsewhere.

However, considering those countries are more and more dealing with an influx of conservative to far-right religious politics......I'd be fearful of how far they will end up stretching those laws to cover art. The foundation has been laid for them by the well-meaning.

[redqueen]

99. Again, not making sense.

So we're not supposed to make any new laws because of the crackpots?

As for your speculation about the far right in those countries and pre-emptive worrying about their art, you'd have to take that up with them.

I'm not in the habit of refusing to take a progressive stance on an issue or not advocating for progressive laws about them because of some nebulous idea that 'maybe the bad people will do something bad'.

At one point I might have thought that such issues deserved more than just a reflexive dismissal, especially on a progressive message board.

[Major Nikon]

113. I don't

Not until they include a basis for sexual orientation and remove loopholes and exceptions that allow employers to get away with discrimination by placing too high a burden on complainants.

But really, your comparison is about obfuscation. Discrimination is cut and dried as far as cause and effect goes. A child could understand it. Sexual objectification comes out of so-called feminist 'theory' which is no more of a theory than creationism. It's simply an idea that doesn't pass muster when cause and effect relationships are tested.

[Warren DeMontague]

101. "objectification" is a bullshit term that DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.

there, I said it.

[redqueen]

102. Yes. Two of the most progressive countries in the world

have passed laws regarding a bullshit, meaningless term. Because that's what progressive people do.

Of course.

[Warren DeMontague]

104. So EVERY LAW that Denmark passes makes sense, then?

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/denmark

And how's that law gonna work here?

Who is going to be in charge of determining what constitutes "objectification"?

[Warren DeMontague]

107. They could pass a law mandating that people clean up their unicorn turds

it wouldn't make unicorns real.

[Major Nikon]

114. Laws result from public opinion, which is often wrong

The two countries you mentioned have very conservative laws when it comes to offending groups of people. They banned certain types of ads out of a desire to be overly sensitive to certain groups at the expense of freedom of expression. It had nothing to do with any sound scientific reasoning. You could also buy teh pron at the corner market in Denmark 40 years ago, and still can. The Danes have no problem with what you would call "objectification." There's still nudity in Danish ads, both male and female, it just has to be relevant to the product to appease the complainers.

Sweden also rejected those very same laws, which pretty much crushes your hopes of expanding to other areas.

[redqueen]

119. Logic.

No, laws don't always follow from public opinion.

No, countries failing to enact progressive policies (yet) doesn't crush 'dreams'... are your 'dreams' crushed because we don't have a govt option for healthcare yet?

Not all forms of objectification are the same. People are refusing to comprehend things, on purpose it seems. I don't want to ban porn. I agree that sexualized images are appropriate in some ads.

This really really really is not as baffling and incomprehensible as some people seem to be doing backflips in order to not understand.

[Major Nikon]

120. Logic seems to be missing

Let me see if I understand you correctly then, you're all for banning ads which might show women in various forms of undress, but not porn? Seems to defy logic.

If any of this were really based on logic, the concept of "objectification" could be proven, and so far it hasn't been. It's simply an idea, and a very poorly supported one at that. So what you really have is some people take offense to something and not only do they not want to see it, but they don't want anyone else to either. That is the essence of censorship. It's based on emotion, and has nothing whatsoever to do with logic.

[redqueen]

121. This is exasperating.

I'm for banning the use of sexualized images to sell products which have nothing at all to do with those images. It's a dehumanization thing.

Porn is not intended to sell products, it's for people who have no imagination to use for masturbation material. It is objectifying of both sexes, but again, for the I don't know how manyth time, it is not the subject of this thread.

Perhaps if you had a better grasp of what you're attempting to discuss you'd be able to comprehend this.

Your refusal to even attempt to understand this very basic concept, which has actually been 'proven'... (FFS, the fact that I am having to explain this shit on this board) ... fucking UGH. I'm really done now, ok?

Seriously. The holocaust? Objectification and dehumanization? Ringing any bells? These concepts aren't vague, nor are they poorly understood.

Read. Then go talk to someone else.

[Major Nikon]

122. Sorry, but I'm going to have to invoke Godwin here

So showing naughty bits on TV = holocaust?

Wow! I've heard some really far out shit about this subject, but this really takes the cake.

Objectification =/ dehumanization. You can't even prove that any of this has any negative impact on anyone, now you want to equate it to the slaughter of 6 million people? Now that is rich. I'm starting to see why you are so staunchly against reasonable debate on this subject.

[snooper2]

65. We went from sexy ads to Porn ROFL ROFL ROFL

That didn't take long :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[redqueen]

70. Some people seem to be obsessed with it. (nt)

[Major Nikon]

76. Obviously, yes

Some are obsessed with it, and some are obsessed against it. Both groups work to the detriment of everyone else.

[Upton]

18. Strange the way the word "ban" always seems to come up

when you're posting on topics involving women and nudity...particularly in light of the fact that you're always denying you are for banning anything..

[Warren DeMontague]

20. no, no one wants to ban

they just want to find societal and legal remediation for the widespread damage and harm caused to women by the availability of erotic pictures of consenting adults nude or fucking, or attractive personages in advertising, following a legislative action plan drawn up by the appropriate womens' studies department 'experts' who have been properly trained in reconditioning heteronormative gender stereotyping and male gaze objectifying harmful imagery in a pardigm-challenging confrontational context...


the fact that such a societal action plan would be functionally indistinguishable from a "ban" does NOT MEAN WE WANT TO BAN ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!


:crazy:

[Upton]

26. It's all the fault of the evil great patriarchy

I'm so ashamed to be a male... :rofl:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

80. Oh...shit

Thanks, I felt like I just went got a PHD in women's studies from Brown and I didn't spend $250,000 for it!

[Texasgal]

27. Why are you all jumping on

Redqueen?

Doesn't it bother you that in order to sell something that Women (in general) must be sexy and half naked to do it?

What does that say about us a society?

[Uncle Joe]

28. It says that we as a society prefer to make decisions based on emotion over logic and reason.

As I posted on another thread, the PTBs know this, and that knowledge aids them in either pulling our strings or pushing the right buttons on all manner of policy, whether it be selling us a product, candidate, war or just down the river.

[Texasgal]

31. How sad that as a society

we cannot seem to use our brains. :(

[RainDog]

35. true. and targeting medical marijuana for men, rather than men and women

undermines the entire issue of medical marijuana.

cannabis is marketed chiefly to males between the ages of 18 and 34, which also happens to be the age and gender that is most inclined to support legalization overall.

if the industry wants to appeal to hetero females (the majority of the female population), the ads with naked females with their tasty bits covered in buds, or conventions with bikini-clad "nurses" providing samples are counterproductive for marketing cannabis as a medicinal product to those females who, other than the elderly and republicans, make up the demographic that is least likely to support legalization.

The medical cannabis industry undercuts its seriousness (and the issue is serious) by mixing the message of recreational and medical cannabis.

If you look at products that are targeted for females for issues of health (not fashion, fashion is recreational too) - the females who represent the product are middle class and clothed and their use of a product increases their ability to nurture their families... at least that's the marketing ploy, whether it's the reality or not.

Personally, I think the recreational cannabis market could target females with campaigns that talk the benefits of cannabis in the same way that some condoms now market themselves to females as sexual enhancement. Those females in those ads have boyfriends or husbands and look like normal people, not exotic dancers.

But if cannabis wants to confine itself to a narrow market, they'll continue doing just what they're doing.

[Texasgal]

38. Yes, I agree!

For the medical marijuana movement to have any legitimacy they need not use this type of advertising.

If advertising is a must, I'd think that having women or men in a clinical setting talking about the medical advantages of marijuana would have greater impact. I guess that's why I am not an advertiser. I am just an RN. :)

[RainDog]

40. if they want to market recreational cannabis to me

they should have a naked guy with an erection playing the saxaphone - playing a song for me, not roaming a convention center. but it needs to be a specific guy, not just any naked saxaphone player. not that this person actually exists irl, but he does in my imagination. well, maybe not totally naked. a pork pie hat would be nice. but no saxaphone strap. that would just be... indecent. oh, and not some Kenny G kinda sax player either. uh-uh, no. like Charlie Parker before he got sidetracked. yeah, that's it. in glorious black and white.

oh, what were we talking about? marketing medical marijuana, right? :)

big difference between what you think about when you want relief from pain and what you want for pleasure.

I think the medical cannabis movement needs an advertisement campaign geared toward providing facts to women. this does nothing for a man's general happiness in the advertising world, but it would do a lot to help legitimize the issue. Including women who have arthritis or who are undergoing chemo, etc. - a focus on women's breasts that shows the studies that indicate CBD eliminates neuropathic pain from certain chemotherapy used for breast cancer, reduction in breast cancer via cannabis... as an alternative to imitrex for migraines, etc. - those are the sorts of things that would stop the alienation of adult females.

now, where was I...

[Texasgal]

41. :)

You make me laugh!!! In a good way.

[RainDog]

42. :)

I hoped that post would communicate what I wanted to get across... thank you for laughing!

[Warren DeMontague]

44. I would not be offended by an ad w/ charlie parker with an erection selling kind bud

just for the record.

[Texasgal]

45. Glad to hear that.

:)

[RainDog]

47. LOL. good to know

but, sorry. that's my personal, uh, direct advertisement, yeah, that's it, just for me. :)

I'm not offended by girls who walk around in bikinis or have their pictures taken with kind bud covering their tasty bits, either but doing so is not effective strategy for marketing medical marijuana to the audience who can most benefit - which is not the 18-35 y/o male demographic.

some women are put off - I'm in the "free speech issue" camp concerning pron but there are legitimate issues around the way females who are not hot young thangs are underrepresented in views of females in society (that said, I used to work at a place that sold specialty pron, so I know there are markets for all kinds of interests.) but the point is that females are underrepresented apart from being fantasy subjects.

Charlie Parker is famous for his talent, not his erection - that's part of the difference in that particular case. Kim K. is famous for being a body. I know some men are, too. those men aren't interesting to me either, tho and so using them wouldn't be a good marketing strategy for me. generally, tho obviously not always, women are interested in men they'd like to talk to, not just meet for a little horizontal be-bop. I mean, sexy isn't just physical.

it's not so much that females are naked or selling sex to sell products - it's that the marketing is so geared toward males only and geared toward recreational fantasies, not medical use.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. I think it's sort of goofy, personally, and I do think it undercuts the "medical" angle

but since I'm strongly of the opinion that it NEEDS to be legal, regulated, and taxed, I have a little trouble getting too worked up, there--- I suspect that the content of the ads in question- misguided as they may be- have more to do with being in the back pages of your average urban underground weekly than anything else.

As for the rest of it, I'm always of the opinion that the answer to bad speech is good speech, bad music is good music, bad art is good art. I'm all for representations across the spectrum of all sorts of people, genders, orientations, in all sorts of situations and roles. My "fantasy" Presidential Candidate for 2016 right now is Liz Warren, and it has nothing to do with imagining her in lingerie.

[RainDog]

51. me too

I would love to see Liz Warren as the v.p. on the 2012 ticket. Or Russ Feingold.

the reality is that you or I may read the local underground weekly and know that escort services, etc. provide a lot of their ad revenue - but there are a lot of people who find that culture entirely unfamiliar.

and there really is the question whether reputable medical conferences should use advertisements that undermine the seriousness of their claims. that's just the world we live in.

[RainDog]

48. oh, and btw

my fantasy guy was also a sort of laughing at Anslinger's fear-mongering:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

If I had been alive back then, I would've said... hey, where can I find this stuff! :)

[seabeyond]

50. that is easy to say. BUT.. it wont happen. that is the issue. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

52. How about we work to get it legal, regulated, and taxed

and then people can advertise it however the fuck they want? I think the preponderance of quality music that was made in the past 100 years by people who were high at the time is, really, endorsement enough.

[seabeyond]

60. people can always "advertise it however the fuck they want". and other people can call it out

for sexist objectification. and still, the point is, you can say you are all for the use of naked men. and it will. not. happen. mens ego just too damn fragile and it isnt done.

[RainDog]

61. naked men are used for advertisements. one male porn star is very popular with girls

like movie star popular.

http://www.good.is/post/what-women-want

It’s a well-worn cliche that women don’t experience sex visually. So why can’t they take their eyes off James Deen? Clearly, some women do like porn. They just require a little bit more than a disembodied penis to get into it.

...For his teenage fans, James Deen is a window to a world of sexual expression that had previously been no-girls-allowed. For many, it’s an aspect of their sexuality that they’re exploring exclusively on the internet. “I don’t really discuss it at all; it kind of just stays where it’s supposed to, online,” Emily says. She’s since scrubbed the internet of her Deen-related Twitter, Tumblr, and Blogspot accounts.

Kay, 17, knows how to swiftly scroll past a Deen pic just before her parents walk by. Her viewing relationship with Deen is best described as monogamous. “I lost interest in a majority of male porn stars since becoming a fan of James,” she says. She communicates her attraction only through her blog. “The few friends I have that actually watch porn are male and don’t really feel comfortable with talking about porn with me,” says Kay. Besides, “I’m pretty sure I’ve actually watched more porn than they have.”

When men do weigh in on Deen, “it’s always these really asshole-ish comments only coming from guys who are clearly super butthurt that girls actually like a porn star for once,” one Deen blogger writes about the negative feedback she’s received from men. Deen, too, receives hate mail from viewers, “always dudes, always dudes.” One guy “told me I had to start working out. He said it would make the scenes better and the girls would like me more," Deen says.

isn't it interesting that men are reacting to Deen as a threat? I'm not a porn fan - Maybe if Ron Jeremy wasn't my idea of a porn star, I would think it's more interesting, but probably not, b/c I don't care about seeing some other woman have sex. it's like watching someone eat an ice cream cone through a window, to me. I guess I'm just not doing it right - watching porn, that is. it doesn't inspire me. but I'm not everyone.

I'd much rather watch something like Timothy Olyphant and whateverhernameis in Deadwood - where the build up to sex is part of the enjoyment. but that's just me. I detest romance novels. I like my own imagination show best of all.

[seabeyond]

62. true 'nough.

i didnt go into article and read the whole thing. but just in this, some interesting.

i read an article from porn industry that they purposely use ugly dudes and the dude generally just unzips. the male watcher can't handle anything more from the male porn star.

"the few friends". here we are consistently and continually told that ALL people, ALL kids and especially the male kids do porn. lookie. "the few friends" and only guys. this is the reality i have seen. yet, it is not what is continually put out to purposely normalize and mainstream the porn into all our lives, kids included, whether we want it or not.

and of course, i have been saying for years, as i get lectured, that really, i should not be bothered. my ego should not be effected. that if the same happened with men.... they would drop to the ground and cry. there was a tyt segment where cenk had on the "underwear" dude posed sexy. cenk is pig of all pigs. that picture was not up for 5 secs before he was saying alright, alright, we got it, take it down. couldnt handle a good looking, well package, young sexy male. but put up a naked girl, he will go on and on and on.

i found immediately in the dating scene, when i turned the tables around, the guy did not like it at all. came to a respected agreement, that was not the healthiest to denegrate another gender, in our relationship.

i am a tit for tat kinda gal.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x13205

"determined that women were still far more likely than men to wear sexy clothing in movies, such as swimwear and unbuttoned shirts (25.8% versus 4.7%), to expose skin (23% versus 7.4%) and to be described by another character as attractive (10.9% versus 2.5%)."

[RainDog]

63. the traditional view is that porn is for men

and the producers create porn with that idea in mind since men buy most porn. however, in this case, women, young women, are interested in porn when they find the guy attractive. he is making money as a porn star with appeal to females.

same thing with writers writing for their interest in movies - I mean, it's about who has the power to create projects, who spends money to watch this movie or that one (and who has the money to pay to see the movies, or the interest in them.)

one girl's comment about the few friends she knows does not constitute a valid sample for anything. it's anecdotal. as she notes - porn isn't something she thinks guys want to talk about with their girl peers at her age.

I'm not disagreeing with you that porn may not be interesting to you b/c the females make you feel uncomfortable rather than interested. that's exactly what cenk was saying too. the issue is who controls what is shown - and for what audience.

Power and money determine these factors.

Females can refuse to watch shows they don't like. They can choose to watch shows they do like. I don't go to big blockbuster movies, for the most part, b/c I don't like them. I don't pay them money to see them. But a lot of people do like them and pay money to see them. I don't like the culture that springs from those same movies a lot of times - but I have the choice to put my money and attention on other things.

Now, the issue of the way females are altering their bodies and the way that editors photoshop images is something else. That's a cultural standard, which can and does change. Educating females to recognize when this happens and then having them vote with their pocketbooks to not buy products or magazines or whatever that do these things - and to point out (and, yes, ridicule) those who do is an effective way to stop these things.

but I don't think you're going to stop men from enjoying looking at women or vice versa. that's tit for tat too.

[seabeyond]

64. ya.

i am not in the mood to get into discussion of porn, again, lol. some of the conclusions you draw from my comments are not accurate, but i will leave it at that.

i was really simply making the point, that objectifying women in ads are not equal with men, and there is a difference, and it will not be done. and men dont like it.

thanks for the convo, though. interesting posts.

[RainDog]

66. okay

since you were on this thread talking about it, I thought I'd share another pov. you may not think it's accurate - but maybe it's just not accurate to you. there's a difference.

one interesting thing about porn, as far as its effect on a lot of females, is that it involves the opposite sort of situation that stimulates desire in females. the sort of intimate situations that fuel desire in females is long, leisurely touch that doesn't just focus on genitals and breasts. it's playful. it's about the people involved, rather than just specific body parts.

I think that's what's so uninteresting about porn to me. it just seems mechanical. I've seen more passion in a barnyard. but I'm not everyone. another interesting finding is that women are less aware, often, when they are sexually stimulated by images and even claim they're not when they are (based upon tests that measure blood flow to the genitals.) who knows why that is - if it's cultural or physiological. but the pattern definitely exists and females, generally, are more stimulated by various kinds of sex while men are more rigid in their gender preferences, whether they're hetero or homosexual males.

[seabeyond]

68. lol.

"you may not think it's accurate - but maybe it's just not accurate to you." when i say you are not accurate with comments i make, it is like this. this is what you conclude. it isnt accurate. it is not what i was talking about. you interpret what i say into a manner, that i am not saying. that is all i am saying, lol. how you are interpreting my comments back at me. i didnt want to go thru clarifying everything, lol. like i did, just now, with that comment of yours.

i am aware that women get turned on by porn. in the 80's someone did a study that showed men more visual than women. it was a questionairre. men answered as they were conditioned. women answered as they were conditioned. surprise. men are more visual than women. though intellectually and common sense, that makes absolutely no sense at all. but it is used often and consistently addressing male use of porn.

2009 a study where they hooked up brain found not only were women as visual as men, but in a way, more so. women got turned on by same gender, hetro sex whereas the men were turned on only by their preference gender. in other words, a woman got turned on by man on man, woman on woman, man on woman. men? if hetro, only hetro sex.

i think a lot fo what women want is as conditioned in us as anything else. i know we are continualy told we cheat for emotional reasons, men sex. i dont buy that. we are told we dont like one night stands and want more. i dont buy that.

[Warren DeMontague]

106. "I don't think you're going to stop men from enjoying looking at women"

....dream crusher. :( :cry:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

91. Wow, that's weird

I just don't understand why people are "threatened" by a celebrity or a porn star. They are fantasies. There is as much chance of my girlfriend being swept away by George Clooney or James Deen as I am of being seduced by Scarlett Johansson or Gianna Michaels...hence why I don't understand why anyone would care about one another's "ideal man/woman" in a physical sense. I'm always fascinated to hear who my SO thinks is hot/not for both sexes.

[Withywindle]

98. I think the reason men in Cenk's situation feel threatened isn't jealousy.

It's a sort of deeply ingrained revulsion that is grounded in homophobia.

BOTH genders are taught to see women's bodies (well, *some* women's bodies, anyway) as sexy and beautiful and desirable, and men's bodies...not so much. This is why you see as many or more scantily-clad women in magazines aimed at women (fashion, health and beauty, lifestyle type magazines like Glamour and Cosmo and the like) as in men's magazines. This is also why full-frontal female nudity in movies usually only gets an R rating, whereas full-frontal male nudity is usually rated higher on the rare occasions you actually glimpse it. Basically, the only place you'll see men's bodies as objectified and sexualized as women routinely are is in media aimed at gay men.

So when men have this intense revulsive reaction to some nude dude putting it on display, I think that's a trained and conditioned response. It may seem "instinctive" and it may be widely accepted, but it's still rooted in an emotional response that's based on (a) homophobia, the idea that looking at a male body presented in a sexual way, and NOT being horrified is somehow "gay" and maybe also (b) vulnerability; "what if that was me on display like that?" (And really, which is scarier - the idea that no one would want to see it, or the idea that someone MIGHT?)

A woman looking at an objectified woman's body might have a wide range of reactions: she might be insecure about her own body, she might be angry at the objectification, she might be aroused by it, she might be indifferent to it. But one thing she probably *won't* feel is "EW NAKED WOMEN ARE GROSS HOW DARE YOU MAKE ME LOOK AT THAT?" even if she's 100% heterosexual. Because she hasn't been taught to react that way to that image, and the sight of it is common enough that she was probably desensitized to it back in childhood.

[Warren DeMontague]

100. You really think that the big problem around pot is sexy ads in alt. weeklies?

Really? $40 Billion a year to go after pot and pot smokers, not including costs of incarceration, and all you can see is "ohmigodohmigodohmigod someonemadeanotherT&Aad stopstopstopittttt!!!!!"

Be honest: If it didn't involve scantily clad women- a topic which seems to bug you to no end- you wouldn't give a flying phildalphia fuck about pot, or the drug war, or cancer grannies being put in jail, any of it.

As for naked men, in ads, objectified, what-have-you.... I used to live right up the road from the Castro in SF. Trust me, mens' 'fragile ego' can handle naked men. Wanting to see more naked men, however, is NOT the same thing as having a temper tantrum over every naked woman.

[seabeyond]

108. the thread is about the women in bikinis in the ad. the conversation is the

exploitation of women to sell a product. the porn industry wont agree with you. nor does the advertising agencies.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. No, it's pretty specific to medical marijuana, and I suspect the motivation of the Med. MJ players

is NOT some overweening desire to rid society of sex, nudity, or so-called "objectification", but to maintain a certain respectability veneer over medical marijuana, which may or may not be a wise move (personally, I don't think it matters, because the powers that be love the drug war gravy train too much) in terms of the medical marijuana movement, the whole thing would be rendered moot if we simply did the sane logical thing, i.e. make it legal, regulated, and taxed FOR CONSENTING ADULTS.

You know, sort of like... oh, never mind.

[seabeyond]

115. what a j0ke.. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

116. That's a vacu0us resp0nse

even f0r y0u.

[Upton]

29. I'll tell you what bothers me..

it's self righteous sex negative old style "feminists" trying to dictate to me what I should or should not watch..

[Texasgal]

30. I honestly do not care

what you watch or what you do in your private life. :shrug:

I think the point that is trying to be made here is that commercialism is so centered around the disgusting exploitation of Women. It's sad. It needs to change. Our society is better than this.

[redqueen]

32. Spot on!

At least regarding the commercialism and the use of women (or men either, but women are far more often used) as props by advertisers to sell us things.

As for our society being better than this... well, I hope that's the case. Going by the response I get whenever I mention this stuff... I dunno. :(

[Texasgal]

34. I guess it's just weird to me that

anyone... especially on DU wouldn't get this. :shrug:

I mean, do we really need a pouty-lipped female scantily clad to sell us a tube of fucking toothpaste? Or in keeping with the spirit of this thread.. medicinal marijuana?

[seabeyond]

36. but these people cheer the exploitation of women because it works in their frame

of a female role.

[Texasgal]

37. I guess the advertisers

were right... they knew what would work. "roles" I'm even more sad now. :(

[redqueen]

71. Yeah, I'm not surprised AT ALL.

People seem to want pouty-lipped scantily-clad young beauties everywhere, all the time. Anyone who dares to say that maybe objectifying people is wrong (as they have done in Denmark and Norway) is branded as a prude, pearl/doily-clutching authoritarian. The script on these thoughtless labels seems fairly common. There is also worse, of course.

The over-the-top reaction to anyone who dares to suggest that perhaps the overwhelming use of hypersexualized images to sell products is worth pausing to reconsider... that is indicative of something I don't care to get into now, IMO.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. I want pouty lipped scantily clad beauties everywhere! Everywhere, I say!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA

[Major Nikon]

124. Carlin said it best

"I've noticed that most of these feminists are white, middle class women. They don't give a shit about black women's problems, they don't care about Latino women, all they're interested in is their own reproductive freedom and their pocketbooks."

[snooper2]

67. .

I think this thread needs some POM :rofl:

[seabeyond]

69. hence, the in general

but i really do appreciate the handful of companies that take this view and i no longer hold an anger at objectivication. corona is another company that does equal.

[Major Nikon]

123. No, it doesn't bother me

Advertisers simply choose methods that work and appealing to human emotions certainly does work. These same methods in different form are used throughout not only advertising, but pretty much all media.

So if you break down these ads and look at them objectively you can certainly conclude they are playing off the emotions of their target audience, but almost all advertising does this to one degree or another. So what does this say about society? Well it says that we are a product of our emotions as well as our intelligence, and either one or both can be used to sway opinions.

So the question becomes is such appeals to emotion improper or morally wrong in some way? To believe it is, you have to subscribe to the ideas of radical feminism, which is really only a subset of the feminist movement. Many other feminists do not agree with these ideas.

[LoZoccolo]

33. How does one determine what is objectifying?

As we discussed before, not even the subject of a work can determine that. You claimed that there were experts, though.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. If you get a cogent, specific, logically consistent answer to thatr one

let me know.

[Major Nikon]

59. Feminists can't even agree on it

The whole idea is deeply flawed in both the signification and the grammatical aspect. Objects aren't sexual. People are sexual, which means sexual objectification is an oxymoron to begin with. If you look at the 'theory', it doesn't get much better. There's really no way to quantify its effect to test its validity. The basic premise is that if men want women for their body, then they are "objectifying" them because they have turned them into the "object" of their desire, but you really can't tell because the definition varies widely depending on which feminist you reference (and this even assumes you only reference the ones who believe in the concept to begin with), and it only gets nuttier from there. Some feminists think women can "objectify" themselves, and according to some (but not all) this can all apply to men as well when the gender roles are reversed. The whole concept seems to hinge on the principle that it's improper for women(and perhaps men) to gain power with their bodies instead of their mind. But who were Gloria Steinem and Andrea Dworkin to tell women this anyway? You won't find a degree in sociology or psychology between them or even anything remotely science related.

What I find really strange is this concept seems to still find traction when it's effectively been well debunked. Dworkin(and others) claimed the proliferation of porn would turn men into sex crazed beasts who preferred rape to consensual sex (even though she didn't seem to believe in the concept of heterosexual consensual sex). It turns out, just the opposite happened. Virtually unlimited porn is now available 24/7 to anyone with a computer or a smart phone, yet sexual violence against women has decreased over the same time period porn skyrocketed. Theories are simply models by which ideas can be tested and produce expected results. Well this 'theory' has been tested and the results were anything but expected and still many refuse to acknowledge the loosely based 'theory' wasn't valid to begin with.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krabigirl]

56. ....

[awoke_in_2003]

58. you are speaking of civilized countries...

don't hold you breath waiting for it to come here.

[redqueen]

72. Yes, I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Those civilized countries are light years ahead of us in other areas as well. I supposed we should be happy that at least progressives here have embraced things like socialized healthcare. Issues involving male privilege will take a hell of a lot longer.

[awoke_in_2003]

118. liberals have embraced these things...

but even our own party hates us.

[Major Nikon]

77. It's doubtful that it will

It's an idea that has been soundly debunked and never had much basis to begin with.

[redqueen]

78. What idea is it that you think has been soundly debunked?

If you're referring to your inability to understand what the term 'objectification' means in this context, save it. It's well-defined in the laws there.

[Major Nikon]

83. The claims made for cause and effect have been soundly debunked

Steinem and Dworkin claimed that porn would create sex crazed men who rape women. While doing so they climbed in bed with Ed Meese and the rest of the religious based anti-porn establishment that had already been fucking up peoples minds with their warped ideas of human sexuality for centuries, and who would have ever thought that one would turn out badly? Well, it turns out lots of people did. Neither one of those two feminists had any formal education on the subjects they were espousing and their ideas ran counter to those who actually did. So where are the porn crazed rapists that Dworkin and Steinem promised? Not only did they never materialize, sexual crimes against women went down over the same period that porn consumption skyrocketed which suggests porn actually did the opposite of what they claimed. Even some of the anti-porn feminists admitted they got it wrong which is what other feminists had been telling them all along. To most people who are curious about such things, this begs the question of what basis they ever had for any of it, and what else did they get wrong? Feminists can't even agree among themselves on that subject, yet you would have everyone believe that your version is the ultimate truth and beyond debate?

The problem you run into when you start telling people what they can watch, and how consenting adults should act in the bedroom, and what they should think in terms of their sexuality, you run the risk of fucking things up more than you'd ever hope to help. And telling women they should cover themselves and shouldn't be sexy or to want sex as much as men because they are "self-objectifying" themselves is really not much better than telling them they are whores if they do and/or they should wear a burqa when they go outside.

As far as defining "objectification" goes, do you really think that just because the definition of something is codified by some government that is the ultimate authority on the subject and no other options are possible? Laws are driven by politics, and politics are driven by politicians, and politicians are driven by mob rule, and mob rule often has very little to do with accuracy or even reality.

[redqueen]

84. I stopped reading at "porn". We are not discussing porn.

If you'd care to re-state your thoughts on objectification as it applies to selling products by using bodies as props, please do so.

[Major Nikon]

85. Really?

That's where the whole idea started. Do I really have to lay out the entire history for you and connect the dots? I assumed you were already reasonably well informed on the subject, but perhaps this is a poor assumption.

[redqueen]

86. We're also not discussing the etymology of the term.

Nor the history of the concept.

The laws in Norway and Denmark are not about porn, and neither is this discussion.

I have absolutely no interest in discussing your confusion about the very concept of objectification.

[Major Nikon]

87. Really?

Given your posting history that never seemed to be the case. I suppose you simply want to frame the debate as narrowly as possible because you have no answer for those things.

If you just want to talk about the etymology, I've already covered the subject in another post. The term "sexual objectification" is an oxymoron.

[redqueen]

90. It's called staying on topic.

You seem to be patently incapable of it, so I'm done attempting to engage in a meaningful discussion with you.

[Major Nikon]

103. Please. It's called avoiding the issue

You asked what had been debunked, I explained in great detail what had been debunked.

You didn't want to read what I wrote because you saw the word "porn", even though porn was only part of what was discussed and is part and parcel to the concept at hand whether you realize it or not.

You claimed you wanted to talk etymology, I explained the etymology of the term.

Obviously you have no intention of meaningful discussion and simply want to parrot out ideas you don't seem to fully understand with people who fully agree with you.

You apparently have very different idea of meaningful discussion.

[redqueen]

105. Apparently you're not reading my posts.

Where exactly did I claim I wanted to talk etymology?

Un.Fucking.Real.

I thought the thing you believe has been debunked was somehow relevant to the laws I mentioned. It wasn't, therefore I wasn't interested in going off topic to talk with you about it. I'm really done paying attention to you now, so have fun rattling off nonsense with someone else. Good luck.

[Major Nikon]

109. Not anymore I'm not

I have no interest in "meaningful discussion" with those who refuse to be objective as it pretty much makes actual meaningful discussion impossible.

[MADem]

6. Ha! You should see my cousin!

Balding old schmuck. He's a Big Pharma rep and has been for decades, now. He takes his large family on a cruise every year with the massive bonus he gets from his sales. They give him free trips to resorts, too. It's despicable.

The ones who are good bullshitters--and my cousin is one of them--don't need the Angry Boobs and hairspray to do their thing. Plus, that shit doesn't always work on all the doctors, particularly the female ones.

Big Pharma clearly cuts out their territory assignments to match their salespeople's skills. It takes all kinds, I guess!

[truedelphi]

12. He didn't have to wear a push up bra -

Not even once?

(Shirt in mouth - glad it's made of licorice.)

[MADem]

15. That would be a sight to see!!!

He's a skinny old drink of water!!!

[era veteran]

53. Pharma recruiters target cheerleaders on college campuses.

Three sales people to every doctor.
Where the fuck are you self regulating, no accountability AMA bastards. Read your 'oath'.

[Norrin Radd]

54. Yep. I used to special order books for a bookstore. There was this

insanely gorgeous redhead pharma rep who would order stacks of the most expensive hardbound medical reference books and hand them out like hotcakes to her clients.

[Blue_Tires]

2. do you really need half-nude girls to market reefer?

i thought it sold itself...the demand is certainly there...

[MADem]

7. I agree with you. I don't think people would give a shit if Grandma and Grampa Moses

were the face of the product, so long as it was quality.

Hell, Pepperidge Farm made money hand over fist with an old guy scolding all of us that "Pepperidge Fahhhhm remembers!!!!"

[Capitalocracy]

8. I'd be more likely to buy it if a scruffy old hippie was selling it

I'd be like, this guy knows what he's doing, this must be a quality product. :hippie: If they've got girls in bikinis, I know I'm getting the weed equivalent of Budweiser. :puke:

[MADem]

9. Ladies and Gentlemen....Willie Nelson, for "Golden Bud!"

His tax problems would be over, forever!

[Blue_Tires]

10. yeah, I was thinking "cheap beer commercial gimmick", too

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Jesus. Just fucking legalize it, already.

Then the "Jesus weeps every time someone smokes a joint" people can commiserate with the "women-as-a-class are harmed every time a man looks at at a picture of a scantily clad woman" gang....

and leave the grown-ups alone.

[MADem]

17. And then TAX it. Our financial woes would be solved in no time. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

19. No shit.

SERIOUSLY. Add to that the $40B/yr DEA budget, most of which goes to 'fighting' pot smoking... AND incarceration, local LE costs...

the amount of money we spend on hand-wringing and doily clutching...it boggles.

[Locrian]

39. please......

Oh come on .... anyone ever been to just about ANY auto show? They call em "both babes".

[krabigirl]

55. meh. people get so worked up about stuff like this.

[jtuck004]

57. So SEX is a gateway drug? Uh oh. /nt

[Irishonly]

73. This article is pure spin....

When it comes to Business and advertising anything in the U.S...
Sex sells....
Why not.. It works and we know this...

But when it comes to the seriousness of Medical Cannabis and the Patients..
Those adds and Girls mean absolutely nothing..

To put this in another prosepctive..
Think of the pure Bullspin the Government has been using for Generations to demonized Cannabis and its use..
All of that was a Lie and is still believed to be true by many todate..
This article is just another example of the same Bullspin...
Just they way it reads is provocotive..

What is fact is Cannabis is a valued Medical tool..
Dozens and dozens of Patents for Medicine and Research have been flat denied purely based on the Federal law and negative perceptions..

The bottom line is those who oppose Cannabis use are mainly ignorant as hell by choice..
Just ask anyone who does not want Cannabis legal..
Ask them why.. Ask them what facts do they base their opinion on..

I would bet their answers will be based on fear and no facts..

[court jester]

94. The Feds hold a patent on the use of "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants"

United States Patent 6,630,507
Hampson, et al. October 7, 2003

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Abstract

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention...(much more including ten thousand footnotes)--

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

[NashVegas]

74. This Is Specifically What I've Been Writing About - No One Wants To Hear It

If dope is legalized, it WILL be corporatized and it WILL be marketed, just as Zoloft, Lipitor, and anything else Wall St wants you to buy, whether you need it or not.

[Uncle Joe]

75. Cannabis should still be legalized for both medicinal and recreational use.

Not doing so and waging the insane so called "War against Drugs" has been far more destructive to American Society and the Bill of Rights.

[Warren DeMontague]

111. And how the fuck would that be worse than what we have now?

But I disagree. I think it will be corporatized and marketed just as Jack Daniels and Miller Genuine Draft are.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

82. Weed and hot girls...like High Times magazine

Whatever.....legalize it, tax the shit out of it and make some money off of it. Soon the commercials will be as well produced and innocuous as all the other drug ones on the nightly news shows. This low-rent stuff is just in line with the "outlaw" nature of it.

[Scurrilous]

125. Kick

:kick: