Are you turned on by this ice cream commercial?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Baffle2:
In relation to how much they like ice-cream?

No, but that's surely missing the point. If all they needed was footage of somebody enjoying ice cream, they could have taken camcorder footage of the dessert station at a buffet diner.

I imagine - and hope - the target audience of this particular advert was young girls. They're not selling a product, they're selling the corresponding lifestyle.

Objection. Leading question designed to lure the witness into a trap, your honour.

ObsidianJones:
No. But I got a better question.

Why do people insert sex into everything? I'm speaking as your run of the mill cis-gendered heterosexual male.

I'm tired of sex everywhere. I'm tired of people seeing sex everywhere. I'm tired of fearing hugging a female friend or making sure people see my hands every time a young child is near me.

I'm tired of not thinking like sickos but having to live my life to such extremes so I won't be confused for a pervert.

I'm fairly sure your run of the mill straight dude wouldn't refer to themselves as that lmao. But yeah I agree with your main point. People are either terribly immature or degenerates and have only ever seen interactions like hugging a female friend or really enjoying your damn ice cream during porn (and feel guilty about it) so that's where their mind goes.

My approach is to embrace that someone will inadvertently think I'm some form of perv no matter what I do or don't do (there's things like "abandonment play" too which make inaction sexual just as much, you can't win) and to just stop caring, to just see that person as someone whose judgement is fine to disregard. I'm not a puritan and will not be controlled by these repressed neopuritans.

ObsidianJones:
No. But I got a better question.

Why do people insert sex into everything? I'm speaking as your run of the mill cis-gendered heterosexual male.

I'm tired of sex everywhere. I'm tired of people seeing sex everywhere. I'm tired of fearing hugging a female friend or making sure people see my hands every time a young child is near me.

I'm tired of not thinking like sickos but having to live my life to such extremes so I won't be confused for a pervert.

Blame Freud.

Everyone wants to look for subtext everywhere and push and push to find more and more to keep feeling smart for spotting it. (Hello Sarkeesian!)

"Also, whoever is making this be sexual is imo the real pederast here"

Oh yes...and the only people who read romantic overtones in Folgers' Brother and Sister commercial are those involved in incest, right? I mean, what, are they saying that a brother and sister can't be close? That no non-incestuous pair of siblings would spend time together literal minutes after one of them came back after a who-knows-how-long absence? Sickos, I tells ya. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that Korra and Asami got together at the end of Legend of Korra, because clearly they don't know that there are platonic ways to hold hands...

Is my sarcasm coming through all right? I don't know, I may have been a little subtle in my disdain for that logic.

Asita:
"Also, whoever is making this be sexual is imo the real pederast here"

Oh yes...and the only people who read romantic overtones in Folgers' Brother and Sister commercial are those involved in incest, right? I mean, what, are they saying that a brother and sister can't be close? That no non-incestuous pair of siblings would spend time together literal minutes after one of them came back after a who-knows-how-long absence? Sickos, I tells ya. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that Korra and Asami got together at the end of Legend of Korra, because clearly they don't know that there are platonic ways to hold hands...

Is my sarcasm coming through all right? I don't know, I may have been a little subtle in my disdain for that logic.

The difference is the accuracy of the description. In one case it's accurate, in another case it's so out of left field that only someone who thinks of those things regularly could have reasonably reached such a conclusion.

Dreiko:

Asita:
"Also, whoever is making this be sexual is imo the real pederast here"

Oh yes...and the only people who read romantic overtones in Folgers' Brother and Sister commercial are those involved in incest, right? I mean, what, are they saying that a brother and sister can't be close? That no non-incestuous pair of siblings would spend time together literal minutes after one of them came back after a who-knows-how-long absence? Sickos, I tells ya. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that Korra and Asami got together at the end of Legend of Korra, because clearly they don't know that there are platonic ways to hold hands...

Is my sarcasm coming through all right? I don't know, I may have been a little subtle in my disdain for that logic.

The difference is the accuracy of the description. In one case it's accurate, in another case it's so out of left field that only someone who thinks of those things regularly could have reasonably reached such a conclusion.

Really? I chose those examples specifically because we saw the same arguments with them as you are making here. They weren't things I pulled out of the aether. We saw "the only people saying it's incest are those involved with incest" comments and people bemoaning people pushing romance onto something as innocent as two friends holding hands. The difference is that you're on that side of the fence this time and started looking for reasons to dismiss the other perspective. Now, I'm not arguing that you have to agree with the other perspective, just that assigning motive like that is beneath you.

Asita:

Dreiko:

Asita:
"Also, whoever is making this be sexual is imo the real pederast here"

Oh yes...and the only people who read romantic overtones in Folgers' Brother and Sister commercial are those involved in incest, right? I mean, what, are they saying that a brother and sister can't be close? That no non-incestuous pair of siblings would spend time together literal minutes after one of them came back after a who-knows-how-long absence? Sickos, I tells ya. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that Korra and Asami got together at the end of Legend of Korra, because clearly they don't know that there are platonic ways to hold hands...

Is my sarcasm coming through all right? I don't know, I may have been a little subtle in my disdain for that logic.

The difference is the accuracy of the description. In one case it's accurate, in another case it's so out of left field that only someone who thinks of those things regularly could have reasonably reached such a conclusion.

Really? I chose those examples specifically because we saw the same arguments with them as you are making here. They weren't things I pulled out of the aether. We saw "the only people saying it's incest are those involved with incest" comments and people bemoaning people pushing romance onto something as innocent as two friends holding hands. The difference is that you're on that side of the fence this time and started looking for reasons to dismiss the other perspective. Now, I'm not arguing that you have to agree with the other perspective, just that assigning motive like that is beneath you.

I actually never took any sides with the siblings thing, as I was completely unaware of it existing prior to you bringing it to my attention. I was more referencing the Korra thing which I am familiar with. In that case it wasn't absurd to consider it a romantic scene based on context. Context is what makes it reasonable there and unreasonable with this korean ad here.

Dreiko:

So we can conclude that a boy would also be used in the same way. Sounds logical to me.

I'd say they're very different in as much as the girl is cast as a young adult (or a child trying to be an adult), whereas the boy is explicitly childish and engaging in a child's behaviour (I watched both with the sound off though, so I might've missed something there).

Baffle2:

Dreiko:

So we can conclude that a boy would also be used in the same way. Sounds logical to me.

I'd say they're very different in as much as the girl is cast as a young adult (or a child trying to be an adult), whereas the boy is explicitly childish and engaging in a child's behaviour (I watched both with the sound off though, so I might've missed something there).

The complaint wasn't that she looked too adult-like but that it was specifically sexual due to a focus on her lips/mouth etc. (and cause strawberries are a sex-fruit, apparently).

I think it's kinda shifting the goalpoast to make it a conversation about whether or not it's making her look like an adult or like a child that is trying to look like an adult and broach subjects like makeup or clothing and what have you.

Even if all of those were to be the case, even in that hypothetical, it's still not sexual. People are putting that on the ad from within themselves due to their own connotations and associations. A girl can be being adult-like and she's still not going to be sexual to normal people.

But yeah, I really don't think she's actually being adult, I think her expression is just more modern and asian music video inspired but still thoroughly childish. The boy is childish too, of course, though his expressions imo are more exaggerated and filled with enjoyment.

There's not just one way of being childish and this "trying to pretend to be an adult" is just another facet of it.

Dreiko:

This is patently ridiculous. It reminds me of an older case where Shia Lebuff was in a music video with another younger girl and people were claiming it was pedophillic similarly. Only that video was unapologetically let to remain up. Also this video is imo way more inoffensive and bland in comparison.

Basically, no I don't think this video is sexualised.

HOWEVER, there's no objective standard of what people find sexual: other people might. We might ignore sufficiently few sensitive worrywarts, but if enough feel uncomfortable, then it's potentially a problem. And in particular, if paedophiles are getting an unusually great kick out of it, in the greater scheme of things it might be the responsible thing to take it down.

Dreiko:

I actually never took any sides with the siblings thing, as I was completely unaware of it existing prior to you bringing it to my attention. I was more referencing the Korra thing which I am familiar with. In that case it wasn't absurd to consider it a romantic scene based on context. Context is what makes it reasonable there and unreasonable with this korean ad here.

I seem to be talking past you here, so let me try this again. In both the examples I cited, people were flummoxed that others were reading romance into the scene and were voicing their objections to such readings very much as you have here. In fact, they seemed quite frustrated with it, often voicing that the people with alternate views were claiming that (in the case of Korra) hand-holding was necessarily romantic and that it was clearly a platonic scene, and (in the case of Folgers) siblings being affectionate indicated incest.

Their questionable characterizations of the romantic readings notwithstanding, if we step back for a minute, neither case really has a single smoking gun. There's no 'big damn kiss' or 'I love you'. What sells the scenes as romantic are subtler bits of physicality, like how Korra and Asami are staring into each other's eyes while they're walking hand-in-hand, and the chemistry between the actors in the Folgers commercial. Those claiming that the romantic readings were unreasonable overlooked these details and thought it was absurd to read the scenes as anything other than platonic.

Consider the possibility that the people you are tearing into here might be noting similar details that you are overlooking. That it's not that people with alternate readings of the scene are being unreasonable, but instead that you see them as such because you do not see the scene in the same way. My point is that you've jumped straight to "people who disagree with me on this point must be sick in the head" before even trying to understand what about the scene led them to a different conclusion than you.

Asita:

Dreiko:

I actually never took any sides with the siblings thing, as I was completely unaware of it existing prior to you bringing it to my attention. I was more referencing the Korra thing which I am familiar with. In that case it wasn't absurd to consider it a romantic scene based on context. Context is what makes it reasonable there and unreasonable with this korean ad here.

I seem to be talking past you here, so let me try this again. In both the examples I cited, people were flummoxed that others were reading romance into the scene and were voicing their objections to such readings very much as you have here. In fact, they seemed quite frustrated with it, often voicing that the people with alternate views were claiming that (in the case of Korra) hand-holding was necessarily romantic and that it was clearly a platonic scene, and (in the case of Folgers) siblings being affectionate indicated incest.

Their questionable characterizations of the romantic readings notwithstanding, if we step back for a minute, neither case really has a single smoking gun. There's no 'big damn kiss' or 'I love you'. What sells the scenes as romantic are subtler bits of physicality, like how Korra and Asami are staring into each other's eyes while they're walking hand-in-hand, and the chemistry between the actors in the Folgers commercial. Those claiming that the romantic readings were unreasonable overlooked these details and thought it was absurd to read the scenes as anything other than platonic.

Consider the possibility that the people you are tearing into here might be noting similar details that you are overlooking. That it's not that people with alternate readings of the scene are being unreasonable, but instead that you see them as such because you do not see the scene in the same way. My point is that you've jumped straight to "people who disagree with me on this point must be sick in the head" before even trying to understand what about the scene led them to a different conclusion than you.

Well, I don't know if you'd consider them sick in the head or not but people who find that commercial sexy are at the very least some form of pedo or they're so hysterical about other people being pedos that they have an allergic reaction to normal cutesy kid stuff. Neither thing is all that rational. To me it is a red flag and stinks of over-compensating, me thinks thou doth protest too much, it feels like meeting someone and their introduction being "Hi, I'm Bill and I hate pedos!", when someone is like that your natural reaction would be to think "wait, are you a pedo? why would you even bring this up?".

You could theoretically say I'm the crazy one and there really is something to this video like I think there was with the Korra ending, which is exactly why I made this thread and didn't just jot it down under the "crazy prudes" checklist and moved on like I do with a lot of other cases. This thread existing is me acknowledging your point here, though you can entertain an idea without agreeing with it.

I think you're confusing me disagreeing with the idea while entertaining it and finding it preposterous as me not understanding it or not having entertained it.

But yeah, to make my position clear, I think kids are inherently non-sexual so by virtue of the girl being like 10 or whatever, even if she behaves like an adult and mimics adult behavior that can be sexual when adults do it, it just comes off as innocent or funny. Exactly because she's so young, even if she has makeup on it just by default can't be sexual, cause she's a kid. To go on about how someone who is a pedo might be into that misses the point and arranges society as though being a pedo is the norm and it's on the children to not turn them on by being kids and doing regular kid things, one of which is idolizing adulthood.

I have bad news for you, there's someone out there that's turned on by whatever you do. No matter what it is you do, blow your nose, eat potato chips, cut your hair, someone out there can be into that. Same if a kid does it. We shouldn't arrange society based on preventing unsavory people's degeneracy. That's giving them too much power over our lives.

Dreiko:

To me it is a red flag and stinks of over-compensating, me thinks thou doth protest too much, it feels like meeting someone and their introduction being "Hi, I'm Bill and I hate pedos!", when someone is like that your natural reaction would be to think "wait, are you a pedo? why would you even bring this up?".

It is quite likely that Bill thinks you're a paedo and wants to make his stance clear before you suggest a movie night.

I don't think this is sexual

But I could imagine that a whole bunch of people do... (I'll give you a clue, that group rhymes with Freddos.) Hence this:

JoJo:
Some google-fu suggests that the controversy started when pervs began leaving sexualised comments on the YouTube video of the ad. And then there was a backlash in the Korean media, naturally against the pervs but also against the company for making the ad, so I guess they decided to play it safe and pulled it. Asian countries can be pretty conservative about sexuality in a way that us Westerners would find hard to understand.

If you aren't aware, whole swathes of teenage girl youtube channels have been banned or had their comments removed because of creepy old men.

trunkage:
(I'll give you a clue, that group rhymes with Freddos.)

Freedos.

I'm having trouble seeing a ten year old girl as sexual. I guess I have the normal human reaction of only being sexually attracted to adults. It was sensual but that makes it 'food porn' not actual porn.

Erm, no. If people are watching that and having sexual thoughts then the problem is very much with them, not the advert. That advert was intrinsically as sexual as a breezeblock. It's. A. Child.

Dreiko:
You could theoretically say I'm the crazy one and there really is something to this video like I think there was with the Korra ending, which is exactly why I made this thread and didn't just jot it down under the "crazy prudes" checklist and moved on like I do with a lot of other cases. This thread existing is me acknowledging your point here, though you can entertain an idea without agreeing with it.

I think you're confusing me disagreeing with the idea while entertaining it and finding it preposterous as me not understanding it or not having entertained it.

See, you say that, but let's review how you opened this, for a moment. "Patently Ridiculous". "The degeneration of logic and art". "Whoever is making this be sexual is imo the real pederast here". "The complainers are massive degenerates who are projecting their own perversion onto other people and things". Hell, not two sentences previously you describe the alternate opinion as "a red flag and stinks of over-compensating, me thinks thou doth protest too much". You are not exactly inviting explanation by accusing anyone with an alternate opinion of being a closet pedophile. Rather that feels like trying to deter them from explaining for fear of being branded a child molester.

Grouchy Imp:
Erm, no. If people are watching that and having sexual thoughts then the problem is very much with them, not the advert. That advert was intrinsically as sexual as a breezeblock. It's. A. Child.

So, as a company, if your ad gets a whole heap of pedophiles riled up so much they are commenting how much they'd like to screw that child in the ad, what do you do?

Everyone can see that you are unintentionally aiding pedophilia. They understand that. But do you keep it up once you find out what it's being used for?

trunkage:

Grouchy Imp:
Erm, no. If people are watching that and having sexual thoughts then the problem is very much with them, not the advert. That advert was intrinsically as sexual as a breezeblock. It's. A. Child.

So, as a company, if your ad gets a whole heap of pedophiles riled up so much they are commenting how much they'd like to screw that child in the ad, what do you do?

Everyone can see that you are unintentionally aiding pedophilia. They understand that. But do you keep it up once you find out what it's being used for?

It's a hard choice but the one thing you don't do is give the wanker's veto to pedos and with that ability to take down anything. Once you do that you open the door to trolls of any kind just pretending to be pedos and writing sexual comments on anything they dislike so it'll be taken down.

Turning off the comment section or hiring moderators is much better if a first step.

Asita:

Dreiko:
You could theoretically say I'm the crazy one and there really is something to this video like I think there was with the Korra ending, which is exactly why I made this thread and didn't just jot it down under the "crazy prudes" checklist and moved on like I do with a lot of other cases. This thread existing is me acknowledging your point here, though you can entertain an idea without agreeing with it.

I think you're confusing me disagreeing with the idea while entertaining it and finding it preposterous as me not understanding it or not having entertained it.

See, you say that, but let's review how you opened this, for a moment. "Patently Ridiculous". "The degeneration of logic and art". "Whoever is making this be sexual is imo the real pederast here". "The complainers are massive degenerates who are projecting their own perversion onto other people and things". Hell, not two sentences previously you describe the alternate opinion as "a red flag and stinks of over-compensating, me thinks thou doth protest too much". You are not exactly inviting explanation by accusing anyone with an alternate opinion of being a closet pedophile. Rather that feels like trying to deter them from explaining for fear of being branded a child molester.

Why does someone who thinks I'm wrong have to care if I think that about them. All they have to do is adequately show me to be wrong and with that they'll dispel any aspersions that may be cast upon them. Anyhow, most people here seem to think it's not sexual and some understand why there could be some others who find it sexual so we can have a discussion about why someone is a degenerate with even these confines just fine. We don't need to pretend something is valid or healthy to analyze it. If someone is really self-conscious about this that's also kinda weird. Would you think it normal to be equally worried about if someone paints you with the cannibal brush? Cause to me both would be equally absurd and not something to worry about.

trunkage:

Grouchy Imp:
Erm, no. If people are watching that and having sexual thoughts then the problem is very much with them, not the advert. That advert was intrinsically as sexual as a breezeblock. It's. A. Child.

So, as a company, if your ad gets a whole heap of pedophiles riled up so much they are commenting how much they'd like to screw that child in the ad, what do you do?

Everyone can see that you are unintentionally aiding pedophilia. They understand that. But do you keep it up once you find out what it's being used for?

If the ad has sexual undertones, then that is a different issue. That ad is not inherently sexually explicit, therefore folk are reading into it something that isn't there. Do you remove holiday brochure ads because the smiling, wholesome family on the beach (and their kids) are in swimming costumes and pedos might touch themselves to that?

Dreiko:

Once you do that you open the door to trolls of any kind just pretending to be pedos and writing sexual comments on anything they dislike so it'll be taken down.

I think anyone that would accuse someone of doing that is actually a closet pretend-paedophile.

Grouchy Imp:

trunkage:

Grouchy Imp:
Erm, no. If people are watching that and having sexual thoughts then the problem is very much with them, not the advert. That advert was intrinsically as sexual as a breezeblock. It's. A. Child.

So, as a company, if your ad gets a whole heap of pedophiles riled up so much they are commenting how much they'd like to screw that child in the ad, what do you do?

Everyone can see that you are unintentionally aiding pedophilia. They understand that. But do you keep it up once you find out what it's being used for?

If the ad has sexual undertones, then that is a different issue. That ad is not inherently sexually explicit, therefore folk are reading into it something that isn't there. Do you remove holiday brochure ads because the smiling, wholesome family on the beach (and their kids) are in swimming costumes and pedos might touch themselves to that?

What you think is sexual is not what a paedophile would think is sexual. At least, I hope. Thinking the ad is not sexual explicit is a bad assumption

Dreiko:

trunkage:

Grouchy Imp:
Erm, no. If people are watching that and having sexual thoughts then the problem is very much with them, not the advert. That advert was intrinsically as sexual as a breezeblock. It's. A. Child.

So, as a company, if your ad gets a whole heap of pedophiles riled up so much they are commenting how much they'd like to screw that child in the ad, what do you do?

Everyone can see that you are unintentionally aiding pedophilia. They understand that. But do you keep it up once you find out what it's being used for?

It's a hard choice but the one thing you don't do is give the wanker's veto to pedos and with that ability to take down anything. Once you do that you open the door to trolls of any kind just pretending to be pedos and writing sexual comments on anything they dislike so it'll be taken down.

Turning off the comment section or hiring moderators is much better if a first step.

I mean, no matter what, your always going to be infested with trolls.

Trolls infesting you isn't the same as having the ability to post in a way that successfully makes things get taken down. And again, we shouldn't arrange society based on what pedos find hot for crying out loud.

Baffle2:

Dreiko:

Once you do that you open the door to trolls of any kind just pretending to be pedos and writing sexual comments on anything they dislike so it'll be taken down.

I think anyone that would accuse someone of doing that is actually a closet pretend-paedophile.

While it's good to recognize that they're a threat, you do wanna avoid slipping into a hysteria similar to that of those who complain about ice cream ads.

Dreiko:

Baffle2:

Dreiko:

Once you do that you open the door to trolls of any kind just pretending to be pedos and writing sexual comments on anything they dislike so it'll be taken down.

I think anyone that would accuse someone of doing that is actually a closet pretend-paedophile.

While it's good to recognize that they're a threat, you do wanna avoid slipping into a hysteria similar to that of those who complain about ice cream ads.

image

trunkage:

Grouchy Imp:

trunkage:
So, as a company, if your ad gets a whole heap of pedophiles riled up so much they are commenting how much they'd like to screw that child in the ad, what do you do?

Everyone can see that you are unintentionally aiding pedophilia. They understand that. But do you keep it up once you find out what it's being used for?

If the ad has sexual undertones, then that is a different issue. That ad is not inherently sexually explicit, therefore folk are reading into it something that isn't there. Do you remove holiday brochure ads because the smiling, wholesome family on the beach (and their kids) are in swimming costumes and pedos might touch themselves to that?

What you think is sexual is not what a paedophile would think is sexual. At least, I hope. Thinking the ad is not sexual explicit is a bad assumption.

But how then to decide of something is sexual, or merely sensual, or entirely innocent? You seem to be suggesting that even though I might look at something and feel it is entirely innocent that just because someone could look at it in a sexual manner it should be ruled as sexual. But where do you draw the line? To me, a photo of my dogs playing is a cute, funny and entirely innocent picture. To someone that fucks dogs, it could be considered sexual. So should I therefore not post pictures of my dogs in case some sick guy somewhere on the Internet gets a jolly off of it?

Dreiko:

Why does someone who thinks I'm wrong have to care if I think that about them. All they have to do is adequately show me to be wrong and with that they'll dispel any aspersions that may be cast upon them. Anyhow, most people here seem to think it's not sexual and some understand why there could be some others who find it sexual so we can have a discussion about why someone is a degenerate with even these confines just fine. We don't need to pretend something is valid or healthy to analyze it. If someone is really self-conscious about this that's also kinda weird. Would you think it normal to be equally worried about if someone paints you with the cannibal brush? Cause to me both would be equally absurd and not something to worry about.

With all due respect, that's a bit of a self-centered perspective. It's less about the opinions you yourself might hold than it is the fact that you're trying to convince others to adopt those opinions.

To draw from history for illustration, when I was nearing the end of my years as a Boy Scout, one of the newer members took to calling me "Hitler" by the end of his first meeting. Now, I naturally don't feel that I ever actually earned that epitaph, but on the whole I only cared about what's going on in his head to the extent that I care about self-improvement. I suspect that it was just trying to be cool by showing up an older kid. With that said, I cared greatly about the fact that he'd made it a point of publicly calling me that, to the point of shouting it when when I was up front during that same meeting. I didn't care that one kid took an immediate dislike to me, but it ceased to be about his personal perspective the moment he declared me to be Hitler to a crowd. At that moment the question ceased to be "what do I care what he thinks about me" and became "what do I care that he's saying about me", which is a very different question.

To your question of the "cannibal brush". That's a bit of apples to oranges as cannibalism is generally viewed as an exotic fear, something extraordinarily rare, bizarre, and usually explicable as desperation. Consequentially such accusations tend to ring incredibly hollow. Concerns about pedophilia, however, are close to home (see Roy Moore, the Catholic Church, etc) and accusations of such tend to work people up spectacularly (see the McMartin Preschool debacle) and are taken very seriously.

Grouchy Imp:

trunkage:

Grouchy Imp:

If the ad has sexual undertones, then that is a different issue. That ad is not inherently sexually explicit, therefore folk are reading into it something that isn't there. Do you remove holiday brochure ads because the smiling, wholesome family on the beach (and their kids) are in swimming costumes and pedos might touch themselves to that?

What you think is sexual is not what a paedophile would think is sexual. At least, I hope. Thinking the ad is not sexual explicit is a bad assumption.

But how then to decide of something is sexual, or merely sensual, or entirely innocent? You seem to be suggesting that even though I might look at something and feel it is entirely innocent that just because someone could look at it in a sexual manner it should be ruled as sexual. But where do you draw the line? To me, a photo of my dogs playing is a cute, funny and entirely innocent picture. To someone that fucks dogs, it could be considered sexual. So should I therefore not post pictures of my dogs in case some sick guy somewhere on the Internet gets a jolly off of it?

Do you understand the difference between children's makeup and adult makeup? We actually have both. Young girls generally wear a see through lip gloss, not full blown women''s cosmetics as was worn here. She was not decked out in the latest Disney princess gloss there as is expected for her age. As women and girls, we have "age appropriate makeup". The reason why people were saying she was wearing "women's makeup" was because she actually was. As much as I hated this when I was a kid, I too had to wear age appropriate makeup due to the " history of women's cosmetics" itself. I think I was 9 or so when the older girls sat me down for " the talk" about what makeup is okay to wear so you are not mistaken for a prostitute. Sadly the history of women's cosmetics is ridden with a long history of abuse of underage girls and men " dolling them up" in "women's makeup" to sexually appeal to the men that were paying them to do so. For those who are not aware of this ongoing severe human trafficking issue, it is not remotely even in the past, you may be oblivious to women's cosmetics and the practices. Sadly, a little girl in women's makeup is common in sex trafficking, and why this also makes her a target for pedophiles by presenting her in this way with the focus on her making eyes at the camera and her lips while wearing adult cosmetics.

The difference in children's and women's cosmetics is not unlike the difference between children's underwear and women's lingerie. Children were not supposed to be portrayed as " sexy" that is why we do not buy little girls the same panties, thongs and g-strings we wear as an adult. Yes, little girls like to dress up like their moms, but that does not mean we really want them imitating making eyes and lips at the camera until they are mature enough to handle the attention from doing so.

Legit never heard of "children specific makeup" as a concept before. Always thought it was more about how much you apply it or what colors you use and so on. Learned something, haha!

But yeah, to me makeup is strictly a status thing for women that makes them feel empowered through their prettiness. I never found makeup on a woman sexual by itself in any way outside of like...lipstick marks left in suggestive places.

Asita:

Dreiko:

Why does someone who thinks I'm wrong have to care if I think that about them. All they have to do is adequately show me to be wrong and with that they'll dispel any aspersions that may be cast upon them. Anyhow, most people here seem to think it's not sexual and some understand why there could be some others who find it sexual so we can have a discussion about why someone is a degenerate with even these confines just fine. We don't need to pretend something is valid or healthy to analyze it. If someone is really self-conscious about this that's also kinda weird. Would you think it normal to be equally worried about if someone paints you with the cannibal brush? Cause to me both would be equally absurd and not something to worry about.

With all due respect, that's a bit of a self-centered perspective. It's less about the opinions you yourself might hold than it is the fact that you're trying to convince others to adopt those opinions.

To draw from history for illustration, when I was nearing the end of my years as a Boy Scout, one of the newer members took to calling me "Hitler" by the end of his first meeting. Now, I naturally don't feel that I ever actually earned that epitaph, but on the whole I only cared about what's going on in his head to the extent that I care about self-improvement. I suspect that it was just trying to be cool by showing up an older kid. With that said, I cared greatly about the fact that he'd made it a point of publicly calling me that, to the point of shouting it when when I was up front during that same meeting. I didn't care that one kid took an immediate dislike to me, but it ceased to be about his personal perspective the moment he declared me to be Hitler to a crowd. At that moment the question ceased to be "what do I care what he thinks about me" and became "what do I care that he's saying about me", which is a very different question.

To your question of the "cannibal brush". That's a bit of apples to oranges as cannibalism is generally viewed as an exotic fear, something extraordinarily rare, bizarre, and usually explicable as desperation. Consequentially such accusations tend to ring incredibly hollow. Concerns about pedophilia, however, are close to home (see Roy Moore, the Catholic Church, etc) and accusations of such tend to work people up spectacularly (see the McMartin Preschool debacle) and are taken very seriously.

I'd hope you didn't earn that epitaph cause you'd be some kinda zombie! (epithet, you were going for epithet, epitaph is a Greek word for "eulogy"! XD, epitaphios is how we say it in actual Greek though)

But yeah, I literally would have absolutely zero concern if some younger kid was calling me names. Cause everyone around would still know I would be able to kick his ass anyhow so they'd all see it as the barking of a powerless little dog trying to make himself seem larger than he is. Anyone whose view of you would be swayed by that would be someone who didn't know you and was too narrow-minded to judge you for themselves when they heard you described with a very potent term. Those kinds of people I welcome the scorn of. I'd not want them to think positively of me, it makes me feel gross to contemplate lol.

I went for cannibal cause it was about the only thing I could think of that illicits a similarly visceral disgust. Anything else I'd gone for you could say "but it's not as bad as being thought of as a pedo". So it's more like...red apples and green apples? It's about as close as you can get with an example.

Dreiko:
Legit never heard of "children specific makeup" as a concept before. Always thought it was more about how much you apply it or what colors you use and so on. Learned something, haha!

But yeah, to me makeup is strictly a status thing for women that makes them feel empowered through their prettiness. I never found makeup on a woman sexual by itself in any way outside of like...lipstick marks left in suggestive places.

Yea we actually have both. often you can find children's makeup int he toy section, or they have small amounts of it in the actual cosmetic section, or have it in "gift packs" during the holidays. If you google "children's makeup" you can find plenty of sets. Some of the big differences between women's makeup and children's is children's makeup is meant to be more transparent, and fades easily, lighter colors as the point is they can feel like mommy putting it on, but not actually look like mommy getting ready for a date. The entire point of it being kids makeup is to make it less sexualized.

https://www.target.com/s/kid+makeup

Women also have "day makeup" and evening makeup or "date makeup", yes that is thing too. We have makeup that is intentionally to be sexy and other as a "status quo" of sorts, there are differences there as well.

https://www.allure.com/gallery/prettiest-date-night-makeup-looks
http://www.yourweddingmakeup.com/dayevening_make-up.html

Yes this is a "thing". Just google "date makeup" and you will find plenty.

For comparison, this little girl is wearing children's makeup:
https://westchester.kidsoutandabout.com/sites/default/files/styles/hero_image/public/sparklicious.jpg?itok=rwMubfLK
Notice a difference in their lips even though both are wearing makeup?
or this one:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cSCskKqO7CE/maxresdefault.jpg
Children's makeup is meant to look pretty in the tray and transparent on the face.

Dreiko:

Apparently enough people found this to be sexual that Baskin Robbins had to take it down.

This is patently ridiculous. It reminds me of an older case where Shia Lebuff was in a music video with another younger girl and people were claiming it was pedophillic similarly. Only that video was unapologetically let to remain up. Also this video is imo way more inoffensive and bland in comparison.

I see this as the degeneration of logic and art. Also, whoever is making this be sexual is imo the real pederast here. It's not normal to find this sexual imo. Normal people don't think sex when a little girl is eating ice cream. At the very least the complainers are massive degenerates who are projecting their own perversion onto other people and things, similar to how the biggest anti-gay politicians tend to be closeted gay people.

That's not sexual, but this is.

image

Oh, poor Io XD. (we had the Io debate in the sony censorship topic a while back, fun read if you have the guts XD)

Lil devils x:
Do you understand the difference between children's makeup and adult makeup? We actually have both. Young girls generally wear a see through lip gloss, not full blown women''s cosmetics as was worn here. She was not decked out in the latest Disney princess gloss there as is expected for her age. As women and girls, we have "age appropriate makeup". The reason why people were saying she was wearing "women's makeup" was because she actually was. As much as I hated this when I was a kid, I too had to wear age appropriate makeup due to the " history of women's cosmetics" itself. I think I was 9 or so when the older girls sat me down for " the talk" about what makeup is okay to wear so you are not mistaken for a prostitute. Sadly the history of women's cosmetics is ridden with a long history of abuse of underage girls and men " dolling them up" in "women's makeup" to sexually appeal to the men that were paying them to do so. For those who are not aware of this ongoing severe human trafficking issue, it is not remotely even in the past, you may be oblivious to women's cosmetics and the practices. Sadly, a little girl in women's makeup is common in sex trafficking, and why this also makes her a target for pedophiles by presenting her in this way with the focus on her making eyes at the camera and her lips while wearing adult cosmetics.

The difference in children's and women's cosmetics is not unlike the difference between children's underwear and women's lingerie. Children were not supposed to be portrayed as " sexy" that is why we do not buy little girls the same panties, thongs and g-strings we wear as an adult. Yes, little girls like to dress up like their moms, but that does not mean we really want them imitating making eyes and lips at the camera until they are mature enough to handle the attention from doing so.

I'll be completely honest here, I've never even heard of kids makeup before. I did not know there was a distinction, so thank you for pointing it out. Also:

Lil devils x:

Yea we actually have both. often you can find children's makeup int he toy section, or they have small amounts of it in the actual cosmetic section, or have it in "gift packs" during the holidays. If you google "children's makeup" you can find plenty of sets. Some of the big differences between women's makeup and children's is children's makeup is meant to be more transparent, and fades easily, lighter colors as the point is they can feel like mommy putting it on, but not actually look like mommy getting ready for a date. The entire point of it being kids makeup is to make it less sexualized.

https://www.target.com/s/kid+makeup

Women also have "day makeup" and evening makeup or "date makeup", yes that is thing too. We have makeup that is intentionally to be sexy and other as a "status quo" of sorts, there are differences there as well.

https://www.allure.com/gallery/prettiest-date-night-makeup-looks
http://www.yourweddingmakeup.com/dayevening_make-up.html

Yes this is a "thing". Just google "date makeup" and you will find plenty.

For comparison, this little girl is wearing children's makeup:
https://westchester.kidsoutandabout.com/sites/default/files/styles/hero_image/public/sparklicious.jpg?itok=rwMubfLK
Notice a difference in their lips even though both are wearing makeup?
or this one:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cSCskKqO7CE/maxresdefault.jpg
Children's makeup is meant to look pretty in the tray and transparent on the face.

I really did not realise makeup was that involved. I know that probably makes me seem incredibly ignorant, but thank you for the crash course.

Grouchy Imp:

Lil devils x:
Do you understand the difference between children's makeup and adult makeup? We actually have both. Young girls generally wear a see through lip gloss, not full blown women''s cosmetics as was worn here. She was not decked out in the latest Disney princess gloss there as is expected for her age. As women and girls, we have "age appropriate makeup". The reason why people were saying she was wearing "women's makeup" was because she actually was. As much as I hated this when I was a kid, I too had to wear age appropriate makeup due to the " history of women's cosmetics" itself. I think I was 9 or so when the older girls sat me down for " the talk" about what makeup is okay to wear so you are not mistaken for a prostitute. Sadly the history of women's cosmetics is ridden with a long history of abuse of underage girls and men " dolling them up" in "women's makeup" to sexually appeal to the men that were paying them to do so. For those who are not aware of this ongoing severe human trafficking issue, it is not remotely even in the past, you may be oblivious to women's cosmetics and the practices. Sadly, a little girl in women's makeup is common in sex trafficking, and why this also makes her a target for pedophiles by presenting her in this way with the focus on her making eyes at the camera and her lips while wearing adult cosmetics.

The difference in children's and women's cosmetics is not unlike the difference between children's underwear and women's lingerie. Children were not supposed to be portrayed as " sexy" that is why we do not buy little girls the same panties, thongs and g-strings we wear as an adult. Yes, little girls like to dress up like their moms, but that does not mean we really want them imitating making eyes and lips at the camera until they are mature enough to handle the attention from doing so.

I'll be completely honest here, I've never even heard of kids makeup before. I did not know there was a distinction, so thank you for pointing it out. Also:

Lil devils x:

Yea we actually have both. often you can find children's makeup int he toy section, or they have small amounts of it in the actual cosmetic section, or have it in "gift packs" during the holidays. If you google "children's makeup" you can find plenty of sets. Some of the big differences between women's makeup and children's is children's makeup is meant to be more transparent, and fades easily, lighter colors as the point is they can feel like mommy putting it on, but not actually look like mommy getting ready for a date. The entire point of it being kids makeup is to make it less sexualized.

https://www.target.com/s/kid+makeup

Women also have "day makeup" and evening makeup or "date makeup", yes that is thing too. We have makeup that is intentionally to be sexy and other as a "status quo" of sorts, there are differences there as well.

https://www.allure.com/gallery/prettiest-date-night-makeup-looks
http://www.yourweddingmakeup.com/dayevening_make-up.html

Yes this is a "thing". Just google "date makeup" and you will find plenty.

For comparison, this little girl is wearing children's makeup:
https://westchester.kidsoutandabout.com/sites/default/files/styles/hero_image/public/sparklicious.jpg?itok=rwMubfLK
Notice a difference in their lips even though both are wearing makeup?
or this one:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cSCskKqO7CE/maxresdefault.jpg
Children's makeup is meant to look pretty in the tray and transparent on the face.

I really did not realise makeup was that involved. I know that probably makes me seem incredibly ignorant, but thank you for the crash course.

It actually gets so much more complicated than that, I just pointed out the differences relevant here. We have seasonal makeup, specific event makeup, warm and cool shades, contouring and so much more I pretty much expect those who did not grow up learning these things to not have any idea about how complicated it can be. Now at least you know why the cosmetic industry is so big, they sell women and girls different makeup for everything. X D

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here