Advanced Search
Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.

Sexuality or sexualization? Porn, glamour, women hatin’ fashion... - INTJ Forum

... and promotional images of Japanese celebrities.

I ran out of space. Forced choice questionnaire. Which of these images do you find more offensive?

Why? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater.

You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater.

You currently have 0 posts. How about these two? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater.

You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater.

You currently have 0 posts. The former comparison is a favorite debate among fashion industry professionals;

The later comparison was brought up on a BBS that I frequented before finding this place.

(The ESFP likes Japanese celebrities.

Who’d have thunk it?

Hilarious. Moving on.) I wrote that the money shot was somewhat less offensive than the image of the girl in the fishnet stockings (and, by extension, most promotional images of Japanese celebrities) because the intention to arouse is more honest and straightforward.

One member wrote this reply: I really can't agree with these feelings at all, and I'll try to work out why. I guess for one, the honesty of the intention usually makes it feel much more trashy, awkward and uncomfortable to look at for me.

The staging or farce surrounding something like Koharu's (fishnet stockings girl) shoot at least gives you some re-assurance that this wouldn't have happened were it not for the whole "I work for an idol company and they told me to do this," which is what I'd rather see coming from a cute young girl than "Take me now!

I'm here waiting for you!" Sometimes, though, I wonder exactly how much real sexuality is intended by something like Koharu's shoot.

I don't know how they can honestly think that dressing a girl up in that kind of outfit and having those kinds of shots could come anywhere close to what I feel "erotic" or "sexual" means.

It’s almost like one of those things when girls go to one of those "Glamour Shots" places in America and get all dressed up and made up to be like some celebrity or something just to take a few pictures, but they're not really going for the sexual aspect of it, just the glitz/glamour part.

That's how I feel about something like Koharu's shoot, even if the clothes can easily lead the mind towards the other direction and all, it seems like innocent enough picture to me by most accounts, or, at least, it could be a lot worse and often is within the idol industry. Maybe I'm reading way too much into this, but in a way, maybe the companies behind both of these books have very different audiences in mind.

I think one of the big things in marketing in the idol industry is that you're marketing the fantasy to most of the male fans.

In the opposite direction, with Kago (money shot girl), I think her book is marketed more towards the kind of people who would prefer a more real or obtainable girl or situation to look at. What are your thoughts?

None of those offend me really.

I'd put the first D&G one as most offensive, but still, I wouldn't take offence to any of them. Why / in what way do you think each one is offensive?

In the D&G one it looks like that girl is going to get gang banged.

I suppose I'd pick the bottom one.

She looks like she's about 12 years old so depending on the audience the photo reaches it might promote sexualization in children and adolescents.

Not a positive step forward in my view though opinions may differ.

The models in the other pictures at least look like adults.   In the D&G one it looks like that girl is going to get gang banged. I disagree.

Looks at those expressionless faces.

They're obviously robots which means they're more likely to kill her.

Hmmm...unless they're some sort of freaky sexbot...

The first one I don't like.

This is chiefly because advertising in general annoys me.

Basically, it is trying to associate the brand with the good looks/sexiness of the models, but there really isn't a connection between the two.

What brand of clothes they are wearing in the shoot is meaningless.

Those models would look good in rags/naked/other clothes.

The ad just doesn't make sense to me.

It is ephemeral and meaningless. The other three don't really bug me, they are sexy pictures, or part of porn.

They are what they are.

Nothing offends me, but the converging mannequin gang bang scene is rather irritating for some reason.

The first one irritates me.

I don't really see how it is in any way a good advertesment.

The others are just pictures...

I don't feel anything about them.

I don't think general portrayals of women in sexy poses are sexist or offensive per se. The first one is creepy and demeaning.

It's trying to pretend like it's not with the expressionless faces and fancy clothes - but that just made it creepier. I think this is offensive.

I'm not sure why this ad would make anyone want to buy the brand. ( Show Spoiler ) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater.

You currently have 0 posts.

First ad is hot. but seriously, it looks like a poor women has fallen b/c of her shoes.

But then a nice, gay man is helping her up, while 3 other gay men look on.

None of them really offend me, but I think it would be hard to offend me with ads in any case.

I do find them to be stupid though, so I guess in that way you could say the stupidity offends me.

I mean, relating sex to fashion and specific brands is just a really trashy way to advertise in my opinion (I suppose most advertising is trashy in its own way though).

Hell, advertising in general is pretty stupid, seeing as the main purpose is simply for you to remember what you saw and relate it to things you consider "good".

Those pictures are pretty tame compared to Tom Ford's ads for menswear and cologne.

I didn't find any of them offensive.

Of course, I don't get offended at all, really.

I think the context of these ads would make a huge difference.

The bottom left one wouldn't be offensive in a men's magazine, but it would be offensive in Family Circle.

Not offensive in Times Square, but offensive on a billboard in a conservative small town.

I don't know about offense, but the first one bothers me the most.

At least nine out of ten images of more than one person doing anything sexual (or even just romantic or affectionate) make me uncomfortable.

I don't like it when it's just one person either, but somehow that seems less like an intrusion into something I consider private. I also don't like shirtless dudes, so just on the basis of that, the first picture bothers me the most.

DG photo annoyed me because I'm an alpha male.

(I'd beat away those other guys and rescue the damsel, distressed or not!) Otherwise they're just photo's likely designed to illicit a specific response. The fishnet girl's thighs are too thin for my taste.

Not really offensive, but I'll say the second picture.

The white type below it is distracting.

Originally Posted by blatant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater.

You currently have 0 posts. first ad is hot. but seriously, it looks like a poor women has fallen b/c of her shoes.

But then a nice, gay man is helping her up, while 3 other gay men look on. Hilarious. Third one for me, because why photograph a girl who is sheepish about getting after it?

Offensive in its passivity.

Get at it, girl. Or don't.

Actually, it's a good photo.

But she does appear "kinda" young.

Cannot report any trauma, however.

None of these offend me. The first one is sexy. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater.

You currently have 0 posts.

I'm offended that sunglasses boy's head is in the way of the shirtless dude in back.

Priorities!




Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet