NNote: This topic allows you to post a picture with your message using the Browse button under the Add Message box. You can only post one pic per message - and it will always appear above the text of your message, whichever order you browse/type in. If your pic doesn't load, try making it smaller (50KB max). We're afraid that you can't post up pictures if you're using the MN Talk App. And if you're not running IOS6 on your iPad or iPhone, you won't be able to browse for images on your Apple device.

Va Va Voom should this advert be banned for being too sexy

(43 Posts)
perrymanku Fri 19-Jul-13 12:03:33

I was just browsing the Unipart Car Care Centres Facebook page and came across this post. I don't think this ad should be banned. I think it is very clever how the advert has been created. There is far worse being used in advertising that shouldn't be.

My husband loved the advert. I think in this day and age, people are more tolerant of all this.

Would love to hear what you think. it is the pinned post

https://www.facebook.com/UnipartCarCareCentres?ref=hl

yes grin

RippingYarns Fri 19-Jul-13 14:09:20

aye, ones that spend equal amounts of time dragging backwards along the floor or down his their own pants, Orchard?

Big hairy hands?

BigHands Fri 19-Jul-13 13:50:32

They do have great tits though.

Is Jags Manku your H op ? If so.... biscuit

PatriciaHolm Fri 19-Jul-13 13:35:35

It hasn't been banned for being "too sexy". It's been banned because the "ad objectified the dancers by portraying them as sexual objects"; for too many closeups of breasts/bottoms with heads obscured - focusing purely on the anatomy, dehumanising the dancers into purely sexual objects and not women. They also objected to the gyrating and approaching the car/driver. Very different to "too sexy". It's entirely possible for something to be very sexy without objectifying the participants.

The Ronaldo one doesn't do that; it's relying on you thinking how good he looks in jeans. The other one is more borderline; but if you are advertising pants you have to expect pictures of people in pants. Advertising cars does not require close ups of women jiggling their breasts.

this is the male version

Still not a fan but it does have a different, jokier feel.

France has a lot going for it. You'd think they could come up with something a little more original than pecs/tits, baguettes/roses grin

EatYourCrusts Fri 19-Jul-13 13:25:59

There is, in fact, a version of the advert with topless men, but they're sort of showing off and messing about. It's got a subtly different feel.

RoooneyMara Fri 19-Jul-13 13:20:54

what is your actual point, OP? Or are you not sure?

Is that your example of far worse being used in advertising that shouldn't be?

RippingYarns Fri 19-Jul-13 13:19:40

i haven't watched the ad, have no interest in it

what am interested in is the theory that you have to sell things to men via their dicks hmm

^ like people have been saying, tit for tat doesn't make it ok. There are lots of ads that are a tad too full on with the objectification of men and women that could do with being questioned. This was just one of them.

Agree that it was actually a cute concept...until they got those women out grin

Using the 'well lots of women do it so...' argument doesn't mean it's ok.

Entitled to believe it, sure, but I wouldn't say that it makes it ok.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Fri 19-Jul-13 13:15:12

When I said my friend wasn't impressed with the stripper I meant she wasn't impressed with the concept, not the poor bloke blush. Just realised how awful that sounded.

HandMini Fri 19-Jul-13 13:14:54

Oh crickey, that is bloody awful, that advert. The saddest thing is that without the tits-out dancers, it would have been quite a cute concept, ie, just the French scene unfolding, but just descends into everything that's wrong with advertising. The poor test driving blokes had the good grace to look a bit uncomfortable with the tit-onslaught.

perrymanku Fri 19-Jul-13 13:14:47

How is that ad any different to these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWdINUZZzBs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFTDuWZyiU8

My mates wouldn't dream of booking me a stripper. They know I'm far too feministic. It is way beyond my wildest imaginings.

I'm also intrigued with what you wrote in your original post: "There is far worse being used in advertising that shouldn't be." Can you tell us more about that?

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Fri 19-Jul-13 13:12:28

I've never 'walked out in disgust' at a hen party stripper but I have 'quietly left the room' twice. One was a very close friend's hen party (who wasn't impressed with the stripper) and another was my SIL (who loves strippers but is not what you'd call a deep thinker).

I also don't drink diet coke and it's only partly because I can't stand artificial sweeteners.

SoupDragon Fri 19-Jul-13 13:11:49

Like I said you weren't "just" browsing it.

Regardless, what are these "far worse things" being used in advertising?

using a bloke's body for entertainment is no less seedy than men doing it to women.

perrymanku Fri 19-Jul-13 13:08:20

Soupdragon I came across it before my other half commented, in fact I suggested he take a look at the ad

@TheOrchardKeeper eyecandy is eyecandy......

@Thisisaeuphemism let me ask you if your best mate booked you a stripper for a hen do/birthday or another occasion would you not see the funny side? OR would you be feministic and walk out in disgust

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Fri 19-Jul-13 13:07:31

It wasn't banned for being too sexy. It was banned for being hideously sexist. It was using women's tits to sell cars ffs! It's 2013!

I forgot casual objectification was funny. Hold on whilst I try and fake a laugh grin

SoupDragon Fri 19-Jul-13 13:05:07

Actually, this thread reminds me of one I've wanted to start about the ad for a local tyre garage near me...

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now