5 ms·

> Well, sex is what keeps mankind (and animal-kind) alive all these millennia. And only a puritan society would find it bad. One can enjoy a healthy sex life a

by pyrale 10y ago

> Well, sex is what keeps mankind (and animal-kind) alive all these millennia. And only a puritan society would find it bad. One can enjoy a healthy sex life and unrestricted informations about it, without having genitalia forced onto them everytime they take the subway to work or watch a screen. But I agree with you : commercial activism will probably end up in the same place... Maybe the problem is not the subject, but the existence of big interests willing to do anything to be associated with it.

nailer 10y ago
> having genitalia forced onto them everytime they take the subway to work or watch a screen. In what country does this happen?
- woodruffw 10y ago
  Speaking as someone who rode the NYC subway throughout their childhood and adolescence: After advertisements for local colleges, the second most common Subway and MTA bus advertisements are for breast augmentation and men's/women's lingerie. I don't particularly have a problem with these sort of ads, but their ubiquity belies phozy1's point. It's also worth noting that arguments akin to "sex happens in nature, therefore sex is good" are both appeals to nature and not particularly strong justifications for sexualization in advertising. It's possible to have a sexually open society (i.e., not a puritanical one) without plastering our public transport with glamorizations of surgery or $300 lingerie.
  - nailer 10y ago
    I doubt NY would let underwear ads including genitals on the subway. (Breasts obviously aren't genitals, I'm not sure why they're being mentioned)
    - woodruffw 10y ago
      It would behoove you to read more charitably. Neither I nor the GGP mean naked people; I don't think most large companies even consider placing ads with nudity in them in most public places.
      - nailer 10y ago
        The GPP said 'genitalia forced upon them'. Read charitably, it should probably still actually invoice genitalia.
        mercer 10y ago
        Read not just charitably, but informally, it should involve either a bulge or a prominent shot of the genital area, since that is something we (generally, hopefully) don't do unless we want to call it out. I mean, seriously, the only people who argue this 'informal' reading are pedants like myself. There's nothing wrong with it, but let's call it what it is. In context the point was reference to sex and genitalia, not the literal display of genitalia which I truly hope most of us would understand is not the case on the NYC metro (or any other, for that matter). Of course here I am typing out a response to an outrageously pointless line of conversation that nobody in their right mind would consider serious, so for all I know that's the same kind of reasoning that led to my reply. I guess I'd just prefer to see less of this kind of noise here, and I'm sorry if I'm contributing to it.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  Brussels for one......can't get away from that peeing kid. They have picture of that thing everywhere, on vending machines, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manneken_Pis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manneken_Pis

by pyrale 10y ago

nailer 10y ago

> having genitalia forced onto them everytime they take the subway to work or watch a screen. In what country does this happen?

woodruffw 10y ago
Speaking as someone who rode the NYC subway throughout their childhood and adolescence: After advertisements for local colleges, the second most common Subway and MTA bus advertisements are for breast augmentation and men's/women's lingerie. I don't particularly have a problem with these sort of ads, but their ubiquity belies phozy1's point. It's also worth noting that arguments akin to "sex happens in nature, therefore sex is good" are both appeals to nature and not particularly strong justifications for sexualization in advertising. It's possible to have a sexually open society (i.e., not a puritanical one) without plastering our public transport with glamorizations of surgery or $300 lingerie.
- nailer 10y ago
  I doubt NY would let underwear ads including genitals on the subway. (Breasts obviously aren't genitals, I'm not sure why they're being mentioned)
  - woodruffw 10y ago
    It would behoove you to read more charitably. Neither I nor the GGP mean naked people; I don't think most large companies even consider placing ads with nudity in them in most public places.
    - nailer 10y ago
      The GPP said 'genitalia forced upon them'. Read charitably, it should probably still actually invoice genitalia.
      - mercer 10y ago
        Read not just charitably, but informally, it should involve either a bulge or a prominent shot of the genital area, since that is something we (generally, hopefully) don't do unless we want to call it out. I mean, seriously, the only people who argue this 'informal' reading are pedants like myself. There's nothing wrong with it, but let's call it what it is. In context the point was reference to sex and genitalia, not the literal display of genitalia which I truly hope most of us would understand is not the case on the NYC metro (or any other, for that matter). Of course here I am typing out a response to an outrageously pointless line of conversation that nobody in their right mind would consider serious, so for all I know that's the same kind of reasoning that led to my reply. I guess I'd just prefer to see less of this kind of noise here, and I'm sorry if I'm contributing to it.
ktRolster 10y ago
Brussels for one......can't get away from that peeing kid. They have picture of that thing everywhere, on vending machines, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manneken_Pis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manneken_Pis