apple
Apprentice
Posts: 210
|
Post by apple on Aug 3, 2016 18:04:41 GMT -5
Naw, she is obviously saying "Pain is the body shedding weakness." Obviously. coff coff You should see a doc about that... %
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 18:15:08 GMT -5
I totally disagree. Ads, far from reflecting the predominant culture, consciously seek to mould and shape it.
And the Chase and Sandborn ad is pretty obviously posing a woman in a position of being spanked by her husband.
I doubt very much if in a 1950s context (even though I was only born in 1958) the advertisers were implying a context of consensual BDSM!
|
|
apple
Apprentice
Posts: 210
|
Post by apple on Aug 3, 2016 18:32:38 GMT -5
I totally disagree. Ads, far from reflecting the predominant culture, consciously seek to mould and shape it. And the Chase and Sandborn ad is pretty obviously posing a woman in a position of being spanked by her husband. I doubt very much if in a 1950s context (even though I was only born in 1958) the advertisers were implying a context of consensual BDSM!I never thought that, I suppose I don't have a dirty mind like some. Also, advertising does represent the culture and era of which it is derived from.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Aug 3, 2016 20:14:22 GMT -5
I totally disagree. Ads, far from reflecting the predominant culture, consciously seek to mould and shape it. And the Chase and Sandborn ad is pretty obviously posing a woman in a position of being spanked by her husband. I doubt very much if in a 1950s context (even though I was only born in 1958) the advertisers were implying a context of consensual BDSM!I never thought that, I suppose I don't have a dirty mind like some. Also, advertising does represent the culture and era of which it is derived from. My guess is, they were meant to be amusing. The target audience was probably white suburban middle class.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Aug 4, 2016 7:36:38 GMT -5
Exploding the nuclear family myth
Marriages may have lasted longer in the 1950s, but divorces were difficult to obtain and frowned upon by society. The swinging sixties, however, saw huge social changes and the introduction of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act. As a result UK divorce rates soared between the 1970s and early 1990s to become some of the highest in the world, increasing by 4.9% in 2010 possibly due to strains on relationships caused by the recession. Despite this, in a recent BBC poll, four out of five people in a relationship said they were happy. Unmarried couples are opting to cohabit more and put off getting married and having children until later on in life. With the average wedding costing around £20,000 many people are choosing instead to save for a house deposit. Complex families The modern family is increasingly complex and has changed profoundly, with greater acceptance for unmarried cohabitation, divorce, single-parent families, same-sex partnerships and complex extended family relations. Grandparents are also doing their bit – a study by Cardiff University showed that one in four working families rely on grandparents for childcare. Research carried out by Cambridge University suggests that gay fathers have more interaction with their children and their kids tend to have busier social lives when compared to a traditional family. Children in single parent families can be just as happy as those with both sets of parents, according to a 2014 survey by NatCen Social Research. The quality of the relationship with the primary carer matters most, rather than the number of parents. linkThe postwar nuclear family headed by a breadwinning man and homemaker wife that's become the "traditional" measuring stick against which today's families are judged is more mythical ideal than bygone reality, says Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. Through most of history, the whole family — including the children — worked to support the family, she says, and it wasn't until the 1920s that large numbers of men started earning wages working for other people, children went to school instead of work and women took over the domestic sphere. That model receded during the Great Depression and the Second World War, then came "roaring back" in the postwar era, Coontz says, but it was the norm only for one brief moment of human history. "A big myth is the idea that male providing was the traditional family," she says. "Women were co-providers throughout most of history." That postwar model became an emblem of family life in part because it coincided with an economic boom time when real wages were rising and inequality was shrinking, she says. "We look back at the prosperity and compare it with the stagnation that we have today, and it's easy to say, 'Well, it was the families that made that work,' but in fact it was that economic prosperity that allowed those families," Coontz says. The 1950s nuclear family was immortalized in popular culture just as television was influencing its first mass audiences, she says, and there was a "huge cultural push" everywhere from psychiatry to women's magazines to declare the breadwinner-homemaker model the perfect form and women with other desires defective in some way. link The modern family is increasingly complex Indeed, you can have a transgender parent - paid for by the taxpayer, or any other arrangement you choose. Can someone tell me why nature decided a male and a female were required? Isn't nature a fascist bitch, eh.
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Aug 4, 2016 11:41:58 GMT -5
Can someone tell me why nature decided a male and a female were required? Isn't nature a fascist bitch, eh. Here's a wild guess - procreation? Maybe some are born homosexual because there's a biological reason they should not reproduce? I've wondered about that for a long time.
|
|
apple
Apprentice
Posts: 210
|
Post by apple on Aug 4, 2016 12:02:25 GMT -5
Can someone tell me why nature decided a male and a female were required? Isn't nature a fascist bitch, eh. Here's a wild guess - procreation? Maybe some are born homosexual because there's a biological reason they should not reproduce? I've wondered about that for a long time. A mutation or a mutated gene perhaps, is that where you are going with this? Homosexuality goes back as far as recorded history, it is also found in the animal kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Aug 4, 2016 12:09:00 GMT -5
Something like that. Maybe it's one of the keys to evolution.
That's probably totally off, but it's interesting to speculate.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Aug 4, 2016 12:17:39 GMT -5
Exploding the nuclear family myth
Marriages may have lasted longer in the 1950s, but divorces were difficult to obtain and frowned upon by society. The swinging sixties, however, saw huge social changes and the introduction of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act. As a result UK divorce rates soared between the 1970s and early 1990s to become some of the highest in the world, increasing by 4.9% in 2010 possibly due to strains on relationships caused by the recession. Despite this, in a recent BBC poll, four out of five people in a relationship said they were happy. Unmarried couples are opting to cohabit more and put off getting married and having children until later on in life. With the average wedding costing around £20,000 many people are choosing instead to save for a house deposit. Complex families The modern family is increasingly complex and has changed profoundly, with greater acceptance for unmarried cohabitation, divorce, single-parent families, same-sex partnerships and complex extended family relations. Grandparents are also doing their bit – a study by Cardiff University showed that one in four working families rely on grandparents for childcare. Research carried out by Cambridge University suggests that gay fathers have more interaction with their children and their kids tend to have busier social lives when compared to a traditional family. Children in single parent families can be just as happy as those with both sets of parents, according to a 2014 survey by NatCen Social Research. The quality of the relationship with the primary carer matters most, rather than the number of parents. linkThe postwar nuclear family headed by a breadwinning man and homemaker wife that's become the "traditional" measuring stick against which today's families are judged is more mythical ideal than bygone reality, says Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. Through most of history, the whole family — including the children — worked to support the family, she says, and it wasn't until the 1920s that large numbers of men started earning wages working for other people, children went to school instead of work and women took over the domestic sphere. That model receded during the Great Depression and the Second World War, then came "roaring back" in the postwar era, Coontz says, but it was the norm only for one brief moment of human history. "A big myth is the idea that male providing was the traditional family," she says. "Women were co-providers throughout most of history." That postwar model became an emblem of family life in part because it coincided with an economic boom time when real wages were rising and inequality was shrinking, she says. "We look back at the prosperity and compare it with the stagnation that we have today, and it's easy to say, 'Well, it was the families that made that work,' but in fact it was that economic prosperity that allowed those families," Coontz says. The 1950s nuclear family was immortalized in popular culture just as television was influencing its first mass audiences, she says, and there was a "huge cultural push" everywhere from psychiatry to women's magazines to declare the breadwinner-homemaker model the perfect form and women with other desires defective in some way. link The modern family is increasingly complex Indeed, you can have a transgender parent - paid for by the taxpayer, or any other arrangement you choose. Can someone tell me why nature decided a male and a female were required? Isn't nature a fascist bitch, eh. I believe that the family (in terms of functional structure) is about the same today as it has been over the last 300 plus years in Western Culture. As our society has evolved technically it has become easier and less costly to acquire energy (in whatever form), and due to that, it has made it so that there is less need for physical commitment to acquire the items for having a reasonable life. However, I believe that people should keep in mind such commitment did structure family and the need for a man and woman to cleave together to achieve such things to support their family is only a short distance (time) away. I remember in my life time when the need for a man and a woman working together to develop the resources for the life they chose, dominated their choices in life. It would take very little to return to such a living style. A major solar flare which destroyed our electronic world. Just look at food. Where do most people get their food? I’ve asked this question many times of younger people. After some hesitation they get to the answer of going to Wal-Mart (or the equivalent). I suggest that the next time they go there, that they ask one of the managers if they could just see the back inventory storage rooms (for food). What they will find is that there will be very little stored there as the trucks cycle in the food so that the shelves are usually filled direct from the trucks. And the shelves have about a 5-day supply at normal demand. I then ask them that if the trucks stopped running, what would they do for food? Of course such a thought has never entered their head. After some hesitation they usually come up with something like, ‘well, the government would supply our needs.’ I then tell then that with a solar flare that won’t happen because with a solar flare the many microchips in ‘all’ vehicles will no longer work. So now what? Of course they have no answer. I suggest here that the many differing and complex life styles will disappear in a short time, about the time cold weather arrives. It isn’t a matter of political philosophies and individual momentary desires, rather we will return to the primate functional behaviorisms best supportive of our species, or, we won’t exist.
|
|
apple
Apprentice
Posts: 210
|
Post by apple on Aug 4, 2016 12:26:00 GMT -5
Something like that. Maybe it's one of the keys to evolution. That's probably totally off, but it's interesting to speculate. It is an idea that has floated around for years.. the gay gene. Evolutionary logic would suggest that if homosexuals had fewer children than heterosexuals, the genetic "cause" or the "gay gene" would have been selected out of the gene pool many years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 17:05:06 GMT -5
Homosexuality and lesbianism are essentially non-procreative activities.
Only heterosexual sex can lead to pregnancy.
Same sex activity is purely lustful.
Now I am an agnostic; I do not dislike individual homosexuals or lesbians.
But to pretend it is on all fours with normal sex is simply ignoring the facts of biology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 17:07:18 GMT -5
I totally disagree. Ads, far from reflecting the predominant culture, consciously seek to mould and shape it. And the Chase and Sandborn ad is pretty obviously posing a woman in a position of being spanked by her husband. I doubt very much if in a 1950s context (even though I was only born in 1958) the advertisers were implying a context of consensual BDSM!I never thought that, I suppose I don't have a dirty mind like some. Also, advertising does represent the culture and era of which it is derived from. Again, I think you need to study the history of advertising. Many ads DO reflect the culture of their times; many do not. Some hark back to an earlier period; others consciously try to change perceptions. That has been going on for at least the last two hundred years (advertising actually began in the 1600s on a large-scale though obviously its impact was restricted to smaller geographical areas than is possible nowadays).
|
|
apple
Apprentice
Posts: 210
|
Post by apple on Aug 4, 2016 17:25:17 GMT -5
I never thought that, I suppose I don't have a dirty mind like some. Also, advertising does represent the culture and era of which it is derived from. Again, I think you need to study the history of advertising. Many ads DO reflect the culture of their times; many do not. Some hark back to an earlier period; others consciously try to change perceptions. That has been going on for at least the last two hundred years (advertising actually began in the 1600s on a large-scale though obviously its impact was restricted to smaller geographical areas than is possible nowadays). Oh but I have Mike. FYI, Advertising, in one form or another, has existed as far back as 3000 BC. Fact check that if you like. Commerce is a very old trade, the idea to induce others to be enticed to perform exchanges was not far behind commerce itself. Social history preserved in ads is like an archaeological dig, layers upon layers of chronology....bits and pieces upon which the culture of consumerism, in a certain time period is reflected.
|
|
apple
Apprentice
Posts: 210
|
Post by apple on Aug 4, 2016 17:28:21 GMT -5
Homosexuality and lesbianism are essentially non-procreative activities. Only heterosexual sex can lead to pregnancy. Same sex activity is purely lustful. Now I am an agnostic; I do not dislike individual homosexuals or lesbians. But to pretend it is on all fours with normal sex is simply ignoring the facts of biology. Define "normal".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 17:39:57 GMT -5
Again, I think you need to study the history of advertising. Many ads DO reflect the culture of their times; many do not. Some hark back to an earlier period; others consciously try to change perceptions. That has been going on for at least the last two hundred years (advertising actually began in the 1600s on a large-scale though obviously its impact was restricted to smaller geographical areas than is possible nowadays). Oh but I have Mike. FYI, Advertising, in one form or another, has existed as far back as 3000 BC. Fact check that if you like. Commerce is a very old trade, the idea to induce others to be enticed to perform exchanges was not far behind commerce itself. Social history preserved in ads is like an archaeological dig, layers upon layers of chronology....bits and pieces upon which the culture of consumerism, in a certain time period is reflected. Well, I could have taken the history of advertising back further but mass advertising primarily began in the seventeenth century. And if you have studied its history you will be well aware that advertising has not simply passively reflected the attitudes and culture of its time but has at least as frequently sought to alter and change them. So it is not a matter of simple passive reflection; it is a conscious attempt to manipulate and influence people's thinking and behaviour. Not to recognise that fact is to take a simplistic, one-dimensional and inaccurate view of advertising's purpose and history.
|
|