Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 17:41:41 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". Normal sexual activity is sexual activity between an adult male and an adult female. If you want a psychological definition of normal you will have to wait until tomorrow because I am about to go to bed. With my wife!
|
|
apple
Apprentice
Posts: 210
|
Post by apple on Aug 4, 2016 18:05:33 GMT -5
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. I know quite well what advertising/marketing is, I know it very well. Of course advertising is manipulation, it is also, in and of itself, reflective of the times it is employed. It is significant in that advertising shows us how people perceived or wanted to be perceived at that time the ad is used. From historical advertisements we can learn a lot about the society that produced them.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Aug 5, 2016 8:54:28 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. Research to date has tended to focus on male homosexuality. It may seem counter-intuitive, but there is a an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality in a population. Male homosexuality is difficult to explain under Darwinian evolutionary models, because carriers of genes predisposing towards male homosexuality would be likely to reproduce less than average, suggesting that alleles influencing homosexuality should progressively disappear from a population. This changed when previous work by Camperio Ciani and collaborators, published in 2004, showed that females in the maternal line of male homosexuals were more fertile than average.www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htmOf course, you won't find this kind of illumination in a 2000 year old book of fables.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Aug 5, 2016 9:05:17 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. ...selected out of the gene pool many years ago...Wrong, I'm afraid. No allele works in splendid isolation determining a single property or characteristic. Familiarise yourself with Operons - functioning units of genomic DNA containing a cluster of genes. Now most populations - animal or human - continue to have low levels (~3% to ~5%) of homosexuality and they haven't been selected for removal, so something else is going on.... These findings provide new insights into male homosexuality in humans. In particular, they promote a focus shift in which homosexuality should not be viewed as a detrimental trait (due to the reduced male fecundity it entails), but, rather, should be considered within the wider evolutionary framework of a characteristic with gender-specific benefits, and which promotes female fecundity. This may well be the evolutionary origin of this genetic trait in human beings.
The findings suggest that the proportion of male homosexuals may signal a corresponding proportion of females with higher fecundity. Consequently, these factors always contribute, all else being equal, a positive net increase of the fecundity of the whole population, when compared to populations in which such factors are lower or absent. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm Homosexuality has a purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 11:17:54 GMT -5
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. I know quite well what advertising/marketing is, I know it very well. Of course advertising is manipulation, it is also, in and of itself, reflective of the times it is employed. It is significant in that advertising shows us how people perceived or wanted to be perceived at that time the ad is used. From historical advertisements we can learn a lot about the society that produced them. You continue to view advertising in a simplisticly passive way. It does partly reflect its times but it also consciously seeks to mould and change opinion. You seem unwilling to recognise that aspect of it sufficiently. Now the advert to which I referred clearly implies that the husband is spanking his wife. If you reverted the roles to have the wife spanking the husband what would that say about the mores of the advertisers vis-a-vis the wider societal context? This is not an idle question either; in recent years adverts depicting domestic violence by men against women have (mercifully) all but vanished but ones depicting domestic violence by women against men have become relatively common. What in your opinion does that suggest? Feminist domination of the advertising media? A fundamental lack of empathy between advertisers and the wider public who are victims of such abuse? And why is it (I can post adverts, YouTube clips and similar material) that violence by men against women is (rightly) NOT considered to be amusing but violence by women against men too frequently IS laughed at?
|
|
apple
Apprentice
Posts: 210
|
Post by apple on Aug 5, 2016 11:35:01 GMT -5
I know quite well what advertising/marketing is, I know it very well. Of course advertising is manipulation, it is also, in and of itself, reflective of the times it is employed. It is significant in that advertising shows us how people perceived or wanted to be perceived at that time the ad is used. From historical advertisements we can learn a lot about the society that produced them. You continue to view advertising in a simplisticly passive way. It does partly reflect its times but it also consciously seeks to mould and change opinion. You seem unwilling to recognise that aspect of it sufficiently. Now the advert to which I referred clearly implies that the husband is spanking his wife. If you reverted the roles to have the wife spanking the husband what would that say about the mores of the advertisers vis-a-vis the wider societal context? This is not an idle question either; in recent years adverts depicting domestic violence by men against women have (mercifully) all but vanished but ones depicting domestic violence by women against men have become relatively common. What in your opinion does that suggest? Feminist domination of the advertising media? A fundamental lack of empathy between advertisers and the wider public who are victims of such abuse? And why is it (I can post adverts, YouTube clips and similar material) that violence by men against women is (rightly) NOT considered to be amusing but violence by women against men too frequently IS laughed at? Advertising brings light to the perceived aspirations of the intended consumer. Does it not? Marketing takes its cue from the consumer, thus giving us insight into (in this case) the American Dream. The advert you are referring to shows that the white male is the head of the household and something to be revered, perhaps feared (should you not satisfy him). Is this not an accurate description of the role of the white male in the 50's and his subservient wife? The roles are not reversed, if you wish to launch into a discussion about "feminist domination" in the current advertising world, perhaps start another thread?
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Aug 5, 2016 11:47:57 GMT -5
I'd guess Apple's got it right. My sister's a marketing major. I'll see if I can get her to recommend a book that makes it easier to understand. The ad people are mostly trying to sell sell sell, but part of that is relating to people and getting their attention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 16:00:03 GMT -5
Apple's view is simplistic, outdated and inaccurate.
The concept of advertising as a purely reflective process was never true and is not true now.
My brother-in-law has worked for some years in the advertising industry as a copywriter, designer and presenter of ads.
He has a very different view of the industry.
He says that advertisers are constantly seeking to push parameters, to anticipate public 'taste' and to produce products and services that go AGAINST contemporary mores and fashions as well as reflecting them.
Far from 'taking its cue' from the consumer, it seeks to propagandise them.
As I said earlier, I was only born in 1958 but having spoken extensively to people who WERE adults or teenagers during that era I have to say that very FEW of them regard your interpretation of the 1950s as being accurate.
Though perhaps as so often British people were more progressive than those in America and Canada?
As for your suggestion of a new thread, I think I shall take you up on it (though perhaps not quite in the rather strange terms that you chose to express it.)
|
|
|
Post by beth on Aug 5, 2016 16:07:05 GMT -5
He says that advertisers are constantly seeking to push parameters, to anticipate public 'taste' and to produce products and services that go AGAINST contemporary mores and fashions as well as reflecting them. I wonder why. One would think a soft sell, using things familiar and comfortable would work best. Did he mention anything about subliminals? I've always found that approach interesting. I think there are FDA (or some such agency) laws against it in this country.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 16:11:13 GMT -5
He says that advertisers are constantly seeking to push parameters, to anticipate public 'taste' and to produce products and services that go AGAINST contemporary mores and fashions as well as reflecting them. I wonder why. One would think a soft sell, using things familiar and comfortable would work best. Did he mention anything about subliminals? I've always found that approach interesting. I think there are FDA (or some such agency) laws against it in this country. Jimmy says that of course advertisers employ a variety of approaches. But they are (he tells us) increasingly seeking to use the advertising equivalent of 'shock jock' tactics by going AGAINST conventional perceptions and expectations in the hope, not simply of attracting increased attention but of making the viewer/reader/customer MORE likely to purchase the goods or services on offer. He had a VERY embarrassing presentation to make around six months ago where he had to pitch 'sex toys for women' to an audience. He had to recruit female models to - demonstrate - the use and purpose of the - sex aids. (Which is the smiley for 'blush?' Jimmy certainly DID blush while he was doing his presentation!)
|
|
|
Post by beth on Aug 5, 2016 16:27:23 GMT -5
lol Oh gee ... the perils of the job.
I don't read many magazines so have to go by Vanity Fair and they do a few mild shock ads .. some futuristic ones, too. Flipping through one I have sitting here, I see several with very androgynous looking people. Then others with very feminine looking (dress and make-up) people .. nice looking really. At least the trend toward anorexic, corpse like models seems to have come and gone, thank goodness.
|
|
apple
Apprentice
Posts: 210
|
Post by apple on Aug 5, 2016 17:31:04 GMT -5
lol Oh gee ... the perils of the job. I don't read many magazines so have to go by Vanity Fair and they do a few mild shock ads .. some futuristic ones, too. Flipping through one I have sitting here, I see several with very androgynous looking people. Then others with very feminine looking (dress and make-up) people .. nice looking really. At least the trend toward anorexic, corpse like models seems to have come and gone, thank goodness. And young! some of the models are so very young. I still stand by my assertion that the advertising of the 1950's shows us a bit of history and what people aspired to be. How the white male was portrayed and how the housewife was portrayed are very telling. Given Jimmy's word on the current state of the advertising business, I sure would hope that things have changed since the 50's as it seems obvious to me that it has.
|
|