I have a special place in my heart for "Hey dumbass! I bet you forgot Valentine's Day! Buy this for your wife/girlfriend!
buy doxycycline online buy doxycycline no prescription
" advertising on male-oriented TV shows, websites, and magazines. While it's not good to perpetuate the idea of obligatory gift-giving (Won't She be mad if you don't get anything?) I find most of this advertising hilarious and harmless. That is, it advises men to buy such ludicrously awful gifts – things that no woman on Earth would ever want like Pajamagrams or things involving teddy bears – that I can't get angry because I'm laughing so hard at the idea of anyone falling for it.
Now. Two snapshots of where we're at as a society in 2012 and where we've taken the "Buy her this crap, she'll love it!
buy amitriptyline online buy amitriptyline no prescription
" concept.
1. This was a very expensive Super Bowl ad for something called Teleflora, a 1-800-FLOWERS knockoff:
For those of you unable to watch and listen, the ad features beer commercial variety closeups of a hot woman in skimpy clothing and it ends with the line "Give, and you shall receive."
HEY GUYS, DO YOU GET IT? ORAL SEX. BUY HER FLOWERS AND SHE'S GONNA BLOW YOU. WITH HER MOUTH. ON YOUR PRIVATES. YOU WILL RECEIVE A BLOWIE. THAT'S WHAT THIS COMMERCIAL MEANS. TELEFLORA IS THE MIDDLEMAN IN A STANDARD FLOWERS-FOR-B.J. TRANSACTION.
2. I can't find the video, but there is a staggeringly offensive commercial for the latest Twilight film on DVD.
It instructs male viewers to purchase said DVDs and watch them on Valentine's Day. That seems reasonable enough, I guess. If one's special lady likes Twilight, she would probably enjoy spending the evening that way. But the ad also reminds us that we should watch this film because "afterwards, it'll be Valentine's Day for you."
THAT MEANS SHE'LL DO THINGS TO YOUR WIENER! GET IT? WINK WINK WINK!
Bear in mind that the target audience for Twilight is tweens and high school girls. It takes a special kind of boldness to advertise one's product as an effective way to get a 14 year old to have sex with you.
Well, it looks like satire and reality have finally intersected:
In the past I have been accused, with justification, of being less attentive to cultural misogyny than I should be. If it's going to be this obvious, it looks like I won't have to look very closely after all.
Arslan says:
The Teleflora ad was basically advocating prostitution. I believe in some countries there were prostitutes who "sold flowers"(maybe it's North Korea) or something. How appropriate.
I have to wonder- Am I the only American male who notices that there seems to be this, let's say, unspoken idea, that blowjobs are dirty and women don't like doing oral sex unless it's in exchange for something? Family Guy, South Park, that fucking Teleflora commercial, and probably a dozen other examples I'm probably forgetting, all seem to imply that women hate oral sex. How many heterosexual men actually believe this tripe? I can't say my experience even remotely resembles the implications of the American media. WTF is the point of introducing what amounts to prostitution into normal relationships? Qui bono?
Middle Seaman says:
The ads are there because we are dumbasses; they wouldn't waste their money otherwise. Remember: no one lost money underestimating the American people.
Analysis of the ads: I am dumb but not crazy.
Xynzee says:
Americans are both *lazy* and emotionally stunted.
When I finally learned that a woman is happiest when I'm actually *in* the room with her and giving her myself (warts and quaking in my boots and all), that I got far more than just a blowie.
Daniel says:
Someone else noticed the Super Bowl ad it appears. We are about five years away from showing actual oral sex in an ad. That will be so that the eleven people that didn't get it will finally understand.
Elle says:
Conservative perceptions of male/female relations seem to rest on the assumption that nice women don't like sex, and that relationships involve endless placating and cajoling of the capricious, unknowable creature you took to prom / are dating / married to make her let you stick it in her.
This kind of explains their preoccupation with punishing the 'slutty' women they didn't take to prom / date / marry with unwanted children. It also half-explains their 'any nice boy could get caught out' fear of the concept of date-rape. If you don't think women like sex, then how can you tell when they're making their 'this is unpleasant and I wish you would stop' face? Or actually saying "no", rather than than proforma "no" required of Nice Girls?
Social Conservatism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy (in bed). Shame that fear is so socially destructive.
Arslan says:
Then perhaps all these ad writers and other writers(e.g. the South Park creators) are unwittingly telling us something about their personal sex lives.
ts46064 says:
It couldn't just be that South Park and Family Guy writers are making jokes or making satire.
Arslan says:
Family Guy perhaps, but South Park tries too hard.
Arslan says:
I should clarify something there: Family Guy sucks at satire, because their idea thereof is to insert random pop culture references every 30 seconds. South Park can be good at satire from time to time so long as it's not about politics, because the creators typically don't understand most of the issues they write about. That being said, the clip from Family Guy was one joke in one episode; South Park made an entire episode about oral sex for exchange. South Park also had a song which proclaimed that prostitutes are the same as any other woman, "they both trade sex for something in return."
c u n d gulag says:
"Nice" girls don't want to give blowjobs – only the DFH ones.
Can you imaging Mamie, Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, or Barbara or Laura Bush, giving blowjobs?
And if you can, why would you want to?
Thinking about them giving blowjobs is a 'boner-downer.'
I prefer thinking about 'quicker-pecker-uppers.'
I bet Bess, Jackie, Lady Bird, Rosalynn, Hillary, and Michelle gave/give great BJ's.
Eleanor, on the other hand, may be a different story…
Ok, that's enough offensive material for day!
From me, at least.
What do you think?
Elle says:
This is exactly the premise that Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, and all of its precursors and imitators, are based on: "Men use affection to get sex, and women use sex to get affection."
I would feel a lot sadder for these 'relationship experts,' who don't understand the hotness of enthusiastic consent, if they weren't offering such creepy advice. "Dr" John Gray is but one of the shelf-full of authors counselling women to have unwanted sex to meet their husbands' 'needs'.
Sarah says:
There are many twentysomething and thirtysomething women who are totally into Twilight. I've seen women walking around in Twilight and New Moon hoodies at both of the colleges I've attended recently. And then, there's the Twimoms. http://cleoland.pbworks.com/w/page/10373763/Twilight#TwilightMoms (That whole wiki is awesome, though, including recaps of the books and movies for those who don't want to be bothered with the originals.)
Southern Beale says:
I saw that Twilight ad and thought if my husband forced me to watch that dreadful movie not only would he not get a blowie, he would probably be sleeping on the sofa.
While it's true the target market for those films is high school girls, don't underestimate the broader appeal of the whole Twilight saga. Those books sold millions of copies and it wasn't all junior high and high school girls. Lots of adults read them and loved them. LOVED them. Personally, I hated them. I hated Bella and her helplessness and the mawkish romance. But then, I'm more of a Hunger Games girl. I want a little sadism with my sc-fi/fantasy, I guess.
bb in GA says:
@elle
I know you ain't from around heah…
Puritanism: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 – 1956).
He is famous enough and far enough removed from today that the quote police told me to post this attribution :-)
//bb
kama says:
A personal point: I've been around the block a couple of times so I'd like to think I know a couple of things, but I have never heard the term "blowie" as referring to a blow job.
And @cund gulag: I don't think Hillary gave good head. If she did, I don't think Bill would have been after the interns so much. As for the others (except maybe Michelle), one extra strength order of brain bleach will now be self administered.
Number Three says:
Just an old married guy here, but what I see is further evidence of the pornification of the culture. Don't take this the wrong way–I'm no prude, and I don't want to sound like that Douthat twerp–but oral sex references used to be the sort of thing one would hear in a Lou Reed song, or see at a Davie Bowie concert. They weren't mainstream.
Elle says:
@bb
You are quite right. I had assumed that everyone would be familiar with the source, but I didn't mean to deprive H. L. his rightful props.
Can we not? It's surely self-evident to everyone not twelve years old that people cheat / sexually harass their staff for reasons other than their spouse's sexual proclivities. (Also: there's no such thing as a generically good blow job. Different men like different things, I promise.)
Do you seriously think that sex is only for people that you personally find physically attractive, and that women have sex as a piece of performance art for the benefit of men? If so, I think you might be doing it wrong.
ladiesbane says:
@kama: re: the Clintons: while I haven't enough data to speculate on Mrs. Clinton's proficiency at fellatio, in terms of skill, frequency, or suitability to audience, I can state without any reservation that Mr. Clinton was, and may yet be, a world-class bird dog. A man with his nose open in that fashion will never contain himself to one partner, be she Messalina, Ninon de l'Enclos, or Rangy Lil.
@elle: sing it, sister! (And tusen takk to bb for reviving Mencken.)
Cheap Jim says:
Not mainstream. Which is why when you use the names Lou Reed and David Bowie, people ask who they are.
JohnR says:
I'm confused – although the ads are as offensive as most ads are (breaking news! sky still blue!), the basic premise is not any worse than most stereotypes are. Most human interactions, including marriage, are exchanges of stuff for other stuff. We learn early that women are more likely to give us what we want if we give them what they want, and is it not true that women learn the same lesson? "That's when she told me a story about free milk and a cow.." "Prostitution" is one of those funny terms that gets defined in all sorts of ways, but while I am certainly an unreconstructed MCP, it does seem to me that many varieties of marriage (on both sides of the gender fence, mind you) could fall under that broad heading. Few of us get something for nothing, even in this modern world.
Me, I give my wife as much affection and lustfull attention and money as I possibly can, and she in exchange gives me all sorts of nice benefits. We're happy with this quid-pro-quo (me especially, because she's not too fond of jewelry and flowers and chocolates), but it's still a quid-pro-quo. I'm not quite foolish enough to believe that I would continue to receive all these nice benefits if I didn't pay up front for them. It's just that the payments aren't necessarily in cash.
bb in GA says:
All this talk is vary transactional.
Anybody here consider their SO their BFF (to talk like y'all young'uns)?
I guess I'm way 19th century much less the 20th….
//bb
Monkey Business says:
What ever happened to subtlety in advertising? It used to be where a company could run a commercial that had absolutely nothing to do with a product, and do just fine. Now I feel like I'm being whacked over the head with an advertising hammer every time I watch TV.
Major Kong says:
Um, say, what are these "blow jobs" of which you speak?
Arslan says:
@JohnR, If that's the way you see your marriage and you're happy with it, fine. Just don't assume that everyone's marriage works in that quid pro quo fashion.
ladiesbane says:
@JohnR, I thought you were going by your given name, not your jacket. I am the broadminded sort, who considers prostitutes to be no less than any other humans strictly based on their occupation. Likewise, if you have a quid pro quo arrangement rather a love relationship, that is your business. But I don't know that your wife would be glad to be characterized as a prostitute in a public forum. You're not employing the poor grammar and trashy idiom of some meathead dissing his old lady on FB, but the sentiment seems the same.
anotherbozo says:
The crude, "transactional" TV ads are for the younger demographic, I guess; we old farts get Cialis commercials during the national news (watched only by 50-80 y/o's, apparently), and those are a scream in the other direction: the couple embrace, walls fall down and magic gardens appear, then (hysterically) a hot-air balloon carries them away. My favorite variation is when they're in his-and-hers bathtubs (is this the before shot or the after?) on the roof, facing the sunset! Is my demographic so uptight the ads have to be that indirect? Or is the intent comedy?
Another thought: if I'm going to pop for a Teleflora bouquet @ $125 I at least expect VAGINAL sex… but that's just me…
Dave says:
You know why you guys are having so may problems with this? Because it says on your chart that you're fucked up. You talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.
I'm hungry. Let's go to Carl's Jr.
Arslan says:
Idiocracy reference. Now that's obscure(ergo it won't appear on Family Guy).
mothra says:
Well. I came to the right place, then, for Valentine's Day. A heady (yes, pun intended) discussion of fellatio, the definition of prostitution and infidelity! Sweet.
But, FYI, Ed….Teleflora has been around longer than 1-800-FLOWERS.
As for me, I'm not putting out for anything less than the Gordita Supreme Beef Meal Deal at Taco Hell. And you'd BETTER get me the extra-spicy hot sauce, buster, or no go.
acer says:
@Arslan:
Thanks. I'd rather watch Roger Ebert's colonoscopy than Family Guy.
I always hoped the gradual decline of cultural Christianity would make men gradually less confused, contradictory and fearful about the female libido. Doesn't seem to be working. Some other sort of puritanism seems to be taking its place.
Can't really blame these assholes for cashing in on a large, credulous market.
Mike says:
Obligatory link to "Buffy vs Edward" remix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZwM3GvaTRM
It picks up around 1:30.
I haven't watched or read any of the Twilight series, but they seemed pretty retrograde, sexual-politics-wise.
John says:
Heard the Twilight commercial on the radio during the morning drive today. I took me several minutes to process the sheer enormity of naked consumerist bullshit that had just come through the antenna; "buy our shit, you'll get laid for it!"
I mean, I didn't have a whole lot of faith in our society before, but even I can be shocked/impressed sometimes.
Hazy Davy says:
Well, it takes going wayyyy back to my bachelor days, to remember. But I did run some experimental study into dating. I would have preferred a different outcome, and would have expected a different outcome, but here it is: You are not nearly misanthropic enough.
I am afraid that, yes, the perverse influence of reciprocity plays a large role in how many of your fellow "people" behave. It's not, explicitly, a quid pro quo. But party A doing something for party B, increases the likelihood that party B will give party A something they have requested or indicated they want.
And many young, single folks *do* seem to want things that seem absurd. (It appears to be less about the flowers, and more about a public display of your value…which, by the way, seems to work with women sending flowers to men, too.)
I found the Teleflora ad offensive in both it's juvenile innuendo, as well as the truth it reveals. But my disgust doesn't make the quid pro quo JohnR refers to any less true for so many people.
Also, I'd like to see the pricing charts…
If flowers = bj and Twilight = hj…
what do you think I could get for a nice home-cooked meal?
for jewelry?
for a contracted hit?
for a car?
for an electronic doo-dad?
for a shrub?
for broadway tickets?
xynzee says:
Traditionally Americans have always been squeemish about any bodily activity.
Sadly even you Ed used "Privates" rather than penis.
Thanks to Rach, I've been subjected to this little gem that illustrates American heebee jeebies about anything that goes into or out of the human body other than food and drink.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDyZu6zOC6Y&feature=relmfu
What the heck is wrong with needing the *toilet*?
Ryan says:
http://www.cafepress.com/someecards/7189896
Benjamin says:
"this is 2012, that kind of advertising is sexist"
"what's wrong with it being sexy?"
"IST! IST!"
Mackeyser says:
http://www.examiner.com/twilight-in-national/breaking-dawn-part-1-valentine-s-day-commercial-video
There's a copy of the Twilight valentine's day vid. I dunno if you can extract the Flash link or not, but it's a flash embed on a newsmag link.
Yeah, it's about as brazen as you said. And sorry, no blowie is worth watching Twilight.