Jonas
Established
Do you think that is because people use birth control or because they dont have sex?
kshapero
South Florida Man
I must be missing something. Exploiting women is progressive? Just sounds old fashion to me.
bmattock
Veteran
I don't see the 'problem' with the USA that many others seem to. If a person wants to view pornography, it is available. If they want to live a hedonistic lifestyle, it is available. Anything you want, you can most likely find in the USA, and some communities are very open about it, it's 'anything goes'.
We keep it where many of us think it belongs, in private, and not openly displayed on billboards, broadcast TV, and magazine ads. And that's wrong how?
We keep it where many of us think it belongs, in private, and not openly displayed on billboards, broadcast TV, and magazine ads. And that's wrong how?
Jonas
Established
What he said
Is naked people the same as pornography?
Is naked people the same as pornography?
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
can anyone provide the link where these ads came from?
I think these are made up by some Canon executive...
Kiu
I think these are made up by some Canon executive...
Kiu
historicist
Well-known
The first advert is actually very good, it shows the advantages is face detect in a effective and humorous way.
The second, well, as a repressed Englishman I of course only get naked with the lights off or during a solar eclipse, but I can confirm as a resident of Germany that Germans don't have any problem with getting naked at a wide range of occasions.
The second, well, as a repressed Englishman I of course only get naked with the lights off or during a solar eclipse, but I can confirm as a resident of Germany that Germans don't have any problem with getting naked at a wide range of occasions.
bmattock
Veteran
All me to rephrase, then.
In the USA, we tend to view 'nudity' as a private matter, and we don't find it acceptable on billboards, broadcast television, or in non-adult-themed magazines. However, all such things are available to those who wish to view them.
And again, I do not see that as wrong.
bmattock
Veteran
Perhaps it is not people such as myself who 'need to loosen up' but rather that others need to keep their desire to see nudity to themselves. It is all available for them here in the USA, in whatever manner they wish to see it - just not in public where children can see it, for the most part.
That is your opinion. Others feel differently. They are allowed to feel differently. That's called...(wait for it)...tolerance. And when the majority feel that way, it's called...(wait for it)...democracy.
Not everyone's sense of humor is the same. Nor is it required to be.
In any case, it is a bit of a moot point. Europeans have been making fun of America's 'puritanical' attitudes for a very long time, but Europe continues to be Europe and the USA continues to be the USA. Amazingly enough, I don't recall ever telling Europeans that they should stop having nudity in their advertising - I don't care what they do. I always wonder why they care so much about what I do.
bmattock
Veteran
I don't know. I saw an Epson advertisement that ran for quite a while in photography magazines a year or so ago, showing something similar - the idea being that with Epson printers, one could see details in light and shadow and faint color differences that other printers might miss. Same kind of idea - dark faces in a 'jungle' type environment. I didn't take it the wrong way, but I can see how some might have.
Frankly, I had much more of a problem with the GEICO 'Caveman' commercials, which I felt were overtly racist and 'not funny'.
johne
Well-known
Germany has a growing Islamic community. If changes come to post Christian Europe, it will not be from the old religion. Either way, the ad is really rather prim except for the saline sac on the anorexic female.
johne
johne
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
First - parents are free to teach that nudity is not dirty or evil if they wish. No one makes them do so.
Second - if parents wish to teach their children that nudity is dirty and evil, that's their business. Not yours, not mine, not the government's, and not the community's.
What is 'nonsense' to you is not nonsense to others. Go figure.
Whatever - it is what it is. We are a polyglot society, and if things change, they change - if they don't, they don't. It would appear that there is no major push to put European-style advertisements on television and billboards, and if that is a problem for some, aw, too bad. Go to Europe, they have loads of that junk there. I like it here, I like the way we do things, I like my culture - warts and all - pretty much the way it is.
FrankS
Registered User
Don't tell me that Bill argued that smoking was okay? Missed that thread. So, nudity bad, smoking okay? What a mixed up world.
FrankS
Registered User
Depends on what you're smoking, I guess - might want to read the latter half of that thread.
Oh. Oh my.
bmattock
Veteran
I didn't argue that nudity was bad, I didn't argue that smoking was good, nor did I argue (since you missed it) that smoking pot was bad. I made logical arguments that stem from liberty and the rule of law.
In the case of nudity, I did not state it was bad - I argued that communities set their own standards regarding public nudity, and if others think that prudish or backwards or wrong, too bad for them.
In the case of smoking, I argued in favor the individual's right to choose, but I acknowledged that smoking in public carries with it a public health risk that can and has been curtailed in some areas because the right to smoke in some cases infringes on the right not to have to breathe the smoke of others.
In the case of pot, I argued that since it is illegal in the majority of the USA, it can only be purchased through illicit channels, and I cited FBI, DEA, and Interpol websites where they assert (and I believe them) that such drug rings and cartels are run by narco-terrorists and in some cases, the profits are funneled back to islamic terrorists.
The first two positions are libertarian. The third is pure logic - if you buy from a drug dealer, you fund his supply chain. That includes terrorists. Buy pot if you must, but know that you fund terrorists when you do. Same as buying a fake Rolex or a bootleg DVD made in places like China - it appears that the terrorists are fond of these sources of funds.
People read what I say and attach meanings to it that I never gave; I leave the reasons wherefore to others.
MikeL
Go Fish
I work in Mendocino, where you can grow 6 plants per household member. I didn't know there were terrorists everywhere. Oh my, what will I do!
bmattock
Veteran
I did refer to illicit purchase of pot. If one grows one's own, and it is legal where one grows it, then obviously one is not funding terrorists. I said that repeatedly in the previously-alluded-to thread, and I've said it clearly here. I am left to believe that some people are either unable to or do not wish to understand what I said.
And you will kindly note that snide remarks do not change facts. I like to make snide remarks about the tons of carbon I am dumping into the atmosphere when I drive my SUV, but it emits the same regardless of whether I am a smartass about it or not. I presume that this logic, at least, can be grokked by a person who works in Mendocino.
Thardy
Veteran
Actually, I find this one to be less correct than the others.
How would this do in the US?
An ad like this was done by Epson printers about 3 years ago.
peterm1
Veteran
I have to say that in Australia, while we quite like most Americans at a personal level, at a national level we find you very unusual indeed. And yes, the reason is as someone pointed out , the puritanical streak that resides in most Yanks (Well at least most that I have met - including some who themselves think they do not have it.) And yes, I would blame the bible belt and the historical effect of your early puritan settlers.. In Australia we do not put our hand on our heart when someone runs up he flag - that would seem most weird (and not a little suspicious-we do not trust people who are excessively nationalistic.) We do not go on about "God bless our country." for much the same reason. And if our politicians rattled on relentlessly about their "Christian beliefs and morals" they would probably get kicked out of office. (And good riddance too.) We do not have such a public debate over evolution - God settled that one 150 years ago when he evolved Charles Darwin ( :^) ) and we for the most part do not beat our brows over "the right to life." (As far as much of the public debate goes its up to people to choose their own destiny and control their own body.) Same for homosexuality and similar issues that exercise the minds of annoying busy bodies who want to tell us how to live our lives by their morals....and that seem to be every where in the American body politic. (We have our share of course but they are not so vocal nor anywhere near so powerful.)
So Americans are different. And I imagine this contributes to why Nikon does not put semi nude photos of hot babes - or ordinary people in their ads. (Sadly)
So Americans are different. And I imagine this contributes to why Nikon does not put semi nude photos of hot babes - or ordinary people in their ads. (Sadly)
MikeL
Go Fish
Sorry Bill, me not bright. Me just try to tie shoe, and me happy. Me work best to understand smart guy like you. Me lesson learned.
Thardy
Veteran
There is more risque stuff than those little print ads (which no one will see) on TV everyday in the US. Even in the Bible belt.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.