Are you turned on by this ice cream commercial?

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

"Also, whoever is making this be sexual is imo the real pederast here"

Oh yes...and the only people who read romantic overtones in Folgers' Brother and Sister commercial are those involved in incest, right? I mean, what, are they saying that a brother and sister can't be close? That no non-incestuous pair of siblings would spend time together literal minutes after one of them came back after a who-knows-how-long absence? Sickos, I tells ya. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that Korra and Asami got together at the end of Legend of Korra, because clearly they don't know that there are platonic ways to hold hands...

Is my sarcasm coming through all right? I don't know, I may have been a little subtle in my disdain for that logic.

The difference is the accuracy of the description. In one case it's accurate, in another case it's so out of left field that only someone who thinks of those things regularly could have reasonably reached such a conclusion.

 

[Asita]

"Also, whoever is making this be sexual is imo the real pederast here"

Oh yes...and the only people who read romantic overtones in Folgers' Brother and Sister commercial are those involved in incest, right? I mean, what, are they saying that a brother and sister can't be close? That no non-incestuous pair of siblings would spend time together literal minutes after one of them came back after a who-knows-how-long absence? Sickos, I tells ya. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that Korra and Asami got together at the end of Legend of Korra, because clearly they don't know that there are platonic ways to hold hands...

Is my sarcasm coming through all right? I don't know, I may have been a little subtle in my disdain for that logic.

The difference is the accuracy of the description. In one case it's accurate, in another case it's so out of left field that only someone who thinks of those things regularly could have reasonably reached such a conclusion.

Really? I chose those examples specifically because we saw the same arguments with them as you are making here. They weren't things I pulled out of the aether. We saw "the only people saying it's incest are those involved with incest" comments and people bemoaning people pushing romance onto something as innocent as two friends holding hands. The difference is that you're on that side of the fence this time and started looking for reasons to dismiss the other perspective. Now, I'm not arguing that you have to agree with the other perspective, just that assigning motive like that is beneath you.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

"Also, whoever is making this be sexual is imo the real pederast here"

Oh yes...and the only people who read romantic overtones in Folgers' Brother and Sister commercial are those involved in incest, right? I mean, what, are they saying that a brother and sister can't be close? That no non-incestuous pair of siblings would spend time together literal minutes after one of them came back after a who-knows-how-long absence? Sickos, I tells ya. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that Korra and Asami got together at the end of Legend of Korra, because clearly they don't know that there are platonic ways to hold hands...

Is my sarcasm coming through all right? I don't know, I may have been a little subtle in my disdain for that logic.

The difference is the accuracy of the description. In one case it's accurate, in another case it's so out of left field that only someone who thinks of those things regularly could have reasonably reached such a conclusion.

Really? I chose those examples specifically because we saw the same arguments with them as you are making here. They weren't things I pulled out of the aether. We saw "the only people saying it's incest are those involved with incest" comments and people bemoaning people pushing romance onto something as innocent as two friends holding hands. The difference is that you're on that side of the fence this time and started looking for reasons to dismiss the other perspective. Now, I'm not arguing that you have to agree with the other perspective, just that assigning motive like that is beneath you.

I actually never took any sides with the siblings thing, as I was completely unaware of it existing prior to you bringing it to my attention. I was more referencing the Korra thing which I am familiar with. In that case it wasn't absurd to consider it a romantic scene based on context. Context is what makes it reasonable there and unreasonable with this korean ad here.

 

[Baffle]

So we can conclude that a boy would also be used in the same way. Sounds logical to me.

I'd say they're very different in as much as the girl is cast as a young adult (or a child trying to be an adult), whereas the boy is explicitly childish and engaging in a child's behaviour (I watched both with the sound off though, so I might've missed something there).

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

So we can conclude that a boy would also be used in the same way. Sounds logical to me.

I'd say they're very different in as much as the girl is cast as a young adult (or a child trying to be an adult), whereas the boy is explicitly childish and engaging in a child's behaviour (I watched both with the sound off though, so I might've missed something there).

The complaint wasn't that she looked too adult-like but that it was specifically sexual due to a focus on her lips/mouth etc. (and cause strawberries are a sex-fruit, apparently).

I think it's kinda shifting the goalpoast to make it a conversation about whether or not it's making her look like an adult or like a child that is trying to look like an adult and broach subjects like makeup or clothing and what have you.

Even if all of those were to be the case, even in that hypothetical, it's still not sexual. People are putting that on the ad from within themselves due to their own connotations and associations. A girl can be being adult-like and she's still not going to be sexual to normal people.




But yeah, I really don't think she's actually being adult, I think her expression is just more modern and asian music video inspired but still thoroughly childish. The boy is childish too, of course, though his expressions imo are more exaggerated and filled with enjoyment.

There's not just one way of being childish and this "trying to pretend to be an adult" is just another facet of it.

 

[Agema]

This is patently ridiculous. It reminds me of an older case where Shia Lebuff was in a music video with another younger girl and people were claiming it was pedophillic similarly. Only that video was unapologetically let to remain up. Also this video is imo way more inoffensive and bland in comparison.

Basically, no I don't think this video is sexualised.

HOWEVER, there's no objective standard of what people find sexual: other people might. We might ignore sufficiently few sensitive worrywarts, but if enough feel uncomfortable, then it's potentially a problem. And in particular, if paedophiles are getting an unusually great kick out of it, in the greater scheme of things it might be the responsible thing to take it down.

 

[Asita]

I actually never took any sides with the siblings thing, as I was completely unaware of it existing prior to you bringing it to my attention. I was more referencing the Korra thing which I am familiar with. In that case it wasn't absurd to consider it a romantic scene based on context. Context is what makes it reasonable there and unreasonable with this korean ad here.

I seem to be talking past you here, so let me try this again. In both the examples I cited, people were flummoxed that others were reading romance into the scene and were voicing their objections to such readings very much as you have here. In fact, they seemed quite frustrated with it, often voicing that the people with alternate views were claiming that (in the case of Korra) hand-holding was necessarily romantic and that it was clearly a platonic scene, and (in the case of Folgers) siblings being affectionate indicated incest.

Their questionable characterizations of the romantic readings notwithstanding, if we step back for a minute, neither case really has a single smoking gun. There's no 'big damn kiss' or 'I love you'. What sells the scenes as romantic are subtler bits of physicality, like how Korra and Asami are staring into each other's eyes while they're walking hand-in-hand, and the chemistry between the actors in the Folgers commercial. Those claiming that the romantic readings were unreasonable overlooked these details and thought it was absurd to read the scenes as anything other than platonic.

Consider the possibility that the people you are tearing into here might be noting similar details that you are overlooking. That it's not that people with alternate readings of the scene are being unreasonable, but instead that you see them as such because you do not see the scene in the same way. My point is that you've jumped straight to "people who disagree with me on this point must be sick in the head" before even trying to understand what about the scene led them to a different conclusion than you.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I actually never took any sides with the siblings thing, as I was completely unaware of it existing prior to you bringing it to my attention. I was more referencing the Korra thing which I am familiar with. In that case it wasn't absurd to consider it a romantic scene based on context. Context is what makes it reasonable there and unreasonable with this korean ad here.

I seem to be talking past you here, so let me try this again. In both the examples I cited, people were flummoxed that others were reading romance into the scene and were voicing their objections to such readings very much as you have here. In fact, they seemed quite frustrated with it, often voicing that the people with alternate views were claiming that (in the case of Korra) hand-holding was necessarily romantic and that it was clearly a platonic scene, and (in the case of Folgers) siblings being affectionate indicated incest.

Their questionable characterizations of the romantic readings notwithstanding, if we step back for a minute, neither case really has a single smoking gun. There's no 'big damn kiss' or 'I love you'. What sells the scenes as romantic are subtler bits of physicality, like how Korra and Asami are staring into each other's eyes while they're walking hand-in-hand, and the chemistry between the actors in the Folgers commercial. Those claiming that the romantic readings were unreasonable overlooked these details and thought it was absurd to read the scenes as anything other than platonic.

Consider the possibility that the people you are tearing into here might be noting similar details that you are overlooking. That it's not that people with alternate readings of the scene are being unreasonable, but instead that you see them as such because you do not see the scene in the same way. My point is that you've jumped straight to "people who disagree with me on this point must be sick in the head" before even trying to understand what about the scene led them to a different conclusion than you.

Well, I don't know if you'd consider them sick in the head or not but people who find that commercial sexy are at the very least some form of pedo or they're so hysterical about other people being pedos that they have an allergic reaction to normal cutesy kid stuff. Neither thing is all that rational. To me it is a red flag and stinks of over-compensating, me thinks thou doth protest too much, it feels like meeting someone and their introduction being "Hi, I'm Bill and I hate pedos!", when someone is like that your natural reaction would be to think "wait, are you a pedo? why would you even bring this up?".


You could theoretically say I'm the crazy one and there really is something to this video like I think there was with the Korra ending, which is exactly why I made this thread and didn't just jot it down under the "crazy prudes" checklist and moved on like I do with a lot of other cases. This thread existing is me acknowledging your point here, though you can entertain an idea without agreeing with it.

I think you're confusing me disagreeing with the idea while entertaining it and finding it preposterous as me not understanding it or not having entertained it.


But yeah, to make my position clear, I think kids are inherently non-sexual so by virtue of the girl being like 10 or whatever, even if she behaves like an adult and mimics adult behavior that can be sexual when adults do it, it just comes off as innocent or funny. Exactly because she's so young, even if she has makeup on it just by default can't be sexual, cause she's a kid. To go on about how someone who is a pedo might be into that misses the point and arranges society as though being a pedo is the norm and it's on the children to not turn them on by being kids and doing regular kid things, one of which is idolizing adulthood.

I have bad news for you, there's someone out there that's turned on by whatever you do. No matter what it is you do, blow your nose, eat potato chips, cut your hair, someone out there can be into that. Same if a kid does it. We shouldn't arrange society based on preventing unsavory people's degeneracy. That's giving them too much power over our lives.

 

[Baffle]

To me it is a red flag and stinks of over-compensating, me thinks thou doth protest too much, it feels like meeting someone and their introduction being "Hi, I'm Bill and I hate pedos!", when someone is like that your natural reaction would be to think "wait, are you a pedo? why would you even bring this up?".

It is quite likely that Bill thinks you're a paedo and wants to make his stance clear before you suggest a movie night.

 

[Trunkage]

I don't think this is sexual

But I could imagine that a whole bunch of people do... (I'll give you a clue, that group rhymes with Freddos.) Hence this:

Some google-fu suggests that the controversy started when pervs began leaving sexualised comments on the YouTube video of the ad. And then there was a backlash in the Korean media, naturally against the pervs but also against the company for making the ad, so I guess they decided to play it safe and pulled it. Asian countries can be pretty conservative about sexuality in a way that us Westerners would find hard to understand.

If you aren't aware, whole swathes of teenage girl youtube channels have been banned or had their comments removed because of creepy old men.

 

[Baffle]

(I'll give you a clue, that group rhymes with Freddos.)

Freedos.

 

[warmachine]

I'm having trouble seeing a ten year old girl as sexual. I guess I have the normal human reaction of only being sexually attracted to adults. It was sensual but that makes it 'food porn' not actual porn.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Erm, no. If people are watching that and having sexual thoughts then the problem is very much with them, not the advert. That advert was intrinsically as sexual as a breezeblock. It's. A. Child.

 

[Asita]

You could theoretically say I'm the crazy one and there really is something to this video like I think there was with the Korra ending, which is exactly why I made this thread and didn't just jot it down under the "crazy prudes" checklist and moved on like I do with a lot of other cases. This thread existing is me acknowledging your point here, though you can entertain an idea without agreeing with it.

I think you're confusing me disagreeing with the idea while entertaining it and finding it preposterous as me not understanding it or not having entertained it.

See, you say that, but let's review how you opened this, for a moment. "Patently Ridiculous". "The degeneration of logic and art". "Whoever is making this be sexual is imo the real pederast here". "The complainers are massive degenerates who are projecting their own perversion onto other people and things". Hell, not two sentences previously you describe the alternate opinion as "a red flag and stinks of over-compensating, me thinks thou doth protest too much". You are not exactly inviting explanation by accusing anyone with an alternate opinion of being a closet pedophile. Rather that feels like trying to deter them from explaining for fear of being branded a child molester.

 

[Trunkage]

Erm, no. If people are watching that and having sexual thoughts then the problem is very much with them, not the advert. That advert was intrinsically as sexual as a breezeblock. It's. A. Child.

So, as a company, if your ad gets a whole heap of pedophiles riled up so much they are commenting how much they'd like to screw that child in the ad, what do you do?

Everyone can see that you are unintentionally aiding pedophilia. They understand that. But do you keep it up once you find out what it's being used for?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Erm, no. If people are watching that and having sexual thoughts then the problem is very much with them, not the advert. That advert was intrinsically as sexual as a breezeblock. It's. A. Child.

So, as a company, if your ad gets a whole heap of pedophiles riled up so much they are commenting how much they'd like to screw that child in the ad, what do you do?

Everyone can see that you are unintentionally aiding pedophilia. They understand that. But do you keep it up once you find out what it's being used for?

It's a hard choice but the one thing you don't do is give the wanker's veto to pedos and with that ability to take down anything. Once you do that you open the door to trolls of any kind just pretending to be pedos and writing sexual comments on anything they dislike so it'll be taken down.


Turning off the comment section or hiring moderators is much better if a first step.

You could theoretically say I'm the crazy one and there really is something to this video like I think there was with the Korra ending, which is exactly why I made this thread and didn't just jot it down under the "crazy prudes" checklist and moved on like I do with a lot of other cases. This thread existing is me acknowledging your point here, though you can entertain an idea without agreeing with it.

I think you're confusing me disagreeing with the idea while entertaining it and finding it preposterous as me not understanding it or not having entertained it.

See, you say that, but let's review how you opened this, for a moment. "Patently Ridiculous". "The degeneration of logic and art". "Whoever is making this be sexual is imo the real pederast here". "The complainers are massive degenerates who are projecting their own perversion onto other people and things". Hell, not two sentences previously you describe the alternate opinion as "a red flag and stinks of over-compensating, me thinks thou doth protest too much". You are not exactly inviting explanation by accusing anyone with an alternate opinion of being a closet pedophile. Rather that feels like trying to deter them from explaining for fear of being branded a child molester.

Why does someone who thinks I'm wrong have to care if I think that about them. All they have to do is adequately show me to be wrong and with that they'll dispel any aspersions that may be cast upon them. Anyhow, most people here seem to think it's not sexual and some understand why there could be some others who find it sexual so we can have a discussion about why someone is a degenerate with even these confines just fine. We don't need to pretend something is valid or healthy to analyze it. If someone is really self-conscious about this that's also kinda weird. Would you think it normal to be equally worried about if someone paints you with the cannibal brush? Cause to me both would be equally absurd and not something to worry about.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Erm, no. If people are watching that and having sexual thoughts then the problem is very much with them, not the advert. That advert was intrinsically as sexual as a breezeblock. It's. A. Child.

So, as a company, if your ad gets a whole heap of pedophiles riled up so much they are commenting how much they'd like to screw that child in the ad, what do you do?

Everyone can see that you are unintentionally aiding pedophilia. They understand that. But do you keep it up once you find out what it's being used for?

If the ad has sexual undertones, then that is a different issue. That ad is not inherently sexually explicit, therefore folk are reading into it something that isn't there. Do you remove holiday brochure ads because the smiling, wholesome family on the beach (and their kids) are in swimming costumes and pedos might touch themselves to that?

 

[Baffle]

Once you do that you open the door to trolls of any kind just pretending to be pedos and writing sexual comments on anything they dislike so it'll be taken down.

I think anyone that would accuse someone of doing that is actually a closet pretend-paedophile.

 

[Trunkage]

Erm, no. If people are watching that and having sexual thoughts then the problem is very much with them, not the advert. That advert was intrinsically as sexual as a breezeblock. It's. A. Child.

So, as a company, if your ad gets a whole heap of pedophiles riled up so much they are commenting how much they'd like to screw that child in the ad, what do you do?

Everyone can see that you are unintentionally aiding pedophilia. They understand that. But do you keep it up once you find out what it's being used for?

If the ad has sexual undertones, then that is a different issue. That ad is not inherently sexually explicit, therefore folk are reading into it something that isn't there. Do you remove holiday brochure ads because the smiling, wholesome family on the beach (and their kids) are in swimming costumes and pedos might touch themselves to that?

What you think is sexual is not what a paedophile would think is sexual. At least, I hope. Thinking the ad is not sexual explicit is a bad assumption

Erm, no. If people are watching that and having sexual thoughts then the problem is very much with them, not the advert. That advert was intrinsically as sexual as a breezeblock. It's. A. Child.

So, as a company, if your ad gets a whole heap of pedophiles riled up so much they are commenting how much they'd like to screw that child in the ad, what do you do?

Everyone can see that you are unintentionally aiding pedophilia. They understand that. But do you keep it up once you find out what it's being used for?

It's a hard choice but the one thing you don't do is give the wanker's veto to pedos and with that ability to take down anything. Once you do that you open the door to trolls of any kind just pretending to be pedos and writing sexual comments on anything they dislike so it'll be taken down.


Turning off the comment section or hiring moderators is much better if a first step.

I mean, no matter what, your always going to be infested with trolls.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Trolls infesting you isn't the same as having the ability to post in a way that successfully makes things get taken down. And again, we shouldn't arrange society based on what pedos find hot for crying out loud.

Once you do that you open the door to trolls of any kind just pretending to be pedos and writing sexual comments on anything they dislike so it'll be taken down.

I think anyone that would accuse someone of doing that is actually a closet pretend-paedophile.

While it's good to recognize that they're a threat, you do wanna avoid slipping into a hysteria similar to that of those who complain about ice cream ads.