Sexual Ads

lizziedog1 I agree with you for the reasons you stated.

Same goes with ads for 4 wheelers, gin and cell phones for the reason that when I read a hunting magazine I want to read about hunting.
 
This thread is interesting. I'm probably going to get flamed by this but there is a lot of irony here.

1. In typical American fashion the theme here is about being concerned about showing an ad that is sexual in nature to children yet there are no qualms about showing said children a publication depicting the violent act of killing an animal for sport. Before any of you start accusing me of being a PETA activist, I have hunted and I find venison to be especially tasty. But hunting a living creature involves an act of violence to take it as food or a trophy. That's just a cold hard fact.

2. This argument is similar to what goes on in liberal anti-gun discussions. They feel strongly about the first amendment's protections of speech in any of its forms no matter how offensive (though lately if it isn't to their ideology then it's "hate speech") but doesn't recognize the 2nd amendments protections. They feel that private gun ownership is a danger to children. On this thread the 2nd and 1st amendment ideas are reversed in that arguement.

Just my observations. Hope no one takes it personal.
 
HANDY
With all due respect, you are wrong. The pill came out in the 60's and that was suppose to diminish teen preganancies. Well guess what, it didn't. In the 70's abortion was legalized, again, unwanted teen babies were going to go the way of the dodo bird, again, the opposite happened. The 80's told us to teach kids how to use condems and expose them early to sex and their libido would be held in check. One more time, it didn't happen. Everytime there has been as attempt to liberalize sexual matters with kids, the number of pregnancies went up.

Wanna cite your source?
 
I am not fool enough to think anyone can stop gratuitous sex from happening. It would seem though with all the diseases like Aids, Hepititus B ect that we would want our kids to be informed and old enough to make a safe decision about sex. What we do though is take a kids raging hormones and pump them full of sexual inuendo or porn causing kids to get diseases that ruin their life.

The antidote to which is knowledge on their part, not ignorance.

The part I don't understand is the persistent idea on the part of some people that if we could "just protect people" (especially children) from learning about "X" and "Y" and "Z", then life would be just hunky-dory.

As for what "we" pump our children full of, for my part, my wife and I pumped the two children at home with a sufficient amount of knowledge that the 15 year-old has been a full-time student at the local community college for 2 semesters (part time for 3 add'l) and will be transfering, as a junior to the local university at the beginning of next semester. We expect him to graduate college, with a bachelor's degree, by 18. The 14 year-old is a little less-accelerated: She'll probably graduate college by 19.

While I won't make any claims whatsoever that having two 14 and 15 year-old college students at home makes parenting any easier [it doesn't] - I am confident in assuring you that it makes them awfully difficult to tempt with anything. And yes, that means we taught them Human Health and Sexuality (among lots of other things). At about 12. From college textbooks.

You're not going to impress me with the difficulty of talking to children about difficult subjects: I've been doing it for a number of years. If you don't want your children to be tempted by things, then for God's sake cowboy up and talk sensibly about them with your children/grandchildren first before other people do!

Dex
firedevil_smiley.gif
 
Unfortunately print and electronic media must viciously compete for $$ more now than ever. Those outlets know full well who their patrons are. I'm old enough to remember when ads for doctors and lawyers were unheard of. Today you can be pitched or solicited for sex in ads while watching the local news. As someone touched on previosly these entities are more often than not owned and operated by otherwise conservative folks. Go figure!
The name of the game in a capitalistic system is provide a service /product for a need....if there's no need then create one. Like it or not selling sex or darn near anything else is as red white and blue as apple pie.
As to sex and lonliness specifically, it's a billion dollar industry in this country like booze, tobacco and rock & roll. Religious conservatives have attempted for ions to demonize the undesirable aspects of life without success.
The more taboo the more the demand.
Our society with it's split personality has been a candidate for the Dr's couch since our inception. When we finally get smart and "zap" the "forbidden" we perhaps can become a healthier society.

Just MHO!
Rock
 
Jeez!

I get embarrassed/uneasy watching TV with my folks nowadays!
I'm almost 40 and words like "erection", "female dryness", etc. in ads on every channel on TV is disconcerting. I doubt there is any place where these ads aren't placed, why should magazines geared toward men of any age be different?

GunTests has no ads. If you're not able to stomach male/female issues ads, then this is for you!

Don't like TV ads, don't watch--write the local affiliate.
Don't like magazine ads, don't subscribe--write them to let them know why.
These ads persist because they make more money for the magazine than they cost. If the cost of the ad lost more customer subscriptions per year than it brought in, then, amazingly!, no more ad! Silence is so much more a reason to continue the course than protest.

Just like the attitude "my vote doesn't count, why vote at all".
If you have this attitude, you deserve what you get, but relinguish the right to bitch about the outcome.

Gun related magazines are on a tight profit margin, if just a handful of subscribers objected to a particular ad and actually wrote the editors about their concerns in a rational manner, things would change within a short time.

Complaining without action is just whining!
 
MY First Post

I agree, I was thrown for a loop when I saw the Cialis ad in GUNS or something. I wouldn't worry about it too much though, if he is only 12 he probably wouldn't understand it anyway. Heck, I am 26 and I hardly know what those ads are pushing.:)
 
Unfortunately I have yet to see a good gun magazine. I read them more for entertainment than for knowledge, so it does not surprise me that they have these ads.
 
If what we are fussing over are advertisements for medications such as Cialis and Viagra in hunting magazines, and especially television, then I have at least one dog in this fight.

No prescription medication should be directly marketed to the patient population. Not Cialis, not Viagra, not Nexium, Prevacid, Zantac, or any of the rest that you see on the 6 O'clock news. New "syndromes" that fall within the range of normalacy and which can be treated by non-pharmaceutical means are appearing every day, along with guess what? A new prescription pill being advertised on TV. The ONLY good that has come of this is more people are seeing their doctors than before. Unfortunately, the physician knows if he does not grant his patient's wish, no matter how inappropriate, such a patient will simply go doctor shopping. How the pharmaceutical companies can advertise prescription medications in these venues and tobacco and alcohol are prohibited or censored is beyond me. All advertisement of prescription medications aimed at getting the patient to demand the drug from their physician needs to cease. It jeopardizes the therapeutic relationship between practioner and patient.

12 year old boys are not going to need erectile enhancers or even read the advertisements any way.
 
If what we are fussing over are advertisements for medications such as Cialis and Viagra in hunting magazines, and especially television,

Nope - the ads in question aren't for the legitimate prescription drugs, but for the *miracle* wonder ointments of dubious worth.
The other *instructional* videos are another matter altogether. I can't vouch for the content as to whether it's hard core, soft core or no core. The wording of the ads does lead one to believe that they are graphic hard core videos though.

12 year old boys are not going to need erectile enhancers or even read the advertisements any way.

Viagra (prescription meds)- no, probably not.

Some *wonder* ointment that's *guaranteed to deliver the ability to drive a woman insane with pleasure over the enhanced virility of her partner* - - well, teenagers are an impressionable lot. Lots and lots of teens in my generation took up smoking for instance to enhance our "marketability" to the other sex.

Here's a link to one example:
http://www.vazomyne.com/

The ad in the magazine - March 2006 Guns and Ammo reads:

Dear Readers,
I know my column usually focuses on nightlife, hot spots, and the "latest and greatest" new trends.
<snip>{The author tells of her dancing at a nightclub called Jimmy Z's and being picked up by a stranger she met on the dance floor}
We drank chamagne, danced, gambled, and eventually ended up back at his sea side condo. I know every girl says this, but a one night stand is a very rare occurence for me.
and so on and so on
The *article* is titled "Travel, Lifestyle and Relationships" By Ilana Murphy.

The *ads* really read like a soft core version of the letters to Penthouse.

Anyhow - I thought most of you should know what type of ads are being objected to. It's pretty clear that most are not talking about the same ads.
 
You're not going to impress me with the difficulty of talking to children about difficult subjects: I've been doing it for a number of years. If you don't want your children to be tempted by things, then for God's sake cowboy up and talk sensibly about them with your children/grandchildren first before other people do!

I am not sure the cowboy up was for me or a general statement but I will call it general as you don't know me:D I think by the words you post (no I am not clairvoiant) that you take good responsibility for your home and family and have the resources to do so. That is great that the ability is there for your family.

How many people do you know like you that will take the time or can even mangage the time to do what you have done? I am not trying to save the world but we have personal problems and societies problems. I am one to let people learn from their mistakes but the facts are our kids are inundated with sexual adds and the drug culture all the time. This has shown to harm them.

It can ruin lives and those ruined lives affect you one way or another. Cost of health care goes up. Add a huge penal system and the social services for the after the fact acts and we as Americans get a lower standard of living.

After building lifes base I call survival then we get to the quality of life. Does the constant bombardment of sexual adds in all we do increase the quality of life?
 
Thanks for setting me straight Hal. It's been years since I read a hunting magazine, other than scan through them while waiting on a haircut. I had an entirely incorrect impression.

Vazomyne seems to be the modern day equivalent to X-Ray glasses advertised in comic books. Remember those? No kid really planned to use them for detecting concealed weapons and other types of scientific research as he sent away his dollar.

I do admit that the gist of these particular ads seems to be over the top and inappropriate for a hunting magazine. The editors should know better, but then, in the internet age, all sportsmen/gun/car/motorcycle type magazines seem to be failing financially, and resorting to any type of advertisers available to stay afloat.
 
Here's an easy to read PDF review about teen pregnancy. http://www.welfareacademy.org/conf/papers/dougmay.pdf

I worry more about child sexuality as relates to opportunistic victimization by older related persons not expressly identified as pedophiles. If there are 150 million women in the US and 10 to 15 percent have had some form of unwanted sexual contact before age 15 and a significant percentage of that was rape or other form of genital contact then "Houston we have a problem".

Here is another thing for all the sexual freedom advocates to think about,the epidemic of the virus which causes cervical cancer. Call me an old fuddy duddy if you want, but I'd rather forgo the pleasure of ever having another gynecologist call me to go explain to their 20 year old patient why she has to have a radical hysterectomy and vulvectomy.

I think I've said it before but I think that some groups, particularly NAMBLA and the American Nazi Party should have limitation on free speech. At this point I'm not ready to say that about the adult-directed soft core porn industry, but I think that it should be held open to the sort of class action damage suits that every other industry in America seems to have.
 
Magazines have a right to publish what they want whether it is to my taste or not.

I don't have to buy magazines that print material I find objectionable.

What I personally find objectionable may well be different than what another individual finds objectionable.

If I object or find something offensive in a magazine I can choose to ignore it, not buy it, or write the publisher and voice my objestions.

Personally, I do find the above mentioned type of advertisements, offensive and inappropriate - but that's me.

If I want to buy a gun/hunting magazine to read - I do so to read firearm/hunting related articles and advertisements. If I wanted sex adds I would buy a pornographic magazine like playboy or penthouse. Having a beautiful loving wife and children - I prefer gun/hunting magazines. I think I mostty object to, as someone previously mentioned, the placing of sexually specific information/ads in a magazine that's focus is guns or hunting. I realize that a certain portion of the magazines audience must respond to such ads and not find them offensive. Advertisers don't pay for ads for no purpose, to lose money, or to not sell their product. I just would like to share some of the magazines with younger individuals and women and I don't personally feel I would want to do that when the article or information is contained in a magazine that has such ads.

Just my feelings - which are my responsibilty - I have no wish to impose my values or beliefs on anyone.

That is why I read more on the internet now and then copy and print any good article that I want to share.
 
Vazomyne seems to be the modern day equivalent to X-Ray glasses advertised in comic books. Remember those?
XB,
Yep and yep. The ads that are causing all the objections are similar, only a little more inuendo is used.


Model 25,
Pretty much - that's my objection to these ads. It isn't so much the content but the context. I really trimmed down the ad,,,, and not only to save space.
You're correct. It doesn't belong here at TFL,, nor does it belong in an outdoor magazine or gun magazine.
 
Magazines have a right to publish what they want whether it is to my taste or not.

It's funny, we have the right to do alot of things but are they good for society and in good taste that makes the quality of life better or is it just for a buck and to hell with what it does to society. It effects us all in one way or another. Some don't care cause they can't see it affects them in a bad way.

Me I just live with it like the malady of a common cold. It happens and I live with it even though it makes life uncomfortable. A person won't learn to care for their car till it breaks down and society won't get better till it breaks down.

25
 
Those of you that mention that parents have the ultimate responsibility on how their kids turn are right on. That is for the kids that have something that actually resembles a family.

These days, many kids are in a one parent home. That parent must work one or two jobs to keep a roof over the head and food on the table. These kids spend many hours home alone. They are then bombarded with smut with no adult supervision or guidance. This can not lead to anything good. Certain sexual acts are running rampant in our schools. Not high school, but junior high and even the elementary level. Heck, when I was in fourth grade, I barely knew what women were. I hear fifth graders talking about sexual stuff that I did not know about even in college.

I wonder how I would have acted in a similar situation. I think back to when I was 15. If I was left home alone with sexually explict stuff easily available, I would have been in hog heaven. But, would I have turned out the way I did?
Or am I the way I am because that didn't happen?

I still think that those ads in outdoor magazines are wrong.
 
Back
Top