Posted on 02/02/2009 4:04:16 AM PST by TornadoAlley3
The definition of pornography is: The depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.
The spot in question most certainly meets that definition.
It doesn’t matter how brief the depiction is, it matters what is INTENDED.
If you disagree that sexual excitement was INTENDED, then please explain what WAS intended.
And your cagey little ad hominem attacks on me, hinting that because I’m insisting the image of the woman was pornographic I must be some sort of sex-crazed pervert, are irrelevant.
>>If you disagree that sexual excitement was INTENDED, then please explain what WAS intended.<<
Comedy, that’s what was intended. The entire spot was funny. This wasn’t the Peta ad. These types of clothing rips are shown ALL the time on American’s Funniest Home Videos. It’s funny. Whether it’s a pretty girl or a huge overweight grampa, it’s funny. Maybe you get turned on by a gramps having his shorts fall down. I don’t. I laugh.
Sexual excitement? In 3/10th of a second? I’m glad my hubby’s not as quick as you.
The problem here is that you’re determined to make this personal. It isn’t. Honest debaters can make that separation.
WRT to pornography, there is a differentiation between what was intended and what was received. Some examples to demonstrate the distinction:
Some people are sexually aroused by feet. Others by ear lobes. Still others by certain animals.
A photo of a sheep in a pen in “Farm & Home Magazine” is not pornographic. Still, some people might be sexually aroused by the photo. But because the intention was NOT to cause sexual excitement, it’s not pornographic.
OTOH, a sexual bondage scene in an adult magazine is intended to cause sexual excitement. But for most people, there is no excitement at all from looking at the same photo. But it’s still pornographic, because of the intent.
HTH.
Cox Communications aired porn? Shocking.
Well, when everyone else is laughing at the clip on AFV and one person is affronted by it, it’s easy for everyone in the room to make it personal.
Using your sheep reference assumes that the Doritos ad was made to arouse. The PETA ad, yes. 3/10th’s of a second of a woman in undies, is comedy. I’ll defer to my college communications course. When trying to attract attention, one must use a pleasant image. The could have used a Grandpa having his pants ripped off to spotted boxers. Just as funny. BUT the image of a pretty young lady is much more pleasant. And to the target audience.
And in fact, you have made a huge assumption all the way around. YOU have no clue what was in the mind of the advertisers. You are personalizing their job. So, contact the kid that wrote the ad (it was a national contest and that was the winner), then you can know for sure what was intended. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke out of your butt and getting ruffled for no reason.
In my opinion (and many others on this thread) it’s comedy. 3/10th of a second? Porn? Sheesh.
Some people are just determined to be offended. Ann Coulter’s new book is all about it.
You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. You’d better go back and re-time the two shots of the woman in her underwear. They’re on screen for about two-and-a-half seconds.
Your continued misrepresentation calling it 3/10 of a second serves your narrow agenda, but it’s not accurate.
Also, you’re the one saying I was offended. I never said that and I never intimated it. My characterization that the spot is pornographic is a fact based on the definition of pornographic. If you think I’ve said otherwise, please point us to the post number and the exact quote proving I did.
You’re the one who brought AFV into the debate. It’s irrelevant, and you’re the only one claiming I’m affronted, offended, or aroused by it. All of those characterizations are also false. But since you are so fond of making up facts to support your narrow agenda, of course you’ll insist they are all true.
And by claiming comedy was the only intention for the shots of the woman in her underwear, you’re far too kind to the advertiser and to the creative ad agency staff who created and produced the spot. BTW, you are also wrong about who created the ad. It was the “Doritos Crystal Ball” spot that was done by the two unemployed brothers who won the million dollar contest.
The “Doritos Power Crunch” spot (also known as the “Doritos Bus” spot) was done by the ad agency Goodby, Silverstein & Partners:
http://commercial-archive.com/commercials/doritos-power-crunch-2009-30-usa
So, if you’re going to debate this issue honestly, at least spend a little time getting the facts correct first. Otherwise, you prove yourself to be a dishonest debater with a narrow agenda.
One more thing: Your intimation with the Ann Coulter line that I am a liberal is despicable, but not surprising. It’s not clear what the cause is for all that hate and anger your statements on this thread hint at, but it’s clear that you aren’t doing a good job of concealing either one.
It was done by an agency, but the idea was the winner of a contest.
http://www.mahalo.com/Doritos_Power_of_the_Crunch_Super_Bowl_Ad
The ad is not called “Doritos Bus” but rather “The Power of the Crunch”. Perhaps a bit more research will do you well.
And with that, my FRiend, I’m done too. Referring to Ann Coulter was about taking on the role of a victim. Note I did not say “you” but rather “some”. If you see yourself there, that’s really not my problem.
Bye!
Note I said the ad was the “Doritos Power of the Crunch” and that it was ALSO KNOWN AS “Doritos Bus”. That’s true:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MySpkRozAZY
http://superbowlads.fanhouse.com/quarter1/Doritos-Bus/2409728
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/super-bowl-ad-doritos-bus/2197282658/?icid=VIDLRVNWS05
And if you google ‘doritos bus’, you’ll find many more references to this spot by the name “Doritos Bus”. So, to answer your silly criticism, yes I did research it before I posted it.
It’s also known as “Doritos ATM”:
http://video.yahoo.com/network/100076996?v=4348672&l=5480880
Your last paragraph is blatantly disingenuous and you know it. In fact, I’ll say it clearly and directly: You lied.
Look, I was going to just ignore this thread. I was reading through another and saw how testy the posters were. We are all rather snippy these days.
Let me apologize if I offended you in anyway and leave the thread on a good light.
God Bless.
Well, that is an excellent idea. I forgive you and I apologize to you for my comments that were ad hominem against you, both offensive and not. OK?
Deal!
I think we are all just on edge with the whole way the world is going.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.