Forum menu
Saw it on twitter last night, thought ooh she's pretty, might have even zoomed in a bit, also saw STW tweeting about the 70's or something in reference to it.
I refuse to get all high and mighty about it now because I'd be a massive hypocrite.
Advertisers have always used attractive people to promote their wares and probably always will because it works - if it stops working they'll stop.
haven't seen the ad, skimmed the linked article, images blocked:
to create pictures that were objectifying and would satisfy the male gaze at it’s very worst. This was no accident, and we fail to believe the company have succeeded in an ideological 360 in the last 24 hours.
The "male gaze at it’s very worst" is the gaze that's drawn to physically attractive women?
Not the gaze that's draws some to murder, domestic violence or child abuse?
And a "360" leaves you pointing in the same direction.
Not saying that the advert was right, or it shouldn't be criticised, but if you're going to criticise it, do it sensibly or people won't take you seriously.
Edit - re read it (still not seen the ad!) most of it is quite sensible. I just skimmed the conclusion, which isn't, really.
yawn.. she's tidy.
She's very nice.
What was the question?
i Know amazing a good looking model, whatever next ?
They shoudl not have done it they have apologised and they hopefully wont do it again
Lets all move on even the knuckle draggers.
The "male gaze" is an academic term which means how media, film and visual content around us (such as ads) is structured around a masculine viewer. In general, media culture serves our interests rather than women's.
(I'm presuming you are male)
saxabar - that does ring bells. But I wouldn't expect it's so widely used and understood that it could be used in an article like this without some confusion.
Groundhog day. Thought it odd though that Total Womens Cycling chose to show 3 images in their complaint article.
my god, a company in using models to advertise products shocker. these bloggers have no life.
It's just a bit shit. My 7 year old daughter rides in one of their helmets. If she saw that picture she wouldn't understand it. To her, knee pads are for stopping you hurting yourself when you're riding your bike. Why would you wear them with no clothes on, sitting on a step?
I guess these days we're seeing more examples of companies who are willing to exchange part of their profit margin for ethics. Ethics is an increasingly effective marketing tool in itself, although obviously I'm aware that the 'sex sells' option will deliver bigger profits for less effort.
Disappointed to see 661 taking the easy route.
shame they didn't get outraged a year ago when the picture first appeared, the 'i've only just seen this and am appalled' aspect of it kind of takes the edge off
still, an interesting example of how social media works and the positive aspects it can have
I am just glad Adele Mitchell wears fox.
[img] 
[/img]
With all the amazing female role models in mountain biking these days they get some random model to get her kit off is ridiculous.
Sponsor an up and coming rider, get them to wear your pads and win something ffs.
I get really grumpy with this shit as a dad of a young girl.
Very nice.
I can hear the professionally offended wringing their hands from here though.
At least the mag toned down the photo chosen for their lip balm article(edit: that might be as simple as the crass photos that appear next to article lags on here too and outside (?) their control) and the article about why riding with women is better was just tongue in cheek 😉
Still too late in the day for cappuccino
"Considerably bigger [s]buns[/s] pads" ..... 😉
"Professionally Offended" 😀
Didn't take long. A term often used by knuckle draggers.
I am more offended by the use of the word stoked in their apology.
I think its pretty poor as well.
Apart from the obvious sexist element its just bloody lazy.
Can't be arsed coming up with some original marketing? Don't worry a chick with her kit off will save you the bother of trying too hard to be creative.
Knuckle draggers
Didn't take long. A term often used by The professionally offended.
"Professionally Offended"
More like "Permanently Offended" 😉
So, are we to accept that NO ONE who is in least bit attractive is allowed to be used in any form of advertising, and never in any way that is believed to be OT (off topic)?
Does that also mean that attractive newsreaders/TV weather-folk etc are also banned?
PC bo**ocks!
If 661 is aimed at rednecks I'd say they have it spot-on.
Saying that, while I am fully in favour of equality, I really don't like the word 'empower' either. I'm sure the final para of the article could use phrases such as 'support female athletes' or 'provide positive role models' to far better effect.
Not offended, just disappointed.
So, are we to accept that NO ONE who is in least bit attractive is allowed to be used in any form of advertising, and never in any way that is believed to be OT (off topic)?
I feel the point is being missed.
Who was giving jivehoney a kicking over his use of the term girl on the cricketers thread.
[img] 
[/img]
Must be a girls bike. It's pink.
In
Before
The
Straw
Man
Glad to see the front garden's been strimmed.
chip - Member
Knuckle draggers
Can't even make their own posts up.
Glad to see the front garden's been strimmed.
How can you tell, she's clearly wearing shorts.
This again....
Let's have some more noise from the "It doesn't matter sexualising female bodies to sell stuff - because the women doing it are empowered, even if it perpetuates a view of women that is unhealthy for society and maintains a discourse that women are the lower-status sexual playthings of men - but I don't care because I love tits and that's all that matters." school.
Do you [i]really[/i] have the energy to go through all this again?!
Nope.
Thank God; you pass the 'normal person' test 🙂
Has the Assos lady been made redundant?
Apart from the obvious sexist element its just bloody lazy.
how is it sexist?
Anyone care to cross reference the supporters in this thread, with the outraged about misogyny types in my cologne sex attackers thread? To see how many hypocritical cockwombles there are in this thread?
[img] 
[/img]
Can a technologically literate person create one of those crowd funding pages so that we can buy Jezza some of these nice knee pads to go with his new bike?
Anyone care to cross reference the supporters in this thread, with the outraged about misogyny types in my cologne sex attackers thread? To see how many hypocritical cockwombles there are in this thread?
Please explain this comment for the hard of thinking. I don't see the connection with this image and group sexual assault or sexual assault in general.
Well, I think it's sexist.
Who has said this? Who has even hinted at this? What makes you think this is what people are discussing?So, are we to accept that NO ONE who is in least bit attractive is allowed to be used in any form of advertising, and never in any way that is believed to be OT (off topic)?
As above. You dont really seem to have grasped the issues being discussed even remotelyDoes that also mean that attractive newsreaders/TV weather-folk etc are also banned?
Wow sounds like someone is offended to me ...do you do this professionally ?PC bo**ocks!
And rapists tend to be sexist, slippery slope and all that. 😆 One minute you might be shouting about your right to oggle some birds tits on a singletrack add, the next minute you might be wearing a Keffiyeh and buying underage sex slaves.
I mean, is it ok if it's only less damaging to your daughters as opposed to not at all?
What's wrong with being sexy?
Northwind - Member
What's wrong with being sexy?
Nothing. I am the living embodiment of sexy.