Scantily Clad women and gun advertisements. acceptable or not?


PDA






Redlg155
January 24, 2012, 07:24 PM
Fellow Shooters,

This week I picked up a copy of the Shotgun News, a paper I usually rely on for having a lot of gun content and not much else. In this issue there were no less than 3 advertisements with racy models, one which I definitely would not have wanted my son to see which featured a scantily clad woman in her underwear. Other companies have used models in mainstream gun magazines, EAA comes to mind here.

Is this practice a detriment to the image of gun owners, or am I acting prudish to think so?

If you enjoyed reading about "Scantily Clad women and gun advertisements. acceptable or not?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Carl N. Brown
January 24, 2012, 07:27 PM
It undermines my opinion of the advertising department of the company, even if I like the product or the gals.

BeerSleeper
January 24, 2012, 07:28 PM
No. Nobody will notice the firearms.

Those aren't the guns they're looking at.

matty-vb
January 24, 2012, 07:29 PM
Sex is used to sell everything else. Why not guns as well?

dev_null
January 24, 2012, 07:29 PM
It makes me think the product must not be that great or they wouldn't need to resort to it.

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 24, 2012, 07:31 PM
It depends. Does it generate more sales? If yes, than it's acceptable. Advertising is about generating sales of a product. You go with what works, and you skip what doesn't. Some people are not swayed by advertising. Some people would rather read up on the product and make an informed decision about if it's the best. If you're one of those, good for you. The ads aren't meant for you.

It's an accepted fact that adding a sexual component, warranted or not, to a product advertisement increases how much market impact that advertisement will make. Eyes linger on those ads. The mind remembers those ads. That is often just enough to tip the balance when deciding what to buy. It works. Firearms manufacturers are a business. I would not expect them to do anything less than what works. A business exists to make money. If those scantily clad women make more money than a different ad, than it is acceptable.

Stevie-Ray
January 24, 2012, 07:31 PM
I like them, so I guess I don't give a rip about image.

M-Cameron
January 24, 2012, 07:32 PM
Men like guns......

Men like scantily clad women.....

Men like scantily clad women with guns.....seems like a no brainer.




My favorite are the reloading press ads with the attractive model posing next to it.... For some reason it always makes me laugh.

Rail Driver
January 24, 2012, 07:33 PM
In the end, who really cares? Sex sells, when it comes to a business point of view... I don't see anything wrong with a little eyecandy if a company is going to advertise their product... It's better than the lame, boring commercials and advertisements I see for other products.

nwilliams
January 24, 2012, 07:33 PM
I honestly see nothing wrong with it.

If you ask me there is way too much censorship in this country to begin with, from movies and television to advertising.

Stevie-Ray
January 24, 2012, 07:34 PM
My favorite are the reloading press ads with the attractive model posing next to it.... For some reason it always makes me laugh. I used to look forward to my next issue of The Blue Press.

Carl N. Brown
January 24, 2012, 07:34 PM
^#8 Blue Press?

almherdfan
January 24, 2012, 07:35 PM
Depends on what the women look like...

hso
January 24, 2012, 07:35 PM
Trashy

Monkeyleg
January 24, 2012, 07:36 PM
The ads with scantily clad women are the most obvious, but there's advertising with much stronger subliminal sexual messages that aren't quite so obvious.

Psa1m144
January 24, 2012, 07:38 PM
I think that there is a line where it becomes inappropriate, but I have yet to find it. Just kidding. Honestly, an attractive woman next to or holding an attractive gun is all good in my book as long as they compliment each other and the woman isn't the center of attention. There is a way of doing this without going "too far" and most(not all) reputable companies stay within the boundaries of what is acceptable and professional.

The "Blue Press" is a good example.

jcwit
January 24, 2012, 07:38 PM
hso
Moderator
Trashy


Agreed, plain, simple, and to the point!

o Unforgiven o
January 24, 2012, 07:39 PM
The ads with scantily clad women are the most obvious, but there's advertising with much stronger subliminal sexual messages that aren't quite so obvious.
Do tell.

mashaffer
January 24, 2012, 07:40 PM
It is simply another symptom of the degradation of culture. One can rage against it but unless the minds and will of the people change then the advertising used to reach them won't either. Personally that kind of advertisement influences me to find a someone else from which to by.

mike

Telekinesis
January 24, 2012, 07:41 PM
I'm all for it, but then again I'm a 21 year old guy who shoots. I'm right in their target market.

Then again, one of my favorite gun related pictures/advertisements is of a beautiful (and fully clothed) woman shooting a revolver... I really think it had more effect on me than pics of a model in lingerie just holding a gun.

Rail Driver
January 24, 2012, 07:41 PM
It is simply another symptom of the degradation of culture. One can rage against it but unless the minds and will of the people change then the advertising used to reach them won't either. Personally that kind of advertisement influences me to find a someone else from which to by.

mike
Why is it degradation of culture? Who says there's anything wrong with appreciating the beauty God gave us (if you believe in God)?

The Sarge
January 24, 2012, 07:43 PM
America has lost her way.

GoWolfpack
January 24, 2012, 07:43 PM
It makes me think the product must not be that great or they wouldn't need to resort to it.
Dillon uses good looking women in their ads, and they're considered some of the best reloading equipment around.

I can't think of one gun company that uses scantily clad women in their ads that doesn't also make at least a fairly good product.

Swichblade
January 24, 2012, 07:48 PM
This reminds me of an incident.

A Dillon Reloading magazine was delivered to my house. My mother looks at the front cover, which shows a woman dressed in a small outfit, and in the bottom corner, a gun rests on a table. She wondered what kind of magazine we were getting until she saw the gun.

Redlg155
January 24, 2012, 07:52 PM
I find interesting that many feel as though I do. We don't need the Statue of Liberty in a bikini to represent freedom.

I do however, understand the marketing tactics of manufacturers to appeal to a certain demographic base. Even so, I'd venture to say that just as many firearms are sold to individuals who could care less about a half nude model and more about the weapons qualities.

walker944
January 24, 2012, 07:52 PM
Sure, I look, but not a single advertisement with sex women has EVER enticed me to buy....but, I sure don't mind looking! :evil:

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
January 24, 2012, 07:53 PM
You know, after 40 I figured my libido would slow to a point that I wouldn't linger on those scantily clad female ads. BOY WAS I WRONG!!! I am firmly (notice the subtle pun there :D ) of the opinion that some people need to come out of the dark ages! It's just like the "slip" at the superbowl. Now because of a few prudes, we are stuck with geriatric halftime shows. Seriously guys, how the hell do you think you got here! There's not a thing wrong with the human body. It's a wondrous miracle of nature. (Some more wondrous than others :D ). Get your heads out of the sand and wake up prudes.

Cosmoline
January 24, 2012, 07:54 PM
Yeah it's trashy, and it pretty much brands the seller as trashy. I also think it's outdated. But then again most firearm related ads are outdated and clunky. Fake exploding ninjas with bad graphics for example, being used to sell "tactical" ammo or "operator" gear.

There's not a thing wrong with the human body.

If this is about being open with our nude selves, then why don't they have the average gun owners hanging out in bikinis? I'll pose, in my ultra sheer bicycle bibs.

[You pictured it--you can't unpicture it!]

Obviously, the scantily clad models are being used to draw attention to the product. But do you actually buy a firearm--a major investment in many cases--based on such nonsense? I'm much more inclined to watch youtube clips showing performance, recoil and the like. And of course cruise THR for views.

M-Cameron
January 24, 2012, 07:55 PM
America has lost her way.


You think the ads in America are something, these are nothing compared to the ads they have in Europe....

Some European ads are borderline pornography.

Rockfish61
January 24, 2012, 07:57 PM
I don't mind the good looking Female machinery advertising the good looking firearm. Frankly the use of the word "Zombie" bothers me more.

Scuba_Steve
January 24, 2012, 07:57 PM
To answer the OP directly, as a guy, hell yes I like seeing a scantily dressed women with a firearm, car, or anything else.

Now, as a proud liberal who like guns, likes fast cars, and also cares strongly about environmental and social issues, I think there is a better way. I believe the firearm industry would benefit more by marketing the sporting interest and the family/social bond enjoyment that can be obtained by shooting firearms over the ever present 2A/anti quarrel.

The manufacturers (and us) should strive to make shooting a sport that is common as football, hockey, basketball and soccer.

Captains1911
January 24, 2012, 07:58 PM
"Scantily Clad"??? Is this 1950?

If you don't like it, don't look, simple. As for me, I will look and enjoy. That's the beauty of America.

Noah
January 24, 2012, 07:58 PM
I personally thinks it's trashy and morally bent for a "respectable" firearms company to take advantage of women to advertise their product. It says only bad things about the company and the fact that they need to "go there" to try to generate sales. Show a revolver next to a horse and hat. Maybe even advertise a man in a suit aiming a CCW at the camera with his GF/Wife/Daughter behind him. But to put an offensive image next to a gun/accessory for the sole purpose of drawing someone's eyes to it is not The High Road, agreed?

I am offended by all "trashy" advertising and media. Might not be what you'd expect from a 16 year old boy, but I am proud of my religious principles and feel that those sorts of things go against them.

Furncliff
January 24, 2012, 08:01 PM
Don't go to the beach ...

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 24, 2012, 08:03 PM
take advantage of women

Women choosing to become models and then being paid more than most of us is being "taken advantage of"?

Redlg155
January 24, 2012, 08:04 PM
MP5's aren't allowed at the beach.:D

303tom
January 24, 2012, 08:05 PM
Sexy Sells.................

Shawn Dodson
January 24, 2012, 08:07 PM
Do you shield your son from seeing "scantily clad" girls/women in bikinis at the pool/beach or short shorts at the mall/grocery store or do you merely find it morally objectionable when "scantily clad" females appear in gun advertisements?

theicemanmpls
January 24, 2012, 08:08 PM
I enjoying viewing pictures of "trashy" women. I am proud that I have no "so called" religious principles. I display my Dillon calender in a very prominent place in my man cave. One of the other members was correct, they make good gear. :neener:

357 Terms
January 24, 2012, 08:09 PM
I have never thorwn away a single copy of the "Blue Press" ......just uh...for the articles.

Scuba_Steve
January 24, 2012, 08:09 PM
I personally thinks it's trashy and morally bent for a "respectable" firearms company to take advantage of women to advertise their product. ...I am offended by all "trashy" advertising and media. ... I am proud of my religious principles and feel that those sorts of things go against them. I hope it is OK to quote and edit your comments above. Please see my comments a few posts above yours.

I only quote you, because I believe at first glance, you and I would would be considered miles apart on beliefs. However, I believe our core values and goals are quite similar, the difference is how we get there. Someday I hope we can all find a common ground and we will reach that common goal.

Bobson
January 24, 2012, 08:14 PM
It undermines my opinion of the advertising department of the company, even if I like the product or the gals.
Same here. It's unnecessary, and it would only make me second-guess my decision to buy a company's product, assuming I were planning to do so in the first place.

If you have a great product, you have everything you need. I can find pictures of attractive women elsewhere, if that's what I'm looking for. When I'm researching firearms, or just reading outdoors-related magazines or something, I don't need (or want) women on my mind.

dmazur
January 24, 2012, 08:17 PM
You think the ads in America are something, these are nothing compared to the ads they have in Europe....

That's my understanding as well. We had a visitor from Europe who was shocked at the violence on our TV. It seems that is somewhat censored in Europe, by comparision.

But sex in advertising is relatively uncensored there.

I'm glad my parents allowed me unrestricted access to reading materials at a very early age, after having taught me what was "right" and what was "wrong". They trusted me to take a pass on the "wrong" material without supervision from that point on.

I've found I can tolerate quite a bit of "trash", as long as there is a choice available. Even something as simple as an "off" switch. :)

heeler
January 24, 2012, 08:17 PM
I guess it just depends on your personal judgement system.
Point in case is the reality most firearms are bought and used by males.
These types of advertisements just might very well turn off a prospective 20's or 30's female buyers though.
Back in the 60's and 70's motorcycle advertisements were full of these things because by and large motorcycles then were overwhelmingly a male dominated vehicle.
As I have aged now it's obvious the firearm could be advertised without the sex induced angle but then again men mostly are the ones who overwhelmingly buy and use firearms and the old tired and worn angle is still being used.
Obviously it works.
Everyone has their own idea of what's trashy and that's fine by me.
Myself I absolutely loath tattoos on women.
Others here will take great offense at this because their own mothers sport them.

almherdfan
January 24, 2012, 08:17 PM
In all seriousness, it's no worse then using fantasy violence. I'm not offended by a little T & A. I'm offended by bad products and bad companies.

ColtPythonElite
January 24, 2012, 08:18 PM
I wish they'd leave the guns out of the picture with the scantily clad women. They distract me.

308win
January 24, 2012, 08:24 PM
Everything else being equal I would pay more attention to an ad for a firearm featuring Meg Ryan in a bikini than one featuring Lou Diamond Phillips in a Speedo. Go figure. In the everyday world it isn't common to see eye candy in the same picture with a firearm so the novelty is going to make an impression and that is what the seller wants. What's the issue as long as the ad isn't in poor taste?

buck460XVR
January 24, 2012, 08:24 PM
Scantily Clad women are always acceptable to me regardless of where they appear. I may be old, but I ain't dead.

2WheelsGood
January 24, 2012, 08:24 PM
Men like guns......

Men like scantily clad women.....

Men like scantily clad women with guns.....seems like a no brainer.

Here in lies the problem. Scantily-clad women are used mostly to sell items... to men. Duh. Tools, motorcycles, and yes, guns. Which is great, except I'd like to see guns marketed to women at least as much as to men. These aren't the caveman days. Women are out in public just as much as men, and they're often alone and even more vulnerable than men. Women need self protection AT LEAST as much as men. And seriously, sticking a pink grip on a revolver is NOT the way to get women interested.

I'm fortunate that my wife is more into shooting than many women. But it's not an easy sell. Most women think of guns as a "man's thing". I'd love to see that change.

Captains1911
January 24, 2012, 08:25 PM
I personally thinks it's trashy and morally bent for a "respectable" firearms company to take advantage of women to advertise their product. It says only bad things about the company and the fact that they need to "go there" to try to generate sales. Show a revolver next to a horse and hat. Maybe even advertise a man in a suit aiming a CCW at the camera with his GF/Wife/Daughter behind him. But to put an offensive image next to a gun/accessory for the sole purpose of drawing someone's eyes to it is not The High Road, agreed?

I am offended by all "trashy" advertising and media. Might not be what you'd expect from a 16 year old boy, but I am proud of my religious principles and feel that those sorts of things go against them.

So because YOU don't like it you feel that others shouldn't be allowed to make their own choices? This sort of mindset really aggravates me.

mljdeckard
January 24, 2012, 08:27 PM
With the many things in life that need to be protested and changed, as long as it isn't rated R in front of my kids, I really don't much care.

2WheelsGood
January 24, 2012, 08:31 PM
There's not a thing wrong with the human body. It's a wondrous miracle of nature.

So I assume you won't mind them using some naked dude's 'nads to sell you a gun?

22-rimfire
January 24, 2012, 08:33 PM
I think it's a little trashy too, but not out of bounds. Maybe I need to buy the current issue. :D

I don't want to see no naked dudes, only dudetes. Sorry.

Double Vision
January 24, 2012, 08:39 PM
I don't object to gun ads with female models, but I sure don't base my purchases on the models.

To me, the sexiest ads are the ones for Springfield Armory firearms.
Simple and to the point with one of their products on a blank white backgound.
They get me every time.

Sam1911
January 24, 2012, 08:42 PM
We discussed this last year, with a poll if you want to see how the votes tallied: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=524688

I said in that thread:

I am quite put off by it, personally. As some others said regarding bad beer, including that kind of thing makes me feel an involuntary rejection of the product as it seems like a transparent attempt to prop up an insufficient product with "below the belt" advertising.

There are some quite attractive ladies who do some mighty fine shooting with top tier equipment. Seeing THEM favoring a certain gun (in a competition setting, in full competition gear) may be a compelling sales tool.

Some unknown woman, in neither a shooting setting nor in shooting gear, is just clutter that overpowers the item being sold. If the advertiser message overpowers the qualities of the item being sold with the "qualities" of the model holding the item, chances are the gun won't be MORE impressive when I'm holding it and she isn't there. :rolleyes:

In some limited cases, an attractively dressed woman might make an effective sales tool if she was present in the ad to demonstrate the particular utility of that gun for minimalist concealed carry. But I've yet to see an ad that really did that effectively.

Most are just cheesecake. That "belongs" in ads for lousy beer and sleazy Vegas vacations. Not for any gun I'd want to buy.

Having said that, I'll admit that I even feel that way about good ol' Dillon. The ladies they photograph are generally fairly attractive, and even mostly sophisticated and well dressed. But I just feel embarrassed for them. (And that is NOT sexy, nor a good sales pitch.) They look like someone just handed them a sprocket or a piston connecting rod and said, "Hold this like you mean it." They're there to be looked at, not engaged in the sport or practice they're staging in their image. They know it. You know it. It is false, and stupid, and awkward.

Make the picture one of Jesse Abbate or Julie Golob tearing it up on a USPSA field course and you've got my attention. Heck, make it one of "Carley" but put her on the range with a good instructor running her through an El Prez. That's awesome. Put her in a low-cut top and a mini skirt, holding an AK like it's a marital aid she's not too thrilled about trying...yeah, that's not cool.

Off-putting. Out of place. Inappropriate. Awkward. "You like hamburger, right? Sure you do! Well, our hamburger is SO GOOD, we've dumped a big pile of SUGAR all over it, just for you! Yuuuuuum!"

Stophel
January 24, 2012, 08:45 PM
I think it can get quite trashy and does show the moral state we are in. I think it also does no good for the image of the shooter in they eye of the unwashed masses. Further, I can't actually imagine how it could be successful. Do people buy a gun because they see an ad with a near naked chick holding it???

Noah
January 24, 2012, 08:45 PM
So because YOU don't like it you feel that others shouldn't be allowed to make their own choices? This sort of mindset really aggravates me.


I don't like it in gun/racecar magazines and TV commercials. If you want to, go watch an R movie/show and read a "bad" magazine. It won give me an immediate heart attack, cause me or you to be struck by lightning, or anything of the sort.

Only how I feel about my life, I didn't mean to imply that people shouldn't be able to make their own choices.

I could go into a sermon on how the little things cause you grief down the road (does your girlfriend/wife like you reading/watching that? Would you want your son to know you saw that? etc) but then I would be doing it again, wouldn't I?



EDIT: On a differentish note, I would agree with the above poster that we want guns and gun owners to look as respectable as possible to the Gun Control crowd, and these sorts of ads don't exactly do that.

EDIT: I went ahead and bolded the above, as I feel it is a valid, important, and much more objective consideration.

Redlg155
January 24, 2012, 08:47 PM
Is there any way we can incorporate a new poll into this thread? I didn't see an option in the edit tools.

Ky Larry
January 24, 2012, 08:53 PM
As long as the gun makers don't come to your house and point one of their products at your head and make you look at their ads, I don't see a problem. Nobody is forcing you to look at their ads or buy their products.
We are constantly bombarded with messages wanting us to buy something. Every magazine, billboard, tv show,sign, and radio is fighting for our attention.Personally, I'm grateful that somebody shows me an attractive young lady. I have always liked looking at pretty girls and will probably be checking out the cute young nurses on my final trip to the E.R. ;)

NinjaFeint
January 24, 2012, 08:54 PM
I like scantily clad women and guns so it works for me. It doesn't make me want to buy them though.

I don't think it makes gun owners look bad, sex is used to sell everything.

Also, I don't think a sermon would help me and my gf doesn't care.

MuleRyder
January 24, 2012, 08:57 PM
I read Field & Stream. But I have been disappointed in the ads in the back few pages of the magazine. I have the current issue in front of me. There is a full page ad for penis enlargement, another 1/4 page ad for adult toys, and a 1/3 page ad for some kind of pheromone stuff.

Liberty1776
January 24, 2012, 08:58 PM
eeehhhhh.... not to be picky, but EAA could find better looking models. I guess when you're guns are not as beautiful as S&W revolvers, you need to have something to draw the customer's attention...:D

Bullz
January 24, 2012, 08:59 PM
I don't like the ads. A gun is a technical instrument... it just makes me question the quality of the product if a company is using underhanded advertising tactics. What does a girl in underwear have to do with a gun anyway?

I want to see adds that show the capabilities of the guns... like some special forces guy pulling a loaded gun out of a mud bath and seeing the gun operate flawlessly... or backing a truck over the gun and seeing it continue working without a hitch. Show me it's tough, accurate, and works even under the most demanding situations. That'll sell me on a gun.

TraditionalCatholic
January 24, 2012, 09:00 PM
I have seen several of these ads as well. I find it incredibly immodest and indecent, and, while I MAY still purchase something from that manufacturer, ads with women dressed immodestly make me think less of that manufacturer's advertising department.

TwoWheelFiend
January 24, 2012, 09:01 PM
This thread needs more pictures.

IMO Guns and Beautiful women are two of Gods greatest gifts to men. So I have no issue with gun companies advertising with hot chicks.

Dr_B
January 24, 2012, 09:02 PM
I have no interest in looking at scantily-clad women in gun advertisements in a magazine. I prefer real, live scantily-clad women with guns.

rbernie
January 24, 2012, 09:10 PM
One of the fastest growing segments within the gun community is women shooters. I fail to see how cheesecake ads effectively market to them.

I would opine that these sorts of ads will be viewed by many prospective women shooters as extensions of a locker room mentality, and may even function as an emotional barrier to entry rather than an enticement.

22-rimfire
January 24, 2012, 09:12 PM
I think the Kahr ads aren't too shabby. Does it make me want to buy one? Naaaah. Makes no difference at all, but I do notice the ad and that is important.

Stophel
January 24, 2012, 09:15 PM
"Quote:
I personally thinks it's trashy and morally bent for a "respectable" firearms company to take advantage of women to advertise their product. It says only bad things about the company and the fact that they need to "go there" to try to generate sales. Show a revolver next to a horse and hat. Maybe even advertise a man in a suit aiming a CCW at the camera with his GF/Wife/Daughter behind him. But to put an offensive image next to a gun/accessory for the sole purpose of drawing someone's eyes to it is not The High Road, agreed?

I am offended by all "trashy" advertising and media. Might not be what you'd expect from a 16 year old boy, but I am proud of my religious principles and feel that those sorts of things go against them."


Captains1911: So because YOU don't like it you feel that others shouldn't be allowed to make their own choices? This sort of mindset really aggravates me."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Captains1911, nowhere in this statement did he say anything whatsoever about restricting ANYONE else in making their own choices. You just took it upon yourself to be offended by his personal opinion, demonizing him because it differed from yours (a situation I see all the time anywhere there is a question of morality present). Yours is the mindset that really aggravates me.

ball3006
January 24, 2012, 09:15 PM
So.....you don't like pretty girls? What then do you like? I may be over the hill but I admire pretty girls and guns.....chris3

mgmorden
January 24, 2012, 09:20 PM
Sex sells. It's true for everything out there.

Put it this way: you're now on a forum talking about those ads. They're in your head. How many of the regular old generic "gun sitting on a table with some bullets and a knife beside it" ads are stuck in your mind right now?

Myself, I can't think of any time when I DON'T want to see a nice looking gal, so heck why not in a gun mag. Bring em on.

If you outlaw scantily clad women only the outlaws will have scantily clad women :D.

Bobson
January 24, 2012, 09:23 PM
I am offended by all "trashy" advertising and media. Might not be what you'd expect from a 16 year old boy, but I am proud of my religious principles and feel that those sorts of things go against them. So because YOU don't like it you feel that others shouldn't be allowed to make their own choices?
Helloooooo! This entire thread is composed of random opinions. Nobody's here selling you anything. If you don't want to read opinions, navigate yourself away from this thread. Don't come here and complain about the only person who cited religious beliefs as the basis for his opinion. (I'm sure that was a coincidence, right?)
This sort of mindset really aggravates me.
Good. You seem to be an extremely tolerant individual when it comes to the beliefs of others. Give yourself a pat on the back, champ; you earned it. :fire:

Hocka Louis
January 24, 2012, 09:30 PM
What issue of Shotgun News was that please? Pleaaase!?

jerkface11
January 24, 2012, 09:33 PM
I would pay more attention to an ad for a firearm featuring Meg Ryan in a bikini

Isn't she like 60?

FROGO207
January 24, 2012, 09:39 PM
Well I get the Blue Press all the time and since the first one it has not swayed me to purchase any more blue colored reloading gear. If they want to pay females to help try and sell the world firearms------whatever.:confused: If I had a female in the vicinity like one of those pictured I would definitely NOT want her to be pointing that gun at me and/or shooting it at me either.:p

Owen Sparks
January 24, 2012, 09:45 PM
If you can't "accept" scantily clad women in gun advertisements then don't buy from those companies. That is how the free market works.

JohnBT
January 24, 2012, 09:51 PM
My mother taught me that those ads are in poor taste. I still look at them.

John

P.S. - I really read the articles, too.

camar
January 24, 2012, 10:06 PM
I had to concel my subsribisions to the gun magazines because of the nudity. My teenage boys liked to read the aritcles. I had to make a choice.

7.62 Nato
January 24, 2012, 10:12 PM
America has lost her way.
I agree. But let me tell you why I believe it's true. In this Politically Correct induced environment, the stores around me have all but abandoned gun magazines period. I can't go to a drugstore, supermarket, or most media stores that sell magazines and even find copies of Shotgun News and similar related materials. In order for me to purchase a current issue without subscribing I have to go to an "Adult" Bookstore! And yes, that's the only reason I go there. I get looked at like I'm a weirdo because I'm buying gun mags.

Sam1911
January 24, 2012, 10:16 PM
I had to concel my subsribisions to the gun magazines because of the nudity. My teenage boys liked to read the aritcles. I had to make a choice. Tell them to read THR instead. No nudity, and the information here is MILES ahead of anything you'll read in any gun rag. :)

2WheelsGood
January 24, 2012, 10:17 PM
the stores around me have all but abandoned gun magazines period. I can't go to a drugstore, supermarket, or most media stores that sell magazines and even find copies of Shotgun News and similar related materials.

Wait wait, I live in the most liberal town in Michigan, and when I run into Barnes & Noble and Borders (before they folded), they have a grand selection of gun magazines. I can't comment on supermarkets and drug stores because I've never looked.

Captains1911
January 24, 2012, 10:21 PM
What aggravates me is the ever growing idea that everyone and everything in this county has to be PC. It's the overly sensitive people who get "offended" by certain things that are driving society in that direction, rather than just ignoring it and moving on with their life.

Sam1911
January 24, 2012, 10:21 PM
So.....you don't like pretty girls? What then do you like? I may be over the hill but I admire pretty girls and guns.....chris3

Hamburger taste good. Sugar tastes good. Try to sell me hamburger by dumping sugar all over it and I'm going to think there's something wrong with your hamburger.

I don't want to see a gun in a sexy (or erotic) scene. (Yes, I've seen that, and it is pretty nauseating.) I don't want to see sexy (or erotic) women in my gun, shooting, or other technical forum/ad/mag -- awkward, embarrassing, irrelevant, out of place.

Serenity
January 24, 2012, 10:23 PM
As a female reader of gun magazines I am offended by the wretched make-up and atrocious clothing (what there is of it) that the girls wear. Maybe they are shooting (heh) for the look that was in style when the main demographic of readers was in high school? It does make me happy to see models who look like they actually EAT, unlike the poor waifs in the women's fashion magazines.

And to make it THR relevant, the ads do NOT turn me off guns, or guys who shoot. Maybe we could get some male eye candy in there? (Are there any advertisers or editors reading this?) To get upset about it would be like going in a locker room and then getting mad when guys act like guys.

Owen Sparks
January 24, 2012, 10:23 PM
If you don't like sexuality used in advertising then don't buy from those advertisers. If enough people feel the same way the free market will take care of it. Just don't pressure the government to pass some law that infringes on the rights of others to publish or read whatever they want because you find it offensive.

You don't have a right to NOT to be offended.

Sam1911
January 24, 2012, 10:23 PM
What aggravates me is the ever growing idea that everyone and everything in this county has to be PC."PC" isn't ever-growing. PC peaked out about 10-15 years ago and is now a joke. Most of society has moved on.

There is a difference between being offended by something, and finding it stupid, crass, irrelevant, and off-putting.

M-Cameron
January 24, 2012, 10:25 PM
Here in lies the problem. Scantily-clad women are used mostly to sell items... to men. Duh. Tools, motorcycles, and yes, guns. Which is great, except I'd like to see guns marketed to women at least as much as to men. These aren't the caveman days. Women are out in public just as much as men, and they're often alone and even more vulnerable than men. Women need self protection AT LEAST as much as men. And seriously, sticking a pink grip on a revolver is NOT the way to get women interested.

so..... you want there to be ads of Scantily clad men holding firearms.....?


well, its been a while since my professional male modeling days.....but ill see if i can whip up a few demos for you.....

justice06rr
January 24, 2012, 10:26 PM
I personally don't have a problem with it.

The same advertising techniques are already used by many other companies that are not even firearms related. Just go to your local shopping mall or bookstore. You will already see stores like Victoria Secret, Guess etc. and magazines for fitness or celebrity gossip.

My other opinion on the matter is that your children or younger family members shouldn't really be reading these types of material just as they shouldn't be reading lingerie or tattoo magazines.

lizziedog1
January 24, 2012, 10:26 PM
Good looking women handling guns doesn't bother me in the least.

Sex product ads do.

Gun magazines are getting to the point were you wouldn't want a small child to get a hold of.

Captains1911
January 24, 2012, 10:32 PM
If you don't like sexuality used in advertising then don't buy from those advertisers. If enough people feel the same way the free market will take care of it. Just don't pressure the government to pass some law that infringes on the rights of others to publish or read whatever they want because you find it offensive.

You don't have a right to NOT to be offended.

exactly

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
January 24, 2012, 10:41 PM
Same here. It's unnecessary, and it would only make me second-guess my decision to buy a company's product, assuming I were planning to do so in the first place.

If you have a great product, you have everything you need. I can find pictures of attractive women elsewhere, if that's what I'm looking for. When I'm researching firearms, or just reading outdoors-related magazines or something, I don't need (or want) women on my mind.

If a company using a tried and true SUCCESSFUL method of advertisement makes you second guess it, then you sir are in serious need of an education in economics. I know some of the posters here are old, but I didn't know you were dead! Hell I'm in the "old" section myself. But I try to keep up (another subtle pun, sorry couldn't help myself :D ) with the times. Good looking women draw the eye to the ad. Plain and simple. And for those of you that think that a hot guy holding a firearm doesn't draw a woman's eye, your wives sure have you fooled! Women "look" just as much as men do, they are just smarter and less obvious about it than we are. The posters that are preaching morality need to go back to your caves. Plain and simple.

Ian
January 24, 2012, 10:43 PM
I think getting ruffled at the idea of a babe in a gun ad pretty well defines "prude". ;)

I only get annoyed at them when it's one of those crappy photos with a model who clearly neither knows nor cares how to actually handle a firearms. I'll happily peruse Oleg Volk ads until the cows come home.

22-rimfire
January 24, 2012, 10:47 PM
Women "look" just as much as men do, they are just smarter and less obvious about it than we are.

I have to laugh. I think it is true, but laugh I still do. Women primarily dress for the scrutiny of other women, not men. Oh sure, a young lady with a low cut blouse is certainly open to attracting men, but they also attract the admiring eyes of other women. It is not sexual toward other women, it is more of a contest in sexuality.

I absolutely do not like the ads for male enhancement drugs or devices in sporting magazines.

Robert
January 24, 2012, 10:51 PM
I think getting ruffled at the idea of a babe in a gun ad pretty well defines "prude".
Was there lots of ankle in the old Hotchkiss or Vickers ads? I've heard the Lewis is a babe magnet. ;) Sorry Ian, had to do it.

Heck I'll model for firearms ads, but I ain't sexy. I find the ads in poor taste most of the time but I can look past it. If it is really bad I put it down and remember to not read that mag or catalog again. If it really angers me I will post about it on the internet :neener:

TNboy
January 24, 2012, 10:52 PM
I'm glad we live in a country where companies have the liberty of using scantly clad models in their advertisements if they so chose. That being said I like the idea of a gun magazine being a family friendly publication. I'm not personally offended by the ads but I can see how those with small children may be. A little class goes a long way.

Arkansas Paul
January 24, 2012, 10:55 PM
Scantily Clad women and gun advertisements. acceptable or not?


It depends. If it's the women in the Kahr ads, then no, it's not acceptable. :barf:

If it's the women in the Dillon ads then YES!!

Seriously, I agree with the people that say if it offends you, then don't buy from those companies. Speak with your wallet, that's how you get things done. I think it's obvious that the majority have no problem with it, or else these companies wouldn't still be doing it. Personally, it doesn't offend me. At the same time, it doesn't make me want to buy certain products either.

And before you get carried away feeling sorry for the "poor girls" in the ads, remember, they were lined up auditioning for it most of the time.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
January 24, 2012, 11:06 PM
And to make it THR relevant, the ads do NOT turn me off guns, or guys who shoot. Maybe we could get some male eye candy in there? (Are there any advertisers or editors reading this?) To get upset about it would be like going in a locker room and then getting mad when guys act like guys.

HA!!!!! Our female reader has SPOKEN!!!!!! Take that prudes!!!!! :D :D

browningguy
January 24, 2012, 11:25 PM
It's fine with me, I buy the product based on the product itself, but I don't mind seeing attractive women in bikinis.

Your options are freedom of expression, or turn the US into Iran.

Nushif
January 24, 2012, 11:32 PM
I think getting ruffled at the idea of a babe in a gun ad pretty well defines "prude".

I only get annoyed at them when it's one of those crappy photos with a model who clearly neither knows nor cares how to actually handle a firearms.

Pretty much this.

Even the word "accceptable" to me reeks of victorian "morals." Rather dear sir, this is unacceptable. I must ask you to remain calm. Indeed, most offputting.

What bugs me is yes, the fact that instead of snagging a good looking female shooter they usually get the boss's girlfriend in her early 80's perm and too much unsubtle make-up just because they probably find it "unacceptable" to solicit the services of modeling from another female.
My wife has been nude in arts projects FFS, one in chains and a headscarf ... shocked yet? I love a good looking woman looking good while doing something she likes, or can even remotely get into. The only thing that bugs me about most advertising is that when they're selling me a wrench they have a 35 year old californian perma-tanned bag of female hygiene products straight from an LL Bean catalog selling me the wrench, instead of a guy or gal who actually knows how to change a tire, and has the greasy coverall to show for it.

Face it folks. As much as it may be "anything goes" there is an awful lot of prudeness floating around wrapped entirely in "morality" from the 30's, and we all know where legislating morality gets us, right? At least I hope most of the people here are against legislating morality. I really do hope.

wannabeagunsmith
January 24, 2012, 11:40 PM
When I want guns, I want guns.

When I feel like looking at "Scantily Clad women" I feel like looking at that lol.

Now let's not mix the two up.

mo841
January 24, 2012, 11:49 PM
It would not bother me if the only thing covering them up was the guns, its really not a big deal. You do not have to worry though I am sure they will make a law prohibiting it soon enough. like someone else stated; don't go to the beach :eek:

Neverwinter
January 24, 2012, 11:50 PM
Face it folks. As much as it may be "anything goes" there is an awful lot of prudeness floating around wrapped entirely in "morality" from the 30's, and we all know where legislating morality gets us, right? At least I hope most of the people here are against legislating morality. I really do hope.
What is legal and what is moral are not necessarily the same thing. Forgetting that when it comes to restricting constitutional rights is a dangerous game.

Let them publish what is legal. You don't have to buy the magazine. The consumers will decide what they want.

baylorattorney
January 24, 2012, 11:53 PM
Worked for glock. In fact she became shot show model back in the day.


Waste not want not. :)

OARNGESI
January 24, 2012, 11:53 PM
It works with cars and beer

Buck Kramer
January 25, 2012, 12:01 AM
My LGS put a calendar together and thats all I hear about now is how well their calendar is doing when I'd really like to hear about what ammo sales they are running. It's really annoying.

dmazur
January 25, 2012, 12:04 AM
While I don't like blatant sex in advertising, I wouldn't dream of trying to prohibit it.

A long time ago, someone told me that a Puritan was someone who knew, deep in their heart, that somewhere out in the world, someone was having fun. And it was wrong.

I try very hard not to be a Puritan. :)

MECHAGODZILLA II
January 25, 2012, 12:06 AM
Somewhat I like it. However, remember that surveys show young people and women are the majority of new shooters. Why alienate potential allies against gun control/anti-hunting?

dirtengineer
January 25, 2012, 12:15 AM
I have cancelled subscriptions because of "enhancement" ads, scantily clad women, and ads that combine booze with guns. All things I don't need my kids seeing.

maskedman504
January 25, 2012, 12:25 AM
The premise of this thread is positively Puritanical.

Ben86
January 25, 2012, 12:33 AM
I don't have a problem with it. Nice looking guns go well with nice looking women. It's better than some dude holding it.

Owen Sparks
January 25, 2012, 12:35 AM
You can not put your kids ahead of the rights of other people. YOU are responsible for censoring what your children are exposed to, not society.

splithoof
January 25, 2012, 12:47 AM
This has been a most revealing subject, pardon the pun. I now have a very good idea of the age range on this forum. I'ts very much like my church: there is a ever present group of "turtles", all very senior, all very much in the long-ago past. Shades of the old Hollywood Purity Code.
As for me, I'll continue to look forward to the Blue Press every month.

mo841
January 25, 2012, 01:01 AM
So far roughly 24 people dont like the adds and roughly 57 people do like the adds.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
January 25, 2012, 01:12 AM
Watch it there splithoof!!! I'm IN the OLD group!!! I just happen to choose to live in the real world and not in some puritanical religious fog. My question to some is, so what if your kids see's a hot chick in a bikini? There are MUCH worse things that they see every day at school. Please do not try to tell me what is OK for MY children to view. I personally teach my kids to be very comfortable with their sexuality. Prudish, restricting, overbearing, 1940's thinking will get you one thing when it comes to teenagers, REBELLION!!! 99% of the time! Do what you wish with your kids, it's your problem. But do not DARE to attempt censorship based on the premise "I don't want my kids to see it".

maskedman504
January 25, 2012, 01:22 AM
So far roughly 24 people dont like the adds and roughly 57 people do like the adds.

I just don't see a girl in a bikini and say, "Man I need that gun!"

I tend to read reviews, read specs and make an informed decision.

That is why girls in bikinis with guns does not bother me- go on youtube, you can find some very comical videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jZgDPZ5Hf0

Sophia Vergara does not persuade to drink Diet Pepsi- I like Diet Pepsi, so I buy it.

On the other hand, I don't use GoDaddy.com because Danica Patrick is gross.... :p

ms6852
January 25, 2012, 01:41 AM
No, I don't mine I love women with, or with little, or no clothing at all. What would be immoral and stupid would be to purchase a gun or any product at all based on a bikini. I sure as heck do not buy soap, deodorant, or beer based on the commercials I see. If it works it works, and it is obvious that sex and sexy sells in a capitalistic society like the one we all live in. If it offends you than stand up for your beliefs and principals do not purchase those products have the intestinal fortitude and stick to your moral and ethical values.

NoirFan
January 25, 2012, 02:00 AM
That's my understanding as well. We had a visitor from Europe who was shocked at the violence on our TV. It seems that is somewhat censored in Europe, by comparision.

I think you are onto something as sexual morality in the US is kind of screwed up. It reminds me of when I used to be religious, my Bible study men's group would watch movies together. These guys would fast forward through sex or topless scenes to stay "pure", but would rewind the bloodiest killing scenes in Braveheart and We Were Soldiers to watch them again. Sex and violence are the base urges of most males so to label the former as immoral and the latter as acceptable entertainment makes no sense.

As for the magazine ads, it doesn't offend me but it is a big waste of advertising money. I have never paid money for a gun mag or bought a product based on a gun mag ad, sexy or not.

JohnBiltz
January 25, 2012, 02:59 AM
MP5's aren't allowed at the beach.
Ever been to Israel?

As far as ads like this proving the country being in a handbasket heading for a very hot unpleasant location, I have several relatives who worked in the Ridgid Tools factory so their calendars were always in big demand and that was 40 years ago. For those who never saw them they would have some scantily clad woman with 4 foot monkey wrench at shoulder arms or working a drill press. They have been publishing that calendar for 75 years.

My personal opinion is people should worry a lot more about what they are doing rather than what others are doing and Oleg's ads are great.

Sgt_R
January 25, 2012, 03:19 AM
I don't have a problem with sex in advertising; it's just one of those things that makes absolutely no difference to me. Do I look? Sure. I'm a middle-aged American male with a pulse, of course I look.

But I don't buy a firearm, or any other product, based on the merits of their advertising campaign. When I spend my money, I rely on personal experience and independent product reviews to make my decision.

R

Mp7
January 25, 2012, 03:50 AM
If the product does not have a USP - unique selling proposition -
uncreative advertisers will resort to make an ad "emotional".

Which basically means some cheap model smiling at you, while
the headline says: "Product will make you happy".
( Not like a BJ from me ... but similar....)

This is the lowest level of crapvertising.


(.. did i mention i work in an agency....?)

kozak6
January 25, 2012, 03:56 AM
I think it's tacky and low class. But if they want bikini girls in their ads, it's their business.

A calendar is different.

Tell me why I should buy a product. Not "Look! A bikini girl holding a product!"

mgmorden
January 25, 2012, 04:59 AM
I just don't see a girl in a bikini and say, "Man I need that gun!"

Thats never the intention though.

What they girl in the bikini does is get people to stop and read the review, article, features of the gun etc. Basically, while randomly flipping through the book they want something that makes you stop and say "Hey what's that?". By the time that you've stopped, and are looking at the ad, the model has already done her job. It all just to get you to stop and actually look, because realistically most people are very good at mentally tuning out advertisements. Guys are less good at tuning out attractive women though - hormones and such ;).

CajunBass
January 25, 2012, 05:25 AM
I must read different magazines or something. I remember seeing adds from Dillion, Kahr, and EAA with women in them, but I don't recall any of them being "scantily clad." Some of the models look like they're holding a dead possum or something, but that's different.

whalerman
January 25, 2012, 05:33 AM
I make it a point to never ever look at a gun ad that has a woman in it. And judging from the six pages of responses here everybody else does the same thing.

we are not amused
January 25, 2012, 05:39 AM
Fellow Shooters,

Is this practice a detriment to the image of gun owners, or am I acting prudish to think so?


Prudish!

Krusty
January 25, 2012, 05:39 AM
I like scantily clad women. I am not going to buy anything 'cause there is one in an ad. I think ads like this assume we(men) are really stupid, unless they are trying to sell Rosie O'Donnell a gun, but I don't think she will fall for it either. :rolleyes:

Dr.Mall Ninja
January 25, 2012, 06:40 AM
I think its trashy, and it speaks badly about the product if they have to sell it with sex.

wheelgunslinger
January 25, 2012, 07:04 AM
Prudish.

Clipper
January 25, 2012, 07:57 AM
I don't have a problem with bikini babes in resort ads, because that's what is done there. I don't see bikini babes at any of the ranges I go to, and I don't think many women don one to reload either. It makes such ads so overtly sexual that it demeans the product. A well-dressed attractive young woman holding or using the product doesn't demean the product in the same way to me, though yeah, I lose respect for any outfit that feels they need Miss October, how ever clad, to sell their junk...

Legionnaire
January 25, 2012, 08:13 AM
It makes such ads so overtly sexual that it demeans the product. Demeans the product? As the father of four daughters, I find such ads demean the women. I don't find such ads "offensive," but they do make me sad.

vito
January 25, 2012, 08:20 AM
I may be old but I am not dead, and a scantily clad attractive female gets my attention. I would not buy anything based upon this, but it does get me to look at the ad.

Loosedhorse
January 25, 2012, 08:20 AM
I have scanned the entire thread, and not found a single picture.

Personally, I think there are grades. One company frequently shows members of its (actual, competitive) women's shooting team--is that okay? Others show a nicely (even formally) dressed young woman wearing or holding a gun. Others show a gun held in "full Sabrina" by a "concerned" attractive young thing, with only her head, neck, hand and gun shown.

Perhaps, if you would, you all could start posting pictures from "acceptable", to "borderline" to "offensive" to "really, REALLY offensive" to help me understnad the issue here. Perhaps with an emphasis on "really, REALLY offensive".

:o

The above is satire. It is meant to show that where any of us will draw the line likely varies, and any ad featuring a lovely lady (and they are all lovely!) can be thought to be attempting to use the hard-wiring of the male brain, no matter her state of dress or undress. So, sure: write emails, cancel subscriptions when your line is crossed. Otherwise, the line keeps shifting (with hem lines and neck lines shifting in opposite directions, of course).

And, if anyone does just happen to have a shocking, shocking ad they can post for my education, well...

:D

HOOfan_1
January 25, 2012, 08:33 AM
America has lost her way.

America never found its way. Puritan ethics are what is keeping hunters in East Coast states from hunting on Sunday. Some of the colonies might have been founded on Puritan ethics, but our Constitution certainly was eschewed Puritan ethics.

bikerdoc
January 25, 2012, 08:35 AM
Tacky

youngda9
January 25, 2012, 08:37 AM
No pics in this thread...dissapointed :I

Sam1911
January 25, 2012, 08:43 AM
is that okay?
As I said before...
Make the picture one of Jesse Abbate or Julie Golob tearing it up on a USPSA field course and you've got my attention. Heck, make it one of "Carley" but put her on the range with a good instructor running her through an El Prez. That's awesome. Put her in a low-cut top and a mini skirt, holding an AK like it's a marital aid she's not too thrilled about trying...yeah, that's not cool.


It isn't (for me) AT ALL about it being "shocking" or "wrong." I don't really have morals that are shocked by sexuality of nearly any flavor, and don't particularly feel my kids need to be sheltered from the form of the human body. (Heck, the older ones each attended the births of their younger siblings -- so...there are few mysteries in that realm.)

And it will be a cold day in Sheol before I side with any movement to pass a law against ... well, pretty much anything.

My objections are more of a matter of context and appropriateness. Not Victorian mock-puritanism revival mores against "inappropriate" behavior, but the realistic relationship between the items appearing in the ad.

Jessie Abbate is very attractive. She shoots very, very well. Show her running her M&P in a competition or training exercise, and that engages me in the scene. It make sense. It tells a story that has some relation to what I might need to know about the gun, or what I might do with it.

Or do a Khar arms ad, with a woman in a nightgown, barricading in her bedroom, with 911 on the line, preparing to defend herself with her weapon. Great! There's the gun in its setting.

Put some model in a bikini, holding a pistol and I'm affronted by a nonsensical, context-less scene. Might as well have a beautiful Colt 1911 with that deep gorgeous bluing, sitting carefully laid out on a platter of fried chicken! Oooooh YUMMMY, I like chicken!

It is mindless, stupid. It is a sorry attempt to draw my attention in a cheap way that isn't pertinent to the subject of the ad. It is jarring, not attracting. And it is a clear message of what is expected of the gun buying public. Like a side-show barker telling the audience, "Ok, so I'm going to pull a little slight of hand here, and you're going to be fooled. And you'll buy my product because you're stupid rubes, easily led."

Trick my eye -- draw me, suck me in and I'll stand there like a cow letting it happen. "Hey...purty gurl...dur, dur!" :rolleyes:

Ryanxia
January 25, 2012, 08:45 AM
I think it's fine, if I had a kid my opinion might be different.

bonza
January 25, 2012, 08:54 AM
I also can't recall seeing any gun ads with, what I would consider, 'scantily clad' women, & the gun ads that I have seen that feature women have been quite nicely done. I especially like the ones (EAA, KelTec?) that have a nicely dressed asian woman with the caption "Skinny is Sexy".....but then again I like asian women!! To be honest, I'm more put-off with the sex-enhancement, blue pill, pajamagram, advertisements at the back of a gun magazine than I am with an actual gun-related ad in gun magazine that happens to feature a nice looking female.

armoredman
January 25, 2012, 08:57 AM
There is a way to place good looking women with firearms to garner attention without being sexist. I have this calendar above the computer I am typing this missive on, and my wife looked at all the months with me - tasteful artwork. Not a very useful calendar, (all the pictures are the same size as the cover art, and one lonely strip of numbers below for the days of the month. :) ), but very, very good artwork all the way through.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/General%20giveaway%20stuff/Christmas%20time/calender.jpg

Personally I don't like the bikini models with handguns approach. Why? Because unless the scene is self defense at the beach, the bikini wearing model has absolutely nothing to do with a firearm.
Do I like scantily clad women? Trick question, is this with or without my wife watching?
But seriously, drape your bikini models all over the fancy cars at the car shows, obvious connection there, but gun ads, no. Call me a prude if you wish.

armoredman
January 25, 2012, 09:10 AM
Since the month is almost over, here's January...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/January.jpg


Wanna see the rest, go here... http://shop.cz-usa.com/P-19805/2012-Cz-Calendar.aspx
:D

Loosedhorse
January 25, 2012, 09:20 AM
I am simply scandalized. Please cancel my subscription to this thread.

armoredman
January 25, 2012, 09:28 AM
Yeah, fully clothed women will get ya...

BigSteve57
January 25, 2012, 09:50 AM
I like looking at scantily clad women.
I like looking at guns.
I like looking at the two together.

BUT. I don't like it when a company tries to advertise to me and uses that type of approach. I don't care if it's for guns, cars, stereo gear or whatever. The reason is that they are blatantly saying that my buying decision would be influenced at some level. They're basically saying "Hey stupid: buy our stuff."

So I try not to reward those vendors that use those tactics.
Yeah I know. It probably won't make any difference.

Stophel
January 25, 2012, 09:56 AM
I have no problem with being "puritanical" or "prudish". We could all stand to be more puritanical and prudish. ;)

padkeemow
January 25, 2012, 10:00 AM
I like skin as much as the next person, but I detest being pandered to. I'm more than just a <deleted> wired to a wallet.

oneounceload
January 25, 2012, 10:11 AM
If the sexy ads get your attention - even if for a second, then they have done their job to peak your interest and read the remainder of the ad. It can also be a form of "branding". Kahr, for the longest time, had the same tall, thin lady wearing some nice, but sexy dresses while holding the Kahr. You might not remember which gun she was holding, but most would remember her - no different than Mr. Whipple and Charmin - all they want to do is make sure you remember their name next time you are browsing your LGS.

Personally, I couldn't care less if they are clothed or naked, I do more homework on a gun before I buy it

NavyLCDR
January 25, 2012, 10:22 AM
I think we need to see some examples of the "offensive" ads in order to make an honest assessment...

Fishslayer
January 25, 2012, 10:24 AM
Perhaps, if you would, you all could start posting pictures from "acceptable", to "borderline" to "offensive" to "really, REALLY offensive" to help me understnad the issue here. Perhaps with an emphasis on "really, REALLY offensive".



Yes. Post up those pics for those of us who have given up on gun magazines! Hard to pass judgement not having seen the pics.

Personally, I get offended by photos of extra serrations and rails, and the hanging of all sorts of foul implements from a perfectly good 1911.:cool:

Sam1911
January 25, 2012, 10:25 AM
[THR doesn't do "cheescake" and "Babes with Guns." We can comment about specific advertising campaigns, but keep it on the High Road.]

GBExpat
January 25, 2012, 10:49 AM
Scantily Clad women and gun advertisements. acceptable or not?

IMO, "much ado" ...

Hossfly68
January 25, 2012, 11:13 AM
anybody remember G. Gordon Liddy's calenders? Scantily clad women with guns..
guns and tanks, guns and fighter planes, guns and motorcycles, guns and more guns.
I LOVED those calenders!

NavyLCDR
January 25, 2012, 11:27 AM
Ok, fine dad, I mean SAM1911... :D

Seriously though.... here's a question for the OP (and whoever else wants to opine):

Are you equally as concerned by scantily clad women in beer ads? How about sports car ads? Or any other of a plethora of ads for non-gun products?

If you aren't as equally concerned about those products, then why single out the gun ads? Do we feel that guns must be treated differently than any other product/items and why?

7.62 Nato
January 25, 2012, 11:30 AM
I make it a point to never ever look at a gun ad that has a woman in it. And judging from the six pages of responses here everybody else does the same thing.
I really hope you have better situational awareness if/when you carry. I see it more like 2/1 in favor, or don't care from the people that bothered to reply. I see this as being about as important as caliber wars. Everybody gets to make their own decisions.

Carl N. Brown
January 25, 2012, 11:31 AM
My gut reaction is that if you have to use a sexy woman to sell X the purpose is to draw attention to the qualities of the sexy woman and away from the qualities of product X.

I suspect Blue Press does it as satire or parody of the typical advertising meme of "sexy sells".

Ashcons
January 25, 2012, 11:33 AM
They don't add anything for me and in fact detract from serious discussions about buying reloading equipment or considerations for self-defense with my wife.

Just a cheap marketing ploy that makes me NOT want whatever is being advertised (from the replies here, most of you who like the advertisements don't even notice what's being advertised anyway :neener:).

I can say the same thing about most non-firearm products being advertised with sex as well.

dprice3844444
January 25, 2012, 11:36 AM
hey,my age,any thrill is better than no thrill at all,no matter how cheap it is

Sam1911
January 25, 2012, 11:39 AM
Ok, fine dad, I mean SAM1911Hey, I think this is an interesting discussion, but if it fills up with girly pics it won't say open. So, please, keep it reasonable. :)

Are you equally as concerned by scantily clad women in beer ads? How about sports car ads? Or any other of a plethora of ads for non-gun products?
The beers I drink don't advertise that way, and I think you'd agree that very few car companies (even very high end cars) use the overt "sex sells" strategy. Yeah, sure you can find dorm-room posters of bikini babes draped over a corvette, but does Chevy actually stoop to that for their ads? I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think so. They don't want the first thing their ad viewers to think to be "cheesy and low-rate."

But I'm also not "concerned," either way, really, when it comes to cars or beer. But, look, if you're talking about an ad for Bud Lite or Coors Light, who cares? We all KNOW who that cheap pee-water is aimed at. It's a lowest-common-denominator product. There is no quality there, no "responsible citizen" aspect.
So from that standpoint, yes I'd prefer that guns were treated a little differently from any lowest-rung consumer product. We are engaged in a broad public-relations struggle regarding firearms and RKBA that beer and cars really don't face.

And...the irony is that "chicks" in bikinis are actually at least in some minor way relevant to the sort of mindless "fun" most of those commercials are evoking. Sitting on the beach with a girl in a bikini drinking a Bud Lite? Sure. Makes sense. It fits. Same girl in a bikini holding an AR-15? What the heck? You just lost all context or relevance.

Stophel
January 25, 2012, 11:45 AM
I don't buy new guns, new cars, nor any kind of beer..... so I'm not swayed by ads! :D

Oleg Volk
January 25, 2012, 11:52 AM
Serenity,

Maybe we could get some male eye candy in there?

I shot a few images in that direction on Sunday, will post them soon.

About Kahr Arms ads -- one of their models is the former Miss Korea. She's a competent shooter. They failed to emphasize that in the ads.

EAA ads -- complete turn-off. I don't think they realize that "attention" does not equal "positive attention".

One solution is to use the model's personal gun (below) with which she is familiar:
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/41718-2/jessica_PMR30_9756web.jpg

mgmorden
January 25, 2012, 12:04 PM
EAA ads -- complete turn-off. I don't think they realize that "attention" does not equal "positive attention".

There's a classic saying in advertising: "There's no such thing as bad press.". While not 100% literally true, the basic premise mostly is. Anything that gets people looking at your products is a good thing.

You might also check out the "Streisand Effect". Basically, the bigger stink people tend to make about something, the more popular and distributed it gets.

2ifbyC
January 25, 2012, 12:07 PM
I am trying to understand why firearms should be held to a higher standard of advertising than those used for other commodities. Frankly, I have not come up with a reason. Therefore, it comes down to personal taste.

You are always free to not buy the product if you find their advertising offensive. However, you will have little success in eliminating the advertising.

CelticArmory
January 25, 2012, 12:15 PM
No more or less acceptable than the ads I've seen with macho men, men trying to be all SpecOp or what have you. I am not personally offended or even influenced by seeing good looking women holding firearms. It might distract me for a moment as I peruse a magazine, but it certainly isn't going to make me want to purchase the weapon.

As I'm sure many have said, if it generates sales then they're doing something right. Personally I purchase based on reviews and personal experience.

Toaster
January 25, 2012, 12:18 PM
Sex doesn't always sell. Anyone remember Cindy Garrison? She'd go hunting for big game while wearing the tiniest booty shorts I'd ever seen on ESPN. Regardless of how much Cindy skin was visible, the show failed to garner an audience and the network never bought a second season.
BTW, if anyone is wondering wht the magazines will run these types of ads, it's simple economics. the combined rveenues from newstand and subscriptions won't come close to paying for the printing costs of a single month's issue. Advertisers pay massive fees to run those ads. That's how the publication remains in print.

The Lone Haranguer
January 25, 2012, 12:31 PM
I would be a liar if I said I didn't like them. However, the reality is that more and more women are purchasing and using guns and they really don't like to be viewed as sex objects. In my man-dominated business (auto repair shop), we still have a large number of female clients, so we no longer display pinup calendars, posters, etc., many of which were much racier than these gun advertiesments.

spclpatrolgroup
January 25, 2012, 12:39 PM
I would rather see a model holding a gun in a bikini than a burqa. The company may be trying to illustrate the sleek lines and elegant curves by comparing it with a similar object with the same qualities.

beatledog7
January 25, 2012, 12:41 PM
You think the ads in America are something, these are nothing compared to the ads they have in Europe....

Some European ads are borderline pornography.

In most European countries people are accustomed to public nudity -- in ads, in spas, on the beaches -- that to them nudity is no big deal. I lived in Europe for three years, traveling to a couple dozen different countries, and as I recall, European ads use nude or semi-nude models in ads which sell products that people use when they're naked. Makes sense to me.

In the US we cringe at the idea of our poor, impressionable, vulnerable children seeing a split second of a nipple covered by a pasty at halftime, yet we allow and even encourage them to watch blood spurting from bludgeoned and hacked up bodies in video games, on TV, and in movies.

Demographics certainly comes into play. Many mall ninja types whom I've seen posting on the less "high road" websites apparently see their guns as extensions of their -- um, themselves -- so it's a small wonder gun makers have attempted to exploit that by appealing to the libido.

It comes down to this: it's ineffective to rail against such a practice on the Internet.

If one wants to protest the practice, one might simply not patronize the companies that use it.

Master Blaster
January 25, 2012, 12:42 PM
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression. Just like the right to keep and bear arms, essential.

Scantily clad women and Guns is both.

In the US we cringe at the idea of our poor, impressionable, vulnerable children seeing a split second of a nipple covered by a pasty at halftime, yet we allow and even encourage them to watch blood spurting from bludgeoned and hacked up bodies in video games, on TV, and in movies.


YEP which is more normal, being attracted to the opposite sex or gory violence as entertainment?

Owen Sparks
January 25, 2012, 12:43 PM
The problem here is WHO should decide what is "acceptable".

Some of us think it should be the individual. In other words if you don't like that type of advertising then don't buy the product. Vote with your dollars or better yet write a letter to the company and complain. After all they are in business to make money and if enough people feel the same way you do the marketing department will change their advertising strategies to avoid offending potential customers.

Other people want to use the power of government to force advertisers to conform to what they think is “acceptable”. The problem with this is that what is acceptable depends on who is in power. When it is the Christian right they will attempt to use government to force a G rated society on everyone else (for the children of course).

When the far left comes to power they will use the power of the state to eliminate or strictly regulate private gun ownership as they don’t see gun ownership as acceptable and they don’t want the children exposed to guns. ( Remember a while back when some leftist group tried to get Field and Stream removed from school libraries because it contained articles about guns?)

Acceptable is a subjective term totally open to interpretation depending on who does the interpreting. When you give the government that kind of power it will eventually be used against you when the wrong bunch gets into power.

dmazur
January 25, 2012, 12:51 PM
I have no problem with being "puritanical" or "prudish"...

And an individual who eschews hedonism is within his/her rights. However, at the point where folks start insisting everyone think along those lines, it may be interfering with the rights of others.

The question posed was, "Acceptable or not?". If the meaning is "suitable", then I would agree that the ads are probably a stretch. If the meaning is "allowable", I'd have to say they don't appear to be causing harm.

Like a guy wearing plaid pants. IMO, this attire is far from acceptable, unless you're part of a circus act. But he isn't hurting anyone with his choice of attire. So, if I saw a guy wearing plaid pants, I suppose I'd find something less visually jarring to look at, but I wouldn't think of trying to correct his behavior.

It's the difference between belief and proselytizing. I believe many are fairly tolerant of other belief structures, but find their attempts to convert everyone somewhat wearisome. :)

hang fire
January 25, 2012, 12:59 PM
Totally unacceptable.

As I tell the wife each month, I only carefully peruse my "Blue Press" from Dillion for pictures of the RL equipment and guns.:evil:

HOOfan_1
January 25, 2012, 01:27 PM
And an individual who eschews hedonism is within his/her rights. However, at the point where folks start insisting everyone think along those lines, it may be interfering with the rights of others.


That was the very fault of the Puritans in America. The attitude of "we don't think this is right, so we will make laws against it"

Celebrating Christmas is wrong, so it is banned.
Playing board games is wrong so it is baned.
Doing anything on Sunday other than attending church is wrong. (hence no Sunday hunting today in the Eastern states).

That's the same mentality the gun grabbers have with guns.

Stophel
January 25, 2012, 01:42 PM
Every law against anything is put into place because someone thinks it's not right. ;)

aaronu
January 25, 2012, 01:43 PM
Shooting sports are male dominated activities. Putting a pretty girl in the ad grabs our attention, nothing more. The additional ad content (assuming there is any) is what builds interest in the product being advertised.

As for beautiful women marketing cars? You bet, just not usually in print. Ever hear the term "booth babe?" It is less common for American cars but many new model rollouts at car shows feature attractive, female models.

To me it's not a big deal; I just may get punched in the arm if my wife thinks I'm looking too much. :-)

zfk55
January 25, 2012, 01:44 PM
The Sarge
" America has lost her way. "

It's ok Sarge. That chick over there in the negilgee holding the flashlight can help us find it. :D

92GreenYJ
January 25, 2012, 01:47 PM
Ya know, I get several Offroad magazines myself and constantly see people writing in to complain about the same thing in their mags. I don't get it. Seriously what is the big deal? Sex sells. Simple as that. When a product is aimed at men as the majority consumer it's only natural to use hot women in the marketing materials to draw the main consumers eyes to their product.

Get over yourself. I'm sure your son has already seen his fair share of T&A and you just don't know it yet.

Sam1911
January 25, 2012, 01:57 PM
When a product is aimed at men as the majority consumer it's only natural to use hot women in the marketing materials to draw the main consumers eyes to their product.As has been brought up many times now, we are seeing more and more women in the shooting sports. While it may be perfectly reasonable (in your mind) to tell them they have to toughen up and accept the reality of playing in a man's world, that really doesn't do much to welcome them into the fold.

Now...put that "hot chick" in a real scene -- make her a successful competitor, competing strongly and with the support and admiration of her male counterparts -- and the female viewer can relate to the ad and identify with the subject.

Some advertisers do this well.

Others do the "eye candy" thing. If many of us men find that off-putting and childish, think how it must look to the female demographic (women customers ... and VOTERS) for whom the "little gun" isn't making 90% of the decisions!

HOOfan_1
January 25, 2012, 02:05 PM
Every law against anything is put into place because someone thinks it's not right. ;)

Yeah, there are still plenty of laws in this county passed because people can't mind their own business.

If we want the Nancy Pelosi's of the world to keep their nose out of our right o keep guns, I think we need to keep others from trying to legislate morals as well. To me that is just as important as every gun owner out there trying to protect the right to own guns they don't even care to own. I see gun control and legislation of morals all in the same basket. The "government's" attempt to save us poor slobs from ourselves.

Nushif
January 25, 2012, 02:07 PM
My wife had an interesting thought on this one.

She points to very successful advertisement coming from for instance Serena Williams, and some of the female as well as professional athletes (which professional shooters are) that took the form of doing what they do while looking good.
Take a girl who is good with a Beretta, slap her in some nice shorts, a tank top and show her cruising through a live fire course and you have a winner, much like Serena started simply wearing nicer tennis clothes and a little bit of jewelry.
The same goes for males. A decently built shooter in some good pants, and a shirt that shows a little bit of bulk, shown tromping through a warehouse or somesuch is the exact same thing.

The problem I have with the ads is the puritans they tend to draw out and the fact that well ... They're bad. It's like SciFi. I love it, but there is so much bad SciFi. And ironically usually they are bad ... Because the company doesn't want to seem immoral! So they get the proverbial bosses wife or someone's daughter, dress her "properly" (read: not the way she usually does, so it is out of place) and give her a gun, she doesn't like even holding.

Instead of just doing it right.

Sam1911
January 25, 2012, 02:17 PM
Nushif, I think we're in agreement on this. Do the scene RIGHT, and it speaks to people. I've mentioned several very attractive lady shooters who look fan-freakin'-tastic doing what they do for real. That's enough to both catch the eye, and the brain.

Some ads get closer, but don't quite make it (like your "bad SciFi" analogy). Armordman's second CZ pic is a lot like that. Where is this lady's uniform blouse? Why is she in her skivvy shirt while defending that Dodge pickup? What military allows their female soldiers to let their long hair fly on operations? It's not bad ... but not good, either.

But this is the positive end of the spectrum.

And a lot of other companies are just dumb about it. Yeah...Dillon is near the top of that heap. Not offensive or WRONG, just silly and awkward.

Others...yikes.

...

Ironically, for all the flak they get from guys who don't like the women shown, I think Kahr is actually pretty good. Their most well-known ad seem to focus on a sophisticated, cosmopolitan looking woman in evening wear, who's armed with a discreet carry weapon. That makes sense. She's not a busty bikini babe, she looks like a someone you might see or meet at a dinner party or museum dinner or other semi-formal occasion. Her gun is appropriate to the scene (if a little oddly staged in that photo).

We had a good thread on that once, with some female members pointing out that the ad spoke to THEM more than to men. This is an "average" (in the best possible meaning) looking woman, dressed up for the night out. They could relate. They could envision secruing their Kahr pistol, grabbing the purse, and heading out on the town. "Thin is Sexy" spoke to THEM, not to the dude sweating by himself on the commode.

Shadowdancer
January 25, 2012, 02:23 PM
Lara Croft from Tomb Raider is going to get my attention for much longer than some sweaty bubba spitting chew-juice. I won't buy the product because of the girl in the ad, but I'll look at the ad and then decide if the product is of value to me.

oneounceload
January 25, 2012, 02:47 PM
Anyone who remembers the Snap-on tool calenders - same thing, great looking girls, but that was NOT why folks bought those expensive tools. Some of the gun ads look like they were photographed by a third grader with an I phone, others have a high-end Madison avenue quality.......in the end, it is about getting you to remember the brand name

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
January 25, 2012, 02:48 PM
Lara Croft from Tomb Raider is going to get my attention for much longer than some sweaty bubba spitting chew-juice. I won't buy the product because of the girl in the ad, but I'll look at the ad and then decide if the product is of value to me.

And THAT right there is the whole premise to using the "pretty girl" in the ad.

MuleRyder
January 25, 2012, 03:28 PM
My mother taught me that those ads are in poor taste. I still look at them.

My father told me not to look at them 'cause I'd go blind...I need glasses now

henschman
January 25, 2012, 03:53 PM
Scantily Clad women and gun advertisements. acceptable or not?

Hot nekkid chicks? I'm fer it!

It's kind of funny to me, because when I was in my teens and early 20s I was one of those uptight prudish folks from a very religious home. I was well on my way to becoming a libertarian even back then, so I didn't think pornography/sexual content should be banned or anything, but I didn't like looking at those pictures, and felt guilty when I did (because that is how that sort of upbringing teaches a person to be about what should be enjoyable human feelings). Now that I've grown up and accepted an ethical code that is based more on reality, I have come to see things a little differently.

As for the legal issue, I think it is an absolute disgrace that we still have government censorship in 21st-Century America. It's pretty simple, really... if you don't want your kids exposed to what's on TV, don't let them watch it... or get rid of your TV. If you don't want them exposed to our sinful and immoral society, then keep them locked up in your house. You have the inalienable right to give your kids as much of a sheltered upbringing as you want. But you have no right to use force/government to prevent the rest of us from printing, reading, broadcasting, and watching, saying, and listening to whatever we want. That sort of behavior does not threaten the rights of anyone else, so people have a natural and inalienable right to engage in it to their heart's content.

Someone made the comment that all laws are made because someone believed something to be wrong. While that may be true, the difference between legitimate and illegitimate laws is that legitimate laws only prohibit things that are actual violations of the equal liberty of others... in other words, they prohibit people dealing with one another through force, rather than through voluntary interaction. Any law that does any more than this is illegitimate, because by definition it violates the equal rights of individuals.

Just wanted to clear that up. ;)

The good news is that the type of people who support these laws are dying off every day... so I fully expect that in my lifetime I will see a change in the censorship laws, and hopefully also in the ridiculous laws on things like drugs and alcohol.

Formula94
January 25, 2012, 03:54 PM
I like guns
I like women
I like attractive women holding guns

If another advertisement were showing some "spec ops" guy shooting the weapon wouldn't that be the same thing, just the other end of the spectrum? You go from racy women to tact-i-cool mall ninjas. If you stay in between, just showing your average Joe shooting the weapon, nobody will notice it, remember it, or buy it.

JCinAK
January 25, 2012, 03:57 PM
I personally thinks it's trashy and morally bent for a "respectable" firearms company to take advantage of women to advertise their product. It says only bad things about the company and the fact that they need to "go there" to try to generate sales. Show a revolver next to a horse and hat. Maybe even advertise a man in a suit aiming a CCW at the camera with his GF/Wife/Daughter behind him. But to put an offensive image next to a gun/accessory for the sole purpose of drawing someone's eyes to it is not The High Road, agreed?
.

Please don't take advantage of horses.:D Some might be offended.

Shadowdancer
January 25, 2012, 04:03 PM
And THAT right there is the whole premise to using the "pretty girl" in the ad.
Absolutely! and I do my best to give them positive reinforcement for their practices.

youngda9
January 25, 2012, 04:03 PM
The threads about such nonsense fluff always get the most posts on this GUN FORUM...Never ceases to amaze. Clip vs Mag, 45 vs 40 vs 9mm, now add sexy advertizing into the mix.

Off to the range.

oneounceload
January 25, 2012, 04:03 PM
I personally thinks it's trashy and morally bent for a "respectable" firearms company to take advantage of women to advertise their product

You mean to tell me those women were forced against their will to take part in the ad campaign? You REALLY believe that? If not, then there was no advantage taken except by them because they managed to get paid for posing for a picture -no different than ANY trade show where the "models" are standing there getting you to come closer to listen to the sales spiel by the nerdy engineer.

If they offend you, turn the page

2WheelsGood
January 25, 2012, 04:04 PM
It's kind of funny to me, because when I was in my teens and early 20s I was one of those uptight prudish folks from a very religious home.

I've seen the religious side of this mentioned several times. I'm about as Atheist as they come, and I'm still in complete agreement with Sam1911 for the same reasons he's already stated. This doesn't (or shouldn't) have anything to do with freedom, religion, or censorship.

In addition to the reasons Sam1911 has given, I also think it says something about how companies see the mentality of their potential customers. It's a bit like how predators try to use candy to lure children. I'd rather not support a company that thinks I'm so dumb that I'll buy their product just because they have nearly naked women in their ads.

mgmorden
January 25, 2012, 04:16 PM
I'd rather not support a company that thinks I'm so dumb that I'll buy their product just because they have nearly naked women in their ads.

As has been repeated several times in this thread, there's a subtle but important difference between putting women in the ads because you think it'll make people buy the item, and putting women in the ads because you think it'll make people LOOK AT THE ADS.

No advertiser thinks you're going to actually buy the gun because of the hot chick posing with the gun. What it does though is draw eyes towards it. A guy's eyes are almost INSTINCTIVELY drawn towards the female form. You look at the girl, and hopefully while you've stopped long enough to look you saw the gun too - and maybe got interested enough to look up some more information on it.

The bottom line is this is a trick advertisers resort to because IT WORKS. Plain and simple. If you're attacked on the street are you going to do what's prim and proper or are you going to resort to the methods that get results? I'm betting on results. Don't blame them for doing the same thing in a different arena.

Madcap_Magician
January 25, 2012, 04:31 PM
I can take it or leave it. A lot of the ads seem to have been developed by someone at a small company saying "Hey, your sister/wife/mom is pretty good-looking, think she'd pose in cutoff shorts for our ad?"

The major exception is The Blue Press.

My wife is always throwing it away before I can read it. Only a minor irritation, since I think the article writers are mostly idiots, and I don't have the money to buy reloading stuff now anyway.

Shadowdancer
January 25, 2012, 04:49 PM
As soon as advertisers find a way to make their ads smell like chocolate chip cookies or bacon, I'm done for. Better yet... how about a hot looking female, who is eating chocolate chip cookies, while holding a gun and smells like bacon?

armoredman
January 25, 2012, 05:07 PM
Armordman's second CZ pic is a lot like that. Where is this lady's uniform blouse? Why is she in her skivvy shirt while defending that Dodge pickup? What military allows their female soldiers to let their long hair fly on operations?

Raid, no time. ;)

jmstevens2
January 25, 2012, 05:22 PM
I personally thinks it's trashy and morally bent for a "respectable" firearms company to take advantage of women to advertise their product. It says only bad things about the company and the fact that they need to "go there" to try to generate sales. Show a revolver next to a horse and hat. Maybe even advertise a man in a suit aiming a CCW at the camera with his GF/Wife/Daughter behind him. But to put an offensive image next to a gun/accessory for the sole purpose of drawing someone's eyes to it is not The High Road, agreed?

I am offended by all "trashy" advertising and media. Might not be what you'd expect from a 16 year old boy, but I am proud of my religious principles and feel that those sorts of things go against them.
I am offended when people try to force their puritan morals on me. If you don't like it, turn the page. Would you like it if Antis forced their morals on you?

By the way, pointing a gun at the camera violates one of the main gun safety rules. Shall we twist that too?

JustinJ
January 25, 2012, 05:23 PM
Apparently for many violence is perfectly okay to their 'morals' but to hint at sex is unacceptable.

jmstevens2
January 25, 2012, 05:25 PM
Raid, no time. ;)
Yep. remember the photos of guys at Pearl Harbor on an M2 blasting planes in their underwear and helmets. I recall that at least one was awarded the Medal Of Honor for doing just that.

JCinAK
January 25, 2012, 05:28 PM
Better yet... how about a hot looking female, who is eating chocolate chip cookies, while holding a gun and smells like bacon?
:D Could be some real money in that!

dannyr3_8
January 25, 2012, 05:28 PM
Men like guns......

Men like scantily clad women.....

Men like scantily clad women with guns.....seems like a no brainer.




My favorite are the reloading press ads with the attractive model posing next to it.... For some reason it always makes me laugh.
exactly i agree 100% i love scantly clad women with guns and have no problem with using them in advertising and i like them even more when they're holding guns

crazyjennyblack
January 25, 2012, 05:36 PM
I personally don't care for the bikini models with handguns. Totally tasteless. Honestly, at that point, it's more artistic in style to have the woman completely naked. At least then you're appreciating the whole beauty of the female form. The bikini model with a gun is cliche!:cuss:

The best ads are more like that CZ calendar that was previously posted. Show women dressed decently, even in an alluring manner, going about their daily activities. This brings sex appeal to the product, but in a way that isn't tired and trampy, but can be viewed in a more empowering light.

Companies will always use sex to sell a product, and I'm fine with that. It's part of human nature. However, since firearms companies often represent gun owners in general (at least, in the eyes of the public and media) I think they should strive to go above and beyond the lure of dime-a-dozen trashy pics. Men don't hardly notice, and women turn away. We've seen so many we can't remember them all. But a well-done ad with an attractive woman gets the attention of both men AND women. ;)

MECHAGODZILLA II
January 25, 2012, 06:40 PM
I'll marry either one that armored man showed, this very instant. G-string bikinis-clad models? No, those are obscene period.

Cap'n Jack Burntbeard
January 25, 2012, 06:42 PM
It doesnt matter to me, it neither sells me on the gun or the woman.
But I do love how it causes the puritans to get their panties in a twist.

Strykervet
January 25, 2012, 06:46 PM
I think that there is a line where it becomes inappropriate, but I have yet to find it. Just kidding. Honestly, an attractive woman next to or holding an attractive gun is all good in my book as long as they compliment each other and the woman isn't the center of attention. There is a way of doing this without going "too far" and most(not all) reputable companies stay within the boundaries of what is acceptable and professional.

The "Blue Press" is a good example.
This is what I was thinking.

I think it detracts from the overall ad of the weapon, but it does get your attention, no?

Strykervet
January 25, 2012, 06:52 PM
So I assume you won't mind them using some naked dude's 'nads to sell you a gun?
Well, Captain Jack Harkness and the other 10% of the population might like this. But when you advertise, you try and reach your audience. Shotgun News isn't necessarily aimed towards homosexuals. But it would be no different in my opinion --while at the same time being something I don't really want to look at. But I like freedom, all of it, even if I don't agree. Especially then, because it makes me value it and gives me the impetus to protect it even more.

KevininPa
January 25, 2012, 06:52 PM
There were guns in those ads?!:what:














Seriously, THR members can polarize over anything!;)

USAF_Vet
January 25, 2012, 06:52 PM
There isn't much wrong with how a company chooses to advertise. However, I find it distracting. While i like looking at the lines and curves of women, when I'm looking at guns, I would rather focus on the lines and curves of the guns.

ApacheCoTodd
January 25, 2012, 07:02 PM
Wow 200+ responses and over 3,500 views in a day...

Me? Acceptable? Yes.
Effective? Absolutely not.
Disappointing? Most certainly.

If one of my personal favorite manufacturers felt the need to stoop to boobs to sell a firearm, I'd feel let down in whom they believed they were targeting and mildly insulted in the perception that I might be influenced or swayed by skin rather than performance or features.

Now, I'm not talking about pretty women in general but cheap calendar girl lookin' hootchie mamas.

Stevie-Ray
January 25, 2012, 07:03 PM
I'm rather surprised by the sheer numbers of those that would rather not see "scantily clad" women in ads about guns. And to those that think this is an age thing, well, I'm 55 and I rather like it. As some have said, I'm old, not dead. Perhaps the offended can post the ads that offended them, even slightly, and the rest of us can judge for ourselves? Well hey, I have an open mind, you know.

Redlg155
January 25, 2012, 07:50 PM
It seems that this thread has somehow twisted to say that I advocated censoreship. That was not the intent nor was any statement made to that fact. I did ask if these images were a detriment, a far cry from advocating censoreship.

I haven't heard anyone specifially mention whether or not the image in the current shotgun news was crossing the line or not, and hopefully someone will see the issue and comment.

For some reason I think it was "Spikes" but I may be wrong

Shadowdancer
January 25, 2012, 08:02 PM
Better yet... sitting on a pickup truck and drinking a beer.

mgmorden
January 25, 2012, 08:06 PM
It seems that this thread has somehow twisted to say that I advocated censoreship. That was not the intent nor was any statement made to that fact. I did ask if these images were a detriment, a far cry from advocating censoreship.

I haven't heard anyone specifially mention whether or not the image in the current shotgun news was crossing the line or not, and hopefully someone will see the issue and comment.


In the title of the whole thread you ask if it was "acceptable", with the absolute implied possibility being that such images might be "unacceptable". Typically, "unacceptable" isn't the same as being a detriment - it has undertones that suggest action should be taken.

You also in your second point alude to "Crossing a line".

These are all flag words to first amendment supporters. They hit our ears about like "common sense gun laws" hit the ears of 2nd amendment supporters.

You have to understand that to many people, when it comes to anything that appears in print, there is no "line" that can be crossed. There is no "unacceptable". There is no "obscene", or "immoral". A company can advertise however they darned well please and I don't care. Sexy women sell things to guys. They use that - its sucessful.

BTW, to all those snickering about "what if they used a man" - guess what - THEY DO. They don't sweat them up and put them in skimpy clothes because that doesn't work, but they still show all the tacticool swat guys. What do you think the Marlboro Man was all about?

They just do what works. They show women that you want and guys that you want to BE - and I personally couldn't care less.

22-rimfire
January 25, 2012, 08:18 PM
Field & Stream magazine was mentioned... I checked the Feb. 2012 issue. Full page ad for male enhancement, 1/3 page ad for some sort of chemical to get more affection, 1/4 pg ad for adult products, several full page ads for medication... must be tough for these magazines to stay in business.

Not one ad for a firearm with a nicely dressed woman, but there was a Toyota sponsered ad for preserving our wilderness areas that has a woman holding a shovel over her head.

wojownik
January 25, 2012, 08:20 PM
A couple of recent generally marketing studies hint that sex might not sell as well as folks might assume. Personally, I think its an insult to my intelligence. If you have a good product, show it, focus on it. Also, there is a growing market of female gun buyers. Dumb to alienate a significant potential market segment.

oneounceload
January 25, 2012, 08:27 PM
For those with the repressed sexual issues,I feel sorry for you. However, for you to try and force those depressions on the Reston us borders on dictatorial. It is real simple, turn this page and do not worry about the souls of other rest of us
Censorship because YOU don't like it's a dangerous slope to be on,someone might decide
Certain religious books are dangerous and in need of censoring. Then what?

Don't force your morals on me,and I will abide the same

Shadowdancer
January 25, 2012, 08:33 PM
A couple of recent generally marketing studies hint that sex might not sell as well as folks might assume. Personally, I think its an insult to my intelligence. If you have a good product, show it, focus on it. Also, there is a growing market of female gun buyers. Dumb to alienate a significant potential market segment.
Beer companies advertise that you are going to get laid if you drink their brand of beer.... not burp or pee.

There are two types of ads: Image or Factual. Image tries to sell you on what ownership will do for your life, while factual is about why the product is superior. If the firearms are functional, they all basically do the same thing... put lead downfield. But if owning a Colt over a Kimber might get you laid.... well then... that is something different!

goon
January 25, 2012, 08:36 PM
Personally... who cares?
Kahr runs that "Slim is sexy" campaign... and you know what? I don't think slim is all that sexy and I don't feel an overwhelming desire to run out and buy a Kahr. If I buy a Kahr, it will be because I believe they are making a reliable defensive handgun that will serve my needs at the price I can pay. It won't have anything to do with their models.

shockwave
January 25, 2012, 08:37 PM
Given that this thread is up to almost 10 pages now, I'd say the rationale for placing firearms in apposition with attractive women is a smart marketing move.

It's a staple in every industry. In car mags, you see bikini-clad gals holding mufflers. You even find this sort of thing in durable medical equipment catalogs.

The sad thing about our society is that we're inundated with ads. The competition for your eyeballs is fierce. Almost any piece of real estate is fair game for a logo. Advertisers want their goods front and center in your vision, and you are understandably sick of it.

As a result, you've learned to "tune out" ads wherever you see them. Advertisers usually know this. So they try shock, humor, and sex - whatever it takes to get your attention. Would you expect them to behave any differently?

btg3
January 25, 2012, 08:40 PM
Each of those "scantily clad women" is somebody's daughter. If it's your daughter, do you still find it "acceptable" ? I surely would not. And I would not wish it for anyone else's daughter. Unfortunately sex does sell, but the price we all pay is not the one that's advertised.

It does not do 2A any favors either. Combining sex and violence is a known social problem. No way are you going to eliminate the association of guns with violence, so it is not a stretch to say the subject advertising is anti-social and feeds the wrong appetites. As a result, 2A comes under additional attack with the argument that guns should have no place in our society.

Rollis R. Karvellis
January 25, 2012, 08:54 PM
The only gun rag I, get now is American Rifleman, and they have sexy girls, and blue pill adds also. Dillon put's hot chicks on, and in his catalog's for the same reason everyone else does, and I, enjoy looking at them. If I, can convince my wife to walk around in her skimppie's while I, reload, or shoot, or just watch tv I, would be happy. But for some reason when I, say something about it she roll's her eye's, and walk's away mumbling about dragging knuckle's. Not sure what that is about.

mgmorden
January 25, 2012, 08:57 PM
Each of those "scantily clad women" is somebody's daughter. If it's your daughter, do you still find it "acceptable" ? I surely would not. And I would not wish it for anyone else's daughter.

Logical fallacy: Appeal to Emotion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

You might as well be arguing that guns should be outlawed because they are used to shoot school kids.

The fact that it's somebody's daughter is completely irrelevant. If you're married, your wife is somebody's daughter. I'm sure your father-in-law doesn't want to know what goes on behind your bedroom doors, but that doesn't make it wrong.

SharpsDressedMan
January 25, 2012, 09:00 PM
Where do the monthly Dillon Blue Press girls fall on the "tasteful" scale? For me, they are about a 10 on the "good taste". I don't find them objectionable at all.

oneounceload
January 25, 2012, 09:05 PM
Sorry btg3, those girls are also adults and free to make their own choices. You seem to think they did not have a say in their appearing in these ads.....a tad out of touch, eh?

Many a well paid movie star and runway model got their start doing ads like these. Good for them for making a buck and advancing their careers

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
January 25, 2012, 09:11 PM
Each of those "scantily clad women" is somebody's daughter. If it's your daughter, do you still find it "acceptable" ?

I have to laugh whenever I hear/see that remark. My daughter has posed for MANY "shots" such as the ones that are being talked about so, to answer your inane question, Yes sir I surely do! My oldest daughter is not only very beautiful and graced with her grandmothers lines (yes sir my mother in law was one serious looker) but also carried straight A's in HS and Col. For someone to "take advantage" of her would be a feat unto itself. She is perfectly comfortable with her looks and see's no problem at all if someone wants to pay her extravagant amounts of money to take pictures of her for wearing something she would freely wear at the damn beach. You prudes need to get your selves out of the caves and start realizing that puritanical beliefs belong in the damn dark ages.

SlamFire1
January 25, 2012, 09:13 PM
I am glad that there are ads that cater to heterosexual males.

Man hating feminists banned all the sexy calendars, posters, from the workplace, at least I can see lovelies in gun magazines.

I am more disturbed by the hair and perfume ads for men.

What the heck has our society come to?

Tinpig
January 25, 2012, 09:17 PM
America has lost her way

If so, it's been going on for a long time.

Google the Pearl Tobacco ads from 1871.

And these:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/SchraderAp1921.jpg/220px-SchraderAp1921.jpg

http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/e2/4e/1800s,ads,advertising,cigarette,cigarettes,smoking-e24ef18be84fd56094213e261670ec06_h.jpg

http://www.healthylivingindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/vintage-sexist-womens-ads-12.jpg

Fortunately, most of us have seen naked women and survived.

Tinpig

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
January 25, 2012, 09:18 PM
I am more disturbed by the hair and perfume ads for men.

What the heck has our society come to?

Don't know about you, but I find some of those AXE shower gel commercials stone cold hilarious!

btg3
January 25, 2012, 09:20 PM
Indeed they do have a choice. You seem to have assumed in error.


Many a well paid movie star and mrunway model got theirs start doing ads like these. Good for them for making a buck and advancing their careers

Care to venture a guess as to what percentage of movies star hopefuls that started "like this" end up otherwise?

writerinmo
January 25, 2012, 09:30 PM
Kids are exposed to scantily clad girls everywhere in my experience. A trip to the mall or walmart in the summertime will run across more than a few dressed in little more material than one of my kerchiefs...

oneounceload
January 25, 2012, 09:31 PM
I have assumed nothing; girls over 18 are free to live their lives as they see fit, something that many religious zealots would not want them to do.......... ;)

lizziedog1
January 25, 2012, 09:58 PM
Are any of you offended by Fox News?

They do have some hotties.

The ultimate compliment you could pay a woman is to tell her she has the legs for Fox News.

KevininPa
January 25, 2012, 10:13 PM
"The ultimate compliment you could pay a woman is to tell her she has the legs for Fox News"


You mean there's news on that channel!?:what: (too busy noticing those legs)





I'm getting more easily distracted every year.

jmstevens2
January 25, 2012, 10:25 PM
A couple of recent generally marketing studies hint that sex might not sell as well as folks might assume. Personally, I think its an insult to my intelligence. If you have a good product, show it, focus on it. Also, there is a growing market of female gun buyers. Dumb to alienate a significant potential market segment.
Most women I know appreciate a good looking woman too. Not the same way I do, but they still do. Also as to the earlier "exploitation" comment, the women were not forced to pose, and I suspect that they were well paid too. Sounds like WE are being exploited for being human.

Hunter125
January 25, 2012, 10:25 PM
There is a part of me that enjoys looking at such things, but I do my best not to because I love and repect my wife too much. I know that stuff will be out there regardless of what I would prefer, so I'll do my best to stay away from that stuff.
It does make me lose some respect for the company even if it works. It says something when a company let's its products stand for themselves.

sharpeguns
January 25, 2012, 10:28 PM
You know I have kept that mag on the the table for a long time, Strangley.
but I have reread that mag over and over for a long time. Thats until iI get the next one:evil:

lizziedog1
January 25, 2012, 10:29 PM
Fortunately, most of us have seen naked women and survived.



Unless your wife is not that understanding.:fire:

jmstevens2
January 25, 2012, 10:34 PM
You mean she doesn't let you see her nekkid? Sorry dude.

Maia007
January 25, 2012, 10:41 PM
Everyone else seems to have opined.....so here goes:

I find many of the typical ads a bit crass. Not morally objectionable at all, but simply all too "common", if not stupid. Beyond that simple observation, I really don't care what they do.

If the advertisers wish to exhibit women and guns, then I prefer showing a woman and a gun in a self defense or other shooting appropriate context. And if they must show "scantily" then they might well consider doing so in the same way that we see ordinary attractive women "scantily" dressed on the streets of our towns everyday.

If the advertiser feels they must show a model simply "posing" with a gun, to grab our attention, I prefer something more alluring rather than the typical big-fake-boobs and the big-fake-hair and all that in-your-face buffoon. Keep the assault on my senses (however they do that) within tolerable limits.....as with any other ad.

I think the way Kahr does it with Mr. Moon's wife as the "thin is sexy" model comes to mind as a good example of posing for the sake of posing done better.

wrs840
January 25, 2012, 10:41 PM
Doesn't bother me in the least.

I like attractive sleek guns and attractive sleek women, and don't mind a bit if they co-mingle.

larryh1108
January 25, 2012, 10:50 PM
As tinpin posted a few posts up, they have been using sex to sell as long as there has been advertising. The ads have always been risque for that time period to (as has been mentioned) catch your eye so you notice the ad.

I do find it a shame that cities, towns or villages have stopped having nativity scenes because it offends a very small segment of the population and other bans due to a few people who feel their rights are more important than that of the masses. How many schools now say the Pledge of Allegiance? Ridiculous how we all bend over and grab our ankles because a vocal minority feels they are more important than the rest of us. If you ask me, that is what is ruining America, not scantily clad women selling products. We've become spineless and afraid to stand up for our rights as a society.

wyohome
January 25, 2012, 10:55 PM
Men are attracted to things with curves, smoothness and beauty. Cars, nice rifles with wood stocks, and women have those attributes.. Black rifles, reloading equipment and handtools do not have those things. A Cooper rifle or sleek sports car will draw your eye much faster than a one in 10 million AR-15.

armoredman
January 25, 2012, 11:15 PM
You even find this sort of thing in durable medical equipment catalogs.
Ran a DME/Oxygen warehouse from 2000-2002, don't remember seeing one bikini clad model in any catalog. My boss would have LOVED that.

Serenity
January 25, 2012, 11:18 PM
I'm not sure why you all think that only men like pictures of attractive members of the opposite sex.

I still say keep the pictures of the girls in there, but add pictures of guys, too. Tasteful pictures, of course.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
January 25, 2012, 11:21 PM
I'm not sure why you all think that only men like pictures of attractive members of the opposite sex.

I still say keep the pictures of the girls in there, but add pictures of guys, too. Tasteful pictures, of course.

All you purist prudes saying that these ads turn the women off of guns, WAKE UP, THIS IS A FEMALE POSTER HERE SAYING THIS!!!!!

Fishbed77
January 26, 2012, 12:05 AM
This thread is useless without pics.

Voltia
January 26, 2012, 12:19 AM
I think it is typical of older, judgmental people, especially religious people, to bicker about things being "acceptable" or not. It's not your place to decide what's acceptable to anyone other than yourself, and you do that by buying it, or not, not by spouting off to the world.

People being judgmental, simply because they are prudes, really turns off the rest of us who have more respect for the sanctity of the opinions of others.

Stophel
January 26, 2012, 01:03 AM
Wow, page after page after page of "tolerant" libertines decrying and demonizing those horrible "puritans"... How dare they tell you how to live! Of course, no one here has....

So sad.

jmstevens2
January 26, 2012, 01:48 AM
I think it is typical of older, judgmental people, especially religious people, to bicker about things being "acceptable" or not. It's not your place to decide what's acceptable to anyone other than yourself, and you do that by buying it, or not, not by spouting off to the world.

People being judgmental, simply because they are prudes, really turns off the rest of us who have more respect for the sanctity of the opinions of others.
Actually the guy I called out as a puritan was 16. I am 49. Don't stereotype.

Sergei Mosin
January 26, 2012, 01:54 AM
This thread is useless without pics.

Thread winner!

Sam1911
January 26, 2012, 07:41 AM
Seems we're starting to ramp up the "puritan" -vs.- "libertine" hostility, which really isn't a THR argument. I guess all sides of the matter have had a chance to speak. Don't know if any marketers are reading, but they've got lots to chew on if they are.

If you enjoyed reading about "Scantily Clad women and gun advertisements. acceptable or not?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!