Comments wanted on a new poster (NSFW?)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not all of Oleg's posters must appeal to us. We are already won over, others are not. I like this one. It must surely have an audience that it can influence, and for that reason I like it.
If there is an issue about the boldness of the vibrator, then perhaps a photograph of it in its packaging, with the package in the woman's hand will be just as good and not so distracting for some. Alternatively maybe one of those love eggs would be more subtle (for those who don't like the phallic shape of that vibrator).
mini_love_egg225x225.jpg


We gotta think outside the box, people.
 
QFT is internet slang meaning "quoted for truth". This term applies on forums and posting boards where users can edit their posts, thus the QFT holds the poster to their original statement. It is also used to express agreement with a previous poster's statement, kind of like typing +1.
 
Don't care for the subliminal connotation: shooting is masturbating. It's all but saying "anyone who shoots is a jerk off."

The intent is great ( I get it) but the characters are miscast, IMO.

I'll give it some thought and make more of a contribution, rather than negative critique without suggestion for improving.
 
Beaucoup Ammo said
Don't care for the subliminal connotation: shooting is...

Interesting point, but I wonder if the subliminal connotation isn't more saying that shooting is a form of sexual release rather than anyone who shoots is a jerk off? Still, is that a message we think will win others to our side? I don't know.. just thought it was an interesting take on this issue.
 
exar said:
I never said that you should be arrested and imprisoned for putting the poster up in public. I said it would be crude and in poor taste. If someone wants to take the liberty to introduce that image to children, in public, then fine go ahead. Don't be surprised, however, if I take the liberty to introduce my foot to their ass.

You know, this is really a telling quote. I suppose it is commendable that you are willing to prevent free speech by using violence against other people personally, rather than bringing in the force of the state to do the violence for you. The basic impulse is the same, however.

Seriously, exar, I've got five sons. Homeschooled. Conservative Christian home. Sheltered ... (All well past 5 years old now; my baby is 11 and my oldest is 17).

We have had many conversations about stuff I'd rather not have had to explain to them. Nature of the world.

"Mom, what's that?"

"It's something that's illegal in some states but legal in other states, and some people don't think it should be illegal at all. The poster says that people shouldn't make laws that other people don't like."

"No, what's that thing?"

"Oh, that? It's called a vibrator. Some people think other people shouldn't be allowed to have one. It's really embarrassing to talk about, kinda bathroom talk. Sure you still want to know?"

MY kids would have said "Naw, I guess not" at this stage but YMMV of course. The reason for that is that I have a policy of actually answering persistent questions, in as much detail as the kid demands. Little kids usually don't understand the answer they demanded, and older kids tend to get embarrassed pretty easily, so I usually get off scot-free even now. (The detailed answer for the little kids can sometimes be deliberately obfuscatory, of course. Remember the description of 'rape' in To Kill a Mockingbird? "Rape? That's carnal knowledge of a female by force and without her consent..." -- like that.)

I believe in cherishing childhood innocence.

I also believe that it's the parents' job to prepare their children for the real world. That includes teaching your kids the proper names for every part of their bodies, and answering millions of questions we'd all rather they didn't ask, and coping with the fact that not all the adults in the world are going to behave in ways consistent with our family or religious values.

It's bad form to demand that everyone in the world has to drink mother's milk merely because your baby isn't yet old enough for steak.

pax
 
I think some people are reading into this WAY too much. First, it's meant to be read in a matter of a few seconds, not chewed on for an hour while you debate the artist's "true" intent and what his relationship was like with his mother. Second, I've seen far worse pictures in many other non sexually focused magazines. In fact, try and find a gun magazine nowadays that doesn't have an ad in it for male enhancement drugs. If you wanna work yourselves into a tizzy, how about having a word with all the gun magazine ad editors who apparently think that people who like guns have a problem getting it up. ;)
 
Pax, I was right there with you until this:

It's bad form to demand that everyone in the world has to drink mother's milk merely because your baby isn't yet old enough for steak.

I realize that your post had as its impetus the threat of violence in exar's post. I cringed when I read that threat. I won't speak for any of the other folks who have critiqued the image of the OP, but for myself, I'm not putting my foot on anybody else's posterior. I'm not their judge and jury, or their mom. Not my job, not my right.

But it is NOT bad form to put our values out their in the public square. It is not bad form to say "this is tacky, it is going to offend, if you want to reach people without offending, change it". It is not even bad form, really, to voluntarily limit the extent to which sexual and scatological and other intimate products, behaviors, etc., are spread all over the media. The rap artists are even taking a second look at the stuff they put out there. It has only been in the last few years that there seems to have developed the idea that the First Amendment was meant to cover sexually explicit or otherwise private images and products.

My eyes about popped out the first time I watched the commercial for genital herpes medication on prime time TV. Don't know why...for years, we've been advertising other things that people in past generations had the good taste NOT to talk about in public. The media have become a near nonstop parade of coarseness and vulgarity.

And I didn't, and don't, particularly want to run into it here.

If Oleg wants to publish that as it is, that's his business. No boots on his butt are going to be forthcoming. But I'll avoid further threads containing his (otherwise usually very fine) work. My choice.

Springmom
 
"Comments Wanted".. To give Oleg Anything other than our honest opinions would be doing this extremely creative gentleman a disservice.

And, yes, something for public consumption..especially in this fight..is chewed on for hour(s) to make those initial few seconds an effective 1st impression.
 
springmom ~

Context is everything. As you noted, my post was in response to someone threatening violence for posting an image. Hence the word "demand" in the concluding sentence.

It's perfectly okay to request, to cajole, to condemn, to speechify ... That's how civilization works, after all.

It's not okay to hit or kick in response to mere speech. No matter how offensive we find that speech.

pax
 
It's not okay to hit or kick in response to mere speech. No matter how offensive we find that speech.

True. Of course my children made the acquaintance of a bar of Ivory soap on an occasion or two if I recall :neener: but in that context, it WAS my job.

Springmom
 
Well, I guess I was a little heated.:eek:

Springmom puts it better than I can. What I mean is "Where do your rights end and mine begin?". I pay taxes just like the guy stapling up the poster of a vibrator in the public square. If I don't want that on public property that I also paid for, then why can't I express my freedom of speech and tear it down? If you can put it up, why can't I take it down? I paid for the public space just like they did. If it was a private ad, and the billboard is privately owned then go right ahead and post whatever you want.
 
Betcha exar. Could be I don't like your ad promoting the next church yard sale. Maybe the next gun show...etc...

Still waiting for that boot.

Biker;)
 
It's fine just like it is.
Everyone I showed it to today got the point, and some were surprised that 'marital aids' were actually illegal in some places.
So they were educated by your poster.

But to fix it the only thing you can do is dump it.

Surely you've seen by now in this thread that what some folks accept as normal others don't...and people's reactions to things that offend them will almost always over-ride everything else.
We can't afford to alienate folks while we work for our 2A rights.
 
I've had many left-leaning friends over the years comment that men who carry/collect/enjoy firearms are compensating for other "shortcomings". I think this poster will just add fuel to that fire. And as an aside, I find it amusing that those who like the poster have resorted to name calling and have shown such outward disdain towards those who do not.
 
Pax:

You are truly my hero. That was wonderfully put. I wish I'd you been around when I was trying to get stuff published as a student a few years ago. I could've used the help of a writer like you.

Exar:

I don't think mere expression of an idea violates anyone's rights. It is only when direct action is taken that an individual's rights might be violated. Just something to think about.

GLM:

I've heard several comments from people on this thread about how this poster "plays into" a typical anti-RKBA argument that guns are just "compensation" for something sexually.

First of all, I've never heard anyone say that. (Doesn't mean anything, I'm sure someone has someplace.)

Second, this isn't an argument worthy of the name! Does a childish comment like that from someone who's obviously too immature to engage an issue intellectually really bother you? I mean, perhaps I'm just more secure in my own sexuality than some, but, frankly, all that does is expose to me the fact that the person making that sort of comment really has nothing to support his argument! If that's all they have, well, you've pretty much won the debate on substance at that point.

Again, I really believe that (for its intended audience) Oleg's original poster (or some variant thereof) would be a good attention-getter. Again, for a college audience or for a "green"/leftist audience.

That said, I can see how the juxtaposition of phallus-shape and gun might get the discussion more off-topic than intended. I think Odd Job's proposed picture of a less phallic vibrator might minimize such deviations.
 
And Oleg:

While I am not racist, there is something significantly jarring and wrong about the "interracial" couple photo: I can't quite place my finger on it. It's an attractive photo, and I like the sentiment of people, regardless of color, creed, age, etc. being armed. I'd not mind a suit (or gun) like that myself, either.

It just seems to me that, unlike the dildo + gun argument, the "multiracial" one is catering to a cultural/perceptual problem that does not exist - or, at least, it caters to an aspect of society which is, at this point in history (in our country), something marginal: racism. In my mind, it is an issue which has no standing whatsoever with most people; it's an issue manufactured by the left to make Americans look bad, and should be given no credence (let alone emphasis) whatsoever.
 
It just seems to me that, unlike the dildo + gun argument, the "multiracial" one is catering to a cultural/perceptual problem that does not exist - or, at least, it caters to an aspect of society which is, at this point in history (in our country), something marginal: racism. In my mind, it is an issue which has no standing whatsoever with most people; it's an issue manufactured by the left to make Americans look bad, and should be given no credence (let alone emphasis) whatsoever.

Now, that's interesting.

I swear, I think this has become something of a Rorschach for people posting here. Everybody "sees" something different. To me, the challenge to racism (or, within the context of the poster, the challenge to miscegenation laws) is not dead at all. Nor is racism, sadly, dead. There are a multitude of reasons for it, some of which, IMO, have to do with the issue continually being fanned into flame by the liberals Caimlas references. But no, it's not dead... I wish, but no.

However, since Oleg says he wants to reference current invasive laws, this is a dead issue re: the poster anyway.

Springmom
 
Oleg,

I like the original poster as it is now. The second one is good, but a little wordy.

If I could make a suggestion, keep the visual composition like it is on the first one, but make the wording something like this:

What do these items have in common?
[Handgun][Apparatus]
Some people have decided that owning one should make you a FELON. (To be a little more educational, have a font that looks like a rubber-stamp that says CHICAGO over the pistol, and DALLAS over the dildo.)

I personally don't see what the BFD is, and this is coming from a member of Utah's "radically conservative" religion. I personally don't believe that sheltering oneself/one's progeny does anything but ensure that they will be shocked by the real world.

Sexual apparati exist. Like guns, they will always exist, and even if you could make them magically disappear, people would use other things for the same purpose. Owning one -- or several, for that matter -- should not make one a criminal, period. Like guns, they can be used morally or immorally. We need to take issue with people, not inanimate objects.

Wes
 
This poster's garnered a lot of attention, fer sure. Lot of shock value to it - it definitely grabs your attention. Somebody mentioned that it would be handy for a college-ish environment... and I reckon they're right. Dormitory area would probably be a good place for it.
It would do for a special-use item... not for general use... that's the way I see it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top