Looked at the adds and had the girl-heads not been pointed out, probably wouldn't have noticed. Mostly because my gaze didn't make it that far up, but also because pop-culture as been 'adultizing' young girls for so long now, (like when you find out that that hot fashion model is 16) that I think for a lot of people our ability to judge (at least in a photo) is way out of whack.

I think the truth is always more potent than some symbolic crap. If they really want to give their "Intended Audience" the message how about not infantalizing them. How about they explain the truth about the teen births correlations with twenty something men, how about they honestly if not bluntly explain that teen births are not cohesive with a happy and prospering society. It's infuriating how the establishment views brown skinned people.

I don't know the answer but I think it's worth turning the question on its head: Should we bury images that effectively serve one demographic because they are appalling to another?

The author admitted it herself. She dated a 24-year old man when she was underage. Who's to say she didn't have sex with him too? She coulda blew the whistle on him too after consexual sex.

So it's OK when a girl says it, but it's not OK the other way around. Double-standard.

The message should go both ways. Overage should not date underage. And underage should not persue overage.

Beside the existing ad(which can shock but otherwise is fine), should be a second ad with the picture of a twenty-something man with the caption: "If you're under the age of 18, then he's too old for you".

That would set things equal both ways.

The judge said it was "real love" so he got a year, which in Italy is generally pardoned. Especially since the 13 year old consented to every action.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/07/witaly107.xml

from the Telegraph.co.uk

I agree with Carol that the ads are creepy, and don't make sense - "jailbait" victims of statutory rape are typically 14-17 years old. So why use the head/face of a 8-11 year old?

There are many skeezy guys out there who would try to seduce a 16 year-old jailbait female in high school; yet, skeezy as they are, these men are (usually) not pedophiles, i.e. interested in pre-adolescent little girls. Why is this distinction lost on the creators of the ad?

********

However, as far as this question raised by Carol --

Should we use images that are appalling to one demographic because they effectively serve another?

I think the answer should clearly and emphatically be YES. Think of it this way: if an AIDS awareness ad was found to be highly effective with a demographic of gay males - but was found appalling by, say, devout Evangelicals or Muslims - what should take priority?

The ability to effect positive change in health and in a community at large - or the wounded feelings of offense felt by another group?

SCENARIO 2

If an anti-drug PSA ad features Justin Timberlake in it, and I am deeply offended that a boy-bander is being served up as a role model to teens, do I have the right to demand that it be taken down - even if the ad is actually effective in curbing drug rates in teens?

We already know the answer to that. We must never offend others.

The first amendment famously gives us the right of free speech up to the point where we have offended others.

You can no longer say "niggardly". You can't even call a woman "jiggles."

You do have the right to wear the word "juicy" splashed across your ass, although I will be arrested if I ask for a taste of that.

In the superbowl, there was an ad showing an intelligent indian man who spoke with an indian accent. Turns out, that was racist.

There is one group, and one group alone that we can make fun of. Though they are currently in the minority of people in some states, and will definitely be in the minority of people by I think 2030, it is safe to abuse harass objectify discriminate against men in general, and white men and especially fathers.

So no, no offensive images, unless they are of fathers, or white fathers.

Hope that helps.

>Should we use images that are

>appalling to one demographic

>because they effectively serve

>another?

We haven't had dialog on any issue in years. Everything has been rhetoric, with one side talking right past the other side. If we were to use the test above, we'd probably never have any conversations at all -- someone, somewhere is offended by just about anything.

The number of ways women will find to avoid taking responsibility for what they do.

Anonymous wrote:

"Truly incredible. The number of ways women will find to avoid taking responsibility for what they do"

uhh, dude?

14 years old = girl, not woman.

get it? good.

I think the closing question supports a questionable set of assumptions. And is really overly trusting of the focus group results of a marketing agency trying to sell its own campaign. Seriously - are we to believe that the intended audience is too stupid to notice that an eight-year-old girl doesn't look the same as a sixteen-year-old?

Anyway, it's not a choice between being offensive but solving a problem and not solving the problem at all. What we have is actually a roundabout solution to a fairly simple problem. How about a PSA for condoms, and some free reproductive health care in the affected neighborhoods? And if you want to get fancy, some self-esteem raising campaigns aimed at young women instead of demeaning images like these.

> You can't even call a woman "jiggles."

You used to call women "jiggles"? How did that work out for you?

Actually, I think that white women are the ONLY group likely to be appalled by the images...I think the target, far from thinking twice about the behavior in question, would find the pictures an amusing validation of their attraction.

I' ma little puzzled by Lloyd's stance on this. Is it statutory rape or not, for a 17 year old to be with a 24 year old? It sounds like she is saying in her case, no, but in the case of an inner city girl getting pregnant, yes.

I don't think a 17-year-old is capable of the psychological and emotional judgement to navigate a sexual relationship with a man in his 20s - even an immature man. I think that's the reason for the laws. Sure, lots of girls at 16 or 17 feel differently - but girls in that age group also tend to engage in hysterics, stalkerish behavior, threats of suicide and even intentional pregnancy when rejected the way adults reject one another (i.e. not in an 'adult' way but by simply not calling or otherwise disappearing). This is why the laws exist - because 17 is not old enough from an emotional, psychological and even intellectual standpoint to navigate adult relationships, no matter how 'mature' the physical packaging might seem.