Would L. Ron Hubbard Endorse Domestic Violence?
I was watching tv the other day and saw a "public service announcement" that shocked me. I looked up the website at the end of the commercial at www.thewaytohappiness.org. and found the site was built around the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard in some type of pamphlet entitled, "The Way to Happiness." The commercial is entitled, "Don't be Promiscuous" but looks more like an endorsement of extreme domestic violence against men. You would never have a commercial where men were smacking women and breaking things over their head for cheating. Why is this okay? Do Scientologists believe in men being abused?
Take a look at this sick commercial and let me know what you think.
Take a look at this sick commercial and let me know what you think.
Labels: Male Bashing
posted by Helen at 9:42 AM
83 Comments:
Wow. Male bashing for real.
I found it interesting that the message was "Don't cheat, you will get beat up." Not very high up the moral development tree. No empathy, no indication of how cheating hurts others, just physical pain as a consequence to be avoided.
The commercial gave me the willies.
Trey
Ditto, Trey.
Wow, blatant endorsement of violence against men. Guess what would happen if they ran this commercial (if any network would) with the gender roles reversed?
I think you're taking the commercial too literally. "Cheating hurts" is the takeaway, not "it's ok to hit men."
Of course, if it were women "cheating" and getting abused, the spot would never have gotten made, for the same reasons you're outraged about this one. So, it's a dumb spot because it clouds the message in a completely foreseeable way.
Brian, I sure agree that it is a dumb spot, and I agree with you about the intended message (which I concur with by the way) but visually it is about hitting men. And that is important too.
Trey
Brian,
Sorry, but when you have a woman putting her knee to a man's groin and him falling to the floor without any consequences to the woman, you are endorsing men getting hit. Their message? If you are a man, a woman has free rein to hit, smash, and beat you. This group is endorsing violence against men--whether they meant to or not.
I agree that people have a tendency to take things waaaay too far into their own insecurities/experiences as far as being insulted or offended goes (instead of looking at the bigger picture), but this is LITERALLY offensive.
I know that, personally, my first instinct in that situation is to hurt the guy physically the way it hurts me emotionally to be just a side-item, and also the way his wife/SO would hurt to know she's a placeholder. So that part of the commercial just might be accurate, and the effect with the music is even comical.
However, the message we're seeing here, whether it's their intent or not, is that it's okay to smack someone if they offend you or hurt their feelings. We're seeing that it's okay, specifically, to smack a guy around if he's being a jerk. Um, no. That's usually not the best way to deal with something. People respond to physical pain, yes, but that sort of representation in a public forum is not only in poor taste, it's setting a horrible example to anyone with, let's say, "sub-par" intelligence or common sense. And it's founded by a religion (a questionable one, yes, but a belief system, nonetheless). So what I take away, in real-time, from this commercial, is this: "Oh, okay, so they think beating up a guy on TV is funny or a good way to get a point across?"
I hate to bring any sort of "think of the children" phrase into this, but seriously, would you want your kids getting that kind of message?
squeaky wheel - unfortunately, children already get that message. I've had to take a very stern stance with my daughter, now 11, that "it's OK for girls to hit boys but boys can't hit girls" isn't an acceptable philosophy. Neither is to hit neither.
My daughter learned this from her friends, school experiences or whereever. I know my ex doesn't tolerate this either. I heard this over and over when I was growing up in the 1950'a and 60's. Violence against men has been acceptable forever in our society and still is.
dadvocate - Just because they see it elsewhere in their daily lives, that doesn't make it acceptable to just go ahead and let it be seen on such a public medium - in fact, that should be more reason, IMHO, for it to be taken off, because the commercial just reinforces what they already believe, that that belief is wrong.
Good on you for telling your daughter, though - more parents need to take responsibility for their children and their actions.
AND that belief is wrong, not THAT that belief is wrong.
Good grief, where's my coffee?
If a man hit me like that, the favor would be returned and things would get broken.
If a woman hit me like that, I would be in jail shortly there after, if I returned the favor.
The commercial has quite a few hidden messages, doesn't it?
I suppose one could even derive that women don't cheat and therefore the self-righteous indignation.
br549,
But many women do cheat. According to Newsweek:
"Couples therapists estimate that among their clientele, the number is close to 30 to 40 percent, compared with 50 percent of men, and the gap is almost certainly closing."
While this is not good news, I certainly do not think anyone would condone a woman being kicked, punched or beaten for cheating in a similar commercial. It is ludicrous to think of such a thing.
It's sick. Why can't companies that promote ads like these get sued under hate speech laws?
Meanwhile, over at Feministing.com, they recently got outraged over a pencil sharpener which supposedly promotes rape.
Or so they said. They're very clever at spotting extremely subtle "hidden" messages which supposedly make it okay to abuse women. But something like the commercial we just saw, of course, can pass without comment because there's nothing wrong with it.
One other observation. It seems to be a running theme in this company's ads that women are good and men are evil. Unless I missed an example, every depiction of a person committing a wrong in the various ads on their site is played by a male figure.
I've had to take a very stern stance with my daughter, now 11, that "it's OK for girls to hit boys but boys can't hit girls" isn't an acceptable philosophy.
When my daughter was 11, she used to occasionally get physical with her brother, who was 8 at the time. She would get disciplined and I would always tell her "One day, he is going to be bigger and stronger than you and will defend himself and you will be sorry you ever hit him." My words didn't have much effect, until one day, when she was 14 and he was 11, she initiated it and he hit back and knocked her on her ass, crying and blubbering. My response to her was "You had it coming" and my resonse to him was discipline and being told not to hit anyone, expecially girls.
She never got physical with him again.
squeaky wheel - I guess I didn't make myself clear. I agree with you 100%, re:
Just because they see it elsewhere in their daily lives, that doesn't make it acceptable to just go ahead and let it be seen on such a public medium ...
Sgt. Ted - my daughter is the youngest and insisted on hitting her older, big strong brothers. They generally didn't repond in kind but every once in a while she would actually hurt them and they'd give her a shove. She'd them blame them and give the "it's OK to hit boys..." spiel.
I had much greater difficulty getting her to stop hitting than either of my boys.
This is an odd message. I don't know whether it is a commercial or something somebody created and then slapped on the Scientology website. I guess people can put whatever they want on their own website. But let's look at the subject matter for a minute. I know several people who have been promiscuous outside their marriage and I can't remember any that have been kicked, slapped or beaten for it. In the one seen on the video a woman slapped a man in a club, if she had done that in my neck of the woods the bouncer would have been all over her, so the whole set-up isn't even realistic.
I don't really care what the Scientology people put on their site, There are several good ways to get their point across, perhaps they should have hired better video specialists.
Regarding kicking, hitting, slapping. This reminds me of Walker Texas Ranger or the A Team. Whenever someone pissed off Chuck Norris or Mr. T they would respond by beating the person, these guys never seemed to be able to walk away from a fight. I always cringed, this sent a clear message that it is okay to hit. Perhaps all of us should learn to control our temper and find a better way to settle disputes, I don't care if you are male or female.
In the marriages of many of my friends, that failed over time because of infidelity, it's running close to even on who the cheating spouse was.
I'm opting out of going to view this "commercial" again, but I am wondering, truly, just what the makers of it are really trying to accomplish.
If I made it sound like I would hit a woman back that hit me, I would not, never have. Nor would I cause any situation that would draw that much raw anger out of a woman. I've just never been there. Measure twice, cut once.
I hope my post above did not lead anyone to think I am even remotely capable of that. I could never face my daughters or my son, and would have a tough time looking in the mirror as well.
cham --
I do not believe you are correct. Don't conflate violence returned to a bad guy with someone initiating it in response to just being ticked off.
Perhaps you could give me an actual episode to watch that demonstrates what you've said?
Cham,
This is a commercial that I saw during an episode of "Frasier" that I was watching, not just something on their website. It just seems a bit sick to put it up as some sort of public service announcement. It's poorly done and an endorsement of violence, just the opposite, I would assume, of what the producers of the video intended.
Despite the message intended by this commercial, the percentage of women that I know of that have dated married men is quite significant, and they rarely seemed bothered by the situation, unless the guy was a jerk in other ways.
I think it's fair to say that the Church of Scientology endorses anything if there's a buck in it for them.
http://www.scientology-kills.org/dead/dead_bashaw.htm
In a post-Clintonian world cheating has been defined down... Dancing, walking, talking-?
Hitting men, esp. white men, has been allowed and permitted for decades. White males have no rights-Only Responsibilities and Obligations... Ask any cop or judge.
Many women prefer married men. No entanglements, no talk about a future, no debates about who has control of the relationship in every aspect... It's the men who are the fools...
Just an observation: the violent women are represented as the "other woman".
Notice he's putting his ring on when his wife comes home and says "what happened to your face".
So, the "other women" are perpetrating the violence, presumably after learning that they are being romanced by a married man.
The implication being that the man (men) tricked the women into having adulterous affairs.
I guess it implies men are always the cheater.
But in actual answer to your question, yes he would.
"Ron is not normal... I had hoped you could straighten him out. Your charges probably sound fantastic to the average person – but I've been through it – the beatings, threats on my life, all the sadistic traits which you charge – 12 years of it." --Mrs. Hubbard
Stupid commercial yes, "extreme" violence no way. Calling slaps extreme violence trivializes real extreme violence (which often leads to injuries like broken bones and so on).
Overreacting to stuff like this is dumb and does little to help change people's ideas.
Crankyspouse,
You must not have watched the commercial. Breaking a glass over someone's head can cause injuries like a concussion or other head injury. You can try to justify this type of behavior, but there is no justification for it.
What bugs me is playing real violence for laughs. I don't like it when I'm recoiling in horror but halfway smiling thanks to the goofy soundtrack. That goes for Laurel and Hardy as much as it does for this commercial.
hmmm...
so if you do an anti-drinking advert which shows car-crashes you are "advocating" car crashes?
Now Sarah's point is a good one.. the real problem is the violence is played for laughs
What's really sad about the commercial is, if the tables were turned, and a man actually did slap a woman on a dance floor, or break a beer mug over her head, every other male in the place would be all over the guy. He'd be getting hit with so many rights, he'd be begging for a left. And we all know that's true.
I've never seen women wrestle another woman down who was beating up on a guy. A few cheers, maybe.
The formal slap across the face of a man who has done something outrageous has it's legitiamte place. It does not inflict damage and is done to ellicit shame.
These ladies lack elegance.
After all has been said, one needs to remember that Scientology is nothing more than a set of fantasies devised by a science fiction writer. L. Ron Hubbard was delusional and charismatic enough to make people believe his fairy tales.
After all has been said, one needs to remember that Scientology is nothing more than a set of fantasies devised by a science fiction writer. L. Ron Hubbard was delusional and charismatic enough to make people believe his fairy tales.
Hmm, I had a slightly different take. To me, the narrative looked like this:
1. guy takes ring off to go meet his girlfriend.
2. girlfriend is the one that does the hitting. (implied) She doesn't know he's married, otherwise he wouldn't worry about the ring.
3. guy gets home, puts the ring back on.
4. the wife comes home and shows concern for his face.
5. (implied) now the real pain begins -- the guy is going to hurt someone who loves him very badly as he either confesses directly or (worse!) concocts some coverup story which won't work. Not to mention the girlfriend's pain.
So it may actually be the case that this isn't domestic violence, but rather "normal" violence -- simple assult?
So I think that the clip might be trying to make a more subtle point.
I'm not sure this affects your original point one way or the other, though.
Since this is yet another manifestation of Scientology, perhaps this demonstrates a low-cost practical alternative to the high cost auditing method for removal of body thetans.
Out, out, damned adulterous thetans (WHACK)!
Hmmm. Well, it works for Satan...
"It's sick. Why can't companies that promote ads like these get sued under hate speech laws?"
Cause of that first amendment thingy we still have here.
This is the church of Scientology. They are not aiming at you. They are aiming at the confused, hurt woman who has been cheated on. They want that woman to come investigate Scientology, where she will meet people who will be kind to her, and treat her well and try to suck her into that weird-ass religion. That's all this is about.
I thought it was kind of funny, in a three stooges kind of way.
Yes, a guy could never get away with this. Yes, it was taken to extremes, but a knee to the groin is funny for anyone but the recipient (unless the recipient is someone with less power, and we all know that men have more power than women. Hear that Hillary? Get in the kitchen and make me a pie!).
And, I am a guy. Not a cheating guy. But I did find it funny.
Nothing surprises me from a "religion" that believes (in the advanced levels) that Xenu the space alien is in charge.
"Cause of that first amendment thingy we still have here."
Yes, but the first amendment does not apply to every form of speech. Like yelling "fire" in a crowded place, or deliberately slandering or committing libel, or tersely speaking to John Kerry.
"The formal slap across the face of a man who has done something outrageous has it's legitiamte place. It does not inflict damage and is done to ellicit shame."
Yeah, the same thing goes for my wife-beater stick. It's no wider than my thumb, it inflicts damage and illicits shame, so it must have its legitimate place too.
"Overreacting to stuff like this is dumb and does little to help change people's ideas."
Not reacting at all does absolutely nothing and allows it to continue. It's not trivial either, there are lots of men who are physically abused by there spouses and aren't taken seriously and can't get help because it's a common attitude that violence directed at men isn't a big deal.
Your original statement was:
"It's sick. Why can't companies that promote ads like these get sued under hate speech laws?"
Frankly, hate speech laws should be unconstitutional all by themselves.
"Like yelling "fire" in a crowded place, or deliberately slandering or committing libel, "
No one is slandered or libeled in this ad. No amount of tortured reasoning would come to that conclusion.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater or saying Hi, Jack in a airport might show limitations on speech but again, so what? Doesn't apply here either.
You want to write a letter to the Scientologists, feel free. You want to boycott the Scientologists, again, fell free.
You want to run to the government whining that you're offended by this and want the government to make you feel better and take away their money or make the bad men stop making commercials that offend you, well then we got a problem. The best thing about the first amendment is it allows for offensive speech. Or as you call it, "hate speech". The day you restrict that is the day ANY speech can be restricted.
Jeff,
I understand your concern about free speech but I don't think that's the point here. If the commercial or public service announcement or whatever this thing is, was exactly the same but a cheating woman was being slapped by a man, a bottle was broken over her head etc. and she was kicked between the legs, there is no way a station would run that. No...way. That is not free speech--for it to be so, a similar commercial would have to be allowed equal time and you and I both know that would not be possible.
annie said - The formal slap across the face of a man who has done something outrageous has it's legitiamte place. It does not inflict damage and is done to ellicit shame.
No, it's not ligitimate, it's assault and battery. Your attitude towards this is exactly what's wrong in our society's view of violence against men.
annie said - The formal slap across the face of a man who has done something outrageous has it's legitiamte place. It does not inflict damage and is done to ellicit shame.
"No, it's not ligitimate, it's assault and battery."
And our men become wussier and wussier. You should watch some old movies to see the slap properly applied.
I am a woman, and watching that made my physically ill. I was expecting one slap or something, but it kept going on and on, and then when she kneed him in the groin? Good lord, I wanted to hurl. The music, and the speed only increased my visceral reaction, I think.
The slaps, while hugely inappropriate (what, if a guy pisses you off, you don't know how to turn your back on him and walk away, is it?), would at least not have caused damage. The glass to the head and knee to the groin could very well cause serious damage.
This is not "cute" nor "harmless" in any manner. How can any normal person watch that and not be horrified? And yes, of course they'd never air it if the genders had been reversed, which is good. They also shouldn't air the damned thing with it the way it is. Network morons...
annie...the old movies? In the "old movies" a man usually had to slap a woman who was being hysterical at a given moment - after shaking her by the shoulders and yelling "snap out of it" didn't work.
That infuriated me when I saw it in movies as a boy; it would move me to action if I saw it in real life.
At 56 years old I watched plenty of old movies when they weren't old. But I don't live my life according to them, entertainment purposes only. I like your definition of a wussy as a man who disapproves of woman slapping him.
My mother never slapped my father or vice versa, that any of us 6 kids ever saw anyway. And he was unfaithful. Was violence common in your family or do you just like the idea of getting a free pass to hit a man?
Is your real name "Mary?"
helen -- No. Free speech is the ability to say what you want and to disallow what you want on your own private station. This is not about free speech. The station wouldn't run one of the opposite? Hypocrisy perhaps, but not a suppression of free speech. I could make one and post it on my server.
annie -- "The formal slap across the face of a man who has done something outrageous has it's legitiamte place."
And a bust across your chops for slapping me is legitimate. I tend to respond in kind.
geoff -- Not funny in a Three Stooges sort of way. I recommend you watch some again. At no time do you see them nursing wounds or showing bruises. You will also see that the violence is in both directions overall. A knee to the groin is only funny if the recipient is not damaged. If you think it is, you do not understand slapstick.
In fact, I did a study of six hours of Stooges (18 shorts) and rating the violence from simple slaps (1) up to hammers (5) and (yes) i-beams (10), the results are Moe, Curly then Larry.
"I understand your concern about free speech but I don't think that's the point here. "
You misunderstand my point. Of course it's tasteless and of course they would never show the same thing with the genders reversed. The only point I am making is that no one is going to make this a legal issue because there is no legal issue to make. Just because its offensive doesn't mean someone can take them to court because they consider this hate speech. That is my point about the free speech. My other point was this is to lure women with poor self esteem due to this sort of behavior into Scientology. This stupid commercial isn't pointed at you or most of us.
An endorsement of violence? I get the impression it's saying "This is what happens when you fool around." Yes, it's hyperbolic, as advertisements tend to be, but that would seem to be cause to be not so literal-minded about it.
Does anyone really have dozens of mistresses they could manage to piss off in one day? Is it endorsing this by showing it? I think that's a stretch.
The music is a bouncy, though, making it seem unserious.
This group not only endorses violence against men, they also endorse a woman's right to cheat. By enforcing the idea that it is MEN who cheat, they also enforce the idea that women's cheating is not cheating.
We already have a huge problem with so many women thinking violence against men is acceptable, right, decent and proper. To enforce that social-error is a great wrong.
Just about anyone can write anything and have it printed in a major newspaper by purchasing ad space. With so many cable channels available I am not sure whether Direct TV, Comcast or anyone else can eliminate commercials based on bad taste alone. If someone buys time and the ad meets minimum standards then the cable company has to air it. Was this commercial intelligent, thoughtful and informative? Absolutely not. Do we have the right to change the channel, use the mute button, complain to the cable company, or turn the TV off? You bet. Can the government punish the station manager for a lousy commercial? No and I hope to God it never does.
be careful what you say about Scintology. They have something called a "fair game" policy, which basically tells them they can attack, sue, frame, "destroy" anyone who gets in their way. :(
Crazy space alien is the least thing scary about the these people.
http://www.xenu.net/
I agree with you on this one, Helen, it's totally uncalled for and in the poorest of taste. Where do you find these things?
Slapping should never be encouraged in either gender, at any age or ethnic group.
And our men become wussier and wussier. You should watch some old movies to see the slap properly applied.
No, what has happened is that men aren't tolerating a double standard that says physical assault is a crime when women commit it just as it is when men commit it. We want women to be as accountable for their actions as men are.
You just want to hit men when you feel like it and have no consequence. You are a borderline sociopath in my book.
As a married woman, I agree that this commercial is sick, and I can't believe there are people in this thread trying to find some "redeeming" value" in this completely dysfunctional advertisement piece.
The commercial did not bother me. It doesn't outrage me, I actually found it kind of cute.
Abusing men or women is bad, unfortunately it's been taken too far, since domestic violence carries so much "power," now each side must play the victim whenever the opportunity appears.
If you cheat, male or female, I'm sorry but you deserve far worse than what our society now deems appropriate it's gone so far now that the cheating spouse can take the kids away from the one who remained faithful, regardless of sex. It's appalling. It's about time no-fault divorce was done away with, that is the source of most of the problems.
Sort of like a male radio talk show host getting shut down for calling a group of female basketball players nappy headed ho's, while a female MSM news woman calls President Bush a monkey, and nothing happens.
I mean, they both apologized, right?
br549 - Don't forget the time Rhandi Rhodes of Air America said Bush should be shot and included the sound of a gun being fired.
It's a double standard and it's terrible. It stinks.
Cranky Spouce:
Not extreme violence?
At 9 seconds in, she breaks a wine bottle over his head! In real life, that doesn't leave a lumb - that gets you a trip to the ER with a fractured skull - IF your lucky (unlucky gets you a trip to the funeral home)
I'm fairly sure, that happening in public WOULD end up with the woman arrested, as he would not be able to hit back
edh said,
Just an observation: the violent women are represented as the "other woman".
Notice he's putting his ring on when his wife comes home and says "what happened to your face".
So, the "other women" are perpetrating the violence, presumably after learning that they are being romanced by a married man.
The implication being that the man (men) tricked the women into having adulterous affairs.
I guess it implies men are always the cheater.
You are right.
And it is as if no woman would ever sleep with a married man, yeah right!
And who are those millions of unfaithful husbands sleeping with?
I actually agree that a formal slap by a woman is not unreasonable in certain circumstances. Not a hard slap, but a more ceremonial slap. And it wouldn't be okay if the woman were bigger than the guy or they weren't in some sort of close relationship.
Having said that, these slaps in the commercial weren't gentle. They were hard. A hard slap to the face can really hurt. It's not likely to cause permanent injury, but is hardly reasonable. And the other attacks are worse. I've been the recipient of the knee to the groin and don't think it's funny, ever (I'd make an exception for a rapist).
Scientology, though, has a history of violence and they probably think this is reasonable. Who knows what brain washed cultists who believe in sci-fi aliens are really thinking.
I have to wonder, though, why so many people cheat. I have been married for 10 years and our marriage has had it's ups and downs but it's never occured to me to cheat. There are just too many reasons not to. From the violation of my oath, the pain of betrayal to my wife, the harm to my kids, and the practical aspects of trying to juggle a secret relationship on the side, it just doesn't seem worth it. I also can't imagine that a mistress would not have her own emotional needs that would need to be met. If I need some sexual gratification, I know how to find it myself...
EI
"Is this a courting or a donnybrook? Have the good manners not to hit the man until he's your husband and entitled to hit you back." ~~Michaleen Flynn to Mary Kate in The Quiet Man
My flippancy aside, I found disturbing the elevation of violence ... the "kneeing" and "glassbreaking" because it DOES take it out of the realm of the open handed slap.
Is such a slap "battery"? Well, yes, technically ... just as a 'shove' 'push' or even yanking a phone out of the wall to prevent the other person from calling the cops falls under "domestic violence" statutes.
Just as swatting a kid on the butt is technically child abuse.
Consider.
annie, since you seem so fond of the "good old days" when a woman could slap a man in righteous indignation for insulting her honor or what not, does that also imply you advocate that a woman's place in in the home and the men should be hard-drinkin' rough hombrés?
Times change, sweet cakes. But I guess this in one exceptional case where being conservative beats out being progressive.
Wow advocating beating a Man for being unfaithful. Why stop there? Why not pull a Clara Harris and run him over with your car?
This sends a very disturbing message that Violence against Men, or a Good Whupping is good for keeping men in line.
Sick and truly disgusting.
The only thing wrong with this is that women do not receive reciprocal treatment by men. If a man did something like that to a woman or if a husband beat his wife for cheating on him he would be jailed, and his wife would be able to divorce him and take everything he has. But, there is nothing trivial about infidelity and especially not adultery. His getting his ass kicked for what he is depicted as doing in the clip is not even a tenth of what he really has coming to him. And, the same would be true if it was a woman.
If you're having trouble believing that and/or disabusing yourself of the indoctrination you no doubt received in kindergarten. Think about it this way. Which would you rather have happen? Your wife goes out sleeping with several guys at a time over a period of a few months or you get your ass kicked and your wife turns out to be the sort of woman that would never do such a thing. Personally, I would take the latter any day, and I bet a lot of women would, too, for that matter. For crying out loud, a lot of guys get their asses kicked that bad or worse just for sport! (In fact, that is why this comericial isn't really that convincing to guys that would do what is depicted because they would probably consider that a fair trade: get your ass kicked in exchange for being able to sleep with anything that moves.)
The only thing wrong with all this is the fact that such a video with the woman being the cheater would cause an outrage from all sides. That is hardly the video's fault. That's just the world we live in. (Besides, it is just slapstick, anyway -- worse violence is depicted in your average three stooges routine.)
"I actually agree that a formal slap by a woman is not unreasonable in certain circumstances. Not a hard slap, but a more ceremonial slap"
Perhaps the ceremonial spanking that John Wayne administered to a headstrong and b*tchy Maureen O'Hara in the movie McClintock wasn't unreasonable in that circumstance as well.
After all, it didn't hurt her physically, only her pride, and she stopoped bigfooting around the house after that.
Was what John Wayne's character did wrong? It sure seemed to correct the problem. How is that any different than some mildly indignant woman "correcting" the behavior of some man who offended her sense of propriety?
I just sent them an e-mail. I'll let you know if they respond.
Helen, what station were you watching?
I'd let Maureen O'Hara spank me.
Rrrrwaaaorrr!
I've been approached by several married men looking to fool around. They have their standard lines, "My wife doesn't understand me", "I should have never gotten married", "We have grown in different directions", blah, blah, blah. It has never occurred to me to hit, slap or fight any of these guys. I simply assume God will take care of them in due time. What the heck is wrong with walking away from people you don't like? Now these comments are talking about spanking to 'correct the problem'. It is not our duty to fix other people so they act they way we want them to act. Get over yourselves.
I don't believe in spanking, either. Children should have electrodes implanted in the pain centers of their brains so we can discipline them without actually having to...you know, handle them.
P.S. - Cham, stop playing hard to get. You little minx...
Serket,
I believe it was channel 8 WVLT on cable in Knoxville -I think it's channel 43 but I just saw it briefly and looked it up after seeing the website because it seemed so inappropriate.
It's a 30 second ad. Suggesting that it's meant to condone violence against men is obtuse or that it reflects anything other than an illustration of why promiscuity might be dangerous is worthy of Rev. Wildmon scanning Mighty Mouse cartoons for drug references.
If there were one that focused on women (is there? I didn't notice) it would, of course, be different. This should not be a news flash to anyone who reads this blog: There is a double-standard in society.
And maybe the fact that society (at some level) actually condones violence against unfaithful men is something a guy should consider before cheating on his wife.
"If there were one that focused on women (is there? I didn't notice) it would, of course, be different. This should not be a news flash to anyone who reads this blog: There is a double-standard in society.
And maybe the fact that society (at some level) actually condones violence against unfaithful men is something a guy should consider before cheating on his wife."
Isn't that kind of like telling women they shouldn't be surprised when they're told to get in the kitchen and bake their husband an apple pie? Wait, it's not. It's a lot more like telling women they shouldn't be surprised if their husband beats them for misbehaving. After all, depictions of men being hit by women aren't limited to only when men have committed adultery.
Helen, I just sent an e-mail WVLT with your blog link and they replied and said they would check out your link and review the case.
This is sort of funny.
I'm happily married and I seek my challenges in other areas, not cheating on my wife, for a whole list of reasons, which range from a sense of empathy to simply valuing my own integrity. Nowhere on that list is, "Maybe I'll get slapped in a bar."
Still, when I saw this, my reaction wasn't, "Man, I guess I won't cheat, then." It was, "Man, that guy gets laid a LOT!" as I couldn't help but laugh.
I mean, what sort of person makes this commercial? Is it supposed to be effective?
Still, when I saw this, my reaction wasn't, "Man, I guess I won't cheat, then." It was, "Man, that guy gets laid a LOT!" as I couldn't help but laugh.
I mean, what sort of person makes this commercial? Is it supposed to be effective?
LOL. I have to agree. My personal reaction wasn't "More violence against men by women." It was "Oh, so its okay to be a complete sh*tbag who sleeps with four women at once, one of which is your wife. You just get beat up a little for it."
That's the real message of the clip -- cheating is about as bad as a pretty minor ass kicking.
Wait, it's not. It's a lot more like telling women they shouldn't be surprised if their husband beats them for misbehaving.
Misbehaving? How about screwing around? And, no, they shouldn't be surprised if they've got a dozen sex partners besides their husband, that one of them is might get angry and take it out on them or possibly one of their other lovers. That's precisely the point.
Other things that shouldn't surprise you: Getting beaten up for making racist slurs in a bar filled with members of the race you are slurring; being raped and killed while serving time for being a pedophile; I'm sure you can think of some others.
The fact that violence is illegal and should be deplored doesn't change the fact that it happens, and it perhaps should be something you put in the minus column when weighing the pros and cons of promiscuity.
After all, depictions of men being hit by women aren't limited to only when men have committed adultery.
Yes, and without a doubt, every 30 second commercial should show every possible scenario in order to make sure that absolute reality is reflected.
Honestly, people. I downloaded and read the part of the PDF that applies here and it mentions violence, yes, and also disease, and wrecked families and betrayed trust, and also how organizations can be destroyed by promiscuity, etc. etc. etc.
They picked one item and ran with it.
Next up: Does Adriane Lyne endorse domestic violence?
I'm out.
Barry,
Is this ad supposed to be effective ? That depends -- what was the desired effect ? If the desired effect was to reduce cheating, perhaps not. If it was to trivialize violence against men by women . . . do the math.
Cham,
I can certainly believe you were approached by plenty of married men. But there is a corollary: Within my first months of marriage, lo, those many years ago, I observed that my wedding band had become a chick magnet. I was hit on more often (wearing a gold wedding band) in the first 6 months after my marriage than I had been in years. There is, without a doubt, a type of woman who pursues married men. I don't claim to understand it, but it's undeniable to me.
More generally,
My boys (now both black belts) have been taught to walk away before violence starts. They have also been taught to strike back instantly when attacked, regardless of the gender of the attacker. I taught them what I learned long ago: If anyone without a badge tries to get violent with you, you have no obligation to just stand there and take it.
One son already put his female cousin on her butt when he was attacked, and I nearly threw her father off my property when he tried to say my son was wrong for "hitting a girrrrrrl." I told him that when she practiced violence, she was fair game.
My other son took down a considerably larger, older female in our neighborhood who tried to shove him, to the amusement of the girl's grandfather. "I always told you some boy would kick your *ss if you kept that up," was his comment as I recall. The grandfather and I became fast friends after that.
Is there anyone else who can't see it? I've tried in Firefox and Explorer, but it just loads forever. I click on "don't be promiscuous" and I just see a man's hand with a wedding ring and an eternally spinning "arrows going in a circle" icon.
Hi John,
I just tried it in Explorer and it worked fine, not sure what the problem is. I would just try again.
Post a Comment
<< Home