TYT: Save The Boobs Campaign

[Emit]

Run time: 03:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXi5ploCAjU   Posted on YouTube: September 25, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 29, 2009 By DU Member: Emit Views on DU: 1583

 
A new round of public service announcements by Rethink Breast Cancer are attempting to capture a younger audience.

ABC has a piece on this ad too:

Save The Boobs Ads Controversy
Do Shock Ads Work?
Provocative New Ad Campaigns

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=6127194

[panader0]

1. The words "breast" and "cancer" should never appear together

and "testicular" too.

[flor de jasmim]

2. So testicular breasts is a no-no. Darn!

[sasquatch]

3. Well everytime we show our "clevage" people tell us to buy new pants

;)

[Quasimodem]

4. You see, sasquatch . . .

. . . crack is like cholesterol, there is the good kind and the bad kind.

[KingFlorez]

5. I thought this video was going to be a video about saving Republicans

Thankfully, it was actually a video about a really good cause.

[Neoma]

6. I agree with the ad, but here's something to think about.

Isn't appealing to peoples sexuality in this way manipulative? And isn't this manipulation kind of insulting to young people? Like they might be implying that the only way to reach out to young people is to show boobs. Like they're saying the only way young people pay attention to anything is to show boobs. It's a good cause, but that's something to think about.

[geckosfeet]

7. It's about breast cancer. The ad features breasts. I am not sure there

is an issue there.

If the ad was for furniture or laundry detergent your point would be stronger.

The appeal to sexuality is relative. Should they have appealed to ones emotions with tragic tales of cancer? Should the ad be a sterile unemotional appeal for cash?

I agree that there is some implied sexuality, but I do not find it offensive or manipulative in the least.

[Neoma]

8. Well, I'm not sure how it's "implied" sexuality.

When it has a woman walking around with her boobs jiggling and all the guys (and at least one woman) oggling her. At most, I find it questionable to drum up support for breast cancer through sex appeal. Why should we support women with breast cancer that isn't sexy? It just furthers the portrayal of women as sex objects and it's unrealistic. To show some woman as a tool for sex, when the cause is to save human beings from certain death? It's questionable. It also ignores the fact that some men get breast cancer also.

[geckosfeet]

9. Boobs jiggle. Men watch. But thats about all that happened. No sex. No tools.

I think you are reading way too into it. I think it was supposed to be fun.

[Neoma]

10. Why is it okay for breast cancer when it's not okay for

beer, detergent, furniture, or anything else?

[geckosfeet]

11. All I can say is breast cancer is about breasts. The cancer part is hideous.

But why can't the breast part be fun?

Well, there are tons of racey ads for other products. Not quite like this one though. This add focused blatantly on breasts. It would have been a bridge too far to try and pull something like that off for beer.

I completely agree - it was blatant, exploitive and perhaps manipulative. But they pull it off because it is ABOUT breasts - breast cancer anyway - and the participation of breasts is implicit.

[Neoma]

12. Donate to the cause?

Buh buh buh, staring at breasts...can't think. :9

[geckosfeet]

13. Duh duh duh duhgrading conversation.

[Neoma]

15. I just wonder how many people are jacking off to breast cancer right now.

[ScottLand]

14. This is America. We're looking for things about which to

be offended. We can handle the idea that people are being tortured by our countrymen, but if a singer has a wardrobe malfunction - it's unacceptable.