Spot the boat is no more!

[henryf]

A little late to the debate and I have only skimmed through the thread.

What ever your thoughts may be on the photos for STB you surely can't deny many of the comments could cause offence. "She won't need a life jacket", "needs a bit more fendering for my taste", "nice cleat shame about the face" and so on. I'm a white, affluent bloke and I grew up in a county with little or no ethnic mix at the time. I went to motor shows in the height of dolly bird era and assumed all birds love a Babycham.

As the father of a young woman and as someone involved in the motor trade I am now one of the few people in my little world who realise he might actually be a she.

From a commercial perspective using scantily clad women can work against you. I was speaking to a hot tub company who said the worst thing they ever did was put attractive young women in the tubs at a show. The wives pulled the husbands away, the husbands felt embarrassed, as though they were dirty old men and the stand was empty. Hot tubs now usually feature a family unit in the advertising.

If you wanted to be really clever about it you could see MBY as pointing fun at the boating industry for their stereotypical use of the female form. Using irony.

STB doesn't bother me because I'm a bloke. Do I look at it from the competition perspective? No, I've never identified a single boat in all the years, I click through for the same reasons everyone else does - except for JFM Do I feel pressured by the chap in the diet coke advert? No, because I'm very good looking, 6 foot 2 inches tall with a well honed physique, but I can imagine lesser men feel the urge to get down to the gym

If something on here genuinely offends then it should be removed. If you merely feel sorry for a few sad individuals well past their prime who kid themselves that an attractive model would have any interest in them other than grandfatherly pity then let them carry on dreaming.

I shall conclude with an area of advertising that has fascinated me. Bought by women, for women.

Henry

 

[Hugo_Andreae]

This, Time Incs own publication leaves me puzzled following your statement.

http://swimsuit.si.com/swimsuit/models/hannah-ferguson/photos/2

The ground rules given in my previous post do not apply to the whole of Time Inc (well above my pay grade!), they simply apply to the ybw.com website/forum.

 

[Cheery]

It's not relevant since two separate publications from the same company may be targetted at different markets and have very different standards. To try and illustrate the point, a television production company may produce some material with "adult content", but this does not preclude them from producing other material aimed at children (obviously without the adult content).

IPC have changed the rules halfway through the game, not told anyone and then cried foul when posters carried on their ritual (advent calendar) and decided that lifestyle advertising isn't for them. I don't expect swimwear models on CBeebies but if I am watching a programme aimed at adults then certain things are to be expected. Are IPC to now go round covering up the legs of chairs and desks?

 

[longjohnsilver]

IPC have changed the rules halfway through the game, not told anyone and then cried foul when posters carried on their ritual (advent calendar) and decided that lifestyle advertising isn't for them. I don't expect swimwear models on CBeebies but if I am watching a programme aimed at adults then certain things are to be expected. Are IPC to now go round covering up the legs of chairs and desks?

Have you not read that STB is to continue? The advent calendar is a Lounge issue, not MoBo.

 

[annageek]

I don't expect swimwear models on CBeebies but if I am watching a programme aimed at adults then certain things are to be expected

Please may I ask a genuine question about this?

I 100% agree that swimwear models on CBeebies would be inappropriate. I don't think there would any argument about that on this forum. What I'd like to ask though, is why do others on here believe that is the case? And why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to adults?

I am genuinely interested in the answer, and I promise this isn't a loaded question. That said, I did notice that my previous questions weren't explicitly answered. I can't help but wonder if that's because a well reasoned answer would have undermined the argument of those to whom the question had been posed.

 

[sorabain]

Please may I ask a genuine question about this?

I 100% agree that swimwear models on CBeebies would be inappropriate. I don't think there would any argument about that on this forum. What I'd like to ask though, is why do others on here believe that is the case? And why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to adults?

I am genuinely interested in the answer, and I promise this isn't a loaded question. That said, I did notice that my previous questions weren't explicitly answered. I can't help but wonder if that's because a well reasoned answer would have undermined the argument of those to whom the question had been posed.

I suspect not all questions are being answered because this is mostly an ideological issue and most of us (myself included) are wired to state our opinion on something without necessarily taking every nuance of everyone elses opinion into account; or taking the time to try to turn it into more of an empirical discussion, where an empirical discussion would be more likely to lead to a change in practice (either leaving the models in because that gets the most participation, or taking the models out because that increases participation) whereas one remaining ideological can lead to polarization and simply stating of ones own opinion, not necessarily in any rigorous fashion

that said, I don't think this can be turned empirical since the object of discussion is itself on this forum so we're all "tainted" when it comes to empiricism e.g. if you were to try to test how participation in STB changed based on content you might find that some obstinately refuse to join in merely to prove a point, knowing that it's being measured, whereas others who don't care for the task might go out of their way to join merely to show support.

 

[Nigelpickin]

Please may I ask a genuine question about this?

I 100% agree that swimwear models on CBeebies would be inappropriate. I don't think there would any argument about that on this forum. What I'd like to ask though, is why do others on here believe that is the case? And why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to adults?

I am genuinely interested in the answer, and I promise this isn't a loaded question. That said, I did notice that my previous questions weren't explicitly answered. I can't help but wonder if that's because a well reasoned answer would have undermined the argument of those to whom the question had been posed.

I think that I answered your questions but you do not seem to have read the post.

I believe that it is wholly appropriate for a boating publication, electronic or printed, to use images of women and men wearing swimwear.
I would go on to say that it is reasonable for those models to be conventionally attractive and recruited for that reason.
It is not, in my opinion, normal for someone to be offended by pictures of men and women wearing swimwear, although I suppose that Sunseeker could try and use images of models wearing foul weather gear and waders to placate you.

this is all getting a bit bonkers really.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I 100% agree that swimwear models on CBeebies would be inappropriate. I don't think there would any argument about that on this forum. What I'd like to ask though, is why do others on here believe that is the case? And why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to adults?

OK I'll give this a go but first let's go back one step. The STB competition on this forum is not an example of the use of semi naked bodies for the titillation of men (or women for that matter). The STB competition uses photos taken from boat manufacturers' advertising material and many of those manufacturers choose to place their boats in Med lifestyle settings in order to create an aspiration in the prospective buyer to be part of that lifestyle. This kind of aspirational advertising is common in many other industries, not just boat manufacturing. Anyone who suggests that boat manufacturers place semi naked bodies in their advertising material for the purpose of sexually gratifying men is really barking up the wrong tree. I mean, why would they? Now that we've established that, let's go on to your question as to why most people, me included, think that swimwear models are not acceptable on C Beebies but are acceptable in material aimed at adults and the answer to that is fairly simple. Basically adults have the knowledge and experience to process the information put in front of them in a far more sophisticated way than children. As I explained, I can look at a boat advert featuring semi naked men and women and know that the advertiser is trying to tempt me to buy a boat so that I can be part of the Med lifestyle he is portraying. I know that the people in the photo are models and I know they are just doing their jobs and I know they are not there for my titillation. Children are not capable of making those nuanced judgements. If you put pictures of semi naked bodies in front of children then you do run the risk that their less formed minds do start to objectify those bodies in an unhealthy manner. You can of course say the same generally about exposing young people to pornography at too young an age because by the time they do start to have relationships, some of them do have an objectified way of relating to the opposite sex. So thats why I think you cannot apply the same judgements to both adults and children when it comes to viewing semi naked women, or men

 

[Cheery]

Nigelpickin and Deleted User have explained the situation quite thoroughly annageek. If I asked SWMBO to go on a boat and instead of bikini attire she had to wear foulies, I think it would be a few days before I regained consciousness!

 

[annageek]

I have never said, implied or argued that the use of models in advertising campaigns is for titillation. I said

Personally, STB threads are something I have always avoided, as to me, it comes across as 'light titillation' for the gents here.

I was arguing about the use of cropped photos that deliberately included the use of female models for the STB game/competition. The fact that the source of those images is an advert is irrelevant, because as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong - I may well be) STB is not intended to advertise boats. Am I correct?

Basically adults have the knowledge and experience to process the information put in front of them in a far more sophisticated way than children. As I explained, I can look at a boat advert featuring semi naked men and women and know that the advertiser is trying to tempt me to buy a boat so that I can be part of the Med lifestyle he is portraying. I know that the people in the photo are models and I know they are just doing their jobs and I know they are not there for my titillation

For you, that may well be the case. However, I would argue that for some, it's not so straightforward. I believe this is the reason that TV advertising of tobacco has been banned in this country for decades. It became evident that although (in most cases) adults can 'process' an advert in a more critical way than a child, it can still have a sub-conscious effect on the adult, and can cause them to change their perceptions enough to alter their behaviour. Tobbaco adverts are one example, and not necessarily the most fitting. I am sure there are others.

It is not, in my opinion, normal for someone to be offended by pictures of men and women wearing swimwear

I have never said, implied or argued that I (personally) am offended by the use of models who are wearing swimwear in advertising photos / advertisements in general (although I understand and respect that some people may be). My argument is that the use of such advertising photos may perpetuate (in some people) an unfair and unequal opinion of, and attitude towards women.

My opinion has been changed to a certain degree, by the arguments that have been presented in this thread, that in some circumstances, the use of models wearing swimwear can be appropriate and acceptable in boat adverts when used tastefully and in moderation. I understand the need for advertisements to captivate the imagination of the advert's target audience, and create aspirations by portraying a 'picture' of (a slightly glossier/rosier) real life. Therefore, I do see a difference between a model dressed in swimwear on the foredeck of a luxury motor yacht sipping champagne, and a model dressed swimwear sprawled over the bonnet of a Subaru Impreza WRX STI Super Mega Fusion Turbo Power in a car styling magazine, for instance. I still think there is an element of attention grabbing in each case, because the models always seem to be intentionally attractive (conventionally), and that a shame, but it's also a balance, and achieving a perfect balance is always going to be impossible.

Take the advertising away though (as with STB) and all of a sudden, the argument appears to me to lose credibility and collapse.

Nigelpickin and Deleted User have explained the situation quite thoroughly annageek

I think they have explained the situation with regards to their opinion. I also have an opinion that I'd like to explain. I'd love to think that despite the fact that I am unlikely to change other people's opinions by voicing mine, I will have at least caused people to question their own attitudes / perceptions in exactly the same way that their (and others') opinions, expressed in this thread, have caused me to question mine.

 

[Cheery]

One aspect of the STB debacle which has not been pointed out is that it could be aimed at men for reasons contained in their trousers to belittle us. As to the two forumites expressing their opinion, all too often these days the bien pensants in society appear to think that theirs is the only valid opinion. I read and digest lots of topics on these fora, I don't agree with all of them as that would make me a simpleton unable to side with one argument against another. I respect your views annageek but on this I disagree.

 

[henryf]

I must say Mike I think semi naked women are used for reasons other than representing a typical day on board the boat. The old reasons still apply, all be it done with a bit more panache. The copyrighters no longer feel the urge to tell you their new craft is "a real goer once you get her top off". A large proportion of the mostly male buyers will be picturing themselves onboard with their "niece" for whom uncle's fortune softens the blow of his advancing years, fading looks and decidedly average personality.

To say the images on STB or the brochures they are taken from is anything other than mild titillation is fantasy.

What is interesting is to see the way different manufacturers approach the subject. There will be some builders who produce very little material for STB, others who are awash with suitable images.

Anna, your input is valid and I appreciate you are not someone "on a mission". Your comments are balanced and lucid.

Henry

 

[rbcoomer]

Ok, nobody else has done so, so posted a poll.

I have to say that whilst I like the current format, I would happily go with the majority opinion.

I enjoy trying to figure out the boat and although not very good at it, I have spent hours searching images trying to figure those that aren't identified quickly.

I should add however that whilst I don't 'get off' by looking at the ladies, I do look forward to the post each week and the girls do somehow add something to help lift the spirits in gloomy UK weather when stuck at work etc. Without seeking to 'objectify', it is perhaps much like art of other forms - be it a beautiful landscape or panoramic view from a marina - it's a compliment that men admire the female form and visa-versa. Surely that's what nature intended? It's only 'objectified' (IMHO) when money or other form of trade is involved?

 

[Nigelpickin]

Ok, nobody else has done so, so posted a poll.

I have to say that whilst I like the current format, I would happily go with the majority opinion.

I enjoy trying to figure out the boat and although not very good at it, I have spent hours searching images trying to figure those that aren't identified quickly.

I should add however that whilst I don't 'get off' by looking at the ladies, I do look forward to the post each week and the girls do somehow add something to help lift the spirits in gloomy UK weather when stuck at work etc. Without seeking to 'objectify', it is perhaps much like art of other forms - be it a beautiful landscape or panoramic view from a marina - it's a compliment that men admire the female form and visa-versa. Surely that's what nature intended? It's only 'objectified' (IMHO) when money or other form of trade is involved?

Ok, getting fatigue now but will say thanks for creating the poll, I have taken part and can say that I have never thought twice about the model, don't find them in any way titilating and until recently could not have cared less if the images in STB included them or not; until recently.

I've voted for the continuation as is.....but only because there's no extreme option for HCSTB, (hard core spot the boat).
I hope in some small way that my actions cause at least mild irritation and that I get right on someone's perfectly formed t**ts, as it were.

 

[EME]

Thanks Richard. Sense returns to the forum

I'm struggling. My 23yo daughter and ardent feminist suggests that our company NEEDS LIFESTYLE as in folks dressed to swim and enjoy life at its best. Yet my favourite forum suggests oilies, tar & feathers. I'm sorry but age suggests either the forum is wrong and we're all doomed or there is a glimmer of hope for folks still aspiring to enjoy themselves.

 

[rbcoomer]

I'm struggling. My 23yo daughter and ardent feminist suggests that our company NEEDS LIFESTYLE as in folks dressed to swim and enjoy life at its best. Yet my favourite forum suggests oilies, tar & feathers. I'm sorry but age suggests either the forum is wrong and we're all doomed or there is a glimmer of hope for folks still aspiring to enjoy themselves.

Wise head on young shoulders! Listen to your daughter as life's too short to be negative about things The irony is that society has become more liberal to the point where seeking to offend has become the norm and yet in some areas that really don't matter (IMHO) we aim to censor? If the models were topless, I'd be on the other side of the argument and see it as inappropriate however - so I guess we just all have different 'red lines'?

 

[jfm]

I thought this thread turned a bit disappointing in the middle so I didn't bother posting, hoping it would die, but I just scanned through it again after I noticed that there is a poll, and I wanted to make a comment or two

I think the real point has been heavily missed by some. We are at "80% are in favour of bikinis so the bikinis stay" to paraphrase ChrisJ this morning, but this has nothing at all to do with bikinis, and everything to do with offence to friends/people we should care about. I'm a boring white affluent male to borrow some of henryf's words, so a lot of things served up in the bit of the world well populated by such people don't offend me. I'm not offended by a pic of bikini-ed model in a boat brochure, nor by the same pic cropped to the model (which two pics are utterly different by the way, and that's a point of fact not a point of "imho", despite claims to the contrary above). And being a Med boater where all the boats incl mine are quite "bikini-ed" I totally get the "in context" aspect of the advertising.

But as I say the critical point here is offence, not bikinis. We have valued posters who have explained clearly (and graciously) that they're offended A greater number of people have "disagreed" with them, but they haven't really disagreed; they've just said "you may feel offence but I don't". I mean, there is no disagreement that the offended people are offended. There's nothing wrong or unusual about that. So the real question before us is: should this forum (just this forum, not the whole of Time Inc, not any boat brochure) contain pictures that we now know some (let's say 20%, from the poll at the time I'm typing this) find offensive?

If you were organising a dinner for 10 friends and 2 really really don't like fish but will eat anything else and were great company and of course you wanted them at the dinner, and the other 8 had a slight preference for fish but were happy with something else (and could get fish any day of the week), would you serve fish? Of course you wouldn't.

That's how I see this. We have 20% friends who don't like STB as is, and the polite thing for the host to do, and for the other 80% to agree, is to avoid serving fish. There is no way you would for a real dinner poll your friends and tell the fish-haters "Sorry folks, >50% of guests want fish so here's some fish", and so you shouldn't here. AND the 80% fish eaters shouldn't keep making side swipes like "Ha there are no fish in this restaurant because the blimmin 20% have banned them grrr!". They should just shut up, not have a care in the world about the no-fish outcome, and enjoy the meal and the company which is really what they came for in the first place

Now, some might say I've stretched the term "friends" because this is a forum, but imho I haven't. This is a friendly place, and there are many strong/long term friendships that have their roots here, and among those who haven't met in person there is imho often a sort of friendship. And some might say the fish-dislikers can avoid it by ordering something else off the menu, ie not click on STB, but I don't buy that argument because this forum will suffer if there are doors behind which there are things that offend some. I wouldn't dream of going near a a forum that had some posts about nice boats and other posts (even if clearly marked) that I would find offensive if I were to read them.

So I don't buy the poll idea. If you're electing an MP then a majority vote works, but that is not the right test for deciding what to serve your friends for dinner. I therefore think Hugo should change STB. Totally imho; meant in good spirits and just saying it as I see it, absolutely no hard feelings to anyone posting a different view, etc

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

I thought this thread turned a bit disappointing in the middle so I didn't bother posting, hoping it would die, but I just scanned through it again after I noticed that there is a poll, and I wanted to make a comment or two

I think the real point has been heavily missed by some. We are at "80% are in favour of bikinis so the bikinis stay" to paraphrase ChrisJ this morning, but this has nothing at all to do with bikinis, and everything to do with offence to friends/people we should care about. I'm a boring white affluent male to borrow some of henryf's words, so a lot of things served up in the bit of the world well populated by such people don't offend me. I'm not offended by a pic of bikini-ed model in a boat brochure, nor by the same pic cropped to the model (which two pics are utterly different by the way, and that's a point of fact not a point of "imho", despite claims to the contrary above). And being a Med boater where all the boats incl mine are quite "bikini-ed" I totally get the "in context" aspect of the advertising.

But as I say the critical point here is offence, not bikinis. We have valued posters who have explained clearly (and graciously) that they're offended A greater number of people have "disagreed" with them, but they haven't really disagreed; they've just said "you may feel offence but I don't". I mean, there is no disagreement that the offended people are offended. There's nothing wrong or unusual about that. So the real question before us is: should this forum (just this forum, not the whole of Time Inc, not any boat brochure) contain pictures that we now know some (let's say 20%, from the poll at the time I'm typing this) find offensive?

If you were organising a dinner for 10 friends and 2 really really don't like fish but will eat anything else and were great company and of course you wanted them at the dinner, and the other 8 had a slight preference for fish but were happy with something else (and could get fish any day of the week), would you serve fish? Of course you wouldn't.

That's how I see this. We have 20% friends who don't like STB as is, and the polite thing for the host to do, and for the other 80% to agree, is to avoid serving fish. There is no way you would for a real dinner poll your friends and tell the fish-haters "Sorry folks, >50% of guests want fish so here's some fish", and so you shouldn't here. AND the 80% fish eaters shouldn't keep making side swipes like "Ha there are no fish in this restaurant because the blimmin 20% have banned them grrr!". They should just shut up, not have a care in the world about the no-fish outcome, and enjoy the meal and the company which is really what they came for in the first place

Now, some might say I've stretched the term "friends" because this is a forum, but imho I haven't. This is a friendly place, and there are many strong/long term friendships that have their roots here, and among those who haven't met in person there is imho often a sort of friendship. And some might say the fish-dislikers can avoid it by ordering something else off the menu, ie not click on STB, but I don't buy that argument because this forum will suffer if there are doors behind which there are things that offend some. I wouldn't dream of going near a a forum that had some posts about nice boats and other posts (even if clearly marked) that I would find offensive if I were to read them.

So I don't buy the poll idea. If you're electing an MP then a majority vote works, but that is not the right test for deciding what to serve your friends for dinner. I therefore think Hugo should change STB. Totally imho; meant in good spirits and just saying it as I see it, absolutely no hard feelings to anyone posting a different view, etc

I get your point, but I don't agree your maths. Isn't the situation more like having 210 people over for dinner, 50 of whom feel strongly enough to express an opinion about fish, of which 4 actively don't like fish. So 206 of your friends either like fish, or don't care enough either way to express an opinion. In this context, Friday mornings would just be a tiny bit duller without fish. Would you still not serve it?

 

[SLC]

If I were invited to a pub for drinks with friends, a pub they all enjoyed visiting but one I didn't much care for I'd not expect them to change the venue.

 

[Nigelpickin]

I thought this thread turned a bit disappointing in the middle so I didn't bother posting, hoping it would die, but I just scanned through it again after I noticed that there is a poll, and I wanted to make a comment or two

I think the real point has been heavily missed by some. We are at "80% are in favour of bikinis so the bikinis stay" to paraphrase ChrisJ this morning, but this has nothing at all to do with bikinis, and everything to do with offence to friends/people we should care about. I'm a boring white affluent male to borrow some of henryf's words, so a lot of things served up in the bit of the world well populated by such people don't offend me. I'm not offended by a pic of bikini-ed model in a boat brochure, nor by the same pic cropped to the model (which two pics are utterly different by the way, and that's a point of fact not a point of "imho", despite claims to the contrary above). And being a Med boater where all the boats incl mine are quite "bikini-ed" I totally get the "in context" aspect of the advertising.

But as I say the critical point here is offence, not bikinis. We have valued posters who have explained clearly (and graciously) that they're offended A greater number of people have "disagreed" with them, but they haven't really disagreed; they've just said "you may feel offence but I don't". I mean, there is no disagreement that the offended people are offended. There's nothing wrong or unusual about that. So the real question before us is: should this forum (just this forum, not the whole of Time Inc, not any boat brochure) contain pictures that we now know some (let's say 20%, from the poll at the time I'm typing this) find offensive?

If you were organising a dinner for 10 friends and 2 really really don't like fish but will eat anything else and were great company and of course you wanted them at the dinner, and the other 8 had a slight preference for fish but were happy with something else (and could get fish any day of the week), would you serve fish? Of course you wouldn't.

That's how I see this. We have 20% friends who don't like STB as is, and the polite thing for the host to do, and for the other 80% to agree, is to avoid serving fish. There is no way you would for a real dinner poll your friends and tell the fish-haters "Sorry folks, >50% of guests want fish so here's some fish", and so you shouldn't here. AND the 80% fish eaters shouldn't keep making side swipes like "Ha there are no fish in this restaurant because the blimmin 20% have banned them grrr!". They should just shut up, not have a care in the world about the no-fish outcome, and enjoy the meal and the company which is really what they came for in the first place

Now, some might say I've stretched the term "friends" because this is a forum, but imho I haven't. This is a friendly place, and there are many strong/long term friendships that have their roots here, and among those who haven't met in person there is imho often a sort of friendship. And some might say the fish-dislikers can avoid it by ordering something else off the menu, ie not click on STB, but I don't buy that argument because this forum will suffer if there are doors behind which there are things that offend some. I wouldn't dream of going near a a forum that had some posts about nice boats and other posts (even if clearly marked) that I would find offensive if I were to read them.

So I don't buy the poll idea. If you're electing an MP then a majority vote works, but that is not the right test for deciding what to serve your friends for dinner. I therefore think Hugo should change STB. Totally imho; meant in good spirits and just saying it as I see it, absolutely no hard feelings to anyone posting a different view, etc

Ok, I'll bite....

JFM you seem to be basing your view on an analogy that fits your argument. It's nicely put and very neat but I am afraid that it does not stand up to pressure.
Now I've thrown a few dinner parties, you may even remember me from TV's Come Dine with Me, (I won) and when a guest or 'friend' has indicated that they have an allergy to a food stuff I will of course make sure that it goes nowhere near their plate, I would not change my menu but I would for them, create a substitute dish. The same would apply in one of my restaurants, allergies would be dealt with clinically, issues of taste would be managed with the delivery of broad choice.
So if you take your argument to it's natural conclusion, our host's MBY, could provide a different course for those that do not wish to partake in the fish. It doesn't mean the rest of us can never have fish again.

I would go on to say that as a guest at someones table, I would chose to be discrete about my dislikes, I would try whatever is served and politely eat around the edges if it were not to my taste. I would certainly not try to have the dish outlawed.

So a bit of a bonkers way to win the argument but hey ho.

The point is that it is not normal to be offended by the images that we have been discussing and I do not think that either Sarabande or Anna are offended.

I think that their argument is ideological, relating to objectification and exploitation and that is the only reason I have 'contributed' to the conversation. There are no analogies required, it is a simple question relating to what is appropriate in 2014. I think that a poll is a reasonable way to gauge the room and anyone not happy with the outcome can just eat around the plate, try a different course.....or go to another restaurant.

Really JFM, I don't know how you find the time! On and I am sorry that the thread was disappointing for you but I'm glad that you finally chipped in