rigorousintuition.ca

This is a photo just like the one I took last night in my local thriftway grocery store.
Scouts honor!
It's a NASCAR promotion with little debbie snack cakes. I see a lot of posts here about pedophilia and the sanction of it in the world and this fits right in. A national promotion of the subject. The strangeness is high!

the pic will not display for me

here is a direct link:


http://www.snarkhunting.com/2006/12/lit ... es-nascar/

I think you're seeing things where they aren't... Certainly a poor choice of words and images, but probably a result of cluelessness.

yathrib wrote:I think you're seeing things where they aren't... Certainly a poor choice of words and images, but probably a result of cluelessness.

Thats an understatement. I'd agree with you tho.

I was watching some show today that talked about how the image of "Little Debbie" was used by her grandfather (I think) without her parents' permission -- maybe even without the girl's permission.

Anyway, what yathrib said. I'm resisting the urge to venture into any armchair psychoanalysis here -- IANAD.

The Little Debbie "sweet ride" might be accidental, but I'm not so sure that Donald Duck kiddie's ride over in the images thread wasn't a deliberate sick joke.

Thats a spun out picture isn't it. (on the images only thread).

an earlier ad:

Little Debbie Has A Snack For You

http://www.kmoser.com/photos/fotmi09.jpg

I'd have to agree with Yathrib. "Sweet ride" is a common racing term, and makes a plausible, if far-fetched reference for shilling sugary snacks.

Little Debbie has been advertising on the NASCAR races for about the past two years, and their prior ads have made just about as much sense as this. The one I recall best dealt with a race driver subsituting himself for a cardboard advertising cutout in a store so he could pilfer cakes. I think you're reading too much into this if you see more than cheap, semi-competent hucksterism.

Nothing in modern advertising is accidental.

Nothing.

This is not a conspiracy, it is not a secret. It is how the business works.

In big-budget corporate ad campaigns, if anything looks like people fucking in the ice cubes or sounds like a sexual invitation, you can be certain that the "creatives" who designed the ad know it. If they don't, they are not long for the business.

The client itself may miss it. But the ad makers, whole teams of them marinated in instrumental psychology and cynicism spending weeks earning well tweaking the details, are aware of all potential meanings and feelings, subconscious and otherwise, that could conceivably be read into their works. Generally, the more feelings of any kind they can evoke in subtle fashion, the better.

If they can covertly appeal to the mentality that likes consuming children, which is widespread and well-suppressed, they will. It's easy enough to spin: "Of course the little girl is cute!"

It's been obvious for most of a century that advertising is by-far the leading propagator of pornography in society. That includes child porn. Dirty mags are pushed to the back racks of the newspaper stand, and it's your choice whether to purchase them. The Victoria's Secret model and the saucy housewife spraying cleaner in your face come skyscraper-sized and are forced on everyone. Of course, most of this pornography has no relation to products normally associated with biological sex. The images of the products themselves are already idolatrous and often pornographic, the people too.

Children are constantly dressed up, made up, portrayed in suggestive ways. Often it's as innocent seeming as a child ingesting a piece of food, but since the moment is frozen in the form of a giant, luridly-colored still photo, the associations are inevitable - and the advertisers (who invariably come to hate life itself within a few months of starting their careers, but always pretend otherwise) are fully aware of all of this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSEIC16848020080201

LONDON (Reuters) - A chain of retail stores in Britain has withdrawn the sale of beds named Lolita and designed for six-year-old girls after furious parents pointed out that the name was synonymous with sexually active pre-teens.

Woolworths said staff who administer the web site selling the beds were not aware of the connection.

In "Lolita," a 1955 novel by Vladimir Nabokov, the narrator becomes sexually involved with his 12-year-old stepdaughter -- but Woolworths staff had not heard of the classic novel or two subsequent films based on it.

Hence they saw nothing wrong with advertising the Lolita Midsleeper Combi, a whitewashed wooden bed with pull-out desk and cupboard intended for girls aged about six until a concerned mother raised the alarm on a parenting website.

"What seems to have happened is the staff who run the website had never heard of Lolita, and to be honest no one else here had either," a spokesman told British newspapers.

"We had to look it up on (online encyclopedia) Wikipedia. But we certainly know who she is now."

Woolworths said the product had now been dropped.

"Now this has been brought to our attention, the product has been removed from sale with immediate effect," the chain said.

"We will be talking to the supplier with regard to how the branding came about."

(Reporting by Peter Apps, editing by Paul Casciato)

No one could dispute the claim of the furious parents in the lede -- the name is synonymous with sexually active pre-teens.

But it does and always has frightened me that the mass-cultural meaning of the name "Lolita" unquestioningly assumes Humbert Humbert's view of events -- ie, that she is actively seductive.

He is an UNRELIABLE NARRATOR who is completely out of his mind, and -- on the novel's terms -- the indications that his perception is distorted and that his word should not be taken as a reflection of objective reality could not be any clearer if he were wearing a neon sign reading: UNRELIABLE NARRATOR. These literally start within one page of the book and are regularly repeated throughout it.

I really don't care that much, per se, if people can or cannot appreciate the nuances of literature.

But it's truly a sign of a pedophiliac culture that the entire damn world finds his worldview not to be insane on its face. She's a child, for Jeebus' sake. Has no one ever met any?

Grrr.

I knew that was going to be posted here.

Is that bad? If so, I'm sorry.