BuffettNews.com

flyboy55 wrote:I've always been puzzled at how sexuality is dealt with in this country.

In the case of the divorce billboard, selected body parts of a woman and a man are used to market legal services.

In other parts of the marketplace the same use is made of sexuality to sell some product or service.

Our culture is fairly 'dripping' with sexual images and innuendo.

It seems to me that many folks see nothing wrong with this use of sexuality (ie a marketing tool) but object vehemently when someone wants to educate their children about birth control, sexually transmitted diseases, homosexuality, etc.

The message is clear. Sex in the service of the marketplace is acceptable, but substantive public discussion of human sexuality in its many and wonderful varieties and forms is unacceptable, especially when it comes to educating our young.

I think the way sex is used to sell anything and everything is a symptom of our moral decline.

Excellent points. I don't know that I agree with "moral decline", but I can't argue with anything else you wrote. We certainly send mixed messages to our youth, don't we?

"It seems to me that many folks see nothing wrong with this use of sexuality (ie a marketing tool) but object vehemently when someone wants to educate their children about birth control, sexually transmitted diseases, homosexuality, etc."

Ain't that the truth! Where I live, which is 20 minutes either direction between two relatively large cities (i.e. semi-rural suburbia), about 120 plus or minus miles from NYC, and less than that to Philadelphia, the locals around here kicked out the PASTOR that married my husband and I (okay, pushed him out) because he was tastefully discussing sex ed in his confirmation class (re: 8th and 9th graders), though on a very limited basis, in the typical "abstinence is good, this is what can happen if you don't, protection is good too, etc." style. Very generalized and tactful. ANd the irony of it is, those locals that were "appaled" at the pastor discussing things with their kids, have two of the most promiscuous children in the local area.........(as in, 'four different guys in one weekend at the county fair' for the oldest, who was probably 16 at the time.) Talk about narrow minds on their narrow ways. Then, if the girls WERE to get pregnant, it would be like, "Gee, we just don't know how this could happen!"

Um, people have known what has caused it for centuries now. Welcome to 2007. It's okay to let them walk around looking like street-corner workers and be as promiscuous as can be, but gee.........don't you DARE talk to them about sex ed!!!

THis country is nuts.

Re: billboard ad--IMO, typical tasteless, un-classy act of our society. And yeah, if the lawyer REALLY cared about people in crappy relationships, she would have put someone up there with a black eye and bruises. Trust me, she doesn't give a rat's @$% about unhappy people, just making money.

I'm sure if Larry goes to the Chicago show, he'll have his picture taken with her!!!

Finsupinfla wrote:

I'm sure if Larry goes to the Chicago show, he'll have his picture taken with her!!!

well, Fetman can probably get him the model's name.. Professional courtesy and all.

I don't really have a strong opinion either way - I think it accomplished exactly what they wanted - got the firm's name out there, and people already assume lawyers are without basic morals anyway so no harm no foul.

I would say that if anyone believes that they did this in order to assist people in making a life changing decision - that's crap. Pretty safe bet it was all about the advertising.

One more observation from personal experience - in my 10 years as a divorce attorney, I have never had a I client that looks remotely close to either one of the people in the ad. Also, many clients have already found soneone to replace their spouse before the divorce is final and again - no one looks the the people on the billboard. So in my opinion, the worst thing about the billboard is it gives people a false sense of hope!

WMN2BLM wrote:I don't really have a strong opinion either way - I think it accomplished exactly what they wanted - got the firm's name out there, and people already assume lawyers are without basic morals anyway so no harm no foul.

I would say that if anyone believes that they did this in order to assist people in making a life changing decision - that's crap. Pretty safe bet it was all about the advertising.

One more observation from personal experience - in my 10 years as a divorce attorney, I have never had a I client that looks remotely close to either one of the people in the ad. Also, many clients have already found soneone to replace their spouse before the divorce is final and again - no one looks the the people on the billboard. So in my opinion, the worst thing about the billboard is it gives people a false sense of hope!

hey.. wait... you're an attorney?

ewwwwwww... and we talked with you..


I need a shower..

flyboy55 wrote:I've always been puzzled at how sexuality is dealt with in this country.

In the case of the divorce billboard, selected body parts of a woman and a man are used to market legal services.

In other parts of the marketplace the same use is made of sexuality to sell some product or service.

Our culture is fairly 'dripping' with sexual images and innuendo.

It seems to me that many folks see nothing wrong with this use of sexuality (ie a marketing tool) but object vehemently when someone wants to educate their children about birth control, sexually transmitted diseases, homosexuality, etc.

The message is clear. Sex in the service of the marketplace is acceptable, but substantive public discussion of human sexuality in its many and wonderful varieties and forms is unacceptable, especially when it comes to educating our young.

I think the way sex is used to sell anything and everything is a symptom of our moral decline.

Hit the nail on the head there.

Here's another novel approach to advertising for divorce attorneys:
never mind....can't hotlink to the pics.....

I'm still trying to figure out why this has started such a crapstorm of controversy, but no one seems to be offended by the "DOES YOUR CHILD HAVE CEREBRAL PALSY???? MEDICAL MISTAKES MAY BE TO BLAME!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Can we PLLLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSSEEEEE go back to the days when lawyers DIDN'T advertise????

buffettbride wrote:

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:Oh, and the most offensive sign I have seen is a billboard with magnified sperm and the saying "Who's the father? Call 1-800 DNA TEST"

I guess I fail to see what makes something like that "offensive." Tacky maybe, but not offensive.

On 95 about a year as I was driving to the airport, I saw one better

Who's your daddy?

Want to know?
Call......(whatever the number was)

It was for a private investigator. The next billboard behind it was 'and once you find your daddy?' and that was the dna test one.

It's never a dull moment driving that road.

WMN2BLM wrote:

(((((Lori)))))

Of course, there's the old fashioned "JUST WORK OUT YOUR FREAKING DIFFERENCES LIKE TWO CIVILIZED ADULTS AND TRY TO STAY MARRIED.

It worked for my parents & grandparents.
(Of course, THEY were civilized).

I stumbled on this thread, looking for something else.

I don't specifically remember this BN discussion, however, this billboard 100% was the wake up call that set my wheels in motion to divorce my ex husband. Best advertising I ever saw!

Finsupinfla wrote: ↑May 10, 2007 9:33 am

I'm sure if Larry goes to the Chicago show, he'll have his picture taken with her!!!

Some things never change.