Following our conversation of the Hunger Games
and how it resembled gladiator games of the Roman Empire, I thought it would be
interesting to research female gladiators. I discovered that they did exist,
but were rare. They mostly fought each other, and not male gladiators, because
of the size and strength difference. Nonetheless, there are plenty of accounts
of powerful, strong women gladiators, and that was surprising to me, especially
because I thought that women would have been completely banned from that type
of thing.
However, I also found an article while researching that
was too hilarious not to share:
Gladiator Ad Banned Because Contestants Breasts Are Too Large
Hot women with big breasts always seem to get the bum deal and it makes no sense. Why is it right to label and discriminate against a person simply because of their hotness and bra size? That appears to be what happened with a recent campaign for Gladiators in the UK which features Jemma Palmer in her Gladiator costume.
A local vicar has objected to the campaign. A spokesman for Sky One, the network on which Gladiators appears, said. "We thought it was such a great image that it would be great for the campaign. But it seems the vicar just thought Jemma was too hot and that her boobs were just too big."
OK so the board was to be placed next to a church and she's certainly dresses in less than her Sunday best but would God judge on looks alone?
by Steve Hall
I don't know about you, but I laughed out loud at
almost every sentence in this article. It seems so ridiculous that it is hard
to believe this was written sincerely… I honestly can’t tell if this purposely
has irony behind it. First of all, the first paragraph is completely backwards
logic – women get discriminated against for being too hot?? That either HAS to
be sarcasm, a man just wanting to see this image on a billboard, or someone who
is extremely oblivious (keep in mind the author is male). In addition, the network said "it was
such a great image" and would be "great for the campaign", when
it clearly has nothing to do with the show at all, but is rather is just a
picture of a seductively dressed woman with undeniably massive boobs. This
means that the network acknowledges the fact that marketing the female body
gets great business, and is completely fine with it. Finally, the comment on
the church’s opinion of women’s sexuality and God’s judgment of these women just
adds another element of absurdity to the entire article. If the author of this
article was in fact serious, it is hilarious yet disturbing, in that there
actually are people out there that have these thoughts. However, if this is a
sarcastic article, are the remarks the author pokes fun at valid and realistic?
Could there be people out there that have thoughts like this?
In your opinion, was this author being serious
and ignorant, or completely ironic? Do you agree with him? Should this picture
have been allowed on a billboard??
Forgot to link to the article: http://www.adrants.com/2008/04/gladiator-ad-banned-because-contestants.php
ReplyDeleteWow, I completely agree with your reaction to the "article" and remain confused as to the intent of the author. He could be referring to that people generally assume hotter women have less going on upstairs regardless of their actual intelligence. However, upon closer reading, I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic in the first two sentences, then switches to serious reporting. I wish he more clearly outlined his points and simply wrote a longer article so it would be clearer.
ReplyDeleteI think the show should be allowed to advertise however it wants and that the opinions of one vicar should be ignored by the channel. That said, I think the ad was in poor taste, considering I glean no knowledge about the show from it and would be likely to ignore it, whereas an ad showing what actually happens in the show would immediately pique my interest.