frauenfelder at January 13th, 2014 12:41 — #1
themetalpedant at January 13th, 2014 13:03 — #2
Outrageously offensive, and yet, not significantly more offensive than current ads.
mikea at January 13th, 2014 13:06 — #3
What is "stewardesses?" Oh. Flight attendants.
We really move our tail for you!
I'm Candy. Fly me!
xzzy at January 13th, 2014 13:08 — #4
And it won't go anywhere until it's regulated out of existence or it hurts the advertiser's bottom line. As long as image shaming works, it'll be used in marketing.
spunkytws at January 13th, 2014 13:15 — #5
I'm surprised I didn't see this little gem in there:
purplecat at January 13th, 2014 13:52 — #6
Basically, advertisers hate happy humans. Happy, contented people don't feel the need to buy more stuff.
We laugh at the way they stirred up discontent and self hatred in order to create a need that they could then fill back then, but the only reason that this stands out as crass and offensive is because they've become much more subtle and effective at manipulating the information environment over the past few decades.
mtdna at January 13th, 2014 13:56 — #7
Modern product to make women more attractive to men: http://youtu.be/xXHUdvvHTkw
dejoh at January 13th, 2014 13:59 — #8
I think that's a young Alley McGraw in the front on the stewardess add. She was a star in the movie Love Story.
chenille at January 13th, 2014 14:00 — #9
Nice. I also like the unintentionally creepy slogan - at least it seems that way to me; I'm immediately reminded of asbestos, which as we all know also works its way into your life, and for good.
peaches at January 13th, 2014 14:01 — #10
A little shame goes a long way.
missy_pants at January 13th, 2014 14:08 — #11
Yup. She started as a model.
jimp at January 13th, 2014 14:15 — #12
Notice not one of them has a significantly noticeable bust line and some are dressed inw ays to hide any bust they may have? I'll bet that was the first thing that qualified them as "losers" for these purposes.
jandrese at January 13th, 2014 14:17 — #13
This is an advert from the 40s. Cleavage might have been considered too risque for the periodical this came from.
chickied at January 13th, 2014 14:27 — #14
I saw one of those Lysol ads for use as a douche many years ago when I worked at a newspaper - the librarian for the newspaper had the ad posted up on the wall. Since then I have read that there was a a wink wink nod nod thing about using Lysol as a sort of Plan B birth control. Anyone know whether this was the actual intention? I notice in the ad they posted in the article there was a child with the woman.
xzzy at January 13th, 2014 14:35 — #15
Actually the airlines one is from the 70's. Cleavage might have been a problem but a large bust certainly wasn't.
jimp at January 13th, 2014 14:39 — #16
With respect, those appear to be fashions and hairstyles of the mid to late 1960's when, I assure you, boobs were very popular.
rattypilgrim at January 13th, 2014 14:47 — #17
Pat Robertson could have written those ads. He's still selling the same "it's your fault your husband has lost interest in you". Also, maybe some men showed little interest in their wives because they weren't really interested in women.
gilbertwham at January 13th, 2014 14:51 — #18
gilbertwham at January 13th, 2014 14:53 — #19
I like to think they were all interested in Pat Robinson, and that he's sad cos his odious beliefs mean he can't be happy about it. Vindictive, I know...
mikea at January 13th, 2014 15:29 — #20
Ali McGraw. I thought it was her,....
next page →