40 outrageously offensive vintage ads

So you support laws restricting speech?

2 Likes

Are ads supposed to be unrestricted? They are definitely subject to some sort of content ratings depending on where they’re shown, and more importantly truth in advertising laws. I support those.

3 Likes

Good question. but where do you draw the line? And more importantly, who gets to decide where that line is for the rest of us?

Truth in advertising is a good thing to be sure. Trying to sell something by using lies about your product is deception and a form of theft. That leaves us with the difficult fact vs opinion. If I say my product is the greatest widget ever made, is that a lie or is it opinion. It’s very difficult to make laws that cover all these scenarios. So, we are forced to rely on proving intentional deception. I’m ok with that metric. It benefits the public at large.

When you start trying to regulate “shame” adverts you are entering in to an entirely new realm of prior restraint. I can’t get behind you on that one.

I think the reasonable solution would be to educate ourselves on this tactic and stop buying any product from any manufacturer using ‘shame’ based advertisement. This is something for society to handle, not our laws.

3 Likes

I’m starting to think that our threshold for what constitutes “outrage” may have gotten pitifully low. “Offensive” by todays standards? sure. “OUTRAGEOUSLY offensive”? yeah no. eye rollingly offensive? sure… sigh worthy offensive…okay. but I can’t be bothered to be “outraged” by this. If I could, I’d have to throat punch everyone who ever brings up Conory as the “best Bond”.

2 Likes

Alternate theory:

14 Likes

As a child watching television made me think “ring around the collar” was one of the biggest problems facing humanity. Now you never hear about it. It’s almost as if the problem never truly existed.

6 Likes

My friend was in a NYC band in the 80s called ‘Those Dirty Rings.’

1 Like
5 Likes

Yeah, it’s offensive all right. But I can’t help but feel some grudging admiration for how perfectly offensive it is. A touch less misogynist, and all you’d feel is disgust. The tiniest smidgen more, and it would collapse into self-parody. It’s a masterpiece!

2 Likes

Douching was cheap, accessible, and widely advertised as a feminine hygiene product; however, as Andrea Tone writes in the book Devices and Desires: A History of Contraceptives in America, it was also the most common form of birth control from 1940 until 1960—when the oral contraceptive pill arrived on the market.

The most popular brand of douche was Lysol—an antiseptic soap whose pre-1953 formula contained cresol, a phenol compound reported in some cases to cause inflammation, burning, and even death. By 1911 doctors had recorded 193 Lysol poisonings and five deaths from uterine irrigation.

link

3 Likes

I’m pretty sure that is Ali Macgraw down in front…

In a way I feel that the title image (Presenting The Losers) is at least slightly more positive than most of the advertising at the time. What it’s actually saying (albeit in the sexist, objectifying language of the era) is that looks aren’t everything. Seems to me like the opposite of typical advertising of the time which told women that intelligence was less important than beauty.

3 Likes

None of them is smiling, either. No wonder they didn’t get hired. They’re a bunch of downers, those losers.

Ads today are more equal opportunity offensive, which is progress.

2 Likes

Apparently, women were smelling pretty ripe those days…but today’s ads have not divorced themselves of ladies with distinctive jiggles and too much free time to fret over trivial problems…

1 Like

Weight gain, smaller boobs, deadly stinkhair . . . clearly this is bizarro Mad Men.

2 Likes

1 Like

Absolutely.

That’s because t-shirts don’t have collars!

2 Likes

Not what I said at all so stop putting words in my mouth.