Bulging Nubile Breasts Command Attention to Statutory Rape


This campaign baffles. While the Family Violence Partnership in Milwaukee wants people to realize statutory rape in a bad thing, the campaign, which features young girls with big (digitally enhanced, we assume) breasts, sexualizes these young girls into objects of desire. Now maybe the campaign is trying to say no matter how huge a girl's breasts are or how hot she might be, if she's under 18, she's still off limits but to "normal" people, it sends a very queasy, disconcerting message.

It's natural for guys to be attracted (or at least initially shocked) by a female with a large amount of cleavage. At the least, it causes one to look and, perhaps, feel something. But when one finally forces himself to look up only to realize the possessor of those hefty, cleavage-creating breasts bulging out of the girl's top is perhaps just 12 years of age, ickiness sets in and any feeling one might have had becomes disgusting to a certain degree.

We completely understand the desired message this campaign intends to convey. We're just not sure its sexualized tactics are warranted. Of course, we could be sick ourselves and greatly in need of help.

by Steve Hall    Jan-31-08   Click to Comment   
Topic: Campaigns, Cause, Magazine   

Enjoy what you've read? Subscribe to Adrants Daily and receive the daily contents of this site each day along with free whitepapers.



uhh... i think this is supposed to be a young girl's head on a woman's body. thus the headline: "when you look at a young girl as something more you need help."

it's a bad ad, though. you can't read the headline and it's all about the creepy image of the girl/woman mix.

Posted by: nycfd on January 31, 2008 10:48 AM

Agree that the type is hard to read. But beyond that, i think this is a smart, fearless campaign.

Posted by: Schrodinger's Copywriter on January 31, 2008 11:45 AM

Steve, you are on the money. this ad should be pulled (imho). sick. - no excuse-

Posted by: arthur on January 31, 2008 11:51 AM

It just makes me feel uncomfortable, which might be the point, right?

Posted by: kristy on January 31, 2008 12:12 PM

I think it has to be a chop job--girl's head on woman's body. Regardless, it's a bad ad.

Posted by: paul on January 31, 2008 2:48 PM

Over at ads of the world.com, one commenter had said that the ad might actually get a few people hot and bothered and all fantasising. I think it is a valid point, especially if the ad is targetted at people who have a thing for young girls.

I thought the campaign was badly executed, and wrongly thought out. Surely, the same message could be said in much less icky ways and more effectively.

Posted by: Ravages on February 1, 2008 11:06 AM

"that the ad might actually get a few people hot and bothered and all fantasising. I think it is a valid point, especially if the ad is targetted at people who have a thing for young girls."

This may be what some of these Pydiphile sycos see. Lets face it their not right, to start with. I generally don't follow the "ban the ad" montra group for many reasons.

But I already plan on having my finger on the channel changer when this come on. This is wrong and as the father of a 12yo girl, it doesn't help the issue at all.
They could have done better. I just find it hard to believe that the had a focus group that thought this was a great idea.

Posted by: Marco on February 1, 2008 11:56 AM

This ad does an awesome job of effectively making you uncomfortable. The image is equally as disturbing as the issue of statutory rape. If you're over 18 you shouldn't be having sex with an underage girl...the ad screams that message loud and clear.

"I just find it hard to believe that the had a focus group that thought this was a great idea."

I found some video of this focus group on Youtube. It seems like the target audience agrees that it's a positive message.


Posted by: AMR on February 11, 2008 1:59 PM

This is just American "save the children" BS. For men to look at any female with developing and fully developed body parts and feel attraction is completely natural, despite her age. The more we as a culture contribute to repressing this biological normalcy, the worse we are making it for our girls. The men who act on this and commit the crimes are looking for vulnerability and theres nothing more vulnerable that a developing girl with no sexual education.

Let's not fool ourselves. I have a 15 year old daughter and she's one of the girls who flowered early. EVERY man on the planet, young and old, looks at her and it's obvious what they are looking at: her beauty, body and especially the boobs. I'm even amazed at the amount of women who look at her.

By now I'm pretty much over the shock. I talk to her all about it and we laugh. I even say "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" when I catch someone doing it and we laugh more. She knows that it's normal and that she needs to be aware and get used to it.
She knows that men and increasingly even women might do anything, good and bad, to get in a girl's pants and that she should never forget that. But, I would never teach her to look at society like a bunch of sexual sadists. We are humans and sex is as normal as it gets. It's puritanism that's dangerous. Thinking of sex as solely an act of procreation is much more evil in my mind than men looking at young girls' big boobs. She does come to me to talk about and confirm stories about religious zealots and wonder why they are the ones always being busted doing the sickest sexual things.
I just tell her that this is exactly what I mean and why fostering repression, like this ad does, is a terrible way to handle this issue.

Posted by: JoshSill on February 12, 2008 10:31 AM

So, where do you draw the line? You are very aware of your daughter's developing body. Are you attracted to it? Is that normal too? Should we allow the rights of the kids who are everyday sexually victimized to get in the way of "normalcy"? I think saving the kids is not BS. I think rationalizing attraction to a kid is BS.

Of course there are 15 year old girls more than ready to have sex, even to settle down and have a family of their own. And there are 30 years old that shouldn't be able to have sex, let alone reproduce. But that is not the point. The point is we can't decide in a case to case basis. What would be the parameters for readiness, anyway? So we make a general rule and hope for the best. That's not hypocrisy. That's playing it safe. And it's OK because what is at stake.

The ad might or might not be bad planned and executed. But it gets the point through. It is obvious that it is a preteen girl's head plastered on a fully and even overdeveloped body. The message is: is this what you see when you look at a child?

Even the way you see it matters: the first any person is attracted to is the boobs. Then you see the face and pig-tails and you either go: what the hell!! or yummy! (Guess which one has the problem). And then you see the lettering almost hidden behind the image.

It's an ambush. A huge banner reading "Save the kids" would allow a guy to prepare himself to what the image depicts. Would give him time to go into the civilized mode. This way, it sneaks into the dark places and catches you unaware.

It is not directed to the stereotypical child molester, humped, with green skin and overgrown fangs. It's directed to the run-of-the-mill Joe who might one day find himself in that situation. Or who is already.

I know what I like. And I know what I felt when I saw the ad. And it is effective.

Posted by: Jorge on January 24, 2009 7:33 AM

I caught my boyfriend jackinoff to this pic.... seems to be working! good job guys....

Posted by: Amy on March 7, 2009 2:00 PM


Posted by: RodCumnings on June 28, 2009 1:29 PM

Pedophile means PRE-PUBESCENT you ignorant people!!! If a girl has breasts, she's NOT pre-pubescent and it's not pedophilia, by definition.

Statutory rape and pedophilia are not the same.

Posted by: Chris on July 6, 2009 6:40 PM

the add's aimed at people with peadophilic tendencies. telling them to get help. it's a psychological disorder. it's a mental health ad.
it has nothing to do with society and media over sexualizing children or whatever.

Posted by: lee on July 13, 2009 11:42 AM

Hey Chris, you are totally right. Pedophile relates to girls of prepubescence. If she has breasts and can grow pubic hair, she is not prepubescent. Under that premise sexual attraction to a 14 year old girl is not pedophilia. Plus, 14 year old girls are well developed in this day and age. I've run across several that I'd nail in a heartbeat.

Posted by: Guy on July 29, 2009 2:00 AM

She would get DOGGED!

Posted by: Anonymous on February 7, 2010 11:09 PM