*related=http://videosift.com/video/SNL-spoofs-Bieber-Calvin-Klein-ads

Calvin Klein Ads - bonus footage has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

SNL spoofs Justin Bieber/Calvin Klein ads has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/SNL-spoofs-Bieber-Calvin-Klein-ads

Ellen found another Calvin Klein ad has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

SNL spoofs Justin Bieber/Calvin Klein ads has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'snl, saturday night live, justin bieber, calvin klien, ad' to 'snl, saturday night live, justin bieber, calvin klein, ad' - edited by bareboards2

Today we are adding another rule: No suggestive or sexual content featuring minors.
we have banned all subreddits that focus on sexualization of children ...
We're concerned about the slippery slope from banning one specific type of content to banning other types of content.

The problem isn't the slippery slope leading to banning some other type of content, but rather how do they define what they're banning now? How many debates have we had here about different posts that may or may not be considered pornographic. Now throw in another variable about the age of the people in the video. Are they kids? Do they look like kids? Are they acting childish? And those are the easy ones.

Do they prohibit certain Calvin Klein ads? Or movies like Hard Candy, Lolita, and Kids? What about novels like Shardik, or even clinical textbooks on how to deal with issues of child molestation? All of the examples I mention in this paragraph probably fall under the ban they've described, though it's hard to say because they are fairly vague about defining the proscribed content ("suggestive"? wtf does that mean?).

I'm definitely not suggesting that Reddit allow itself to be a network hub for child pornographers. They claim that they did not "make this policy change lightly or without careful deliberation." I imagine they did struggle with the decision, but it doesn't seem they spent much time figuring out just what it was they were banning.

Never mind Part 2 paradoxezez, Future Boy!

Howzabout Part One's odd goofs? Marty returns to the "improved" 1985 but neither of his parents recognize their offspring looks EXACTLY like that guitar-shredding "Calvin Klein".

Not to the same extent.
In reply to this comment by The_Ham:
Of course not...You're right! Men are not objectified in advertising! Especially not in Calvin Klein ads!

http://ficdn.fashionindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/jimmy005.jpg



In reply to this comment by ctrlaltbleach:
^Mainly because men are not objectified like women are although I have been hearing a lot of criticism lately about men always being shown as stupid in ads.

also *promote

>> ^The_Ham:

Of course not...You're right! Men are not objectified like women! Especially not in Calvin Klein ads!
Oh, wait....
http://ficdn.fashionindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/jimmy005.jpg


>> ^ctrlaltbleach:
^Mainly because men are not objectified like women are although I have been hearing a lot of criticism lately about men always being shown as stupid in ads.
also promote



This is a tiny bit of a longer speech (which used to be here, but has been pulled from youtube ) and she covers the objectification of men too, but also points out that by and large they are shown as strong, empowered etc. where women are the opposite.

The talk in whole is fascinating, scary and can really open your eyes, and should be required viewing for anyone with a daughter.

People saying here that it's all just a bunch of ugly, whining feminists really need to have a look at themselves and the sort of chauvinistic dick they really are.

Of course not...You're right! Men are not objectified like women! Especially not in Calvin Klein ads!

Oh, wait....

http://ficdn.fashionindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/jimmy005.jpg



>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

^Mainly because men are not objectified like women are although I have been hearing a lot of criticism lately about men always being shown as stupid in ads.
also promote

>> ^Doc_M:
You get what you pay for. Try a few brand names... real ones.


I have. Calvin Klein is the same crap as generic Target underwear, but with fancier graphics and an even thicker waistband.

All they have to do is put 1/10 as many elastic fibers in the waistband, to weaken the elastic by a factor of 10. Why should I have to pay more for less? Likewise for food that is produced without massive amounts of artificial colors/flavors/preservatives.

News ticker stories (stolen from Reddit)...

- Black & Decker named official torture device of the 'hostel' series.
- New fertility drug promises to help couples realize dream of having TLC show.
- Media watchdogs criticize Calvin Klein's 'Penetration' cologne.
- Report: Wikipedia ushering in golden age of Holocaust revisionism.
- Haagen-Dazs released new line of ice creams for barren women.
- White house reluctantly accepts Collect Call from Indonesia.
- IRS rebrands itself 'The S' to appeal to younger demographic.
- Happening Now: Cottage cheese ruined by mental image of grandmother eating cottage cheese.
- Jonathan Taylor Thomas re-released from Disney Vault.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Calvin, Klein' to 'Calvin, Klein, fashion, controversy, half naked, ad, billboard, clothes, sex, prude, racey' - edited by Zonbie