Advertising gone awry?
Because my computer is still malfunctioning, I’ve been watching a little bit more television lately than normal. Maybe it’s due to what I see as the generally dismal quality of most of the television that I see, but I’m really paying much more attention to the commercials that I watch, and I’m starting to wonder what in the world is going through the minds of people on Madison Avenue.
Two sets of commercials are confusing me (on top of my already large amount of confusion regarding the pink-haired chick who touts online car insurance mentioned earlier).
First, there are ads for ED treatments. I vaguely recall them being fairly straightforward when I used to only half pay attention to them. Now that I’m watching them, maybe somebody can answer me this: When did sex start being about sitting in matching, side-by-side, claw-footed bathtubs outside? That’s a weird question from where I’m sitting, but take a look at the commercials sometime. There was one I watched where the couple ended up sitting in white bathtubs, not touching, while overlooking a vineyard from a grassy rise. Another had a couple who went to the beach and sat in matching, side-by-side claw-footed bathtubs in the surf. I mean, I’m no stranger to the idea that there are people out there who have some unusual proclivities, but outdoor bathtubs? What’s the deal?
My second confusion also deals with a commercial for medication. There are enough people out there with sleep disorders to warrant advertising sleep drugs on television (if there’s ever an acceptable reason to advertise prescription-only medications via a television). For one medication, the commercials seem to be somewhat standard. It shows someone trying to sleep in bed in the dark. Inevitably the person is sleeping with the window open. Suddenly, in through the open window wafts a head-sized, neon-green, translucent butterfly which, inexplicably, heads straight for the sleepy person. Once it gets close, they touch it and they fall asleep.
Is there anything less likely to get you to fall asleep than the idea of gigantic ghostly bugs touching you in bed? I think I’m not alone in thinking that this idea is enough to make the skin crawl. What’s the message here? Taking this drug is like being touched by massive glowing insects? It’s just creepy.
Two sets of commercials are confusing me (on top of my already large amount of confusion regarding the pink-haired chick who touts online car insurance mentioned earlier).
First, there are ads for ED treatments. I vaguely recall them being fairly straightforward when I used to only half pay attention to them. Now that I’m watching them, maybe somebody can answer me this: When did sex start being about sitting in matching, side-by-side, claw-footed bathtubs outside? That’s a weird question from where I’m sitting, but take a look at the commercials sometime. There was one I watched where the couple ended up sitting in white bathtubs, not touching, while overlooking a vineyard from a grassy rise. Another had a couple who went to the beach and sat in matching, side-by-side claw-footed bathtubs in the surf. I mean, I’m no stranger to the idea that there are people out there who have some unusual proclivities, but outdoor bathtubs? What’s the deal?
My second confusion also deals with a commercial for medication. There are enough people out there with sleep disorders to warrant advertising sleep drugs on television (if there’s ever an acceptable reason to advertise prescription-only medications via a television). For one medication, the commercials seem to be somewhat standard. It shows someone trying to sleep in bed in the dark. Inevitably the person is sleeping with the window open. Suddenly, in through the open window wafts a head-sized, neon-green, translucent butterfly which, inexplicably, heads straight for the sleepy person. Once it gets close, they touch it and they fall asleep.
Is there anything less likely to get you to fall asleep than the idea of gigantic ghostly bugs touching you in bed? I think I’m not alone in thinking that this idea is enough to make the skin crawl. What’s the message here? Taking this drug is like being touched by massive glowing insects? It’s just creepy.
posted by The Academian | 10:35 PM
4 Comments:
You should really consider seeking some form of counseling, either from a psychiatrist, psychologist, or someone else that can help you identify what is really troubling you that makes you so angry toward life and other people. I say this not intending to be mean, but more in hope that you can get past whatever causes you to feel that you need to post so many of your thoughts online. I've read a few of your postings, and frankly, some are rather disturbing. You can't criticize people on here, who, of course, know who you are referring, and still expect them to be your friends. Maybe you should take some time away from blogging and reflect on what is truly important in your life. Law school is almost over, so you should work on getting past this activity.
I reject the premise of much of your advice, anonymous comment-leaver.
You say I should look into counseling to help me identify why I am so angry at the world and the people in it. I more than readily admit that I could use some type of counseling, but I reject your claim that I am somehow angry at the world, or the people in it.
However, to test your claim, looked back through my writings to find examples of my anger. I found examples where I was ecstatic, examples where I was frightened, examples where I was amused, examples where I was depressed, and examples where I was filled with a righteous zeal over some cause or another.
Perhaps I’ve missed some, but I think you seriously misinterpret either manic-depression as anger, or seriously misinterpret the cold rationality I bring when engaged in analysis as some type of anger. Neither manic depression nor rationality is anger.
I’m somewhat perplexed by your assertion that there is something wrong with posting my thoughts online. Millions of adults around the world keep (or have kept) journals, diaries, and other forums where they put their private thoughts to paper. In the electronic age, when pen and paper have been replaced by a keyboard and monitor, nothing seems more natural than to commit thoughts to digital text. Making such a journal or diary public is an unusual step, I’ll admit, but you’ve yet to convince me that there is any harm in doing so, either for myself or for other people.
Other people read my personal thoughts of their own volition. I don’t lie or hide my thoughts here, so what they see is a genuine reflection of who I am, whether they understood that reflection or not. Not only is writing down my own thoughts something that is not unusual, but making them public is a way of keeping me honest with myself. It is easy in a world of anonymity to lie to even yourself. Admitting publicly your own mistakes and faults is not only cathartic, but healing. Ask yourself why, after all, Alcoholics Anonymous groups have their clients introduce themselves and admit to being alcoholics? It is only when we are honest with ourselves and that we can start to walk the path to betterment. This is a sentiment I’ve expressed numerous times throughout my writing, explicitly, and since I recognize that I will always be flawed in some way or another (I’m only a human being, after all) I will never stop needing to be honest with myself about my own errors.
I’ve searched my writings here in vain for times when I’ve criticized people I’ve called my friends. I’ve written about how much they’ve meant to me, meaningful ways in which they’ve changed my life, and how much I owe them for their genuine friendship.
I’ve thanked one of them for her role in helping me to feel something important on a dark day in American history when my mind was set into its usual detached and clinical mode. I’ve thanked two of them for being so sweet as to get me a birthday card and filling it with red, sparkly glitter. I’ve revealed that I only took some of the classes that I took because I desired to spend more time with friends about whom I cared. I’ve unleashed my oratory in defense of a friend who was unjustly hurt by the board of her law journal. I’ve defended that same friend when she went through a rough patch in her life and compared her to the stalwart plains people so idolized for their resilience and ability to weather any storm. I’ve tried to raise a friend’s spirits when she was down on herself by reminding her that she was a beautiful woman and that any man would be honored to have her in his life. I’ve noted how I’ve been honored to have two beautiful women on my arm (so to speak) for a Valentine’s Day I’ll cherish as less for being the envy of other guys than for getting to spend time with people I like. I’ve even tried to give advice to a friend during a more recent rough patch in her life by reminding myself and her about the cleansing power of truth and responsibility, while simultaneously telling her that I am still proud of who she is as a person.
Far from being criticizing my friends, from my viewpoint, I’ve been supportive, caring, compassionate, protective, and generous.
Have I been nothing but good? No. There have been times when I’ve been passive-aggressive, hurt, disappointed, and upset. Are these any more than other people’s normal emotions? Not really. Did I sincerely apologize on the few occasions in which I said something that hurt someone? Yes. Hell, I’ve even apologized when there was only a chance I hurt someone. Double hell, I’ve even apologized when I knew the other person should have been hurt (if they knew what I had done) but wasn’t (because they didn’t). I’m more than willing to admit my faults. If you’d notice, in most of the cases, I even asked for honest feedback about what precisely I’d done wrong so that I could endeavor to find ways to keep myself from ever making that mistake again (a request that has nearly without exception gone unanswered).
These aren’t the actions of someone who is angry. These are the actions of someone who’s been hurt and seeks resolution so that the wound can either be cauterized by grief or healed over with renewed friendship.
I need no time to reflect on what is important in my life. I can answer that now. I seek an end to suffering of all types, for all entities, everywhere. I seek an end to hunger. I seek an end to death. I seek an end to hatred, fear, and ignorance. I seek an end to everything that leads people away from the truth and which blinds them to the world which can hurt them, since if they opened their eyes to the world around them, they could shield themselves more easily. I seek for people to treat each other with fairness, honesty, and kindness.
Karl Marx believed that economics governed the play of history. Unlike Marx, I believe that ideas govern how our ideas will be played out. It was not the cotton gin or the steam engine which made the biggest revolution in our lives. It was not the printing press or the advent of penicillin. It was the values and epistemological revelations of the Enlightenment. Ideas are the inspiration behind every great aspect of modern civilization, and it is the realm of ideas to which I am most suited. One does not create new ideas by perfecting liens, writing contracts, defending a criminal suspect, or by engaging in armchair psychology.
Paradigm shifts in ideas are rarely the results of actions. Rather, they emerge from the minds of dozens of visionaries who see the way the world could be, if only people would give it a chance to be that way. These people have not influenced the world through their brave deeds and heroic escapades, but rather with a quiet flourish of their pens through the ages. It is they who can take credit for the brave deeds and heroic escapades which follow in their quiet footsteps.
I have to ask you why, given that these are my goals, should I choose to abandon my greatest gift (my thoughts and writing), when it comes to seeing these things come to pass?
Thank you, you just proved my point. As I previously stated though, my posting wasn't meant as an attack, but was a request to you. Admitting you need some form of counseling is admirable, but take the next step and get it. As with members of alcoholics anonymous, the first step, and one of the most important, is admitting there is a problem - denial resolves nothing.
I agree with you that placing your thoughts in electronic form is efficient, but what I question is posting all your thoughts online for all to read, which can be damaging to you or others. Don't abandon your thoughts and writings, but be selective of what you post for the world to see!
As for me being an anonymous comment leaver, I can only say that I only came here because I've heard so much about your postings, unfortunately, not in a good way! I don't have the time, nor the desire, to create an account on here to give me a "pen name" that would leave me just as anonymous as clicking the anonymous option (your postings are all basically anonymous also - "the academian" is not your name - again, not an attack, just a fact.
I still don’t understand what it is that you mean, anonymous comment-leaver. If I somehow proved your point in my reply to your previous comment, then we are talking past each other in some fashion. My previous reply indicated that while your conclusion was superficially valid, the underlying reasoning supporting it didn’t seem to fit with my own experience.
On many occasions, I have remarked my purpose in keeping my thoughts collected and in plain view. It helps to keep me more honest with myself than I think most people are, and serves as a palette from which to draw the colors for my future. I can look at my past, see what I thought, why I thought it, reflect on why I have changed or not changed in the intervening period, and then use that understanding to change my own behaviors to better fit where I want my life to go.
In light of this stated purpose, you have to understand how your request that I seek professional help sounds to me. To me, that is precisely what I am doing by posting my thoughts here.
A psychologist is no more than a person who has the gift of turning their own introversion onto other people. The ability allows a psychologist to see into people as if the psychologist could step into the client’s shoes. In order to see into myself and understand myself, I don’t need a psychologist. Outside of the psychological community, I would hazard that I understand my own inner workings better than most people understand their inner workings. What I need help with isn’t my own understanding of myself, but my understanding of other people. Psychologists can’t help me with that, but I can help myself with that (and this is a decent, free, and readily convenient avenue in which to do so).
Other people are so mysterious to me as to be nearly nonsensical at times. I don’t understand how they come to the decisions that they come to. I don’t understand why they value things that seem patently absurd to me. I don’t see how they reconcile what appear to be clear logical inconsistencies inside themselves, or why (if they aren’t resolving those inconsistencies) they don’t seem to be bothered by the logical incoherence of their mutually exclusive thoughts. I don’t understand why people respond emotionally to things that aren’t emotionally laden, or why they expect particular things in given social situations.
Putting my thoughts into coherent structure (whether concerning mundane and trivial questions I ponder while watching commercials or weighty issues for which my generation will be known) online is a useful outlet for helping me to retain self-identity and (through a comment-leaving process) see why and how the world reacts to the stimuli I present.
But your further suggestion that I somehow censor the materials I make available online baffles me further still. Just what parts am I to censor? What parts of my thoughts am I to have avoided placing online? I’m not suggesting that there is an all-or-nothing choice to be made here, but from my perspective, I have never said anything in these pages from which I could reasonably have expected a negative response based on my prior experiences.
I’ve written only one thing that I am mildly embarrassed to have written (because they represented an abdication of my reason momentarily), but in that case, I sincerely apologized for those words at the correct level of offense that I expected to come from them. Where is that courtesy in return?
Am I to have known that people would misinterpret my clear denunciation of a country’s political decisions as anti-Semitism? Am I to have thought in advance that frank discussions of my emotions (even an emotion so pleasant as puppy-love) should rouse the anger/disappointment/resentment/fear/sudden indifference of my few friends? With the last example, I can’t even say for sure what their emotional response was, since I still don’t know. Just what, pray tell, should I have thought in advance to not place online?
I’m not saying that indignantly. I’m meaning every word I just put on the screen. I haven’t the foggiest clue of how what I said could have possibly hurt someone. If you are referring to the incident over which my friends deserted me, then let me assure you that I’ve read and re-read those words hundreds of times trying to unlock the secret that caused what (to me) was a wholly unexpected reaction.
I wrote something I thought was a nice admission about my current mood, and made clear that I was not inviting speculation about anything further (a sentiment I made clear again in person with some of my friends). Despite my objection that I didn’t want further investigation, speculation occurred (and reached the wrong conclusion). Based on this wrong conclusion, I was indirectly and unjustly accused of being the type of person who would be willing to rend asunder one of the most important social bonds our society can confer. When I denied that such was the case, I was accused of lying. Immediately thereafter, my friends abandoned me.
I’ve asked for help from the people involved, and no such help has been forthcoming. If you have insight into this occurrence that I see as deeply inexplicable and hurtful, then by all means have out with it. If not, then I fail to see how my writings are dangerous to myself or to other people.
Without the ability to see what it was that caused the harm my friends endured, I cannot find any ground on which to accept their actions as the product of my own. That is, of course, why I asked for their assistance in the first place. If I caused them harm, I wished to make amends for that harm and to set it right. One cannot be sure to avoid committing a mistake until one can identify precisely what mistake was made in the first place.
Finally, don’t take offense that I refer to you as ‘anonymous comment-leaver.’ To me, that is a most accurate description of who you are. And while ‘the Academian’ is surely also a pen name, it is less anonymous that being truly anonymous. With ‘the Academian,’ there are words attributable to me from which a personality can be constructed. Apart from my rough guess at sentence structure and content, I have no reasonable way to suppose that the first comment in this series was made by the same person as made the third. Whether it is ‘Bob,’ ‘Rupert the Magnificent,’ ‘A[n] dis/interested party,’ or ‘G@M3 M@S73R,’ I couldn’t care less. It simply helps me to keep straight the idea that I’m talking to the same person as I was previously.
Post a Comment
<< Home