<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Put a Ring on It!&#8221; And By &#8220;It&#8221; We Mean Our Vaginas: A Renaissance in Vag-Product Advertising</title>
	<atom:link href="http://publicschoolintelligentsia.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2034" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://publicschoolintelligentsia.com/?p=2034</link>
	<description>Culture, Crass &#38; Sass From The Head Of The Class.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:29:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: bg</title>
		<link>http://publicschoolintelligentsia.com/?p=2034#comment-1191</link>
		<dc:creator>bg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:41:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://publicschoolintelligentsia.com/?p=2034#comment-1191</guid>
		<description>I don't think that was rotoscoped but actual animatic characters. Their eyes do that creepy follow you thing some websites have when you move the mouse. It came out before the ‘real’ one. But yeah, ok, I still hate both.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think that was rotoscoped but actual animatic characters. Their eyes do that creepy follow you thing some websites have when you move the mouse. It came out before the ‘real’ one. But yeah, ok, I still hate both.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: W B Mook</title>
		<link>http://publicschoolintelligentsia.com/?p=2034#comment-1181</link>
		<dc:creator>W B Mook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:41:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://publicschoolintelligentsia.com/?p=2034#comment-1181</guid>
		<description>Nevermind, I'm a dullard.  I thought that last was an actual product.  I've stopped hyperventilating now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nevermind, I&#8217;m a dullard.  I thought that last was an actual product.  I&#8217;ve stopped hyperventilating now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: W B Mook</title>
		<link>http://publicschoolintelligentsia.com/?p=2034#comment-1180</link>
		<dc:creator>W B Mook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:37:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://publicschoolintelligentsia.com/?p=2034#comment-1180</guid>
		<description>P.S. CLOT-ex?  Seriously?  Who's brilliant fucking idea was that name?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>P.S. CLOT-ex?  Seriously?  Who&#8217;s brilliant fucking idea was that name?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: W B Mook</title>
		<link>http://publicschoolintelligentsia.com/?p=2034#comment-1179</link>
		<dc:creator>W B Mook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:34:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://publicschoolintelligentsia.com/?p=2034#comment-1179</guid>
		<description>And then there was &lt;a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oT-7r1OypI" rel="nofollow"&gt;a weird, rotoscoped version of the same commercial&lt;/a&gt; and my head exploded. (Apologies for the shitty quality, but I'm too lazy to keep looking for a better version.)

Can anyone fathom the logic behind the move to rotoscope?  Hm?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And then there was <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oT-7r1OypI" rel="nofollow">a weird, rotoscoped version of the same commercial</a> and my head exploded. (Apologies for the shitty quality, but I&#8217;m too lazy to keep looking for a better version.)</p>
<p>Can anyone fathom the logic behind the move to rotoscope?  Hm?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Natasha</title>
		<link>http://publicschoolintelligentsia.com/?p=2034#comment-1177</link>
		<dc:creator>Natasha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:38:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://publicschoolintelligentsia.com/?p=2034#comment-1177</guid>
		<description>I want to see a dude with menstrual colored war paint on his face holding up box of kotex.
[FADE TO BLACK]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I want to see a dude with menstrual colored war paint on his face holding up box of kotex.<br />
[FADE TO BLACK]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Johnny</title>
		<link>http://publicschoolintelligentsia.com/?p=2034#comment-1176</link>
		<dc:creator>Johnny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:45:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://publicschoolintelligentsia.com/?p=2034#comment-1176</guid>
		<description>This is an excerpt from a May 20, 1999 Chicago Tribune article by Jon Bigness, concerning a new series of Tampax commercials. Emphasis mine:

&lt;i&gt;But a principal difficulty with the Tampax campaign is its "sanitary product" category, which is one that many advertisers and media approach gingerly for fear of giving offense. For example, in the Tampax spring break ads, Burnett had to delete a scene in which women sitting on men's shoulders were in a contest to push each other over. &lt;b&gt;The networks prohibit ads that show men physically interacting with women who might be menstruating.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt;

Imagine letters the size of the Hollywood sign spelling out WTF.

The article is ten years old, so I have no idea if that policy is still in effect...I know that anecdotal evidence is barely worth mentioning, but ever since reading that article I've been watching tampon ads closely and I swear I've never seen one in which a dude touches a lady. (This being the Internet, of course, fifteen other commenters will immediately say that they see it all the time.)

But even if that policy was overturned the next day, 1999 is still a shockingly late date for such a thing to have been in effect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an excerpt from a May 20, 1999 Chicago Tribune article by Jon Bigness, concerning a new series of Tampax commercials. Emphasis mine:</p>
<p><i>But a principal difficulty with the Tampax campaign is its &#8220;sanitary product&#8221; category, which is one that many advertisers and media approach gingerly for fear of giving offense. For example, in the Tampax spring break ads, Burnett had to delete a scene in which women sitting on men&#8217;s shoulders were in a contest to push each other over. <b>The networks prohibit ads that show men physically interacting with women who might be menstruating.</b></i></p>
<p>Imagine letters the size of the Hollywood sign spelling out WTF.</p>
<p>The article is ten years old, so I have no idea if that policy is still in effect&#8230;I know that anecdotal evidence is barely worth mentioning, but ever since reading that article I&#8217;ve been watching tampon ads closely and I swear I&#8217;ve never seen one in which a dude touches a lady. (This being the Internet, of course, fifteen other commenters will immediately say that they see it all the time.)</p>
<p>But even if that policy was overturned the next day, 1999 is still a shockingly late date for such a thing to have been in effect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
