Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

FA = Football association
Soccer moms

joke

no need to drag up the old soccer/grid iron debate
For pity's sake don't

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

One Million Moms is run by the AFA.

The American Football Association?
Are these the soccer moms one hears about?

American Family Association. They basically are the largest Christian Network in America. And by Christian, I mean fething Insane Hardcore Christians.

Ah Thanks

Does "biblical ethic(s) of decency " cover the bit about Lot and his daughters?
Or is it not that sort of family association?

Chibi you bastard my family are sleeping, stop being funny

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:A bunch of macho wargamers with schoolboy humour will just giggle as they lick the sweaty balls ice cream.
Middle America will find it offensive.

I don't think that's true. It just isn't the 50s anymore, I just can't see that many people getting worried about a humourless double entendre.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Schoolboy humour has its place
Prefereably in the schoolyard, but still not convinced it is a good aid for the naming of desserts.

It's certainly lame, and I doubt it'd help sell ice-cream at all, but it isn't offensive.

You're a tough minded Aussie wargamer. So you shrug it off

It is a schoolboy joke which tbh isn't worth a million mothers tying their apron strings in a knot for. But they have, so if we can't see people getting bothered by it any more is obviously a miscalculation.
Just because we shrug it off and call it inoffensive is not the point, others still might find the humour inapproriate for commercial use to sell an ice cream.

And I bet it will help sales. No such thing as bad publicity.


Sorry Corpses
Hope this serious and late reply helps

sebster wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:A bunch of macho wargamers with schoolboy humour will just giggle as they lick the sweaty balls ice cream.
Middle America will find it offensive.

I don't think that's true. It just isn't the 50s anymore, I just can't see that many people getting worried about a humourless double entendre.

Perhaps some sort of time bubble has formed around them.

Hope so
With luck it will float away to 1954 and keep them there!

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:You're a tough minded Aussie wargamer. So you shrug it off

It is a schoolboy joke which tbh isn't worth a million mothers tying their apron strings in a knot for. But they have, so if we can't see people getting bothered by it any more is obviously a miscalculation.
Just because we shrug it off and call it inoffensive is not the point, others still might find the humour inapproriate for commercial use to sell an ice cream.

But they're just a collection of people who are organised to go and complain about random stupid stuff. Being outraged is basically their hobby. Something doesn't actually have to be offensive for them to get bothered by it, it just has to be close enough for them to convince themselves they can get all high and mighty about the issue. No-one anywhere is actually bothered by a vague double-entendre drawn from a humourless SNL skit. Afterall, the connection between balls & gonads exists entirely in the reader's head, if someone was a genuinely innocent person they'd never make the connection.

And yeah, I think Ben & Jerry are extremely happy with the amount of publicity this non-issue is getting them. There's been cases over here in the media where some mildly risque thing has existed for a long time, before one complaint is lodged about, then the whole thing becomes a media circus as we're all asked if this mildly risque thing is going too far, all because the PR group from the original company is running about the media stations getting them to talk about this non-issue.

B &J don't get a lot of credit imho for a cheap publicity stunt.
Whether we agree or not and irrespective of the skewed ideology that is driving the organised protest, it is still not an appropriate reference for a dessert.

The AFA moms ought look to themselves however, and ask themselves what their saviour would be concerned about. Not that I can presume to speak for the Son of God, but issues such as poverty are surely more of worthy causes for a Christian to get animated about. Assume that the big J would be wanting to fix that than the name of a new flavour of dessert.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:B &J don't get a lot of credit imho for a cheap publicity stunt.

I speculated it might be, but we really have no idea. They could have just liked the SNL skit. I mean, someone must still think that show is funny, why not Ben and/or Jerry?

Whether we agree or not and irrespective of the skewed ideology that is driving the organised protest, it is still not an appropriate reference for a dessert.

Why? It's a reference to a skit that made an entirely silly but hardly grotesque reference to genitals.

The AFA moms ought look to themselves however, and ask themselves what their saviour would be concerned about. Not that I can presume to speak for the Son of God, but issues such as poverty are surely more of worthy causes for a Christian to get animated about. Assume that the big J would be wanting to fix that than the name of a new flavour of dessert.

Yeah, there's that. There's also the trap of outrage, because it gives the offended such a wonderful buzz of self-righteousness, without having to actually do anything useful. Getting people to stop playing the outrage game is a good thing just by itself, whether or not they instead spend their time helping the poor or playing minesweeper.

"I get my balls out every summer. fnar fnar"
Well if you like the image of someone's nadgers while licking your lolly that is your business.

Again macho gamer not offended by danglies joke.
Gosh we are so hard and radical. Let us mock a million housewives for being a bunch of prudes

Good grief do we need get so indignant about housewives protesting against ice cream? Not sure we are behaving any better.

Am sure B&J like lots of other things, some might have been better suited for naming of the sweet. iirc there was a comment about B&J being irreverant.
So it is not the first time.

Ice cream makers sticking it to the man! Right on, that'll shake things up.


Sorry to be so staid, but it is a question of etiquette. I would not say "bollocks" ordinarily on Dakka and will hope the mods forgive the use in the context of illustrating a point.
I will use alternatives or as usual talk a load of old bocklols. The vast majority of Dakkanauts are, as said a bunch of hard nosed thick skinned orks who swear like troopers.

However I would not use any such language on Facebook for example. It is inappropriate and wholly unecessary. Ditto the genetalia reference in the high street store freezers.

Nevermind, I just changed my post cause I now have no clue what's going on....

But Chibi, they're different from us! How can we possibly allow that to stand!?

The problem isn't them disliking the name, it's them trying to get the ice cream off sale to deprive people who might want it.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
However I would not use any such language on Facebook for example. It is inappropriate and wholly unecessary. Ditto the genetalia reference in the high street store freezers.

Why is it inappropriate? Does it make you uncomfortable?

I was thinking of others not myself

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I was thinking of others not myself

Then answer the question for them.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I was thinking of others not myself

Which is the crux of the problem. Sometimes we (the rest of society) don't want other people (hyperventilating mothers who bubble wrap their kids) thinking of whats good for us.

Let me be offended. Let me be shocked. Present me with things I do not like. Don't veil everything in this semi-opaque fog that is carefully measured by corporate experts to be barely edgy enough to sell, yet wholesome enough that bored housewives are offended.

You're being facetious, dogma. The belief thatreferences to sex organs should be kept out of mainstream media and certainly out of sight of children is one that is commonly held by the majority of the population of Western society. You already know the answer to your questions. They think it is innappropriate because it goes against this widely held belief, and yes, it does make them uncomfortable.

htj wrote:You're being facetious, dogma. The belief thatreferences to sex organs should be kept out of mainstream media and certainly out of sight of children is one that is commonly held by the majority of the population of Western society. You already know the answer to your questions. They think it is innappropriate because it goes against this widely held belief, and yes, it does make them uncomfortable.

I'm not being facetious, I'm well aware that said belief is widely held. I want to know why its widely held.

Centuries of judeo-christian values being held by the dominant culture, is my bet.

htj wrote:Centuries of judeo-christian values being held by the dominant culture, is my bet.

It isn't limited to Judeo-Christian thought, though.

Honestly? Shame. You need something to make people feel shameful about, otherwise they won't crawl back to you and your deity's International House of Pancakes looking for redemption. A lot of organized religion is built around guilt, because it offers a means of control.

What better a way to implement guilt than by associating something every last healthy person is naturally programmed to do with 'badness'?

No, this is true. However, that is the school of thought that is influence this conglomerate of moms, I would hazard. It seems likely that the vast majority of them, if questioned, would state their religion as Christian.

As to the root of the demonisation of sexuality, well, that's possibly too big a subject for a thread discussing a furore over ice cream.

daedalus wrote:Honestly? Shame. You need something to make people feel shameful about, otherwise they won't crawl back to you and your deity's International House of Pancakes looking for redemption. A lot of organized religion is built around guilt, because it offers a means of control.

What better a way to implement guilt than by associating something every last healthy person is naturally programmed to do with 'badness'?

Non-religious people don't have a concept of shame?

@daedalus

Actually, there's an interesting differentiation between guilt-based society and shame-based society. The Christian West is an example of a guilt-based moral system, where the chastisement comes from within due to breaking a code that is given to you by an omniscient being. An example of a shame-based moral system is Japan, where the censure comes from failing to adhere to the social role you are meant to uphold. It's a subtle difference, but it leads to some interesting differences in society.

htj wrote:
As to the root of the demonisation of sexuality, well, that's possibly too big a subject for a thread discussing a furore over ice cream.

We've had more extreme deviations before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:Honestly? Shame. You need something to make people feel shameful about, otherwise they won't crawl back to you and your deity's International House of Pancakes looking for redemption. A lot of organized religion is built around guilt, because it offers a means of control.

What better a way to implement guilt than by associating something every last healthy person is naturally programmed to do with 'badness'?

Religion isn't predicated on guilt, though guilt is often used in order to perpetuate power structures within a given faith.

I never said that. Shame is something natural that humans feel when they've fethed up. I'm saying that generally religious people or those who had a upbringing in a predominantly religious-based culture have more of a sense of shame about subjects of sexuality than those who aren't. We're made to feel shameful about our bodies, like we're bad people for having those bits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@htj:

You raise a good point. There is a distinction there I fear I wasn't considering initially.

They should make a grey ice cream and call it Elephant Orgasm. It will only come in gallons.