The olive oil industry must be rife with perverts, who else would describe a product as “extra virgin”?
It’s interesting, these two sentences in juxtaposition.
The very first definition of the noun “virgin” from Merriam Webster is “an unmarried woman devoted to religion.” The fourth definition - “a person who has not had sexual intercourse” - does mean something sexual.
The first definition of the adjective “virgin” is “free of impurity or stain.” This may have a sexual connotation, but it may also have no sexual connotation (eg, “a virgin forest”). Other recognized definitions include “not altered by human activity,” “obtained from first light pressing and without heating,” and “containing no alcohol.”
Language does not mean only what you wish it to mean. Virgin very often means something nonsexual.
Some claim the onus was on Virgin mobile to at the very least check with the photographer whether the model had signed a release. He never claimed that he had the model release. This might have been an oversight or even ignorance on his part but it was still up to the commercial user to check prior to publication of the adverts.
Also the wool industry.
Yes, “virgin” has non-sexual meanings. Yes, “Virgin” is the company name. Nevertheless, it does also have a sexual meaning, and that can not be excised in all situations. Particularly in a situation where it appears with a picture of a young girl, which is an image that many (most? nearly all?) people would associate with the sexual meaning of “virgin.” The fact that it has other meanings doesn’t mean that the sexual connotation just ups and disappears. You can bet that it’s a major portion of the " ridicule from her peers."
Does modifying the picture in any way violate the creative commons license? The Virgin ad has reversed (or “flipped” the picture) from the original.
A small issue I know but perhaps a technicality to get them on. Certainly seems cheesy to troll picture boards to nab photos for ads that so you do not have to pay for them.
From Kal’s link, here’s another ad from the same campaign. Is “pressing buttons for the hell of it” sexual too?
While I don’t think the ad in question is necessarily sexual (though it’s all too easy to see the nerdy pen friend as a virgin, which, yes, can be used as an insult. Like anything else), anyone arguing that Virgin is just a company name needs to get better cquainted with past ad campaigns. Such as…
this (‘Doing it so much really makes me hungry’ for anytime calling)
and this (‘Once a year we’ll give you the once over’ for home loans, featuring an elderly couple going at it)
and this (‘If talk is cheap, texts should be slutty’).
So even if one ad’s not a sexual pun, the company’s enforced the connotations. I actually think most of their ads are quite cute and even witty, but not using a model was just lazy.
Flickr’s CC license page, FWIW.
I’ve touched on both of these in a couple of staff reports. Heh, email a question and I’ll answer it.
I think it’s very clear that that whole campaign is not once ever using the “virgin to virgin” slogan in any associative way with the rest of the ads. That would include the “Dump Your Pen Friend” one, that isn’t shown in that article.
So, you are so confident, next time you are at work, or on line with your mother, or your child, type virgin into the google engine, and open the first twenty links.
Nothing sexual will come up, I am sure.
Tris
The point, Tris is that just because something CAN be considered sexual doesn’t mean it must be considered sexual, or even that it is intended to be considered sexual.
Given your incorrect statements of law previously, which I called you on and which you have not bothered to correct or respond about, your arbitrary assertions about the meaning and intention of “virgin” in the ad lose some steam.
I, personally, suspect Virgin is at times happy to play off the connotations of its name in the sexual arena. So I’m not willing to concede to anyone that it is unreasonable to make a sexual connotation, even in the particular ad in question.
Not that that matters an iota for the legal issue in question.
I did acknowledge the error of law. Was I not obsequious enough to qualify?
Oh, Great Legal Scholar, forgive me for my egregious trespass!
Is that enough?
Legalism aside, claiming that Virgin has no intent to make sexual innuendo in the ad is absurd. Yes, they have a clear legal path to deniability. Clear legal paths to deniability matter only to lawyers.
It was a deliberate sexual innuendo using a minor, and no amount of paid legal smoke and mirrors will change that. I am not required to be stupid. You may wish to defend others right to be stupid, if it makes you feel good. When someone pisses in my hand, not even a Supreme Court Majority Opinion will convince me it was only raining.
Tris
It’s the name of their company! It’s impossible to advertise their services without using the word “Virgin”.
Surely you aren’t seriously suggesting that every single time they use their company name, no matter what the context, they’re implying a deliberate sexual connotation? If so then you’re being absurd.
Oh, for Smeg’s sake, people!
Let’s go over this one more time. There’s this rich British chap by the name of Richard Branson. He has a number of business ventures, which are operated under the umbrella of the Virgin Group. Many of these companies have names involving “Virgin” and whatever it is they do- “Virgin Music”, “Virgin Money”, “Virgin Atlantic Airways”, and, in this case, “Virgin Mobile”. The fact the name happens to be “Virgin” has nothing- I repeat nothing to do with linking sexuality with the business in question.
“Virgin to Virgin” has been a phrase used by Virgin Mobile for donkey’s years to advertise the special deals they offer to their cellphone network subscribers who are calling other subscribers on the Virgin Mobile network. It’s got nothing to do with Virgins (of the “never had sex” type) talking to other Virgins.
Vodafone also advertise deals as “Vodafone to Vodafone”. Would the girl be as upset if it was Vodafone or Optus using her image? It sounds to me that a lot of her problem (besides the issues relating to her photo being used without her consent, which I’m not addressing here) is the name of the network in question- well known in Australia as being just a name with no connotations (much like Coon Cheese is a well known and popular brand of cheese here, not associated with racial epithets), but not well known in the US and people are therefore reading far, far more into this than they need to.
FWIW, I work in the retail electronics industry here in Australia, and we sell Virgin Mobile products (as well as Vodafone, Optus, Telstra, and 3 Mobile, obviously). I’ve not seen this particular ad in any of our Point of Sale material from Virgin Mobile, and I haven’t seen any memos or recalls relating to any that might already be out there, either.
And, on preview, what GuanoLad just said.
while i also do not think the ad in question is necessarily sexual, which 16 year old would want to be known as the nerdy pen friend virgin in school?
or maybe their ad campaigns are more successful than you think? if you want to be known as a bad boy you can’t just suit up and pretend to be all innocent whenever you want. especially when you’re fishing for free images of underage children on the net to promote your business.
you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
No, no they aren’t. Virgin is the least common cellphone network in Australia- they claim a customer base of about 400-500,000 customers, which is, frankly, inconsequential when compared to the other Cellphone networks in Australia-
Vodafone Australia has about 3.3 million customers, Optus about the same, Telstra somewhat more than that.
In fact, Virgin Mobile Australia is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Optus. Optus reportedly lost a huge sum of money on the whole partnership with Virgin UK- Wikipedia says $116 million, which doesn’t surprise me- and Optus eventually bought the entire thing, and now run it as a separate brand, although quite why they bother is beyond me since they’re clearly not making any money from it and the whole thing just screams “Contractual Obligation”, IMHO.
I can count the number of Virgin phones and starter packs I’ve sold in the last year without using both hands, and I can count the number of times I’ve sold Virgin pre-paid phone credit in the last year on one hand and still have fingers left over. The ads are memorable and amusing, but they don’t seem to encourage people to sign up with them- I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Optus eventually wound the Virgin network up and incorporated it into their main brand.
i wasn’t referring to financial success, but more on brand recognition.
Before you issue challenges like this, you should try them yourself to make sure they don’t prove the opposite of the point you think you will.
Just did exactly what you suggested, right here at work. My mom’s not available, and my kid is three and a half so the complexities of language are lost on her, so that will have to do.
Top 20 Google Search Results for the term “virgin” include:
The corporate website for the Virgin Group
Virgin Mobile’s international site
Virgin Atlantic’s home site (airplanes)
Virgin Mobile’s US site
Virgin Records’ home site
A Wikipedia entry on the Virgin Group
A Wikipedia entry on Virgin Records
Virgin America’s home site (more airplanes)
Virgin Radio (streaming radio)
Virgin Trains (leading railway company in the UK)
Virgin Mobile’s Australian site
The UK version of Virgin radio
VirginComics.com (not porn - a real comic company started by Branson with Deepak Chopra - really!)
Several other sites involving Branson’s Virgin Group and its businesses
Also in the top 50:
Info on “The Virgin Earth Challenge,” a $25 million environmentalism competition
IMDB entries for three films: “The Virgin Suicides,” “The 40-year-old Virgin,” “Virgin”
A column for a Seattle writer named Bill Virgin
A Catholic Encylopedia entry on “The Blessed Virgin Mary”
Nothing in the top 20 related to sex in any way. Of the next thirty or so, the films use “virgin” in their sexual sense, and the Catholics sort of do, too (although the meaning is generally closer to “pure” than just “sexually inexperienced” - those definitions do overlap, though), and there is a site called “OK Cupid” which shows you two pictures and invites you to guess which person is a virgin. No porn.
Whose point was that challenge meant to prove again?