Years ago Cindy Gallop was an account manager at GGT.
More recently. she used to be CEO of BBH in New York.
She was voted Ad Woman of the Year in New York by the NY equivalent of Campaign.
Recently I saw Cindy do a talk at TED.com
She was launching a project she feels strongly about.
A website called ‘Make Love Not Porn’.
Cindy spoke in front of several hundred top decision makers.
In cut-glass English pronunciation she explained that she was on older woman who liked to date young men.
She explained that ‘date’ was a euphemism for ‘have sex with’.
So Cindy liked to have sex with young men.
A lot of young men.
She didn’t see why talking about that should be a problem.
But what was a problem was that young men had their complete view of sex dictated by Internet porn.
An entire generation was growing up to believe that what they saw on porn sites was the way it should be.
They saw men with enormous penises, and women loving it.
So obviously that was the way it should be.
They saw women enjoying gagging on these enormous penises.
Then enjoying being spanked and sodomised.
Then enjoying men coming all over their faces.
Being that this was the total extent of most young men’s sex education, this was what they believed all women enjoyed.
And young women were also being educated by the same Internet porn as their boyfriends.
So they believed there must be something wrong with them if they didn’t enjoy it.
Cindy thought this was wrong.
Not that Internet porn was wrong.
She quite enjoyed that.
But she didn’t think it should dictate what everyone should, or shouldn’t, want.
It should be okay for different people to want different things.
So she set up a website to educate young people.
To open up the debate.
But TED was shocked by Cindy’s talk.
They wouldn’t make it available on their main website.
The subject matter was too contentious.
So Cindy persuaded them to make it available on YouTube.
Some of the comments it attracted were rational.
But some were barely literate insults.
The sort of thing you’d normally see written on the door of a public lavatory.
But Cindy didn’t get angry like I would have.
And she didn’t delete the comments like I would have.
Her attitude is that, “We see the world not as it is, but as we are.”
So she figured people who would make these sort of comments are actually having real problems.
Maybe she could help sort them out.
She’s had around 800 comments.
So far she’s replied to over 200 of them.
She replied personally to each insulting comment.
Asking them to contact her at her email address to continue the discussion.
As you can imagine, this is not what people who comment anonymously want.
So most of the debates ended there.
However, to illustrate her point she told me about one particular comment.
A guy had written something like, “Looking at a wrinkled old hag like you, who would want to come on your face anyway?”
Cindy, believing the guy only wrote that because of problems in his personal life, asked him to get in touch by email.
It turned out he was a 28 year-old virgin, living in Eastern Europe.
During their correspondence he told Cindy that he couldn’t get a girlfriend.
Cindy suggested he try Internet dating.
She gave him tips on how to proceed.
Recently he wrote back to thank her.
Saying he now had a girlfriend, and he was in love.
Cindy believes that a lot of male anger and problems come from testosterone and pent up sexual rage.
She says, “There aren’t many problems in the world that couldn’t be cured by blow jobs.”
I don’t agree.
I think there are lots of problems that couldn’t be cured by blowjobs.
But I think I learned from Cindy, maybe there are a lot of problems that could be cured that way.
Something else I learned was that it’s not always best to meet anger with anger.
Rage fuels rage.
It’s a purely emotional reaction.
Eventually the stronger side wins.
But even if you win you lose.
You lose control of yourself and the situation.
Cindy meets anger with understanding.
The rational mind.
That either dissolves the anger, because the rage has nowhere to go.
Or is solves the anger by helping address the problem.
I can’t always do that myself.
In fact I can’t do it very often.
But I wish I could.
Bloody brilliant, Dave. And of course you know what I feel about Cindy!
She has taught me over the years not to be afraid of criticism but to embrace it. She has taught me to always see things from the other person’s perspective, and to encourage different points of view. Our world needs more people like Cindy, and more great writers like you willing to share this kind of original worldview.
Great catching up with you in NY
Kate Bristow - 21 April 2010 10:06 pm
Don’t get mad, get even.
“I told them I wanted to be a comedian and they laughed but who’s laughing now”. – Bob Monkhouse
john w. - 21 April 2010 10:51 pm
A great story, well told.
Steve Elrick - 22 April 2010 1:23 am
Just when I was wondering when you’d get back from your break, you come up with something truly astounding. Welcome back.
robin - 22 April 2010 5:22 am
Cindy must have known she’d receive an array or barely literate abuse even before she posted the video on youtube. After all if you click on any popular video on youtube (weather it be a cat skateboarding or a discussion about the impacts of porn) the comments always consist of personal insults or irrelevant arguments about football teams. At least she managed to create something positive from one of website’s faults.
Dean - 22 April 2010 9:34 am
I probably shouldn’t make a point about illiteracy and then spell whether wrong. What a fool I feel now.
Dean - 22 April 2010 9:38 am
You Tube comments are generally a good example of the dregs of society. Or at least it seemed that way, maybe they are just all frustrated…
Rob Mortimer - 22 April 2010 10:14 am
Cindy is an inspirational force of nature. I met her when she was the account director on my campaign to abolish the prostitution laws in ’93 so she was no stranger to controversy even then. Check out another of her brilliant initiatives at http://www.ifwerantheworld.com
Welcome back Dave, you were missed!
rachel carroll - 22 April 2010 11:29 am
Thank god your back Dave! Hope you had a nice holiday.
Nice article, wondered where that was going for a while. Sometimes it can be difficult not to pounce on rude commenters in defence, it’s a shame that online anonymity leads people to strike so low but reacting on the same level only ever really reflects badly on the primary party.
Nathan Beck - 22 April 2010 12:31 pm
Great link Rachel.
john w. - 22 April 2010 1:19 pm
“There aren’t many problems in the world that couldn’t be cured by blow jobs.”
What’s the difference between Cheryl Cole and the volcano in Iceland?
The volcano is still blowing Ash.
john w. - 22 April 2010 1:30 pm
Good people of Dave’s blog.
At the risk of public ignominy, your honest opinion on whether the 1 minute film below is good enough to enter in the online film category at Cannes would be truly appreciated.
http://www.youtube.com/user/stopitnowukireland#p/u/0/kqtjiPW4ey4
P.S. John – the volcano is an ash hole.
rachel carroll - 22 April 2010 2:27 pm
http://ex-blank-page.blogspot.com/2010/04/in-reply-to-daves-great-posts-132.html
Anca - 22 April 2010 3:54 pm
Hi Dean,
It isn’t really the illiteracy that upsets me about those sort of comments.
(Sometimes they are typos, sometimes they are people struggling with a second language.)
It’s when comments are nasty, rude, and intended to hurt.
That’s when my emotional mind gets plugged in and I should learn from Cindy how to respond with the rational mind instead.
Dave Trott - 22 April 2010 7:24 pm
Thanks for getting this out there Dave – even if TED wouldn’t (no value judgement, just fact).
1) My sister left South Africa some years back because of the escalating violence. I read that 60% + of break ins and burglaries included rape/sexual acts, but also that many South African males 1) cant get a girl friend and 2) masturbation is considered unclean/unhealthy. Makes you think about motives.
2) To be angry is to revenge the faults of others on ourselves.
- Alexander Pope
Keir - 22 April 2010 9:43 pm
So true what you said, Dave. I have a friend and when he phones me, I can hear the mocking in his voice. He has an amazing knack of being hurtful and mean, sometimes even without trying. The good thing about modern technology is Caller ID. So when I see his numbers (I save every number he’s called me from), I don’t answer.
robin - 23 April 2010 2:57 am
What Cindy is trying to do is promote sexual honesty. And maybe nothing could contribute to world peace more than that.
Why was Hitler so full of hate? Could it be something to do with his self-loathing because of his predeliction for certain ‘perverted’ sexual practices as endured by and written about by his niece. And I’m not talking about the incest bit. Hitler had a very controlling mother who kept her house hospital clean and germ free at all times and Hitler was toilet trained extremely early. See if you can work it out because I’m not talking about golden showers on Daves blog.
And what about this sex with a thousand virgins promise that apparently motivates suicide bobmbers? These people are obviously not being told the truth. That sex with virgins is rubbish.
Cindy for the Nobel Peace Prize!
rachel carroll - 23 April 2010 11:09 am
Sex with a thousand virgins. Those people are only being told half the truth. They obviously haven’t factored into the equation those types that are virgins for reasons that aren’t entirely complimentary. Still whatever floats your boat. I guess the more mainstream these messages of sexual honesty are, then so much the better it will be for society at large. The objectification of human beings and the reduction of them to stereotypes is a bane. The only trouble I see on the horizon is trying to be funny, which is a legitimate theme to sell a product or make a product into a brand, someone has to be the butt of the joke. This is my favourite ad in donkeys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Z2gKT7B6Y and yet some would call it sexist. Funny is funny, right?
john w. - 23 April 2010 1:20 pm
Hi John.
That’s definitely one of the best ads of the last few years. Have you seen the follow-up – ‘He Speaks Woman’? I actually think it might be even better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RqrdRqAr1Q&feature=PlayList&p=8E1B32E719477E60&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=86
Ant Melder - 23 April 2010 8:42 pm
Hi Rachel.
Just watched your film. Good stuff – I think it’s worth entering. It reminded me (in a good way) a bit of ‘tentacle’, the brilliant German ad that won a bronze at Cannes a couple of years ago. It’s totally different to ‘tentacle’ but has a similar unsettling vibe.
In case you haven’t seen it, check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAX5TImsGzk
Ant Melder - 24 April 2010 12:53 am
Hey Ant. Ta ever so for watching, commenting and the link to ‘Tentacle’. Creepy stuff!
rachel carroll - 24 April 2010 5:00 pm
Hi Rachel. A pleasure – well, not quite due to the subject matter, but still. Good luck!
Ant Melder - 25 April 2010 11:36 pm
Rachel at 1109am
Interesting point about Hitler you made. Not sure, though. Reading “Hitler’s Private Library” by Timothy W Ryback. I’m only 2 chapters through but it provides a fascinating insight of how Adolf was misled by books.
robin - 26 April 2010 2:54 am
A brilliant piece of life affectingly logical writing…luvit!
A related observation…in a racist society …like South Africa…it’s not long … if your observant …before one notices that most of the racism has a sexual basis…growing jealousy, resentment and fear into anger and aggression.
barney - 26 April 2010 2:53 pm
Ironic how only the assumption of anonymity encouraged the bloke to comment about Cindy, while the reality of not being anonymous enabled a happy ending. (The argument about whether anonymity should be allowed on the web has only just begun.)
Al - 27 April 2010 10:24 pm
Thanks, million thanks for posts like this.
provato - 30 April 2010 11:14 am
Dave – I read your brilliant blog avidly. This recent post above is one of the most interesting..!
On a different topic… I would be interested in your view on the recent CST win of Frosty Jacks. Generally referred to as ‘tramp’s juice’, it’s synonymous with liver disease and alcoholism. £3 for a 2 bottle that carries your week’s units of alcohol. It’s pretty tough stuff.
An agency I know refused to pitch on this as the strategy was obviously about trying to target young people to drink it and as parents they couldn’t reconcile it with their conscience. What say you about this? Did you work on the pitch? Are you finding it a moral maze or are you simply doing your job? No agenda here – just interested.
Stephen - 30 April 2010 3:13 pm
Hi Stephen,
This is like cigarettes for me, everyone has to make up their own mind.
The real questions is should it be legal to sell it?
If so, why shouldn’t it be legal to advertise it?
If young people drinking is a problem, that won’t be solved by doing bad ads.
Or even by stopping advertising.
If your friends refuse to work on it, is it to jplacate their own conscience, or do they believe advertising works?
If it’s the latter, why don’t they do advertising to get alcohol sales to young people banned?
Doing nothing may help your friends feel better but it doesn’t help solve the problem.
I don’t think there’s anything that it’s legal to sell that I wouldn’t work on.
Because I don’t think advertising is the problem, I think sweeping things under the carpet is the problem.
dave trott - 30 April 2010 4:09 pm
Hi Dave,
Anyone who knows what it is like to speak from the heart publicly will recognise it was incredibly brave of Cindy Gallop to stand in front of a public audience and do what she did. Launching the website can only be for the greater good.
I had a friend overseas who used to confide in me because she was fed up of every 20 year-old man in the land chasing her tail because she was all their sexual fantasies wrapped-up in one body called ‘a mans idea of a great legover’.
I also had an aquaitance with a man-eating female who worked in the same office as me in another country. She actually had a photo album of all her male conquests over the years. The funny thing is she also had this fantasy image in her brain that she was Marilyn Monroe reincarnated. I can assure you she was completely deluded.
Let’s unpack the question: Should fantasy be permitted to be reality?
If it harms no-one, and it’s between (as you say) consenting adults, it’s nobody else’s business anyway. It’s when reality strays into fantasy, where the fantasy becomes imagined as more real than reality itself that things go wrong.
In advertising, sometimes you get shots, lines, or cuts in film that just do not look the way they were intended to look. There could be an unintended message transmitted that could be misinterpreted by sick minds. I believe it is the responsibility of all advertisers, their agencies, the ASA, and the ever-watchful public to condemn such work whether it is intended or not so decency and the greater good prevail. Otherwise everything would rapidly descend into chaos and social breakdown.
There was an interesting programme on Yesterday where people re-lived 13th century life on a farm in Wales. Online provides the greatest opportunity for people to fantasise. The people in the experiment agreed they missed neither online or TV, or commuting, or being stuck in traffic jams. They actually enjoyed the richness of each-other’s conversation at dinner over and above everything else. TV breeds conversation. In most cases ( with the exception of this website ) whereas online can kill conversation, isolate the individual from family and friends, and in some cases it has turned whole families into online geeks with more in common with a stranger than their nearest and dearest.
These are the dangers of distorting perceptions of reality.
Kevin Gordon - 2 May 2010 9:00 pm