I'm 46, I was born in 1962, and I've collected cigarette ads since I was 9 or 10 years old. I've smoked, on and off, my whole adult life. Unlike what appears to be the norm, I don't seem to have ever developed any strong dependence on nicotine. But, I've always been very attached to the cigarette ads.
I think you can make some claim that there are some aspects of smoking, particularly cigarettes, which are inherently sexual. Suckling behavior is very oral, one could claim that perhaps it's strongly related to some infantile sexuality. (I don't recommend suggesting this to most smokers, however.)
However, I believe the association that many of us... very much so including myself... have between cigarettes, smoking, and sex, is largely learned... at least, IMHO. Yes, my mother was a heavy smoker, but none of my four other siblings smoke, so I still feel the cigarette ads played perhaps the most substantial role in my smoking.
I recall a social psychology professor of mine told me that cigarette ads were largely second-order classical conditioning. At this level of influence, you identify with the models in the ads, and you experience through your identification, whatever rewards they experience. Actors, and actresses, smoking in movies, like "Breakfast at Tiffany's", presumably one might expect some similar impact.
I've always loved the cigarette ads. I wish we still had cigarette ads to speak of, even on TV. Unfortunately, that appears to be unacceptable in today's society because it means more people will smoke more cigarettes.
The long-term consequences of smoking can obviously be very bad. I lived with my mother as she died of lung cancer.
For better or for worse, you and I will not likely have opportunity similar to Audrey Hepburn to enjoy cigarettes anything like she did. So, what I see with many of my favorite cigarette ads, and what you're talking about seeing with Audrey Hepburn in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" may largely represent unattainable manifestations of relations with cigarettes in our society today. Our society will not, both more concretely, and also at a collective psychical, or collective unconscious, level, support such relations with cigarettes... or, only marginally so relative to 1961.
Most of one's relation with their cigarettes is internal, but I can certainly testify that you're likely to encounter great difficulty in maintaining any internal relational framework to your cigarettes similar to one that one might deduce Audrey Hepburn's character held in "Breakfast at Tiffany's".
Unfortunately, those of us who feel that the positives with cigarettes, smoking, and cigarette advertising and promotion outweigh the negatives, or even can with some realizable modifications that don't ruin the whole thing, appear to be very much so in the minority today.
Posted on August 30 at 12:58 p.m.Suggest removal
Hello Cassie,
I agree, but disagree, both at the same time.
I'm 46, I was born in 1962, and I've collected cigarette ads since I was 9 or 10 years old. I've smoked, on and off, my whole adult life. Unlike what appears to be the norm, I don't seem to have ever developed any strong dependence on nicotine. But, I've always been very attached to the cigarette ads.
I think you can make some claim that there are some aspects of smoking, particularly cigarettes, which are inherently sexual. Suckling behavior is very oral, one could claim that perhaps it's strongly related to some infantile sexuality. (I don't recommend suggesting this to most smokers, however.)
However, I believe the association that many of us... very much so including myself... have between cigarettes, smoking, and sex, is largely learned... at least, IMHO. Yes, my mother was a heavy smoker, but none of my four other siblings smoke, so I still feel the cigarette ads played perhaps the most substantial role in my smoking.
I recall a social psychology professor of mine told me that cigarette ads were largely second-order classical conditioning. At this level of influence, you identify with the models in the ads, and you experience through your identification, whatever rewards they experience. Actors, and actresses, smoking in movies, like "Breakfast at Tiffany's", presumably one might expect some similar impact.
I've always loved the cigarette ads. I wish we still had cigarette ads to speak of, even on TV. Unfortunately, that appears to be unacceptable in today's society because it means more people will smoke more cigarettes.
The long-term consequences of smoking can obviously be very bad. I lived with my mother as she died of lung cancer.
For better or for worse, you and I will not likely have opportunity similar to Audrey Hepburn to enjoy cigarettes anything like she did. So, what I see with many of my favorite cigarette ads, and what you're talking about seeing with Audrey Hepburn in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" may largely represent unattainable manifestations of relations with cigarettes in our society today. Our society will not, both more concretely, and also at a collective psychical, or collective unconscious, level, support such relations with cigarettes... or, only marginally so relative to 1961.
Most of one's relation with their cigarettes is internal, but I can certainly testify that you're likely to encounter great difficulty in maintaining any internal relational framework to your cigarettes similar to one that one might deduce Audrey Hepburn's character held in "Breakfast at Tiffany's".
Unfortunately, those of us who feel that the positives with cigarettes, smoking, and cigarette advertising and promotion outweigh the negatives, or even can with some realizable modifications that don't ruin the whole thing, appear to be very much so in the minority today.
Take care,
Paul McCarthy
On