Fashion/sex/politics

What I previously posted in the Hussein C thread:

Sexism comes in all forms, some are more obvious than others. I will try to explain what I meant and to make myself as brief and clear as possible.

Let's take for example ads of Seven UP, the soda drink. Do people buy it because they noticed the ad with the girl half dressed? Not directly. The argument you made, on people noticing this collection had little to do with the naked girl, is in my opinion false, because it did contribute. In my opinion, the woman's body was used for publicity purposes. Instead of using the word "woman's body" throughout my analysis, I will mostly use the term "publicity". In modern societies, we see on average more than 2000 publicities (all formats included in this number) per day.

Publicity is not used to sell products only; it is also (and mainly) used to promote certain ways of thinking and ideals, values, the worst cliches, social norms, social domination logic including sexism. It uses STRONG symbolics (like in the case of Hussein's collection, slowly unveiling a woman's body at the end of his show) like women's bodies. Of course, they will palliate our frustration by bathing us in ignorance: the truth lays elsewhere. For example in the popular media and through child stories, studies show that most of time (in terms of percentage) women are pictured as creatures that stay at home taking care of their children's education, the woman is white skinned, pretty, while daddy takes care of the garden and all "manly" tasks. In publicity, they use woman who are relatively pretty, that date men, men don't seem to suffer from hair loss, the woman is happily cooking for the family, the old people have nice looking wrinkles.

Through this image created by capitalist societies, thanks to publicities and media, poor people, men who suffer from hair loss, teens who don't relate to the image of the oh so pretty surreal looking women in the ads, old wrinkled persons, uncool people, unpretty people (by the publicities' standard, and in the Hussein C' naked woman case, the model, image of a pure woman, with perfect curves, perfectly shaved toned and airbrushed body, hair and face) all suffer. Publicity ACCENTUATES the exclusion of differences.

Sexist norms are imposed at a very young age, through school, family, hobbies, religion, and above all, the consumption and profit obsessed society, which sees the human body (a merchandise) as a colossal source of profit.

Surreal looking women (in our case, the model at the Hussein C show) are used to reinforce those sexist norms; women need to be obsessed with their own body. Women are put in competition, men serving as judges and directly keeping their positions of dominants. "Beauty" is a market that generates a lot of money (perfumes, clothes, makeup, bronzer, beauty centres...). Living under these beauty norms is a form of violence to women and its most tragic consequences are bulimia, anorexia and suicide.

Publicity contributes so much more than we think to human intelligence decays.

It is part of human nature to be captivated by sex. People behind marketing ploys have long understood that. In publicity, the tendency is to present woman (much more often than men) in an erotic way. In most fashion ads, woman are pictured as sexual creatures, mere sexual objects to be looked at, they like to be dominated, or in modern way of thinking, "more power to the woman", the woman is seen dominating the male. And as a matter of fact, rarely equal to men; they are either dominants or dominated.

Sexism comes in all forms, it is not only physical oppressions and violences that women all around the world have to battle every day. There are also social violences, economical violences, humiliations, and sexist STEREOTYPE propaganda. And most often, like in the Hussein C show, that kind of violence tends to be pushed to seem acceptable (like what many tFS members seem to defend) even to women.

I am not against sex or nudity, but I am more precisely for the acceptation of our own bodies and desires independently of our sex and sexual orientations. It is important to free ourselves from these norms to appreciate our own body. It is not a question of refusing beauty, art or fashion, but to refuse unrealistic beauty standards imposed by publicity.

I pity those who see this naked woman body as a natural form of art or a fashion. I pity those who think that fashion shows are not a form of publicity. I pity those who think that Hussein C' does not want to make money.

Sex sells, period.
 
A great text on the subject

Depicting Women as Sex Objects in Television Advertising: Effects on Body Dissatisfaction
by Desiree Tygart

Recent study in social cognition has focused on what specific environmental conditions would help promote the forming of gender stereotypes in regards to social perception and behavior. Television advertisements are highly suggestible, persuasive elements of everyday life that do help form and strengthen gender stereotypes. Analysis of television advertisements has shown that many ads contain gender-stereotypic ideas and pictures. Americans cannot escape being affected by these ads, as more than ninety percent of all American families own televisions, and the average person views over seven hundred advertisements each week alone. Social scientists are suggesting that although television ads are generally made to promote specific items, they may have a lasting effect on several things, such as people's beliefs, values, attitudes and even their behavior. In 1980, researchers from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization suggested that repeated exposure to sexist ads is a contributing cause to havoc in society and many social problems, including such behavior as violence against women and sexual harassment to eating disorders. Although not many experimental studies have been done about the results of gender stereotypic television ads, research does suggest that these ads can temporarily influence the viewers' self-concepts. Jennings, Geis, & Brown in a 1980 study found that women who viewed ads showing reversed gender roles were more self-confident than women who viewed ads with typical gender roles. In addition, Atkin & Miller in 1975 showed that children who viewed ads depicting reversed gender roles rated male oriented jobs as more appropriate for women, as opposed to those children who viewed ads with women in a traditional homemaker role. Later studies have shown that ads portraying women as homemakers may activate the belief that women are domestic and nurturing, whereas ads that show half-naked women, may activate the belief that women are alluring, frivolous sexual objects.

Western culture has changed its image of feminine beauty over time. Whereas once pleasantly plump was considered beautiful, currently a slender physique is what is considered ideal.� With the increasingly thinner ideal, women�s dissatisfaction with their body image and eating disorders in women has increased considerably. This lead the authors to wonder about several things, such as; Would viewing ads depicting females as sex objects exacerbate these same body image perceptions among women? Would these female sex object ads influence body perceptions of men, since it might get them thinking about the stereotypical ideal of a large, muscular male body Since research suggests that women who have feminist beliefs are less influenced by these sexist ads than traditional women, would the viewers perception of their body image be moderated if they leaned toward feminist beliefs.

In this study, Howard Lavine, Donna Sweeney and Stephen H. Wagner examined whether male and female participants had an increase in the dissatisfaction of their own body images, after viewing advertisements that depicted women as sexual objects. Their hypothesis was that when women were exposed to sexist advertisements three things would happen. First, these women would judge their current body size as larger. Second, there would be a larger difference between their actual and ideal body sizes (wishing they were thinner). Third, they would show a bigger difference in their own ideal body size and their perceptions of other women's body size preference than the women who viewed either the non-sexist advertisements, or the viewers in the no ad control condition. They also predicted that feminists would show more negative attitudes about the sexist ads than the non-feminists would, and the feminists were more negative about the sexist ads than they were about the non-sexist ads.
To test their theory, both males and females were exposed to three separate situations. The first group viewed 15 sexist ads and 5 non-sexist ads (sexist ad condition), the second group viewed 20 non-sexist ads (non-sexist ad condition), and the third group completed a body image and attitude scale but were not shown any ads (no ad control situation). The first two groups were told that they were participating in a marketing research project and the purpose of the study was to determine the pleasantness of the ads. Each ad was then rated for its pleasantness. Finally, groups 1 and 2 were asked to fill out a seemingly unrelated questionnaire about attitudes and beliefs. During the debriefing, not one of the participants expressed either suspicion about the purpose of the study, nor whether the two sections of the study were related. The third group's data measured the different degrees in which feminists of both genders were affected in both attitudes and body image dissatisfaction.

The results of the study showed:
(Attitudes toward sexist vs. nonsexist ads) feminists held significantly higher negative attitudes about the sexist ads than the non-sexist ads. The feminists also had more negative attitudes about those sexist ads than the non-feminist participants.

(Effects of exposure to sexist ads on body image) results were the same across the board for the nonsexist and no ad control situations on the body image as a function of ad type, gender, and favorable or opposed attitudes toward feminism. Basically, women rated themselves as fatter than ideal and men rated themselves as too thin for the ideal after watching sexist ads. Men and women's ratings showed a marked difference in the sexist condition, but did not differ in the nonsexist condition. The analysis on body image and actual/ideal body size difference was not changed by attitudes toward feminism.

Our television ads have changed their roles of women as homemakers into sex objects over time. The purpose of the study was to see the if there was a significant influence over men and women's self-perception and their satisfaction of body image after being exposed to sexist television advertising. The study showed that sexist ads did have an influence on both women and men alike. While women tended to rate themselves fatter after watching such ads, men rated themselves opposite and thought they were too thin and not muscular enough. Although the effects of this study temporarily affected the participants, repeated exposure to such ads may have longer or even lifelong effects. The researchers also found two additional results that were unexpected. First, while feminists held more negative attitudes about the sexist ads, their negative body image was affected the same as the non-feminist subjects, so being feminist had no influence on whether the ad affected their ratings. Second, being shown sexist ads decreased both men and women's dissatisfaction with their bodies. The authors suggest that future research should be more focused on examining the conditions and the manner in which group attitudes change the effects of being exposed to stereotypic information. The authors state that since distorted body image and body dissatisfaction have been specifically correlated with such harmful things as dieting, depression, and low self-esteem their study about the effects of sexist television ads has definite social implications for both men and women's psychological adjustment and well-being.

This study was very surprising in some respects. I had never thought about sexist television advertisements affecting anyone but women. I thought that women were mainly the ones that obsess about their body image and also how they perceive others view their body. Men apparently see themselves as not large enough, without enough muscles, while not surprisingly women view themselves as too fat to live up to the societal norm in America.

I thought that the authors isolating the elements of feminist beliefs in both men and women and determining what impact this had on their body images and sexist feelings quite interesting also. While it seems fairly common sense to realize that people with feminist beliefs state they are impacted in a more negative way than traditional valued people, it seems odd that they still let the ads negatively affect their perception of their bodies.
American society today places too much emphasis on what a perfect body should look like. We seem to say to our children, "it doesn't matter what a person looks like on the outside, it's what's on the inside that counts", or "don't judge a book by its' cover". I think everyone has heard these idealistic but unrealistic anecdotes many times before, but as we see every day in television ads, magazines, billboards and radio commentary, these are just nice little sayings that we as American adults ignore daily. Why do we do this? It's hard to say. Not all cultures idolize extremely thin women, and years ago, neither did Americans. As the research stated, years ago what was considered a beautiful womanly figure was much heavier with more rounded curves than the anorexic look of today. Today in America, a woman that wears a size 3 or 5 dress seems to have the ideal figure, but do most people realize that the most famous sex symbol of all time, Marilyn Monroe wore a size 14?

While this study did show that not only women were affected by the sexist ads, but also men, I still hold the firm belief that we as women struggle with a negative body image much more so than men. I have been on and off diets since I was 11 years old. I have a very negative body image, so I am in the mainstream thinking of today. Ads on t.v. definitely play a part in this negative body image, but also the comments I hear in every day life. Ask almost any male what they want in a woman, and most of the time, they will say, "well, she has to have a nice body". I think anyone would be hard pressed to hear a common concern for women being that men just aren't large enough, or have enough muscles to suit their taste in physical attractiveness. Of course, this is a generalization, but I think it's an accurate one. I still have hope that someday I will find someone who is as interested in my personality, values, morals and beliefs as I am in theirs, and not just pass me by because I'm overweight.� Maybe someday, I will have a positive body image and could think of myself as being attractive or beautiful. (Or I'll just move to Germany, where the men prefer their women to be heavier)!

people.eku.edu
 
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Teen Girls, Sexism, and Marketeering
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Cynthia Peters

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,sans-serif]The more time a teen girl spends reading fashion magazines, the worse she feels about herself, according to a study done by Brigham and Women's hospital released earlier this month. And that's just how marketers like it. A girl feeling unattractive, overweight, and in dire need of a boyfriend is more likely to respond favorably to the countless products that promise to correct her flaws, slim her down, and prime her for romance.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,sans-serif]Unfortunately, for marketers, however, teen girls are a tough sell. Seventeen Magazine and the MS. Foundation discovered in a 1996 poll of 1000 teenagers that only 5% of the girls measured their self-worth by their appearance. They found that boys were more likely than girls to worry about appearances.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,sans-serif]Interestingly, Seventeen continues to offer scores of glossy ads for "beauty" products despite the information they uncovered about their target audience. Why? Partly because Seventeen's goal is to attract advertisers. It is not their goal to reach the largest number of girls with information about the widest possible array of issues that affect them. But their own poll tells them just how hard they'll have to work to make sure their readers are convinced of their flaws and unsure of alternative ways of expressing themselves in the world.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,sans-serif]So the beauty and fashion magazines spill gallons of ink to convince girls that life revolves around the minutia of self-care and self-improvement. Between the Glamour "do's and don'ts," the exercise advice column, and the ads focused almost exclusively on clothes and make-up, a girl's universe shrinks to the pinpoint issue of her appearance and ways she can spend money on it. In this universe, girls are powerful when wielding their credit cards and choosing the cut of their jeans. Loyalty is to a brand name and agency is expressed in hair color. The fact that in real life, girls actually have a lot more on their minds is of no consequence. Articles about politics, art, community issues, religion, etc. might actually distract a girl from questions about whether her bare back will look shapely enough in her prom dress.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,sans-serif]With the U.S. teen population on the rise (expected to peak in 2010 at 35 million), marketers are experimenting with the best ways to reach this media savvy crew. Raised on Disney (with its endless array of product tie-ins) and TV shows based on toys (is it a show or an ad?), today's teens have been the target of sophisticated advertising their whole lives. So today's marketers are having to come up with even more sophisticated ways of selling to them.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,sans-serif] [...]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,sans-serif]The studies show that fashion magazines make girls feel bad about themselves, and that girls don't put that much stock in their appearance anyway. So let's support the magazines that treat teens as if they aren't self-actualized at the shopping mall, and that offer themselves as a catalyst for individual and grassroots empowerment.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,sans-serif]zmag.org [/FONT]
 
Ok, thanks for re-posting Kimkhuu.

The texts are kind of stating the obvious, no? :unsure: The notion that sexually charged/sexist advertisments negatively effect female self-image is quite widely accepted. And you've explained the mechanics of how advertising works very clearly in what you wrote above.

So, moving on the from there, and picking up the discussion from the other thread...

It's been said to death that the fashion industry (especially models and certain designers) perpetuates sexism, eating disorders, negative body image, etc. I'm sure we could post numerous ads from Dior, Cavalli, and D&G that are exemplary of this. However, I don't think there is much hope or point in continuing the attack (on "sexism and patriarchy") from this angle. It's too negative and too passive; and it short-changes the designers who are not in the sex-sells camp.

Personally, I'm not interested in designers who just sell images of sex; nor am I interested in the people who passively consume them. What interests me--and what I think is a better line of battle--is how people can use style and design to control their own images or to change (revolutionize, even) their environments. Marie Antoinette is an extreme historical example of this (and there is a book out with this very line of argument right now); but it would be interesting to hear what people think about this as a possibility in the contemporary world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ I personally don't believe in individualism or reformism. To radically change things, there needs to be fast and radical change: revolution. I won't go on the topic to deeply here... but I don't think that individual conducts can build up to something strong enough when we encounter lack of solidarity and passivity.

I think we need to confront the problem up first. Once it will be eliminated, we will then be able to free ourselves from these oppressive norms. Of course patriarchy and sexism conducts won't fall apart after the fall of capitalism, it is a problem that needs to be faced afterwards, and it that fight starts now.

It is in my opinion a collective fight.

Marie Antoinette might have been, according to some, an important figure, but she only represents an isolated example, not a movement.
 
Kimkhuu said:
^ I personally don't believe in individualism or reformism. To radically change things, there needs to be fast and radical change: revolution. I won't go on the topic to deeply here... but I don't think that individual conducts can build up to something strong enough when we encounter lack of solidarity and passivity.

I think we need to confront the problem up first. Once it will be eliminated, we will then be able to free ourselves from these oppressive norms. Of course patriarchy and sexism conducts won't fall apart after the fall of capitalism, it is a problem that needs to be faced afterwards, and it that fight starts now.

It is in my opinion a collective fight.

Marie Antoinette might have been, according to some, an important figure, but she only represents an isolated example, not a movement.

Fair enough. Passivity is the enemy, for sure.

So, how do you propose the problem be confronted? I personally find traditional activism to be an extremely passive form of resistance, even if it is collective. I went to school with a lot of girls (ahem, "women") who were always shouting "death to the patriarchy," and running around without their bras. Most of them got married right after graduation; and many even changed their sexual preference (from gay or bisexual) to straight.

And Marie Antoinette may have been an individual, but some argue that she exerted tremendous control over her country and her husband simply because of her wardrobe choices! Of course, her fate makes her a slightly problematic example. :lol:
 
I think if it was so obvious then it wouldn't be an issue.

Women are socialized to aspire to a specific image through either family, school, media, etc. That is obvious, I guess, it's just odd that the current aspiration represents a smaller amount of the population than ever before.

It's also not an issue soley on the weight of the fashion world (if anything they are becoming the most innocent of the guilty). Movies, p*rn*gr*phy, video games, television shows, these cause more damage IMO. They all portray unrealistic and impossible female bodies and reach a much much larger audience (and are more influential).
 
This is a really great topic, I especially liked the article about the teen magazines. I used to subscribe to YM, Jump, Seventeen, and Cosmo Girl, and I noticed the high number of beauty ads and other things to try and get people in. Our culture is one of consumerism-it's all about what you have and what you don't. Living in an affluent suburb of Seattle, I've noticed this firsthand and it's all about advertisers trying to get at people from birth. A lot of the television shows I watched when I was younger, they had toy tie-ins. I remember being a Pokemon addict when I was younger (and even as an 18-year old, I still watch the show) and you not only had the show and the comics, you had the collectible game cards, the Topps trading cards, the clothes, the Pokedexes, the toys, the foods, the movies...I remember how watching the show would make my brother beg my mom for a Pokedex and then he finally got it.

The one thing I liked about Jump magazine was that yeah, there were articles on beauty and fashion but they also had girls who were trying to lose weight, with the help of a trainer. They weren't trying to get skinny-skinny, they were trying to get to healthy totals for their body. I saw it promoting a healthier body image, and they even had a page in the back where they would bash things they thought were pointless, from the VS Million Dollar Bra to abstinence-only sex ed to some tanning sprays. It was not a magazine to promote celebrity gossip or embarassing moments, so when it was taken over and they published one issue filled with it, I was horrified. Nowadays the lines between some teen magazines and some fashion mags are blurring. You can't find a magazine with a day-by-day workout plan to get healthy, although you can find workouts. You can't find magazines that are intelligent and witty for teens as much anymore because it's about fashion and beauty first and foremost. I did notice that for awhile some issues of Seventeen had articles on religion, but I got a late 2004 issue and it didn't.

The fact that sex sells is definitely true. I feel that I'm kind of an odd person out because being into fashion, I have no problems or qualms with nudity. I appreciate the human body for what it is and to some people that makes me a weirdo. Granted America was founded on religious traditions, so I can understand some of the conservative attitudes towards sex and nudity. But when people start to see the human body in its most pure form as a taboo, it really irks me. It's gotten to the point where I can't even tan topless in my own backyard, because the neighbours will probably call the cops.

However the attitudes towards nudity may just be another great marketing ploy. When some areas on the body are seen as being taboo, and when they are either bared or close to being bared, it can create fervor, controversy, and excitement. No matter what though, if something like that is done, it gets people talking and it can raise awareness for the brand. And the sad thing is that usually it's done to appeal to men, with the semi-nude woman. It creates an aura of mystery when you have the most appealing areas on a person covered up, and if it's a woman seen as attractive a lot of men will think "Okay what does she have under there?"

And from what I have seen, some guys tend to go for the one whose sexuality is most obviously on display, many times in the super-revealing outfits. However some men will go for the women who are more subtle about it, because again there's the aura of mystery-more for whoever to discover.
 
excellent posts and thanks for bumping this discussion

*fashion has nothing to do with nudity,marketing has..
garments are anti-nude in their essence

*nude and its marketing in the post modern society,is connected to the exploitation of sexuality

*cruelty, banality and over exposure kill sex and sexual drive

should post more when i have the time

thanks for sharing your views
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fashion has nothing to do with nudity,
marketing has..
garments are anti-nude in their essence,
nude is connected to the merciless exploitation of sexuality

excellent point made lena...:P
 
after i read the post about teenage girls, i was totally reminded of one of my best friends.
she's always been super sensitive about her looks and weight (she's on the curvy side) so she is always trying to loose weight. she's also always trying to find a boyfriend. recently, she has started being involved with this one guy who obviously only wants to use her for sex and is always telling her that she's fat.
i wouldn't blame the fashion world for this kind of stuff, however. my theory is that the reason why everything is so "oversexed" now is because everything was so restricted and banned before. The fact that people freak out about sex is why the media focuses so much on it. teenage girls are very attentio nneedy, and sex will get them attention. they feel inadequate without boyfriends, and no one feel good about their body. if their on the big side, they feel fat, if they are on the thin side, they feel too skinny. if they're healthy, they feel ugly and plain. its a neverending cycle
 
Excellent article on the subject

Sexism and Sexuality in Advertising
Michael F. Jacobsen
Laurie Anne Mazur


In addition to reinforcing sexist notions about ideal woman and manhood, ads exploit sexuality. Many products are pitched with explicit sexual imagery that borders on p*rn*gr*phy. Not only do these ubiquitous images encourage us to think of sex as a commodity, but they often reinforce stereotypes of women as sex objects and may contribute to violence against women.

The Iron Maiden
How Advertising Portrays Women
EVERYWHERE WE TURN, ADVERTISEMENTS tell us what it means to be a desirable man or woman. For a man, the message is manifold: he must be powerful, rich, confident, athletic. For a woman, the messages all share a common theme: She must be "beautiful." Advertising, of course, did not invent the notion that women should be valued as ornaments; women have always been measured against cultural ideals of beauty. But advertising has joined forces with sexism to make images of the beauty ideal more pervasive, and more unattainable, than ever before.

In her 1991 book The Beauty Myth, Naomi Wolf compares the contemporary ideal of beauty to the Iron Maiden, a medieval torture device that enclosed its victims in a spike-lined box painted with a woman's image. Like the Iron Maiden, the beauty ideal enforces conformity to a single, rigid shape. And both cause suffering-even death-in their victims.

The current Iron Maiden smiles at us from the pages of Vogue magazine. She's a seventeen-yearold professional model, weighing just 120 pounds on a willowy 5'10" frame. Her eyes are a deep violet-blue, her teeth pearly white. She has no wrinkles, blemishes--or even pores, for that matter. As media critic Jean Kilbourne observes in Still Killing Us Softly, her groundbreaking film about images of women in advertising, "The ideal cannot be achieved; it is inhuman in its flawlessness. And it is the only standard of beauty-and worth-for women in this culture."'

By inviting women to compare their unimproved reality with the Iron Maiden's airbrushed perfection, advertising erodes self-esteem, then offers to sell it back-for a price. The price is high. It includes the staggering sums we spend each year to change our appearance: $33 billion on weight loss;4 $7 billion on cosmetics; $300 million on cosmetic surgery. It includes women's lives and health, which are lost to self-imposed starvation and complications from silicone breast implants. And it includes the impossible-to- measure cost of lost self-regard and limited personal horizons.

The Beauty Contest of Life
Ads instruct us to assume a self-conscious perspective; to view our physical selves through the censorious eyes of others. To those of us who grew up in the consumer culture, intense selfscrutiny has become an automatic reflex. But this reflex is not God-given; it is the product of decades of deliberate marketing effort. Since the birth of the modern advertising industry in the 1920s, marketers have sought to foster insecurity in consumers. One advertiser, writing in the trade journal Printer's Ink in 1926, noted that effective ads must "make [the viewer] selfconscious about matter of course things such as enlarged nose pores, bad breath." Another commented that "advertising helps to keep the masses dissatisfied with their mode of life, discontented with the ugly things around them. Satisfied customers are not as profitable as discontented ones. "

Sexual discontent fuels the engines of the consumer culture. The ideal bodies presented in the ads invite comparison to ourselves and our mates, and in the likely event that the comparison is unfavorable to us, the ads suggest we attain the ideal by buying another product.

The Thinning of the Iron Maiden
Women come in an endless array of shapes and sizes, but you'd never know it from looking at ads. In every generation, advertisers issue a new paradigm of female perfection. The very rigidity of the ideal guarantees that most women will fall outside of it, creating a gap between what women are and what they learn they should be. This gap is very lucrative for the purveyors of commercialized beauty.
In the portrayal of women's bodies, the gap has never been wider. The slender reigning ideal provides a stark contrast to the rounder curves of most women's bodies. As an adaptation to the physical demands of childbearing, women's bodies typically have a fat content of around 25 percent, as opposed to 15 percent in men. For much of human history, this characteristic was admired, sought after, and celebrated in the arts. But the twentieth century has seen a steady chipping away at the ideal female figure. A generation ago, according to Naomi Wolf, a typical model weighed 8 percent less than the average woman; more recently she weighs 23 percent less. Most models are now thinner than 95 percent of the female population.

In the early 1990s, the fashion industry promoted the "waif look," epitomized by Calvin Klein's young supermodel Kate Moss. At 5'7" and an estimated 100 pounds, "Moss looks as if a strong blast from a blow dryer would waft her away," according to People magazine." Marcelle d'Argy, editor of British Cosmopolitan, called fashion photos of Moss "hideous and tragic. If I had a daughter who looked like that, I would take her to see a doctor." As the gap between ideal and reality has widened, women's self-esteem has fallen into the void. A 1984 Glamour magazine survey of 33,000 women found that 75 percent of respondents aged eighteen to thirty-five thought they were fat, although only 25 percent were medically overweight. Even 45 percent of the underweight women believed they were fat. Weight was virtually an obsession for many of the Glamour respondents, who chose "losing 10-15 pounds" as their most cherished goal in life. Another study in Boston found that fifth-, sixth-, and ninth-graders were much more critical of their body shape after looking at fashion advertising.

"You've Got to Be Young and Beautiful if You Want to Be Loved"
The Iron Maiden is not shaped like most women. Moreover, she never ages; she is merely replaced with a newer, younger model. Why? A recent TV commercial for Nike and Foot Locker puts it succinctly: "You've got to be young and beautiful if you want to be loved."

Although Adweek's Marketing Week reports an increased demand for "older" models (defined by the advertising industry as women in their late twenties), most professional models are considered over the hill by the time they're twenty-four.

If older women manage to make it into ads at all, visible signs of age are retouched out of their photographs.

Seeking to forestall the inevitable, women spend an estimated $20 billion worldwide each year on skin-care products that promise to eliminate wrinkles and ****** aging. Fear of aging also fuels the booming cosmetic-surgery business.

Women's Magazines and the Iron Maiden
Advertising's images of the Iron Maiden are everywhere, but women's magazines deserve a special mention for promoting their commercialized beauty ideal. These magazines, so widely read that they are nicknamed "cash cows" in the publishing trade, have a nearly symbiotic relationship with advertisers. Gloria Steinem, describing Ms. magazine's largely unsuccessful attempts to attract ad revenue (before that magazine went adfree), explains that advertisers for women's products demand "supportive editorial atmosphere," that is, "clothing advertisers expect to be surrounded by fashion spreads (especially ones that credit their designers); and shampoo, fragrance, and beauty products in general usually insist on positive editorial coverage of beauty subjects."

Advertisers influence the content of virtually all media, but their stranglehold over women's magazines is especially unyielding. Steinem notes, "If Time and Newsweek had to lavish praise on cars in general and credit GM in particular to get GM ads, there would be a scandal maybe even a criminal investigation. When women's magazines from Seventeen to Lear's praise beauty products in general and credit Revlon in particular to get ads, it's just business as usual."

Women's magazines are the manifestos of Iron Maidenhood, typically running "objective" editorial copy that touts the products advertised in their pages. These ads too narrowly define the acceptable contours of female shape and appearance. And although women's magazines increasingly publish articles on explicitly feminist themes, their ties to advertisers prevent them from challenging the sacred Iron Maiden.

Sex as a Commodity
The naked, apparently lifeless body of a woman is draped over the shoulder of a brawny, muscled man. Two men lie next to each other on a bed, one with his hand inside his pants. A woman kneels on the beach, her breasts bursting out of a loose white shirt, which is all she has on.

PENTHOUSE? PLAYGIRL? HUSTLER? Nope, guess again. These images are from ads for Obsession perfume, Calvin Klein sportswear, and Express jeans, respectively. And they all appeared in mainstream, mass -circulation magazines and family newspapers.

Sexual images have been a staple of advertising since the very birth of the industry. Women's faces and bodies adorned Coca-Cola calendars back in the 1890s and have been employed to sell virtually everything since. But in recent decades, sexual imagery in advertising has become more common, more explicit, more exploitative, and more violent. According to the New York Times, "Sexual themes... are being used as never before to cut through the commercial clutter and grab the consumer's attention. "

Many of the sexual tableaux we are bombarded with daily are not of intimate, consensual sex, which one might term erotica. Rather, they present bodies, or body parts, with the cool estrangement of commodities. Or they depict sex that is brutal and violent.

Objects of Desire
Perhaps the most commonplace sexually exploitative ads are those that display women's (and, increasingly, men's) bodies to sell products.

The use of women's bodies in ads is essentially a cheap trick that marketers use instead of making more thoughtful arguments on behalf of their products. The mechanism used in these ads is quite simple: Attractive bodies are employed to grab attention and stimulate desire, which advertisers hope will then be transferred to the product. Buy the beer, get the girl. In this way, women's bodies are equated with commodities, presented as the rewards of consumption.

By instructing men to regard women's bodies as objects, ads help create an atmosphere that devalues women as people, encourages sexual harassment, and worse. For example, in 1991, four women employees of Stroh's Brewery sued their employer, charging that the company's sexist ads gave the company's imprimatur to sexist attitudes and sexual harassment in the workplace. Especially targeted in the lawsuit was an ad campaign for Old Milwaukee beer (made by Stroh's) that featured the Swedish Bikini Team, a bunch of buxom, bewigged blonds in string bikinis.

Many ads of this genre take the dehumanization of women a step farther by focusing on body parts-another convention opornography. A pair of shapely female legs emerges from a box of cereal. A woman's torso is juxtaposed against a photo of a sportscar; we are invited to admire the curves of both. Three women walk along a sunny beach, umbrellas obscuring all but their bikini-clad backsides. Women in these ads are not even whole objects; they have been reduced to an assemblage of dismembered parts.

Advertising Violence Against Women
In 1977, when Vogue published Chris Von Wangenheim's now infamous fashion spread of Doberman pinschers attacking a model, many viewers were appalled. Today, Von Wangenheim's imagery seems almost restrained. In an ad for Newport cigarettes, a pair of men tackle two screaming women, pulling one by the hair. A young model in an ad for Georges Marciano clothes cradles her head and cries; her tousled hair and disheveled clothes suggest sexual struggle. A man sitting next to her looks away impassively. An Old Spice cologne ad shows a man leaning over a woman who is playfully pushing him away; the huge headline says "No," but she is smiling. The message: Don't take No for an answer; she probably doesn't mean it.

Violence against women in ads raises many of the same questions-and sparks the same debate-as violent p*rn*gr*phy Some analysts discern a link between eroticized images of violence against women and the escalating incidence of real-life r*pe and abuse. Others claim that such images actually defuse men's aggression toward women or that these images reflect the broader oppression of women but don't cause it. Still others legal scholar Catherine MacKinnon fore most among them-argue that sexually violent images are in themselves harmful to women, regardless of whether they incite "real" violence.

Advertising fuels the perception that women are things, to be used or abused as men see fit. "Turning a human being into a thing is almost always the first step in justifying violence against that person," says Jean Kilbourne.

In complaining about sex in ads, one risks being accused of puritanism. Can we object to the use of sex in ads without sounding like Jesse Helms or Anita Bryant? Doesn't the proliferation of sexual imagery simply reflect the loosening of repressive sexual mores that were rooted-let's not forget-in sexist, patriarchal ideology?

The problem is that repression has been replaced by exploitation.
Sex in ads is inherently exploitative; it seeks to arouse us in order to sell us things, to press our sexuality into the service of the consumer culture. The rigid gender roles of the 1950s denied men and women their full range of sexual and human possibilities, but so does the commodified sex depicted in advertising. Ads that depict women and men as sexual objects to be bought, admired, and consumed (or brutalized) offer a bleak, limited view of sexuality.

personal.kent.edu
 
Example of sexist ads, notice all the details... :ninja:

Versace ad
versace.jpg

pine.zero.ad.jp
Versace Perfume ad
ad-versace-200x288.jpg

happi.com

Calvin Klein Ad :yuk:
320px-CalvinKleinJeansAD-SpringSummer2004NataliaVodianova02bySteve.jpg

answers.com

Calvin Klein ad
- Notice she is pushing him away with one hand, and still he's on top of her, putting her on the ground
CK.jpg

umich.edu
 
Text and images from now.org
Love Your Body: Offensive Ads

gucci.jpg

Gucci: This ad attempts to
demonstrate a woman's "place"
in the world—at a man's feet—
right below his...uh... Just don't
stand up too fast, sister!

longchamp.jpg

Longchamp: This is an ad for
luggage, right? And the nearly
naked, bronzed woman is there
because...? When creativity
fails, insert sex.

candies.jpg

Candies: This is too easy.
Is that a space shuttle on
your computer, or are you
just happy to see me? This
ad is so obvious in its
"subliminal" message, it's sad.

calvin.jpg

Calvin Klein: Good ol' Calvin
— always leading the way
with images of nearly naked,
pre-pubescent-looking women
and girls.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kimkhuu,
You are an absolute credit to this forum for putting so much effort and thought to such a relevant issue. I can't even list all the things I agree with you on, so let's just go with pretty much everything!!


I've always wondered when women were going to realize that we have been utterly duped…that somewhere along the line, women's liberation became interchangable with women's sexualization to the detrement of the movement …

And amen to the fact that a revolutionary mind-set must be in place before this can ever be done away with….fashion is inherently linked to advertising and advertising is built upon the foundations of capitalist societies…..capitalism has taught us to make everything a commodity, objects which can be measure by polls, bartered, sold, traded-in/up….everything from our basic emotions and weaknesses, to our bodies, most especially the female form.

The fundamental thing that has to be realized is that becoming an Object means you automatically are in a position of weakness … and when women are hyper-sexualized, by themselves or by outside forces, they are not, contrary to what they may believe, "in control" ….
They are playing into the hands of a patriarchal society who has set up a system whereby women are told they are free, that is, free to be sexy…and if they resist that, they are denying their sexuality, they are ashamed of their bodies, they are repressed/opressed ….


The definition of weakness is allowing yourself to be defined by an outside source/influence, and accepting that definition and making it your own ….
 
Other examples :sick:

Versace
versac1.jpg

wsu.edu:8080

YSL
ysl2006.jpg

s2.supload.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
....Sex can be power, fun, nasty, needed, unwanted, hated and loved.....It all depends upon who is having it when and where they want to have it...Much like dressing....no?? We dress as we want for a number of reasons, being desired could be one of them...

As a gay man you are right softgrey, I don't have sex to make a baby!!! Nor would I want one even if I could have one!!! :smile:

Sex and fashion has become so mainstream at this point it's hard to not think of one with out the other....When I was a child and Brooke Shields said "Nothing comes between me and my Calvin's" I had no idea what she meant, but I sure thought she looked so beautiful...then later when I was older I understood what she was supposed to mean...Beauty and sexappeal gets all of our attention.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kimkhuu, can you please post the sources and dates of the texts you have posted?
 
It's odd when even women designers themselves allow such ads to pass like the Versace ones above. I'd assume Donatella at least sees the final product and okays it. I don't know. Maybe she's too busy to see it? Maybe to her it's like when I'm flipping through the ads in the beginning of a fashion magazine, and I don't see any submissive women or subliminal sexist ads. Or maybe its a matter of bussiness. Maybe designers see it, recognize the controversy and go for it. I have no idea. I'm not condoning it. I'm sure if i recognized it, I'd be disgusted. Now that it has been pointed out, I find it demeaning.

Mostly, I do not appreciate John Galliano, although; I never did before. What a jerk.

My idea of sexy is a well put together woman who can wear clothing that covers up her body, but still maintains appeal. It's really unfortunate that a lot of women feel otherwise.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,126
Messages
15,173,288
Members
85,921
Latest member
brianapalm
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->