They also said about two "types" of sexuality. One is about "to get a man". And women used to be (and somewhere still are) raised to "follow their men".
helena said:anna - I totally agree with you - this was what Chanel tried to change eighty years ago.....and we haven't moved on really what she tried to get away from. In some ways women have become more constrained by a male vision what 'we' should be. I think hollywood & the cult of celebrity is to blame partially as well as those influential designers like Galliano/Gucci who seem to want to portray women as vacant wh*re-dolls whose only purpose in life is to attract sexual encounters. Agreed on the Helmut Newton strong sexy woman - Guy Bourdin's also..... its a prima facie 'strong' image, whilst in reality its just a manipulation of woman into a male fantasy (or a cliche of such fantasy). Most men are completely intimidated by strong women who wear clothes which don't display any sense of availability or overt sexuality.
softgrey said:i think that people too often overlook the fact that there are all kinds of sex...
and that people are all turned on by different things...some prefer blondes...some like to talk...some like to cuddle...some like to be tied up...some are submissive...some get turned on by power...some by laughter...it's a big world out there...full of lot of different people...who are all different...
so the assumption that all men respond to a certain 'type' is a bit old-fashioned imo...and even insulting to men...as though they can't think clearly and are completely driven by their libido...and have no mind of their own...
makes the mens seem pretty pathetic, no?...
helena said:Why do you wear the clothes you wear?
Interested to hear views here.... I was interested (and a bit outraged) to read John Galliano's 'motivation' when he designs (i.e he wants to design clothes for women that make men want to f**k them). It led me to consider three things
one, what do women really want when they wear clothes (and do they really want to attract those men who just want to f**k them); I certainly do not - heaven forbid!
secondly, is it 'good' for women to be viewed by designers (not just JG) purely as objects of sexual desire - I kind of always thought, perhaps niavely, that designers were 'on our side' in the context of gender politics ; and
thirdly, what is sexy anyway? Surely not all men are constantly sex hungry....Is Galliano not insulting other men by this suggestion?
I know that this whole topic is subject to the usual 'eye of the beholder' caveat, and I know that Dior/Galliano are marketing to a particular woman but he is surely alienating a huge nuber of women with comments like that. Arguably, Tom Ford has tried to market his 'sexy' brand Gucci as stronger & more powerful without the same objectification that JG seems to propose, but does he really acheive a better result for us women (take the 'G' in the pubic hair - i mean it was pure tackiness dressed up with a slick ad)? mmmmm What about Versace/Cavalli???
What do you think?