Where do you stand on sexual themed advertisements?

AnimalRights

We've had the now infamous Hunky Dory advertisements and today walking home this ad literally stopped me in my tracks....I think it's wonderful and extremely sexual, but as in the Hunky Dory ads the response was not all thumbs up.

drunkmonkey

Terrible ad, not because of the innuendo but your one just looks terrible compared to the Hunky Dory Girls...

AnimalRights

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Terrible ad, not because of the innuendo but your one just looks terrible compared to the Hunky Dory Girls...

Call me old fashioned but I don't just judge a Woman by her face....and I think the gap teeth are so refreshing compared to the perfect polished teeth we see on all models these days.

Manic Preacher

So this is an ad for cucumbers? Right?

Ricky91t

Couldn't care less, It's not gonna' stop them doing them and to be honest I'm sure much worse could be done and people will complain but nothing will be done...

Trev M

Cucumbers :eek: :eek: someone call the vatican

Trev M

I think its obvious that when people complain it actually makes them more effective... ala Hunky Doreys who didnt hear about that , I mean my ma never new what a hunky doreys crisp was until the controversy

Calina

I happened to hear about that ad during the week while I was hoping the whingeline would light up with angry and irate GnR fans. They didn't because this did in stead. I hadn't seen it until now.

I had heard that the model looked like should have been 12. I don't buy that. I know I'm not the best judge but I'd've put her quite a but older than that. So some of the whinging I listened to while waiting for GnR related whinging I thought was overdone.

To be honest, it's not the innuendo that gets me here (although I find the whole sexualising of courgettes rather a bit weird to be honest) but the fact that it's just a lousy piece of advertising that looks like it was shot in 1984. While I didn't much like the the Hunky Dory campaigns either, they were better photographs in my view. I guess I can probably forgive a lot if I think the photograph is actually worth something artistically. This just looks (and yes I realise that if I saw the poster rather than a picture of the poster) colour overdone.

apparently it was in Glamour Magazine or some such during the week (or inset with Irish Times - I don't know, it's not my area and I don't buy the print IT anyway) and most of the complaints I heard were based on "what if my 12 year old saw that magazine lying around". If there's a poster campaign I guess some people will go ballistic.

Kids tend not to get innuendo so I think by the time you'll need to be worrying about it, they're old enough anyway. That's one point.

anyway, I believe there was a Reebok ad in the UK with some model - Kelly Brook I think where all she wore was a pair of Reebok trainers. It was a super photograph as far as I remember (the comment that was on the message that sent a picture of the poster to me was "this is going to cause car crashes".

I think, some times, people deliberately want to read too much into an image in order to find objection. I could understand the objections to the Hunky Dory campaign - was very much objectification. I'm not so sure this is as such although frankly I just don't think it's a great photograph and like I said, to me, a courgette is a courgette is a courgette and if....

Manic Preacher

Trev M wrote: »

I think its obvious that when people complain it actually makes them more effective... ala Hunky Doreys who didnt hear about that , I mean my ma never new what a hunky doreys crisp was until the controversy

Spot on, people complain all the time about sexual and controversial ads, but the fact is that they work. Sure they spent nearly an hour on about the Hunky Dory ads on Liveline. And again they spent loads of time on the cucumbers. So how much free advertising was that to them? A lot I reckon

AnimalRights

Manic Preacher wrote: »

So this is an ad for cucumbers? Right?

Courgettes ffs!!!

Creamy Goodness

well they've certainly done their job right, they've gotten you and many others talking about it.

**** even i'm talking about it, damn they're good!

stimpson

Looks like someone noticed all the free press that the Hunky Dory ads got. At least the Hunky Dory ladies looked to be of legal age.

Well done feminists. Good to see that sisters are doing it for themselves.

drunkmonkey

AnimalRights wrote: »

I think the gap teeth are so refreshing

I think they look like gap teeth, It's a fetish I never understood with models, it's never done anything for me, i'd much prefer a healthy set of teeth.
The don't all have to be supermodels i'm with you there..

Calina

Model is 19 by the way. Can't remember her name.

Borderfox

Sex sells
http://inventorspot.com/articles/ads_prove_sex_sells_5576

kensutz

Ashley Smith from Texas

Zascar

Why is it that we never hear any complaints with the hundreds of ads with big attractive muscle men advertising aftershave or whatever - men can be objectified no problem, but go a little over the line with women like the hunky dory's ads and the feminist brigade go crazy. None of the young attractive women I know have a problem with it, its uisually the crusty owl ones who do most of the moaning.

AnimalRights

Calina wrote: »

(although I find the whole sexualising of courgettes rather a bit weird to be honest)

I'm not taking the piss here but I have it from very good word that females perfer courgettes to cucumbers and bananas.

alb

It wasn't chance or unexpected that the Hunky Dory ads kicked up a stir, you can be sure that was their plan from the beginning. The hilarious thing was that all the people that found it offensive and caused the fuss complaining are the ones that made it successful. The joke's on them. And all they have done is encourage other ad agencies to do the same thing. This courgette one is just a copycat campaign, although it doesn't look to be a very high standard of imitation.

Sex sells, and sex that causes controversy sells even more.

Nforce

Manic Preacher wrote: »

So this is an ad for cucumbers? Right?

I thought it was an ad for overblown flash photography?

TinyExplosions

I don't really have a problem with this sort of advertising -I don't find it stronger or weaker than any other type really... I don find that there can be a bit of a double standard at times, where the Hunky Dorys ads get called sexist, but David Beckham or some other hunky type in their pants is just fine (there's a lot more explicit advertising allowed on the Continent that no one there seems to complain about).

Maybe it depends on who the ads are targeting? Semi naked ladies can sell female products, but not mens maybe?

I think a lot of the time people need to just grow up.

The photographer for the OP's ad is Terry Richardson btw, and he doesn't just use girls for the ads (from 2009):

Creamy Goodness

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I don't really have a problem with this sort of advertising -I don't find it stronger or weaker than any other type really... I don find that there can be a bit of a double standard at times, where the Hunky Dorys ads get called sexist, but David Beckham or some other hunky type in their pants is just fine (there's a lot more explicit advertising allowed on the Continent that no one there seems to complain about).

think you've hit the nail on the head there. well if you consider the nail my opinion on the whole "sexy advertising" thing.

David Beckham - women love it, guys don't really give a rats. roles reversed, and it's a woman and you'd swear the whole world is going to end.

Won't somebody please think of the childen!

smelltheglove

A sexual side to advertising is one that I feel can only be judged case by case. Clothing is often sexualised but when visiting the sisley website and looking through their other images I do believe they have seriously overdone it with girls that look to young in those positions. The image that makes me say this more than any others is of the young girl in the trolley, Im sorry but there is too much showing in it for me to be an image advertising clothing! If anyone wants to look at their site it is www.sisley.com I dont think the hunky dorys ad was all it was cracked up to be to be honest.

argosy2006

closely

TinyExplosions

smelltheglove wrote: »

Im sorry but there is too much showing in it for me to be an image advertising clothing!

Unless they sell dresses and knickers!

I don't particularly like Richardson's work at the best of times, so these ads for me are very 'meh', but I don't think they should be banned/cause as much outcry as they appear to be causing (but maybe I'm just too liberal for my own good)

MartMax

I'm still confused! Were they courgette or cucumbers coz I'll have to decide on my groceries shopping next week!

joolsveer

AnimalRights wrote: »

Courgettes ffs!!!

I believe they are cucumbers.

AnimalRights

joolsveer wrote: »

I believe they are cucumbers.

They are indeed Courgettes.

Jumpy

AnimalRights wrote: »

They are indeed Courgettes.

You are wrong sir! I am a purveyor of fine phallic fruits from many lands. They are certainly cucumbers!

eas

definitely, 100% cukes. And 3 for 3 apparently.

Appleglue

I Remember seeing this today, but I didn't even notice the courgettes!

AnimalRights

Jumpy wrote: »

You are wrong sir! I am a purveyor of fine phallic fruits from many lands. They are certainly cucumbers!

I am, my source of information was an incorrect source of information.

PaulieC

dunno. look very like courgettes to me

TinyExplosions

cambo_gueno wrote: »

dunno. look very like courgettes to me

Nope, they're American Cucumbers... what we call cucumbers here, they call "English Cucumbers" and what we call Courgettes they call Zucchinni.

More (pointless) info here

-also, Courgettes are more "furry" than cucumbers, and the ones above are smooth

Nforce

eas wrote: »

And 3 for 3 apparently.

One for each hole!!??

IamBlip

Manic Preacher wrote: »

Spot on, people complain all the time about sexual and controversial ads, but the fact is that they work. Sure they spent nearly an hour on about the Hunky Dory ads on Liveline. And again they spent loads of time on the cucumbers. So how much free advertising was that to them? A lot I reckon

I do think that sex sells but not in the way you think above. Advertising agencies come up with these type adverts every once in a while and they do sell..... but to the product owners more so than the buying public. I mean the Hunky Dory posters didn't make me pick up a packet of their crisps quicker than tayto, perri, king etc. (all made by Largo foods anyway but not the point I'm trying to make) like wise I wouldn't buy Versaci jocks because of the Beckam ad and the wonderbra thing backfired if you remember the associated joke.;)

Yes they do make the brand more main stream through contrversy but will this type of advertising increase sales of sisley clothing I dont think so, I like my designer ware as much as the next guy but after all the shock type photos from the Benetton campaign of the late 80's early 90's I still never bought the product.

TinyExplosions

IamBlip wrote: »

but after all the shock type photos from the Benetton campaign of the late 80's early 90's I still never bought the product.

Sisley are owned by Benetton btw, so there's a history of controversy there

ThOnda

I love it, it simply says "eat more vegetable or get fat".

I don't see anything sexual in the picture. And she ain't so cute either.

AnimalRights

ThOnda wrote: »

I don't see anything sexual in the picture. And she ain't so cute either.

I'm a thigh man and that picture stopped me dead in my tracks, literally, that is one damned sexy picture as I said earlier. :cool:

ThOnda

AR it depends on your education, social and religious background, visual consumption and personal experience = emotions and associations linked to similarly looking visual inputs.

I find most of your gig shots scary, for example.

There are more provoking commercials both in electronic media, TV and in posters, than this. But, of course, I am sexist and chauvinistic pig, as I read in Christmas e-mail from my ex

Hugh_C

I saw it for the first time yesterday, my original reaction was it's just childish, puerile. Love the gap in her teeth.

Looked at the Sisley site, the image that troubled me the most was the girl with the bruise on her breast. That's just weird.

AnimalRights

ThOnda wrote: »

AR it depends on your education, social and religious background, visual consumption and personal experience = emotions and associations linked to similarly looking visual inputs.

I find most of your gig shots scary, for example.

There are more provoking commercials both in electronic media, TV and in posters, than this. But, of course, I am sexist and chauvinistic pig, as I read in Christmas e-mail from my ex

I didn't see the light grey font the 1st few times I read this and gotta say you got me!

humberklog

I thought courgette too. I stand erected.

Jumpy

ThOnda wrote: »

I love it, it simply says "eat more vegetable or get fat".

I don't see anything sexual in the picture. And she ain't so cute either.

Shes dorty.

PaulieC

I find it interesting that a society that supposedly abhors paedophiles and the notion of paedophilia accepts this kind of sexualization of teen girls.
This model, who is over 18, clearly looks much younger and that's probably what Sisley and the photographer are aiming for. Throw in the phallic courgettes (or cucumbers or whatever they are) and bam! you have catered to every man's fantasy.
Maybe it's because I have three daughters, but this whole sexualisation of young girls is pretty disturbing to me. You can even see it on the Disney channel with the likes of Hannah Montana etc. - young girls dressed up as jail bait...

Eirebear

cambo_gueno wrote: »

I find it interesting that a society that supposedly abhors paedophiles and the notion of paedophilia accepts this kind of sexualization of teen girls.
This model, who is over 18, clearly looks much younger and that's probably what Sisley and the photographer are aiming for. Throw in the phallic courgettes (or cucumbers or whatever they are) and bam! you have catered to every man's fantasy.
Maybe it's because I have three daughters, but this whole sexualisation of young girls is pretty disturbing to me. You can even see it on the Disney channel with the likes of Hannah Montana etc. - young girls dressed up as jail bait...

I think your kind of missing the point dude.

There is no comparison IMO between this advert, which is aimed at a market which is probably from around 18-30, the type of people who are interested in fashion etc and have the disposable income to buy their own gear.
At the very youngest i would suggest 16 is the bottom end of this scale whereas the top end of the scale for the likes of Hannah Montanna is nowhere near 16!

For me that programme is a lot more dangerous in a "sexualised" context.

As for the Sisley image itself, i like it, and i like the style of the the majority of the images on the website too.
They are selling an image, and wether people like it or not, young people have ALWAYS used sexuality as part of their image.

Does the girl look under 18? I', not so sure, it seems to me that all 18 year olds look under 18 to me nowadays...and that gets worse the older i get!

PaulieC

Eirebear wrote: »

I think your kind of missing the point dude.

There is no comparison IMO between this advert, which is aimed at a market which is probably from around 18-30, the type of people who are interested in fashion etc and have the disposable income to buy their own gear.

perhaps I am missing the point, but the advertisements are viewable by everyone, not just the affluent young things that shop in Sisley.

Eirebear

cambo_gueno wrote: »

perhaps I am missing the point, but the advertisements are viewable by everyone, not just the affluent young things that shop in Sisley.

Maybe so, but that doesnt make it wrong in itself does it?

As you have already pointed out, there are far worse issues around the sexualisation of young girls which are specifically aimed at very young girls. For some reason however we have more issue with something like this, or the Hunky Dorey's ad (which i had to go and read about...what a ludicrous state of affairs) than we are about the pop music/disney programmes etc which are selling this idea to easily influenced kids.

As a nation we tend to carry this guilt complex around with us about anything remotely sexual, and for me that guilt comes to the fore when we see something like this ad.
It also makes it a lot easier to turn a blind eye to the Hannah Montanna's of this world.

Yes the advert has a fairly high level of implied sexuality, but is it any worse than the Cadbury's Flake adverts from the 70's and 80's? Is it any worse than any number of car adverts from the 90's?

The simple fact of the matter is that the advert is selling an image to a specifically defined demographic, which is generally of an age where sexuality is a major issue. Obviously like all demographics there is a certain amount of overspill, but i would suggest that is in the minority.

The vast majority of kids who see this advert will not particularly pick up on the significance of the vegetables. The minority who do, are owed the correct explanations and emotional care from parents/guardians/responsible adults as part of the process of growing up.
Covering up the advert and making a big deal about it only serves to confuse the situation in my opinion.

PaulieC

Eirebear wrote: »

Yes the advert has a fairly high level of implied sexuality, but is it any worse than the Cadbury's Flake adverts from the 70's and 80's? Is it any worse than any number of car adverts from the 90's?

Sorry, my original point was supposed to be about the sexualisation of teen girls from an adult point of view. To me this ad says that it's OK to fantasize about a 14 year-old girl masturbating with a cucumber (the model may be 18, but she looks much younger) and perhaps it is, but it just doesn't jibe with the societal view of paedophiles.
That is much differnt than the flake ad, the wonderbra ad, the hunky-dorys ad etc. because all of those ads featured 'women' as opposed to 'girls' i.e. all of them were visibly mature.

Eirebear

cambo_gueno wrote: »

Sorry, my original point was supposed to be about the sexualisation of teen girls from an adult point of view. To me this ad says that it's OK to fantasize about a 14 year-old girl masturbating with a cucumber (the model may be 18, but she looks much younger) and perhaps it is, but it just doesn't jibe with the societal view of paedophiles.
That is much differnt than the flake ad, the wonderbra ad, the hunky-dorys ad etc. because all of those ads featured 'women' as opposed to 'girls' i.e. all of them were visibly mature.

Fair point.

I'm not entirely sure she looks under 18 as such, but i get what your saying.

TinyExplosions

cambo_gueno wrote: »

Sorry, my original point was supposed to be about the sexualisation of teen girls from an adult point of view. To me this ad says that it's OK to fantasize about a 14 year-old girl masturbating with a cucumber (the model may be 18, but she looks much younger) and perhaps it is, but it just doesn't jibe with the societal view of paedophiles.
That is much differnt than the flake ad, the wonderbra ad, the hunky-dorys ad etc. because all of those ads featured 'women' as opposed to 'girls' i.e. all of them were visibly mature.

Like eirebear, I don't necessarily think that she looks to be 14, and I also think that if people are really thinking that it promotes fantasizing about girls masturbating with vegetables, then it says more about the detractor than the ad campaign -maybe it can be seen as promoting getting your 5 a day?

Different people have different views, but I really think folks have gone over the top on this one