Where do you stand on sexual themed advertisements?

Promac

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'd say you're only catering to a very specific kind of man's fantasy. I'm 34, heterosexual and I don't find the original image remotely attractive. I think the girl is plain at best and unusually ugly at worst and she looks too young for me which is a complete turn-off.

Young girls tarted up will always just be young girls tarted up - if you see them as attractive or "jail bait" then maybe the problem isn't with the girls.

PaulieC

Promac wrote: »

Young girls tarted up will always just be young girls tarted up - if you see them as attractive or "jail bait" then maybe the problem isn't with the girls.

I don't think the problem is with the girls, but with the intent of the advertisement. I don't find the young girl particularly attractive, she's not really my type, and I am not offended in any way by the photo itself, I just found the dichotomy between the abhorrence of paedos and the constant sexualization of young girls interesting.

Jumpy

cambo_gueno wrote: »

I don't think the problem is with the girls, but with the intent of the advertisement. I don't find the young girl particularly attractive, she's not really my type, and I am not offended in any way by the photo itself, I just found the dichotomy between the abhorrence of paedos and the constant sexualization of young girls interesting.

ITS NOT A DICHOTOMY FFS. ITS A CUCUMBER.


Does no one know their fruits around here?

Promac

Jumpy wrote: »

ITS NOT A DICHOTOMY FFS. ITS A CUCUMBER.


Does no one know their fruits around here?

That made me spray my tea.

smash

Nice bikes http://www.kellys-bicycles.com/index.php?id=kalendar_2010

Nforce

steve06 wrote: »

Nice bikes http://www.kellys-bicycles.com/index.php?id=kalendar_2010

Yep...and the bicycles aren't bad either! :d

LeoB

I would not turn my head twice to look at her. I think she looks about about 17. Maybe Im fussy but I just dont think she is particularly good looking.

The big issue for me is how some people use sex to sell products and I would not be happy to see any "child" used in this way. However women make their own choices and if the want to flash the flesh good for them.

I wonder how many of the people complaining about this ad last week sit twith their kids to watch Hannah Montana and other muck on T.V which is more suggestive than this.

Mountainsandh

I hate the pic from a pic point of view... I don't think the kids would get it, but they might get a feeling something's "not quite right" about it, not a nice thing especially if you're an early teen, and confused about lots of things already.

What I dislike most about it, is that it, as part of the greater picture (that is, possibly more similar advertising, tv shows with same standards, etc...), may normalize paedophilia. Well, imo the girl deliberately looks under 18. Realistically, there are going to be a lot of old pervs looking at this, and the way I see it you are kind of passing on the message that it's OK to fancy an under 18, especially so when there are gherkins involved, wink wink.

They are giant gherkins people by the way, courgettes don't have little bumps, pffffffffff.......... I know cos' I'm French, we know our courgettes back in France .

Wait, maybe they're a newfangled species of "courcumbers" that your one created, and she's in for young scientist of the year, and that's why she looks so happy :cool:.

So yes, I find it quite shocking, don't like it, and don't think still photography ads should get away with this... call me conservative....

Fact is, if you had a youngster looking at a video camera that suggestively, and holding a gherkin that way in a video clip at breaktime between your home and away and your whatever other program, you probably would be more shocked than just looking at the still pic, how is that ?

CabanSail

When I saw this image it just looked awkward to me. The whole thing doesn't make any sense, so then the only reason for it's existence is to be controversial. It is trying too hard and is so obvious that it just fails. To be honest I didn't even notice the age, implied or otherwise, of the model.

The only way that this has succeeded at all is that I now know that Sisley are a brand of cheap looking clothes rather than being a supplier of vegetables. Seeing as I'm not likely to be a customer then that's a moot point anyway.

Sleepy

drunkmonkey wrote: »

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..

It's a sociological thing apparently. Allegedly, a gap between your two front teeth is supposed to be a sign of a high sex drive.

magicbastarder

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

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

they'll have done the job if they sell more clothes. a company whose ad agency gets people talking about the product will fire them rather quickly if they don't get them buying the product.

as mentioned above, the ad fails because it is sh1t. it looks like something a 16 year old might find risque.

John

magicbastarder wrote: »

as mentioned above, the ad fails because it is sh1t. it looks like something a 16 year old might find risque.

But then 16 year olds might buy the clothes there so then is it a failure? Anyway, Sisley have been doing "controversial" ads for years, google Sisley fashion junkie for their previous efforts.

AnimalRights

Sleepy wrote: »

It's a sociological thing apparently. Allegedly, a gap between your two front teeth is supposed to be a sign of a high sex drive.

magicbastarder wrote: »

as mentioned above, the ad fails because it is sh1t. it looks like something a 16 year old might find risque.

You obviously have perfect teeth.

K_user

Sex sells. Its that simple. Put an attractive person on/wearing/smelling/smiling at, and the product gets attention.

But, like it has been said already, I hate this reverse PC attitude that seems to exist at the moment. That its ok to sexualise men, but its inciting rape to sexualise women.

Ads like the Hunky Dorys were a bit of harmless fun, the whole campaign was intended to “shock”. As for the models, it was hard not to notice that they were women, not girls.

And I do think that Ad campaigners, for a number of years now, have are bordering on paedophilia. I often don’t know how old the models in my wife’s mag’s are. I find it disturbing. But I do understand it…I’ll get to that…

About the OP’s post. Yes I do think that the Ad is aimed at that age misdirection area. We, hopefully, all know that she’s 18. And there is that lingering question on what her intent is. So there is a shock value. But personally, it doesn’t work for me. Mainly because its too messy an image and rather than being “sexy”, I find it disturbing.

Looking through the SISLEY images you’ll find more like it. There is one of same girl almost kissing another young looking girl in a photo-booth. They are pushing that young and sexualized image.

As for the why…it’s the age thing. Girls from early teens up want to look older, it’s a sad fact. While some women, after a certain age, want to look younger. This sort of campaign is attempting to push that insecurity button. Just like the add for tampons/sanitary towels were the woman is smiling and has nice fresh, clean, white bed sheets. These models are young, fashionable, they are the dreaded “size 0” and look like they are having a good time. And that does speak to certain women/girls. And they are the ones spending the money.

The paedophilia side only comes into it when men start looking at it, but its secondary to the ad’s intent. Which of course is very irresponsible of the companies producing these campaigns, but their interest is only in making money. Not worrying about endangering children.

Sex sells, but the type of sexual image is carefully picked, depending on who the market is aimed at.

magicbastarder

K_user wrote: »

But, like it has been said already, I hate this reverse PC attitude that seems to exist at the moment. That its ok to sexualise men, but its inciting rape to sexualise women.

a clear disparity exists to begin with between the sexes in how they are portrayed in the media; to take that disparity into account would be highlighting it as much as it would be trying to negate it. so i don't know if there is a legitimate compromise between treating men the same as women in advertising and allowing from the fact that attitudes towards men being portrayed that way differs from attitudes towards women.

John

I find it worrying that so many people jump to an OMG PAEDOPHILIA!!!11one stance when the model doesn't actually look that young. I get the feeling that the people who are feeling this are probably that bit older, I'm in my mid-20s and I don't think she would stand out in a college crowd at all. Maybe comparatively she looks much younger to an older person but to suggest she looks like she's anything younger than 17/18 is boggling to me. I had heard all the commotion on liveline before seeing the image and I thought I had seen the wrong ad when I finally did see it, I was expecting something like Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver! And interestingly, on Liveline it was older people who thought she looked underage which to me suggests that problem is with age perception rather than with a deliberate sexualisation of teenagers. I reckon another 18 year old would probably think the model looked the same age and a younger teenager would think the model was older.

And considering this ad is aimed at women, surely the idea behind using a younger model is twofold:
1) To attract younger women to the store.
2) To imply to an older audience that they too can be young by shopping in that store (similar to how those "so you're going bald/grey" ads for men imply that you are powerless if you look old, dye your hair and women/job offers will fly to you).

And in both cases, the implication is obviously that you will have a voracious sex life after you've bought your clothes in this shop. Where some strange paedophilic agenda comes into it seems to be more in the minds of some of the viewers. I'm not denying there isn't a sexualisation of teenagers going on in the media but I don't see it here as to me she's obviously a young woman as opposed to a 14 year old.

tricky D

magicbastarder wrote: »

as mentioned above, the ad fails because it is sh1t.

Disagree with that. So far this thread has 67 posts talking about some crappy ad with little intrinsic merit, because it has pressed our psychological outrage button. And boy do we love to rabble when outraged and objecting. The by-product of all this talk is the brand awareness increases in the 'bad publicity is still good publicity' manner. RyanAir are masters at this, especially with Michael O'Leary and his character acting and Sisley's parent Benetton have been doing it for decades.

(Eg. There were plenty of people talking about RyanAir's newest and stupid no co-pilot 'idea' and recycling other previous nonsense utterings in the pub last night. RyanAir are at the top of this type of branding game.)

kelly1

Snap tricky D Yip, yip

Sir Gallagher

K_user wrote: »

Sex sells. Its that simple. Put an attractive person on/wearing/smelling/smiling at, and the product gets attention.

But, like it has been said already, I hate this reverse PC attitude that seems to exist at the moment. That its ok to sexualise men, but its inciting rape to sexualise women.

Ads like the Hunky Dorys were a bit of harmless fun, the whole campaign was intended to “shock”. As for the models, it was hard not to notice that they were women, not girls.

And I do think that Ad campaigners, for a number of years now, have are bordering on paedophilia. I often don’t know how old the models in my wife’s mag’s are. I find it disturbing. But I do understand it…I’ll get to that…

About the OP’s post. Yes I do think that the Ad is aimed at that age misdirection area. We, hopefully, all know that she’s 18. And there is that lingering question on what her intent is. So there is a shock value. But personally, it doesn’t work for me. Mainly because its too messy an image and rather than being “sexy”, I find it disturbing.

Looking through the SISLEY images you’ll find more like it. There is one of same girl almost kissing another young looking girl in a photo-booth. They are pushing that young and sexualized image.

As for the why…it’s the age thing. Girls from early teens up want to look older, it’s a sad fact. While some women, after a certain age, want to look younger. This sort of campaign is attempting to push that insecurity button. Just like the add for tampons/sanitary towels were the woman is smiling and has nice fresh, clean, white bed sheets. These models are young, fashionable, they are the dreaded “size 0” and look like they are having a good time. And that does speak to certain women/girls. And they are the ones spending the money.

The paedophilia side only comes into it when men start looking at it, but its secondary to the ad’s intent. Which of course is very irresponsible of the companies producing these campaigns, but their interest is only in making money. Not worrying about endangering children.

Sex sells, but the type of sexual image is carefully picked, depending on who the market is aimed at.

I'm sorry but this is nonsense, the model in the ad doesn't look that young at all i'd say 18 or 19. Whether society likes it or not most girls at that age are sexually mature, i'm sure there are many young girls at that age who will look at it and identify with the young, hip, sexually risque image that it is portraying. To say that "The paedophilia side only comes into it when men start looking at it" is ludicrous, it's as if you're saying all us bloke have a little peado just waiting to come out of us.

magicbastarder

i think this applies here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrTifComO7U

K_user

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is nonsense, the model in the ad doesn't look that young at all i'd say 18 or 19.

In my opinion she looks, young, but 18 - as I said in my piece the ad wants her to look young and sexy, that is their target market:

Ad is aimed at that age misdirection area

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Whether society likes it or not most girls at that age are sexually mature,

Who is arguing with that?

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

i'm sure there are many young girls at that age who will look at it and identify with the young, hip, sexually risque image that it is portraying.

Which is pretty much what I said.

Girls from early teens up want to look older, it’s a sad fact. While some women, after a certain age, want to look younger.

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

To say that "The paedophilia side only comes into it when men start looking at it" is ludicrous, it's as if you're saying all us bloke have a little peado just waiting to come out of us.

Where exactly did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth.

K_user

John wrote: »

I reckon another 18 year old would probably think the model looked the same age and a younger teenager would think the model was older.

I would completely agree with that. The older I get the harder I find it to put an age on teenagers in general. Just like when I was at that age I couldn't put an age on most adults. Its fairly natural, we get used to interacting with people of certain age groups.

John wrote: »

but I don't see it here as to me she's obviously a young woman as opposed to a 14 year old.

I don't think that anyone is saying that she is 14. The girl is obviously 18 or older. But, as I mentioned earlier, she is as age generic as possible, so that both younger girls and women can identify. Its all about pushing the right button.

As I also mentioned, we all know sex sells, but advertisers are very good at picking the right sort of sex image to sell.

John

K_user wrote: »

I don't think that anyone is saying that she is 14. The girl is obviously 18 or older. But, as I mentioned earlier, she is as age generic as possible, so that both younger girls and women can identify. Its all about pushing the right button.

Earlier in thread there was mention of her looking 14 and that was the way the conversation on Liveline was going too.

K_user

John wrote: »

Earlier in thread there was mention of her looking 14 and that was the way the conversation on Liveline was going too.

I didn't hear that interview and anyone who thinks she looks 14 needs to go to specsavers!

K_user

magicbastarder wrote: »

a clear disparity exists to begin with between the sexes in how they are portrayed in the media; to take that disparity into account would be highlighting it as much as it would be trying to negate it. so i don't know if there is a legitimate compromise between treating men the same as women in advertising and allowing from the fact that attitudes towards men being portrayed that way differs from attitudes towards women.

There is always going to be differences between the sexes and how they are portrayed.

But I do find it annoying how quickly the mob can rally on one image, yet ignore another that is equally sexually charged.

Logical Fallacy

The photos in the Sisley adds are fairly brutal, i am unsure how anyone could think otherwise.

jaqian

Not mad on this sisley ad but thought the hunky dory one was funny.

smash

Another sisley ad I saw this morning.

K_user

Ok...all talk about sex aside...

Is it just me, or are the backgrounds in those photographs terrible?
Make the girl stand a few steps forward, use a little DOF or something.

They look like they were taken on a night out, on a camera phone, by one of her friends...

smash

I think that's what they're supposed to look like. There were other ads with another girl messing around in a trolly etc.

Whatever the style they're going for, they don't appeal to me really. They look too cheap or something.

magicbastarder

i can imagine what the meetings were like when they commissioned those ads.

K_user

Something like:
"nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more"

smash

magicbastarder wrote: »

i can imagine what the meetings were like when they commissioned those ads.

I'd say it went something like this...

"We need a bigger courgette!"
"It's a cucumber"
"Actually it's a dichotomy"

punch, whack, thump....

enda1

I am very much in favour of sexually themed advertisements. Very much in favour.

sheesh

K_user wrote: »

Ok...all talk about sex aside...

Is it just me, or are the backgrounds in those photographs terrible?
Make the girl stand a few steps forward, use a little DOF or something.

They look like they were taken on a night out, on a camera phone, by one of her friends...

maybe thats the idea

K_user

enda1 wrote: »

I am very much in favour of sexually themed advertisements. Very much in favour.

In general I have no problem with them!

Hey, what guy would object to the Eva Mendes and Calvin Klein campaign?



No doubts that she is woman and there is no need for silly looking cucumber/courgette\thingies there!

K_user

sheesh wrote: »

maybe thats the idea

I'm sure it is.

But can you imagine the poor photographer? He gets a big contract with a fashion brand and is asked to make it look cheap and nasty?

humberklog

I like'm but probably only for the reason that the texture is a little break from what has become the norm in advertising. The norm being clinically crisp, poke yer eye out sharp.

There's a peculiar hue to'm. They don't look like something straight off an editors surgical desk.


Although I'd say that it is completely falling on its feet to the drive towards the 80's fad...even still though, if retro fashion is pulling the modern bent back away from percieved perfection through sharpness then...wooohooo.

These are a photographer's pictures (even if said photographer has a bit of a seedy past) which is refreshingly away from Editor's photographs.

TinyExplosions

K_user wrote: »

I'm sure it is.

But can you imagine the poor photographer? He gets a big contract with a fashion brand and is asked to make it look cheap and nasty?

The poor photographer? That's his style, and he's been doing it for years!

K_user

TinyExplosions wrote: »

The poor photographer? That's his style, and he's been doing it for years!

I know who he is - I was attempting to be funny

TinyExplosions

K_user wrote: »

I know who he is - I was attempting to be funny

My bad... stupid typing!