I just saw this ad in the NY Magazine online, and sent it in as a tip. My bad - I should have known that the alarm would've sounded already! Sorry about that, Jezebelles!
So, as someone into bondage and stuff, I could see this image being sexy if it looked more consensual. Even if she was doing a slinky crawl while leashed by the necktie, I think it would be hot (like Madonna crawling and drinking the milk in that music video). But there is something wrong about his face, just this 100-yard stare. Ick. It is frightening that advertisers thought that this would be a better ad than two people enjoying themselves.
Note to Duncan Quinn: It would be best if you got out of the garment business, changed your name, and retired to some quiet corner of the Earth. For your health. You understand, don't you?
the guy in the ad has a receding hairline. maybe they figured this kind of faux violence against women is just the thing to make this demographic feel manly again.
There's a "contact us" feature on DuncanQuinn.com, should any of you lovely ladies care to make use of it -- info@duncanquinn.com will probably get your outrage directed to the right places...
Of course this will make some men want to buy their suits. Because some men can't separate sex + violence, and are, in fact, turned on by violence against women.
@Macloserboy: Oh Mac, I don't think that is what Sarah was saying at all. What she meant -or at least how I interpret that comment, is that subconsciously this image WILL appeal to some men and therefore may have some affect on the purchase of those suits.
@Macloserboy: So recognizing that some men are attracted to images of sexualized violence makes me a sad person? You completely reinterpreted my comment for godknows what purpose. How on earth did you take "look good when they're killing women" out of that?
@Macloserboy: I don't think she was being sarcastic- I just think she was saying that some men will be turned on by this ad- because it appeals to them because they DO combine sex and violence. Should those men have the means, they may indeed be inclined to buy the suits- but not because they are taking a literal meaning from the ad. This obviously comes down to how advertising really works. You don't generally see an ad and say, YES! I want that! or I AM that!- You know it is much more subtle than that.
That is hands down the worst advertising picture I have ever seen. I can only imagine how many sick sick men are using the picture as fodder for their imagination. I hope that there is some legal way to tie this picture in with the men that are violent with women who have seen the picture. (wow that sentence was an English teacher's nightmare)
@Vivelafat says Vive La Obama: No. Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin tried to do this for many years with violent pornography and fortunately they didn't have much luck.
I'm not one for the whole Dr. Phil, you have to take responsibility for yourself line of thought. Believe me, I go to therapy twice a week and talk about how my childhood and my parents have left me not so functional as an adult.
But men do not hurt women because of photographs. They just don't.
@CandyColoredFrown: But they do hurt women because of a culture that gives them impunity to do so, and this photo is part of that culture. No, it can't be held directly responsible, but it's a piece of the puzzle that can't be dismissed as meaning nothing.
@CandyColoredFrown: I understand what you are saying. I do not believe either that men hurt women because of photographs, but I do believe the photographs A. Normalize violence against women and B. provide a catalyst for individuals that are already disturbed. This is not a photo that one would have to find on a "rape fantasy" site (which would involve a man dedicated enough to search out a rape site to begin with) This is a photo that one might stumble across on a simple search for clothing. Not only is it easily accessible masturbatory material for murders, rapists and sexual sadists the world over, but it is incredible disturbing to anyone that has lost a loved one through murder. The picture itself looks nearly identical to a crime scene. I can imagine if someone had lost a daughter or wife in a similar situation this photo would be unbearable.
@SarahMC: I guess so, but whenever I come into a Rag Trade thread, I guess I lay my concerns about Fed rate cuts and cholera in Zimbabwe by the door. I mean, yeah, it is sorta silly to be worked up over a photo of a model getting paid to lie around in her underpants, but it's still kind of disturbing.
@SarahMC: point taken but to be fair this photo is much more overtly violent than the other, and is an ad not a facebook photo that was up for 2 hours. context is everything, no?
@SarahMC: Hee, I totally missed it. I'm sorry. I need to recalibrate my sarcasto-tron.
It does kind of remind me of that thread awhile back--with the prestigious calendar shoot with bugs and elephants and algae and nekkid moddles? Where the huge debate was whether it was base objectification or high art.
@J.D.Regent: I'm just making a point. Maybe people will reconsider their reactions to things and not be hypocrites in their reasoning. I'm glad you at least got the sarcasm!
@J.D.Regent: Given all the comments yesterday that it was ridiculous to get worked up about such a stupid little thing when there is real sexism in the world, like women getting acid thrown in their faces, I'd it's an apt comparison. The "why do you care about such stupid things? You're giving feminism a bad name!" gets routinely trotted out to silence people for pretty much everything that isn't a woman being a horribly disfigured or killed, and seeing so many people happily embrace it to shut people up because they like the politician the guy works for and think the guy himself is cute is really depressing.
@esorlehcar: not to beat dead horses because i think good points were made yesterday and today, but my point is that it is possible that the lack of horror about the facebook pic wasn't because of Obamamania or a crush on Favreau, but because the photo was of an extremely different nature than this one, and reasonable feminists could disagree about the nature of its sexism or its consequences. but like i said sarah's points are well taken and i don't disagree with her.
Hey, there are some designers that just have their niche. Like, I can't shoot up convent unless I'm in a Bob Mackie gown because the sequins work to blind the nuns. Unfortunately, the mermaid silhouette prevents me from running away from the crime scene.
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
But it's Hollywood dahling...I guess there's nothing new under the sun...and everyone's a bit of a copycat.
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
Mmmm - I think if you look more closely you'll see long hair, but then a pool of blood running slightly down the hood. Charming.
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
And Lara Stone is one of those weird ass models who is tall, bone thin but with relatively large breasts (NSFW):
[img522.imageshack.us]
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
I'm not one for the whole Dr. Phil, you have to take responsibility for yourself line of thought. Believe me, I go to therapy twice a week and talk about how my childhood and my parents have left me not so functional as an adult.
But men do not hurt women because of photographs. They just don't.
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
It does kind of remind me of that thread awhile back--with the prestigious calendar shoot with bugs and elephants and algae and nekkid moddles? Where the huge debate was whether it was base objectification or high art.
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
[en.wikipedia.org]
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08