But somehow the image doesn’t seem like it’s targeted to women or meant to represent a female sexual fantasy. To me, the image is still targeting men

This is absolutely what is going on here, and it happens all over the place. I recently created a new blog that examines this very issue deliberately, and deals explicitly with ideas of sex and power as it relates to masculinity in pornography. You may find it of interest, but it is not at all “safe for work.” ;)

Cheers.

Bingo.

I wouldn’t be surprised if whoever designed that first picture meant for it to appeal to women, but it doesn’t really reverse the tables nearly enough to work (for me). It’s not just the amount and type of clothes, it’s also everyone’s posture, clothing and gaze

When photos/ads have multiple women in a similar situation, at least one, if not several, of the women are gazing at the viewer – including the viewer in the fantasy. All the other women are not only gazing at the man (or sometimes each other), their entire bodies are focused on his existence, emphasizing the idea that they are there simply to serve the man’s (viewer’s) fantasy. The man in the middle is usually aloof and may be looking at the women, may be looking off at nothing, but is pretty much never looking at the viewer – making eye contact with the viewer would spoil the illusion that he is simply the magic mirror image of the viewer.

In this photo, there is only one guy actually looking at Mendes (I think it’s supposed to be two, but the eyeline is totally wrong). And neither he nor the guy clostest to him are gazing adoringly, they both look bored as hell – especially compared to her bright smile. The guy in the front is even more bored and even less interested in Mendes. No one is interested in the viewer.

Needless to say, no guy in the middle would ever be posed in a “look at me” kind of way as Mendes is (turned so you can see her breasts, the curve of her hip, and a hint of her butt). The women, however, would be. The guys in this photo very much aren’t. They have their shirts off, that’s pretty much it. Instead of the postures emphasizing their nakedness and willingness to fulfill Mendes’ fantasy, they minimize it. Their drinks and arms cover parts of their shirtless chests – unlike Mendes arms, which are thoughtfully placed to the side of her body. The only guy whose body is turned towards Mendes is the one she can’t see at all because he’s behind her.

Also, their thematic decorations are placed in such a way as to distract from the architecture of their bodies rather than enhance their beauty. (Very unlike Mendes’ werewolf scratches in the other photo, which are placed and designed to emphasize the bareness of her back and the lines of her dress and body.) The only guy whose arms are not covering his chest and whose decorations are the least distracting is the same one whose body is cut off by the cut of the photo and who is the least interested in Mendes.

And then, to top it off, Mendes is looking at us, the viewer, (her eyes are mostly closed, but that is their direction of her gaze and where her smile is pointed at) thus spoiling any illusion that we could be her.

If this photo was meant to appeal to (straight) women, whoever took it needs to go back to school. The half naked guys will certainly catch most women’s attention, but the lack of fantasy building means it does a poor job of selling the product.

They probably put the series together as a giveaway calendar for retailers, etc – mostly men – I’m sure they figured most (straight) guys are not going to turn down pictures of Alba, Mendes or Hayak.

The men aren’t even really people, you can’t see all of their faces. They are just symbols. Salma Hayek does not look like she’s having a good time any more, maybe she did a while back. In every other photo, I can imagine someone wanting to be the woman in the photograph, they all seem to be having fun on their own terms. But not that last. Who on earth thought that photograph would sell liquor? Particularly to women? Maybe it’s intended for “balance” as a “warning”?

I do believe though, that it went “out of style” during the 80s and on, I might be wrong, but it seems to me that American culture had somewhat of a regression in terms of “sexual liberation” and female empowerment portrayed in Hollywood etc I’m not saying that these are actual indications of actual liberation and empowerment – but they do break away from the “woman belongs in the kitchen, dreaming of the white prince/doctor” kind of thinking that seems to me to have reappeared in the US.

Maybe the 50s and 60s are coming back in popular culture? I know I’m going off on a tangent here, but there were more women in leading (and strong) roles in movies back then, than there were in the 80s and 90s and today. I think that is interesting.

And in the ad with the werewolf, in spite of the very large cuts on her back, she’s not even flinching – which could be interpreted to signify toughness. There’s also fearlessness here, since she is embracing the werewolf. It’s less sexualized to me as well; my attention is drawn to the expression on her face – which isn’t as blank or serious as in the following ads – and the scratches on her back, rather than her body in any kind of sexual display.

My interpretation: while an ad with a man and multiple women may draw on certain male sexual fantasies and can properly be interpreted in that fashion, an ad with “inverted imagery” may be simply that — an advertisement that inverts the “conventional” images, to get your attention. The pattern of the inversions may be of some interest (for example, it may be interesting to observe how “empowered” women are portrayed, as the update notes) but the inverted image isn’t necessarily much more than that, an inversion.

Just for the record, when I asked what people thought, I really meant it. I think it came off as a rhetorical question–that I was pretending to be interested in what people thought when I already had a very firm opinion–but I really wasn’t quite sure what I thought about it, just that it kept nagging at me, especially in the context of the entire calendar. And I’ve found that commenters often elucidate ideas I’m thinking about but haven’t quite figured out yet.

As a concluding remark, I would like to point out that women’s empowerment as it is often portrayed in the media still requires them to be constantly sexual – so it isn’t really empowering at all. A powerful woman in popular culture is a female version of the macho, rather than an articulate, smart, self-sufficient individual (I’d use the word “independent”, but even that word has been subverted to mean “sexually liberated” in most places I see it). The catch is that men easily adjust to see “sexually empowered” women as, yet again, sexual objects, so even though women who seek out Sex and the City-like empowerment may feel liberated, this liberation is false: women are simply being allowed to travel between two points that are still exciting for men (the timid wife or the “strong” temptress).

The question, then, shouldn’t be which party is the “stronger” one in this patently sexual scene, but rather why are women always required to be portrayed as at least potentially sexual (I’d link back to that ad where the woman “scientist” is transformed into a dancing bombshell by whatever it was, but I’m lazy).

Not that I need to tell you any of that, I guess, but I just thought I’d mention that this debate is really irrelevant.