note that the woman is being photographed in explicitly sexual positions. this objectives and sexualizes both the woman and the objects on display. as if having her pose totally naked wasn't enough!

Another case of the ad campaign that results when they have run out of ideas ... "How are we supposed to sell these things? I don't know, just get a naked woman. If that doesn't work, nothing will."

I realize this is a spiky issue, but why is this ad such a big deal? I understand objetification is a problem when it is taken for granted, when it is the only way women are represented and when it is seem as the standard, but that's not really the case anymore IMO. Yes, there is a lot of ads similar to that (though not as explicit), but there are also many that aren't like that at all.

Should this marketing strategy be completed exterminated, banned? I don't see it as objetification of the entire female gender, I don't see the model as an object because of this. I understand that she was used as one for the ad, but that the way I see it that doesn't make her one.

I just see it as using one of the many ways they can attract the (male) consumer's attention, in this case using female beauty. They could be using a pretty background or a cute puppy, doesn't make much of a difference (obs: I'm not trying to compare a woman to a puppy or the grand canyon, just comparing the use of eye candy, which is something the model has, not something that she is).

It is not explicitly offending anyone, it doesn't explicitly carry the message "women are sexual objects". That message is only there depending on the interpretation.

I realize this is a spiky issue, but why is this ad such a big deal? I understand objectification is a problem when it is taken for granted, when it is the only way women are represented and when it is seem as the standard, but that’s not really the case anymore IMO. Yes, there are a lot of ads similar to that (though not as explicit), but there are also many that aren’t like that at all.

I agree with you here.

Should this marketing strategy be completely exterminated, banned? I don’t see it as objectification of the entire female gender, I don’t see the model as an object because of this. I understand that she was used as one for the ad, but that the way I see it that doesn’t make her one.

I just see it as using one of the many ways they can attract the (male) consumer’s attention, in this case using female beauty. They could be using a pretty background or a cute puppy, doesn’t make much of a difference (obs: I’m not trying to compare a woman to a puppy or the grand canyon, just comparing the use of eye candy, which is something the model has, not something that she is).

It is not explicitly offending anyone, it doesn’t explicitly carry the message “women are sexual objects”. That message is only there depending on the interpretation.

However, since this kind of ad campaign mostly uses women (and the long history of mostly women being objectified and scantily clad like this in ads), it would still reinforce the notion that women are the
"sex" gender, while men are, supposedly, the "neutral" gender.

Finally, this could be satire, but it still sends the same message (if not more so) as the people that they are making fun of, so the point is moot.

"It is not explicitly offending anyone, it doesn’t explicitly carry the message “women are sexual objects”. "

No - it carries the message "women are objects."

These women are in the position of clothes horse and shoe tree. They're inanimate objects being used as shelves for items.

From an article I wrote on the dehumanization of women in advertising:

Social activist and media literacy proponent Jean Kilbourne, who with Diane E. Levin co-authored the newly released book, "So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids," maintains that turning a human being into an object invites abuse.

"When women are constantly shown as objects, the abuse and the violence makes a chilling kind of sense," she says.

In a presentation titled "The Naked Truth: Advertising's Image of Women," Kilbourne says the first step in committing a violent crime is to dehumanize the victim. She adds that many advertisements reinforce the idea that a woman's body is an object.

Scott A. Lukas, chairman of anthropology and sociology at Lake Tahoe Community College and creator of GenderAds. com, a Web site that analyzes advertising images that relate to gender, also says sex slavery goes back to objectification and forms of dehumanization."It's hard to ignore it's a big issue in our society," he says. "It says, 'This person is different from us, this person is less than us, so we can do what we want to them. There's a movement toward something that leads to breaking down personal barriers that would normally prevent them from doing something wrong."

I fail to see how these women in these ads are represented as anything BUT objects.

By posting the photographs here, you are simply contributing to the problem. It reminds me of those 19th century magazines and newspapers that claimed they couldn't discuss the pernicious practice of "tight corseting" without providing illustrations thereof. I believe someone once called this practice "pious pornography."

"I’m not trying to compare a woman to a puppy or the grand canyon, just comparing the use of eye candy, which is something the model has, not something that she is"

So the model has eye candy, and that is the complete focus. It's the parts and pieces kind of thing, where she is objectified because she is not thought of as a whole (person, like with a mind and free will).

"I just see it as using one of the many ways they can attract the (male) consumer’s attention"

While these photos may attract the male consumer, they attract the female's attention too because even females have been socialized to observe things with the male gaze. The female sees a sexy woman, sees her as sexy, and wants to become the object of the gaze (from men who have power and therefore will bestow power upon her).

What about this? http://failblog.org/2009/04/06/sink-design-fail/ The image is interesting, the Fail tag is gratifying.

Not safe for work (in the US)

I don't believe these ads are dehumanizing or objectifying at all. I don't see a clothes horse or a shoe tree, is it possible that they're just using a beautiful woman's body to draw attention to it?

BTW: If anyone thought that Fernando's comment was mine, it wasn't. I was trying to reply to him with the
" " tags (without the space), but apparently, it didn't work and it just disappeared. :/ I couldn't edit the comment or anything, so that just sucked even more, but I replied to him after the first paragraph and my other reply to him is the last paragraph of my comment.
Just so you know.

Jennifer: Kristen was saying that the women were posed as a shoe tree and a clothes horse, therefore that is supposedly their "purpose" in the photograph(s). And yes, it DOES dehumanize the women, because they're supposed to be more item than human!

Larry: You do have a point, (and I didn't know there was a word for that phenomena until now) but how do we discuss the dehumanizing photos without showing the photos themselves? Also, we could have a very interesting discussion about this phenomena, but I don't feel up to it.

*I meant the quote tags, but do you see what I mean? The quote tags keep disappearing everytime I put them in and it doesn't work, either!

"I don’t believe these ads are dehumanizing or objectifying at all. I don’t see a clothes horse or a shoe tree, is it possible that they’re just using a beautiful woman’s body to draw attention to it?"

It's pathetic when dudes pretend to be women pretending to be confused.

Perhaps these photos reveal the peculiar kinky fetish of the photographer, justified by it being an "ad." That, or what blondie said (or a bit of both).

"He treats objects like women!" -The Dude.

For what it's worth, not all those accessories seen draped over the women look like products intended for men.

LOL! someone hurt all of you broads! This advertising has nothing to do with any of you. Has everything to do with what sells and money.

Go do something more productive, have families so that you can give our species the chance to live another day.

Fuck off, troll.

My point. Exactly.

qonspicuous konsumer - i think there's enough of our species, we may not live many more days but procreation is not the problem.

anyone notice how in each ad the shoes are directed towards certain areas??

Um, guys and mostly gals, I hate to break it to all of you, but these aren't Advertisements. These are suppose to be Artistic stills taken by Bela Borsodi, and I'm guessing were compiled into a slide-show for this article. At "Detail Magazine."

http://www.details.com/style-advice/rules-of-style/200810/are-you-a-fashion-victim

I say I'm "guessing" because I could not find this sideshow at the website; why they removed it, I don't know.

But I did find it here!

http://www.art-dept.com/artists/borsodi/

At Editorial 1

(Where it says:)

DETAILS - "Girl Not Included"

I hope her other works are also viewed in this particular editorial.

I'm guessing the point that she is trying to make with this sort of imagery is that they represent how Women have fallen victim to the world of fashion and Et Cetera (I'm sure the rest can be figured out, as Art these images speak volumes...that we've already heard) Whether or not Bela Borsodi, is tackling the issue of Live Mannequins that you might see in department stores I'm not sure of.

But what really beats me is how this slide-show is supposed to work in conjunction with the article, and why she did it the way she did. I suppose one will never know, until they ask.

I'm Mō, this is my first comment here, and I hope this cleared something up to somebody.

Dear Father's Of the World,

Instead of images of faceless models you could careless about, picture your daughters, your granddaughters or your own wives with a pile of men's junk on top of her and then come back here and lay claim that this kind of advertising is "all right". This makes me sick. Because you would NEVER be allowed to depict an ethinic, race or any other social group in the way that the women are currently depicted in the pictures above. Could you imagine a person of clearly Jewish faith pictured with a bunch of men's shoes and bags on her? (Lets not even pretend you could picture a man being so utterly degraded). But somehow, by reason enough alone of being a woman, you are allowed to completely degrade women in levels you could never do to any other social ,reglious on ethnic group. Take note that all the girls in the pictures are white.

Sincerely,

Middle class white girl who is sick and tired of being non-human to the men of this world.