In any case, I’d vehemently protest this ad if it were local. And lest anyone think I’m some puritan curmudgeon, this is a very sexy ad. Mild submission and dominance is a very common trigger, and it triggers a response for me. I don’t have a problem in general with an ad triggering a sexual response (ie. sexiness does sell, foolish to argue that) but this is different. It touches more than simple sexiness; it speaks to a practice that requires much context, risks an interpretation of approval for unhealthy/inappropriate feelings, and encourages a view of women in our society we are working so hard in other ways to break.

It doesn’t matter if she looks like “O hay you sexy thang~”, considering all ads with women in them pretty much have that same message (look at Evony, Abercrombie & Fitch, Jacob, etc). Women in our society have always been regarded as subordinate, and should be submissive. Hence, “bring me a sandwich, woman.”

And I agree with Rachel: you’re either consenting or not consenting.

But that’s all beside the point. If the ad is to advertise sturdy laces, wouldn’t it make more sense to have an obviously physically strong person resisting being tied up? Why would you have a (supposedly) submissive person (supposedly) enjoying being tied up? It wouldn’t matter then whether the laces were sturdy or not. The fact that they didn’t do the former shows that the ad is clearly for titillating men using a stereotype – and that’s all.

Yes yes yes that yes yes that!

“Fairly consenting”. Mother of god.

What the hell? There is no BDSM in this ad. There is a passive, tied-up small Asian woman objectified as a sexual commodity in order to sell shoes to men. It is racist and sexist and if you seriously can’t see the violence in tying a woman up and offering her as a sexual commodity OUTSIDE OF A BDSM CONTEXT, then you are a pretty shitty sociologist.

I’ve been involved in BDSM as long as I’ve been involved in sex. It is my “lifestyle”, if that’s what we’re calling it, so I’m not touristing in here and missing the “context”. This ad is not, as Bagelsan pointed out, for or by BDSMers, or those involved in kinbaku either. This is not time to defend/educate people about BDSM, it’s time to acknowledge that this is another in the stream of racist, sexist, violent imagery Western culture produces every day. Labelling this aspect of discussion as “bigotry” is just a silencing tactic, and a ridiculous one at that.

Within the context of the “kink” scene or whatever you wish to call it, this ad might be acceptable.

But put this out there for the wider community to see and it stirs up a whole lotta mess. In that context, the ad unwittingly encourages rape. You’d be amazed how many stupid men there are whose view of consent is: “Well, she might ACT like she doesn’t want it, but I know she really wants it.”

This ad is fodder for that kind of guy.

Role-play & kinky stuff is fine when all partners know the deal and are sensitive about where the line is between consent and non-consent. But not everyone understands this.

And the Japanese thing? Intentionally or not, it plays into all kinds of stereotypes of Asian women as submissive sexual servants.

Conclusion: this shit is messed up. If you can’t see the implied violence here, open your eyes.

Ads like these don’t exist in a cultural vacuum.

My take is this:

The underlying message is the dominant and insensitive power you will possess as a man if you own these shoes.

The use of BDSM and fetish is poorly represented and amateurishly utilised here.

This ad is equally offensive to women, shoes, BDSM and advertising as it is a cheap exploitation scenario.

My worst feeling at a gut level is this – never mind the fancy concept of objectification. My concern is more precise: abuse.

This ad essentially portrays someone in love with her abuser and owner.

That is not healthy BDSM, or anything else.