Comments on: “Wild Things”: Animals, People of Color, and Naked Men (NSFW)

By: lyssa

lyssa — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:14:29 +0000

Her “I’m-going-to-destroy-your-existence.” face is creeping me the hell out.

By: BG

BG — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:25:39 +0000

I hate fashion advertising, because models of any gender always look so lifeless and inhuman. I can’t understand what they were going for with the female models’ expressions in this ad series, but it’s uncomfortable whatever it is. I’m still trying to figure out whether it’s the men who seem to have the power in these shots despite being naked.

Perhaps the nudity in this case is falling back on the stereotype that men are animalistic? It seems a very different kind of exposure of the body than when it’s a woman used for sexual appeal.

By: wasteddawn

wasteddawn — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:46:37 +0000

i agree with maus. sometimes people are a little too sensitive about these things. it’s a woman, in a stupid outfit, playing basketball as an equal with three men, also in stupid outfits. The ad is meant to be appealing despite it’s weirdness. People in basketball clothing would be ridiculous because a) they’re not selling basketball clothing and b) sweaty nasty men in baggy shorts take my attention away from the dress.

By: Douglass

Douglass — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:21:41 +0000

to talk about how there are double standards about the female and male naked bodies, high profiled fashion mags should not be the source, because there have been always boob, butt and crotch shoots there, because the model is an object for the artist, and there will be more women’s half naked bodies because it’s clothes for women what they sell, so there are men, but just less.

By: thewhatifgirl

thewhatifgirl — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:53:57 +0000

That’s not the point, at least not as I read it. The point is that there is a major societal double standard for how much a woman’s body can be exposed before it’s “obscene” as opposed to how much of a man’s body can be exposed before it’s “obscene”.

By: TheFakeMaroon

TheFakeMaroon — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:59:22 +0000

pretty sure these ads aren’t doing anything to subvert the standard power dynamic. Is it just me or does the blond model look strung out?

By: TheFakeMaroon

TheFakeMaroon — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:58:57 +0000

pretty sure these ads aren’t doing anything to subvert the standard power dyanimc. Is it just me or does the blonde model look strung out?

By: Douglass

Douglass — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:09:46 +0000

(half)naked men and a quirky model in designer clothes, I can not read it as rape, because when you open a fashion mag, you’ll be waiting for eye catching and eye candy, and naked beautifull men and nice clothes are just that.
A very simple (and very efective) way to make women to stare at the picture of the dress they are trying to sell her, is, well, to sorround the dress of very naked and very atractive young men. Am I the only one who thinks this should be done more often?

The face of the basketball playing model is the face of a player who gets the play in mind, I’ve seen it in that sport (and others) all the time, an I don’t think the players I’ve seen are afraid of geting raped at any moment by the other players. Are they being agressive to each other, the woman incluided? totally.
Should the woman be wearing just a boxer to make it equal? that would be sexist.
And i love this blog, and I see the point of posting this basketball picture, but it could be read as well like, you’re fighting in a men’s world, be in fashion while doing so.

The thing is that it would be very, very boring (and not appealing) to have the model standing there without a specific pose or feeling in her face, staring at the camera, and perhaps smiling, it wouldn’t sell the same.

By: Ann

Ann — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:44:55 +0000

I find the ‘Boho in Paradise’ page very sinister. Drunken prom gang-rape, anyone? was my immediate thought. I am sure there would be an explanation offered about boho/hippies being relaxed and fun, not bothered about being with several nude men or by the battered ball gown. And paradise, because any woman would love multiple men, right?

By: Laura

Laura — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:30:48 +0000

Agreed. Nude men= powerful, nude women=powerless. This says something very important about how we think of the male body as powerful, as the actor, and the female body as acted upon.
It is also interesting to think of the historical and religious contexts of women as sexual objects (“You’re way too sexy,cover up that ankle!”)

By: Farore

Farore — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:45:08 +0000

Am I the only one who finds the posing on “Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves” really sinister? Firstly, the title of the page would seem to indicate that the leftmost man is a ‘Gypsy’, the woman is a ‘Tramp’, which in the context of the title refers to an outdated term for a nomadic homeless person, but in current culture means a slutty woman, and then the rightmost man is a ‘Thief’. Secondly, there’s the really creepy aspect to how the leftmost man is holding the woman’s hand directly over his genitals, while she looks more shocked and frightened than in any of the other shots. It seems to indicate that he is forcing her to touch his genital region, much to her dismay. Finally, with the naming scheme presented and the posing shown, the overall photo seems, to me, to be insinuating that the woman is about to be sexually assaulted (more than she already is?); the outnumbered and distressed ‘tramp’ is about to get abused by the nude, calm, arrogant-looking ‘gypsy’ and ‘thief’.

Associating ‘tribal’ and animal prints with various POC is problematic enough, but do we really have to throw implied sexual assault in there?

By: tiffany

tiffany — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:16:50 +0000

This does not reverse the binary b/c the women are still powerless while the men look powerful. The female models’ odd expressions deem to me to stem from fear, or express shock over how they were just used in a nonconcenual sexual way.

Also in many the men look physically clean, while the women don’t. Another way to show the power dynamic.

By: The Amazing Kim

The Amazing Kim — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:24:52 +0000

Hell, I’m just wondering why the women don’t have eyebrows.

By: Elise

Elise — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:57:13 +0000

The thing I found most striking about the “Wild Things” series of photos is the complete lack of creativity around covering up the men’s genitals. 9 of the 10 men whose crotches appear in the photos are just holding blankets up in front of their crotches in a completely unnatural way — the only exception is the man in the second photo who is using the woman’s dress to cover himself up. Compare this to the myriad ways in which photographs of women cover up the “important bits” while still showing practically everything; why wouldn’t those methods work for men? What is the significance of this choice?

By: Shrug

Shrug — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:39:35 +0000

for anyone who claims that these images are racist or whatever… I’m a bit confused about why it’s such a bad thing to be associated with nature and wildness and so on. How is that racist? There are a lot of people who consider it a good thing to be in-tune with nature and who look to “primitive” cultures (although I take issue with that word in general anyway, since no contemporary culture is primitive) for guidance and wisdom. Is that racist, too?

For that matter, looking at the titles, they aren’t racist. Racism means discriminating against someone on account of their colour/race. No one is being badmouthed in these ads. If you think this is racism, YOU are the one drawing the comparisons and assuming that “Eastern” refers to Asians – if it’s somehow “racist” for them to use that title, how are you being any less racist in your assumption that it refers to Asia? How are you being less racist by assuming that these titles refer to “people of colour”? Which, by the way, is a pretty telling generalisation. Gypsies weren’t “people of colour” last time I checked. For that matter, why does “Tribal” refer to Africans? There are tribes in other parts of the world, too. Again, YOU are the one making the assumptions here.

Aside from that… it’s a fashion shoot. They’re always weird. You can analyse them in any way you like and you’re always going to be able to find some iffy subtext, purely because they ARE weird and wide open to interpretation. I think these interpretations say more about you and your focus than about whoever was behind the actual shoots.

With regard to the last issue: she’s not fending off three men. Two of them are facing AWAY from her. And the third one isn’t looking at her, he’s intent on the other two (on the game, I’d guess). Seriously, there is such a thing as overanalysing. You see what you want to see.