Oh, the irony. You can use THIS POST in class to show how people of a certain culture are completely unaware of their own cultural biases.

This poster, which you labeled NOT SUITABLE FOR WORK, was posted in plain sight in cities all across Italy. It is NOT "objectifying" anyone, because in Italian (and central European culture in general), nudity doesn't have the same sexual-social meaning it has in the US. This goes for both feminine and masculine full frontal nudity, by the way. They don't have the same perception you have that nudity should be avoided in the public sphere, because they don't assign it the same meaning you do. That's also why they don't have a problem with children seeing pictures of nudity (or real life nudity, e.g. at the beach).

Gotta agree with Dubi here. I was about to start my post "here I go again posting a comment about 'cultural bias'". I love Soci-images...but sheesh where do you draw the line.

First of sex and advertising. It's a complicated issue. And yeah using a naked woman could be argued as not the best way to fight against violence against women.

But Dubi's point about calling a poster that was publicly displayed as NSFW is a pretty good example of the cultural differences at play here.

Is all nudity objectifying? Is it always objectifying if it is being used in the public space? I'm not sure. If what their selling is "stopping violence against women" does it really matter if the advertising is provacitive?

Violence against women is bad. Objectifying women is bad. But does sexuality serve no positive function in society? Is titilation really the root of so many evils? Can the naked form be separated from marketing or consumerism, or is it "sexiness" to ingrained in us culturally?

I see the nudity as trying to reproduce the Jesus-on-a-cross thing as closely as possible. The way I usually see crucifixes is with Jesus naked except for a cloth wrapped around his hips, and having the woman similarly naked gives the comparison more weight.

I'm concerned about how using an image of a young, thin, conventionally sexually attractive and available-looking woman may (inadvertently) serve to perpetuate the myth that women who do not fit this image are not raped. (In fact, there was a case not long back of a lawyer stating in court that a fat raped women wasn't really raped, as fat women should be grateful for any sexual attention they get.) A woman who thinks that she will not be believed if she reports a rape because of her appearance will be unlikely to report it, the very cause at issue in this poster.
Also, the poster does not address the other important reasons that a woman might not report a rape, including the fact that she may be pressured by authorities to be sexually violated by the medical system to 'prove' the rape (and thus raped twice), and the fact that being a victim of rape is considered shameful in many cultures and communities.

I think that this picture does show objectification not because she is naked (she is not presented in a provocative way) but because she was just objectified by being raped (what she is supposed to be representing - a victim).

Dubi:
Plenty of things re displayed all over the place in North America that are NSFW, which is a warning not to imply that what you are looking at is wrong, but that if you are in a place where what you are looking at might be scrutinized, you might want to take heed.

She is objectified. Why did a slender woman conforming to the media's standard of beauty get chosen to model? This could be an album cover.

It is, in addition to looking like a crucifix, a bit of a classic Yes/No ambiguity...her arms are open ("Yes!") but her legs are closed ("No!"). She's in a bed! Her back is arched! For crying out loud.

I do think they could have done the same pose/nudity/etc and made it less "cute" somehow, I guess. For instance, regarding the objection from yikes, *don't* put her in a nice comfy bed: put on the floor, put her in an alleyway (massive stereotype, I guess, but less pleasant looking), make her hunch more, or be dirty or clearly battered. Or dead.

But I also don't think the arms being open is saying "yes" necessarily; I read it more as tied/(nailed) down. And you can't deviate from the basic cross-shaped pose and keep it recognizable as a Jesus reference, so to keep that look it would be hard to have her curled up or something.

or instance, regarding the objection from yikes, *don’t* put her in a nice comfy bed: put on the floor, put her in an alleyway (massive stereotype, I guess, but less pleasant looking), make her hunch more, or be dirty or clearly battered. Or dead.

All of those are stereotypes -- hugely inaccurate stereotypes. Most raped women are not raped in alleyways or floors, I'll bet you anything that most do take place in bed. Women don't all hunch over in a fetal position after being raped, and the majority are not "dirty or clearly battered." And a majority clearly aren't dead. This is actually a much more accurate depiction than the things you listed.

i guess what i found alarming about this poster was that it used the stat that only 4% of women report rape as its anti-rape message--i think if i was the type who would consider raping, that stat would only encourage me.

cara and bagelsan--i still think you can make it less "cute" without resorting to stereotypes. maybe if the model had stayed on the bed used the same cross-shaped pose and made it look less powerful/intentional and more forced? maybe if her face were just a little more hidden, or her back arched less? i'm sure it could be done....

being from italy i think i can shed some "local light" on the thing.

contrary to what Dubi says nudity here in italy still have a very "sexual" meaning. full frontal nudity is absolutely reserved for the sexual/intimate sphere. male "graphic" frontal nudity is an almost absolute taboo, almost unseen on anything but porn. partial female nudity is accepted in every "male-oriented" product advertising but it's clearly sexualized. Nudity in "female-oriented" products is accepted only for beauty products, but it still have a sexual meaning.

the problem the ultra-conservative politicians highlighted here is not much about the nudity of the woman but much more about the use of the cross symbol. Here in italy politicians MUST at least pay lip service to the catholic church if they want any chance of success. many go much beyond lip service. especially in the right winged parties, but also in the left-wing area.

Using the cross for anything but catholic religious purposes is seen as blasphemous.

Using the cross iconology, together with a naked woman for a campaign aimed at a problem which a good part of right-wing males (at least here in italy) consider their right was simply too much.

Ok, this last sentence is a little politically biased ;)

But i think the issue here really was the use of the cross, the same picture without religious content wouldn't have caused much trouble. The same guy who asked it to be removed would have much probably simply stared at the girls breasts, smiled and tought "wow, nice boobs"...

Marcello

Marcello, maybe it's a regional issue. I know up north (Milan, for example) I saw quite a lot of nudity in the public sphere. It was sexual, but not "pornographic" as any nudity would be considered in the US. Of course, Italy is no match for Germany, but still much closer to them than to America.

Okay, obviously I know those are stereotypes. I was trying to point out (maybe ineptly) that pretty much any portrayal is going to have the problem of not being representative of what every woman looks like/goes through. With those raped-in-an-alley stereotypes at least it is obviously "bad"; I'm not sure how easy it would be to portray "rape is bad" to the public at large with a more realistic too-drunk-to-consent-but-not-fighting or these-two-people-are-married-and-she-doesn't-want-to-have-sex-but-he-etc kind of poster. If she's not clearly obviously miserable it would be hard to show that she's not consenting.

(And I meant "hunched" not like "fetal" but as an alternative to back arched.)

I'd like to know from the poster why that is objetification.

Perhaps the advertising agency should use a naked Muhammad and see what that gets them.

Bagelsan - isn't that the important challenge, though? To make people realize that just because a woman is in a bed doesn't necessarily mean you can have your way with her? It's easy to tell people "don't rape women in alleys". It's more difficult to tell them that sex ALWAYS requires consent.

I definitely agree with your goal (enthusiastic consent and all that) but I just have a reeeally low opinion of the sophistication of the public at large. So I guess my cynicism is getting in the way... apologies.

I kind of get the impression that the poster is going for shock value, and the stereotypes seem more *visually* shocking than a realistic portrayal might (and certainly more visually shocking than a pretty naked woman lounging on a bed). But I definitely get it that the stereotypes, while clearly "bad" and therefore useful in that way, might be so far removed from reality that they aren't useful in other ways.

So yeah. Long story short, don't hire me for a poster campaign. :p

Vidya--excellent point. I think, though, it's a little mixed. They probably felt they had to use such a "beautiful" woman to make people more concerned because the reality is people care more about and are more likely to look at ads with "beautiful" women. However, you are right that it erases "not beautiful" women and in fact perpetuates those ideas and the stereotype that only "beautiful" women are raped.

Dubi--Obviously Carlo Fidanza's primary problem is with the use of the religious symbol, but a huge part of his problem, as he says, is it's association with "sexual provocation." I think that's pretty good evidence it's considered a sexual image. And it's an extreme oversimplification that Americans consider all nude images pornographic. Nude images--intended that way or not--are understood as having the a special potential to be sexually gratifying or arousing. And sex and work are not supposed to go together. Hence, NSFW.

Those with questions about objectification or sexual objectification should probably look those words up. Is there any depth to this image? Or is it merely her sexually attractive body (layered on the Christ image) used to "sell" rape awareness? It's certainly not humanizing. Is it that different from other sexualizing images of women? And if those are intended to "turn on" and "attract" the viewer, what complicated message does this ad send?

Why is everyone assuming this woman is stereotypically pretty? She's not made up, she's not airbrushed, why should she not get a job because you don't think she represents everyone? Nobody bodily represents everyone, of course you could do this campaign with many body types in the same pose...? Besides, I think she's a little too skinny to be considered conventionally beautiful, wasn't the point of the arc of her back to flatten her breasts and make her ribs stick out in order for her to be less discernible from the starving image of the male Christ, in order for people to take a second glance?

I am a Christian, and I know that the cross carries endless significance. Jesus, however, was not the only one to be crucified. He was simply the only one who rose again after dying on one. I don't see it as blasphemous because no one is claiming that the woman is the Christ. Christ died so we would not have to live bound by sin. This poster is at least a reminder of that, as well as an important message to stop rape!   
I choose to worship the God who is ALIVE, not still hanging on the cross!