Or a woman playing basketball and trying to prevent the guy from the other team from getting the rebound?

Alright, if I were surrounded by that much awesomeness, I'd look stoned too....besides, that is the generic hippie female look.....

There's actually a genre of porn centred around the idea of women staying clothed while the men are naked. I can't remember the acronym but it's aimed at men (as always). I think the attraction has something to do with the undertones of submission/humiliation. It's not something I'm interested on researching further :/

On a separate note, I like the photos, I don't find any of the men that attractive, but it's nice to see a balance. Although I agree with your point about the one on the basketball court.

On one final note :) I really dislike the photo titles you mentioned, regarding other cultures/people of colour. Especially when all the models are white. Firstly, I think there's kind of an undertone of appropriation (that's the best word I can think of) as well as the point about blurring the line between people of colour, and the idea of being 'primitive'

those titles are pretty jaw-droppingly racist. "gypsies, tramps and thieves"?? "tribal council." good Lord.

I agree that the final photo more or less just shows a woman playing basketball; the way her arms are outstretched is pretty common in basketball when playing defense, and none of the men are even looking at her. Of course, as always, there are multiple readings to everything (intentional or otherwise).

Much ado about nothing with the D&G ad; they're just 'playing basketball' (scare quotes because she's in heels and a dress and obviously there's some artistic license at play here).

shows no wang

this is completely safe for work

I agree there are no strong confident women in any of the photos. Nor, for that matter, do any men but the basketball players (more about them in a moment) look happy to be there either. Which seems as much a slap at the embryonic approach to naked men represented by Filaments magazine or authors Mathilde Madden and Kristina Lloyd's cover-watch campaign as it does the fashion industry's general contempt for the comfort of human coat racks of any sex.

---

The basketball photo is jarring as well though I don't read it as the fashion model trying either fend off aggressive men or to play basketball herself. Instead it looks very, very much like she's photoshopped in. Or if she's not then the photographers and director went to extreme lengths to dissociate her visually from the interaction of men in competition and/or play with each other.

I know next to nothing about basketball but even I can tell that while the woman might be attempting eye contact with the crouching man his eyes are, possibly longingly, on the three other men she appears to be physically preventing him from joining.

All of which has its own extremely gendered messaging about women and fashion's stance on women's place among men that are different from but no less depressing than D&G's earlier, completely unambiguously assault-oriented "pinned down" ads: other than during actively sexual situations women are either invisible or an unwanted intrusion into the activities of men.

What bothers me most about this post isn't the pictures, but the fact that there was a need to label them "extremely NSFW." While there is pubic hair shown, no male genitalia is shown, not even a good butt shot. If these models were women it would probably only have been labeled as slightly NSFW. I think this is more revealing of how we view sexuality than anything in the photos. We've become so used to nude women that to see them isn't a shock, while men in the same position is still scandalous and taboo.

I don't think the point of these shots is "reversing the gendered power dynamic we typically see". I don't really understand what the point is, but I don't see anything that even vaguely resembles a power dynamic in here all, except for maybe that the men are more available for consumption than the women. The titles are more references to popular culture (e.g. 'tribal council' to Survivor), although the original points of reference are, of course, themselves imbued with questionable politics, and this intertextuality does perpetuate that somewhat.

I hardly noticed that there were women in those ads.

Why was my comment about my reaction to the pictures removed? They were sincere statements..

I think maybe the appropriation of cultures plus an association of "primitive" = "wild" (from the title of the photo series) would extend to the representation of the nude dudes in the images. The whole "animal print" = "primitive/sexually aggressive" has been seen in earlier posts on appropriation of images from Africa, and on women of color being associated with these unfair characterizations.

I think that it stands to reason that the idea that animal prints and "tribal" clothing turn women into "sexual aggressors" who supposedly have control over these naked men (or at least are their equals - in some of the photos, the women have their arms draped over the men or are holding hands with them). So, I think it IS actually sort of a reversal of the "male gaze" with a heap of cultural appropriation and stereotyping thrown in for good measure, but unfortunately the models look kind of drab and dejected (and hungry) rather than maybe sexually depraved like they were supposed to??

I would like to point out that most of these dudes have visible bush in many of these pictures. If they were naked women I can guarantee you they would be completely hairless down there.

To my eye, the reason the women don't look strong or self-possessed is that they look strung-out. The men don't need to assume the cliched menacing poses in order to appear dominant, because the blonde model, in particular, looks like she's too high to know her own name. Maybe I've just been hearing too many acquaintance-rape stories in real life lately, but all I can think is drugged woman + naked man = sexual assault.

What's weird to me is how unhappy the female models look. I always thought the point of fashion-advertising was to make you want to buy the clothes she's wearing so you can, in some weird way, be her ... or at least look like you're her. She's usually very pretty, wealthy and happy, and it's implied that if you were pretty and wealthy like her, you'd be happy, too. But since you're not, buy this and you'll get closer to being like her.

All that being said, the annoyed, almost angry looks on these model's faces is not making me want to be them by buying that product. If wearing that makes 'em so unhappy, why would I want to buy/wear it, myself?

Looks like a series of morning-after Walk of Shame photos, when they just want to get away from wherever they passed out the night before and disappear into a taxi as soon as they can. In this case it's the women (instead of the men as is usually the case) who are mostly already dressed and looking for the door (and like they're thinking "Oh God I hope nobody finds out about this¡").

The ads also immediately reminded me of the time a friend of mine had to walk halfway across the French Quarter in New Orleans at 9am wearing nothing but a sheer pink nightie (and he's 6 foot 3 inches tall); I'd guess the look on his face was a lot like the women's expressions in these ads (Get me some aspirin and get me outta here!).

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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?

(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.

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?

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?

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.

Her "I'm-going-to-destroy-your-existence." face is creeping me the hell out.