You actually see this in, of all things, cartoon characters. If for example you have two animal characters, the female will always be lighter than the male (also smaller, and standing/sitting in "feminine" poses that really apply only to humans).

Those ads look weird to me on the racial level, and I don't think they reinforce any sort of gender/race "cultural rules." No macho black man would be cavorting around in pink striped Diesel briefs like that - dude looks gay.

Back in college, I remember a teacher mentioning that in ancient and classical art, women were usually represented with lighter skin. For example: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/YdhxRs-bbCEPT3lo329v9g

And there's this: http://www.gettysburg.edu/news_events/press_release_detail.dot?id=2617806&crumbTitle=How+skin+deep+is+beauty%3F+Psychology+prof+answers

I'm not sure what it all really means and there are multiple explanations (like women working indoors more and therefore light skin being associated with femininity). I do think it indicates that it's deeper than being just an American or racial or modern phenomenon.

I don't like that the male models are referred to by their race (black) but the women are referred to by skin tone (light). It detracts from the fact that aside from one of the models who may be Latina, the female models are all WHITE. Which gives this a whole extra level; black men are not only seen as hypermasculine and hypersexual, they are often depicted as being obsessed with white women specifically (as opposed to just hypersexual and thus interested in having sex with women in general, as having black female models included would imply) to the point of seducing or raping white women simply because, well, they are white women. The lack of black female models not only perpetuates the idea that black women are masculine and dark skinned women are undesirable, but that black women by definition are undesirable, even if they do have light skin. If the stereotype that black men are obsessed with white women is true, and these black men are ONLY shown with white women, the implication is not only that black men are hypersexual and white women are attractive, but that there is something wrong with black women. This is discussed more often in the context of slavery and the time period immediately following it, but we can still see evidence of it today: white women, while lacking for the privileges of white men, had a specific set of privileges in that era. White women were treated with respect (or at least, chivalry), white women were almost always allowed to be considered attractive, white women were not expected to do physical labor. Black women were denied these small privileges that defined 'woman' at the time, so the stereotypes following black women were associated with 'man' (which was addressed in the post). Since black women are 'masculine,' they are not considered attractive. Even today, it is the exception for a black woman to be considered attractive, regardless of whether she has light skin, straight hair, and a small nose; the fact that she can claim 'black' as part of her ethnicity is enough to be considered ugly, or at best, the exception to the rule. You'll hear people saying of conventionally attractive black women such as Beyonce or Halle Berry, not 'she's a pretty woman,' but 'she's pretty FOR a black woman.' These women don't look too terribly different from white or Latina celebrities, but they are very often given a qualifier. However, a white woman under a certain weight will almost NEVER be considered ugly no matter what she looks like otherwise. That's what I'm seeing here; not an example of colorism so much as a perpetuation of racial stereotypes and how those connect with attractiveness.

God, all these ads make me think of is The Human Centipede. THANKS DIESEL!!!! *goes in search of mindbleach*

There is a white man with lighter skin than the woman next to him... in the third photo. Just sayin'

Interesting. The same racism is found in mainstream pornography - sexualizing of power struggles. Disel has to be one of the worst companies - they constantly put degrading soft-core porn advertisements out that either depict racism, like this here, and sexual violence.

Great post!

Has anyone else noticed the fair-skinned guy in the green striped shorts? It's funny in a "Where's Waldo" kinda way.

I think a lot of art directors go for the beautiful contrast dark and light skin create. Though it's odd that we don't see, at least in these five images, any dark skinned women with fair skinned men.

I am wondering how it is possible for some posters to be so certain that the "light skinned" woman are white? I am unable to determine their race by looking at these photographs. I am not sure that the race of these woman can be ascertained by the images presented.

Two of the last three photos are taken from Diesel’s “Intimate” collection, which features 22 photos on their website. Rather than selectively choose those two photos, I wish that some of the other photos from the collection were included to provide additional context.

I agree that photos in which “darker-skinned models appear always to be male, while the women appear to always be lighter-skinned” can be problematic. But not all of the photos in the collection follow that script. Additionally, I think that it is quite difficult to ascertain the race/ethnicity/nationality of some of the models included in the set.

The “Intimate” collection can be viewed here:
http://www.diesel.com/collection/diesel/dsl-fw2010-intimate

"According to American cultural stereotypes...Black women, too, as [are?]seen as more masculine than white women: they are louder, bossier, more opinionated and, like men, more sexual and more athletic."
-lynn

First of all, it seems to me that "American cultural stereotypes" here refers to stereotypes that were developed & continue to be reinforced by mainstream (meaning White) American society (and other Western societies?). That is not to say that some People of Color in the past and presentely may still accept these stereotypes. But those stereotypes didn't come from us* & those stereotypes were not and are not accepted by all Americans, regardless of race/ethnicity. (For full disclosure, I'm an African American woman).

i also believe that it's important to note that "masculine" as used in this quote doesn't necessarily mean "looking like a male". Notice that the adjectives used to denote Black women's "masculinity" are "louder", "bossier", "more opinionated", "more sexual", and "more athletic". A person who is louder, bossier, more opinionated, and more athletic still be sexy in appearance. More atthletic" ould mean more capable of engaging in athletic activities. And what "more sexy in appearance" means is also culturally determined, and Americans of Color may not-I think do not-always agree with Anglo-Americans regarding what looking sexy means.

Given these points, it may not be any conflict for Americans (including some People of Color) to believe that Black women are bossier, more opinionated and more athletic and sexy. That's why Black women who look like Dorothy Dandridge, Lena Horne, Eartha Kitt, Halle Berry, and Beyonce as well as some darker skinned Black women have been considered to be sexy "red hot mamas".

I admit that I'm familiar with the attitude that Black women (and also Brown women, with "Brown" here meaning Latino) are bossier, less likely to fawn over a man than White women or Asian women, and less likely to take any crap from a man. I will even opine that it may be possible that fewer African American and Latino women (and maybe Native American woman) than women of other races will take crap from men. If so, I think there are cultural reasons for this. It certainly isn't genetic. But I didn't equate that (and I still don't equate that) with being masculine.

.

I like to add one more post to this discussion, though it's far from the Diesal ads:

With regard to White women being placed on a pedestal, I'd like to remind readers here of (African American/anti-slavery activist) Sojourner Truth's "Aint I A Women" speech. The following quotes are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't_I_a_Woman%3F

"[Sojourner Truth's] speech was delivered at the Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio, on May 29, 1851, and was not originally known by any title. In her speech, Truth argued that while American culture often placed white women upon a pedestal and gave them certain privileges (most notably that of not working), this attitude was not extended to black women....

Twelve years later in May 1863, Frances Dana Barker Gage published a very different version. In it, she gave Truth many of the speech characteristics of Southern slaves, and she inserted new material that Robinson didn't report. Gage's version of the speech was republished in 1875, 1881 and 1889, and became the historic standard. This version is known as "Ain't I a Woman?" after the oft-repeated refrain added by Gage.[2] Truth's own speech pattern was not Southern in nature, as she was born and raised in New York, and spoke only Dutch until she was nine years old.

Additions that Gage made to Truth's speech include the ideas that she could bear the lash as well as a man, that no one ever offered her the traditional gentlemanly deference to a woman, and that most of her 13 children were sold away from her into slavery. Truth is widely believed to have had five children, with one sold away, and was never known to boast more children."

-snip-
I believe that Frances Dana Barker Gage was White. I'm not sure why she changed Sojourner Truth's dialect & added those other comments. Perhaps she thought the speech would be better received by White people of that time, who I assume were the target audience for that speech.

I think that the entire article makes fascinating reading. And I think it's unfortunate that revision of Sojourner Truth's speech-if not the actual speech- might even be said to support the "masculine Black women" stereotype. It seems to me that Sojourner Truth didn't intend for that to be an outcome of that speech.

Here's the correct link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't_I_a_Woman%3F

While in many ad campaigns, I do see the topic to be the case, I don't see a ton of context to this campaign that would make me think "black = masculine, white = feminine".

Unless there's some text I'm missing somewhere, of course.

The best research I had come about racial relationships comes from a dating site with a huge pool of subjects:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-race-affects-whether-people-write-you-back/

There was a post I read on a blog awhile ago - I can't remember which one, feministing.com? feministe.us? it might have even been this one - that posited that there is a reason why the Old Spice Guy is black. I would look for a link to share but I can't remember where it was - anyone know what I'm talking about?

One problem that often gets expressed in forums like this is the underrepresentation of POC in pop imagery. Inadvertently, perhaps, Lisa has just legitimized the frequent exclusion.

The trouble is, in the minds of like-minded analysts, virtually any image of a black or dark-skinned person is inherently racial in its subtext. No matter what the photographer's or client's reasons are for choosing a black model, the resulting image will leave such people projecting a narrative about race onto it. And that's quite a threat to the creators of ad images. If the client has any aversion to controversy, it's simply easier to stick to conventionally attractive and gender-normative white models.

Sure, Lisa also talks quite a lot about the problematic "neutrality" of whiteness. And here we have one compelling case for it!

Here's a little input from a photographer's perspective, though. As beautiful as images of unclothed people with contrasting skin tones are in person, they're quite difficult to expose to the desired effect in artificial lighting. The "desired effect" I'm talking about here does have a lot to do with gendered ideals of body type. The males here are lit to show firm muscle definition and body hair, and that means higher contrast. Darker skin gives you a lot more possibilities to work with contrast, both during and post-exposure. The females, on the other hand, are meant to look softer, less muscly, and without the slightest trace of body hair or blemish. That means lower contrast - an effect you get more easily with light skin.

Of course, soft/curvy men and hard/muscled women can be beautiful too, but the fashion industry isn't that imaginative.

These particular ads aim to be arousing both for the masculine and feminine attributes, and it owes any success there to how tactile they are. No doubt, the residual taboos surrounding interracial sex enhance their appeal to the brand, which always aims to present as far edgier than it is. Are we supposed to identify with the headless male, or lust after him? Just as with the headless women, it depends on the gaze we bring to the image ourselves; Jordan perhaps betrayed a bit of his/her own in the analysis.

I don't have many nice things to say about Diesel, but here are some rare things going on here worth appreciating:

1) The "characters" appear to be having fun - not looking vacant and lifelessly pretty.
2) The skin contrasts aren't exaggerated for shock value; the interracial couplings (and implicitly, the poly ones) are made to appear natural and normal.
3) Male body hair! It's not all that common for models.
4) Equal-opportunity objectification! How often does Lisa complain about the opposite?!
5) Near-matching men's and women's underwear! They're moving our eyes closer to the idea that men and women can be equally sexy in essentially the same comfortable undergarment, rather than painting lady parts with frilly or body-modifying lingerie.