Nicola R. sent in an image of the ad that is on the back cover of the September 2011 issue of Desktop, an Australian magazine aimed at graphic designers. The ad, for Olympus cameras and their art filters, presents four identical images of a woman with different effects applied. The tagline, in small print under the photos, is “Never get bored of how your girlfriend looks again”:
As Nicola says, the message here is that woman are eternally on display to an objectifying male gaze, “not just in public but often also in our personal lives,” and can never stop manipulating their physical appearance lest they risk losing their male partner’s interest.
Comments 29
Emily — September 9, 2011
Oh, that is just gross. I hate the use of the word 'again'. This is another ad that offends men as well as women: suggesting that women can't keep their boyfriends interested, and that men are too fickle to stay attracted to their girlfriend.
Anonymous — September 9, 2011
Can we please see the image or have a link to it? (Or is my computer just not loading it for some reason?)
Racerx — September 9, 2011
Men are on display just as women are companies are about making money this topic popping up every week is just beating a dead horse over and over it will never change.
Witofastaircase — September 9, 2011
The image won't load for me either.
Anonymous — September 9, 2011
Here's the image for those who can't see it:
Anonymous — September 9, 2011
What the hell. I guess marketing thinks they want to target the douchebag sector.
Tweedledee — September 9, 2011
Is "bored of" acceptable English usage? It just sounds awkward.
Anonymous — September 9, 2011
It also plays on a trope that annoys the shit out of me: that long term and serious relationships (using the terms fairly loosely, as this says "girlfriend" as opposed to "girl you went on 2 dates with) are based primarily on physical attraction. If someone like another person to call them "girlfriend," "boyfriend," "going steady," or heaven forbid, "spouse," they should have a number of qualities about their partner that they find attractive and important that AREN'T based on their looks, and are more important than their looks. Someone always says, when this is brought up, "BUUUUUUUUUUT physical attraction is what first draws you to a personnnnnnnnnnn how can you have sex with someoneyou're repulsed byyyyyyyy." So what? 12 year olds have mastered the idea of "I am attracted to people who look like this, but not people who look like that." As adults, we should be able to maybe use attraction as part of our qualifications, but if you're dating someone like that, being "bored of their looks" shouldn't be that big of a deal.
Maeghan — September 9, 2011
Boyfriends get "bored" with their girlfriends' looks? Is that actually a thing?
Target Audience For This Ad — September 9, 2011
Oh yes, finally! I was going to break up with my girlfriend since I've gotten so bored of the way she always looks like... well... herself. But thanks to this camera and all its fancy filters, I will surely remain attracted to her for at least another week!
Gwen — September 9, 2011
Why does the woman's partner have to be a man? Women can have girlfriends, too. I know it's safe to assume the ad is speaking to a heterosexual male audience, but as a lesbian I felt weirdly included there for a second.
Longtimelurker — September 9, 2011
Another problem with this ad is that it assumes the readers of this magazine are male and straight, even though it's aimed at graphic designers... My hobby is photography and when I occasionally browse through photography magazines (mostly British ones), it always annoys me when the text references "your wife/girlfriend", as if no females could possibly be interested in the content of their magazine. Is it so hard to say "partner"?
Anemail — September 10, 2011
It's the double barrel'o'insult....
1. Women are not camera users
2. The only people with girlfriends are guys.
Uuuuuurgghhh! Olympus fail.
William Angel — September 10, 2011
I think that there is a subtext present in the image itself. For the sake of discussion, assume that the woman pictured isn't really the photographer's girlfriend, but a fellow office worker who is his "fantasy" girlfriend. I suggest this because her look (at the photographer) suggests that she is thinking "why is this dork taking pictures of me?"
Meryl T — September 10, 2011
I didn't know this was a thing. Misogyny is always up-to-date with new trends, eh?
I mean, I've heard quasi-scientific explanations for why women love buying new shoes and clothes so goshdarned much: y'know, so they can effectively disguise themselves as a new woman for their partner every day. But the fact that that whole idiotic premise relied on the assumption that all women love shoes made me dismiss that in the blink of an eye anyway.
Anonymous — September 10, 2011
I understand where the objections to this ad are coming from, but the ultimate decision is made by any woman who would put up with unreasonable demands made by her partner, or society.
scythemantis — September 12, 2011
I thought this was ad was demeaning to men more than women. I don't see a message that the girlfriend is actually boring or that there's anything wrong with her. The message I see here is that men are supposedly all such shallow, selfish pigs that they're supposed to relate to this.
HOT4U.CO » Blog Archive » Is This Olympus Camera Ad Sexist? — September 15, 2011
[...] One of the things that comes up in a gender studies class is the concept of the “male gaze.” Generally speaking, it’s the idea that men have a particular and at-times oppressive way of envisioning women (innocent, helpless, submissive, dumb, etc.) which is reflected through the media. The excellent blog Sociological Images hazards a guess that this Olympus camera ad, which appeared in an Australian graphic design magazine, is the very definition of the male gaze. But it’s not the pictures of the attractive women in different colors/tones that are the problem — it’s the caption, which reads “Never get bored of how your girlfriend looks again.” Personally, I think the ad is clever, not especially sexist, although I do understand how it could be read as privileging men to control womens’ appearances. What do Frisky readers think? [Sociological Images] [...]
Is This Olympus Camera Ad Sexist? — September 15, 2011
[...] be read as privileging men to control womens’ appearances. What do Frisky readers think? [Sociological Images] Ads by Easy CB Ads Filed Under: Uncategorized Related PostsNo related posts [...]
Visual pleasure and Thoughts on Mulvey « mnuss — September 20, 2011
[...] http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/09/09/olympus-camera-ad-reinforces-male-gaze/ Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
surveillancekings — September 5, 2020
For inside, pick a gigantic part in the room from where most passage things into the room are undeniable. surveillance system installation brooklyn An electrical fitting should in like way be in closeness. For outside, pick a higher spot veiling the section, window strategies, parking spots, and so forth. Pick the spots above 10ft with the target that it can not be pulled down with no issue.