In a lot of the poses, the models almost look like they're supposed to be dead--like they're mangled corpses.

When I read your post, I assumed you meant the NYT had an article discussing--and analyzing--this issue. How disheartening to discover it's not a piece ABOUT these types of image, just another example of how ubiquitous they are.

In the examples you've shown, there is a missing (male) figure, lying either below (1) or above her (2-4).

Wow, that last model really needs to start eating. I don't think the ribcage and hipbone should stick out that far, even in an unnatural position.

Yes, thanks for posting the Cavalli ad. I always thought it was rather painful, when I first saw it.

Still do (ouch!).

It looks like the models are meant to be following the lines of the natural backgrounds here - the woman in the Calvin Klein ad, for example, is mirroring the shape of the tree (or stump or whatever) she's supported against, the woman in the Missioni ad is mimicking the shape of the ground, etc. Are these ads suggesting that women are part of the background, simply landscape, and need these products in order to stand out or rise above being simply part of the land?

As a former model, I can attest to the often painful posing (especially at the end of a shoot - these poses have to be held for a long time). I was often told by the photographers (and sometimes shown images to mimic) to "be a tree" or "be a Greek statue" or some other object/piece of background. I didn't feel like the idea was to pose me in a way that made my body look mangled, but that the idea was to pose me in a way that would objectify (literally - not in a sexual way) me, as a woman. I think it's supposed to be "edgy" and "arty", but it's really unnatural and weird. I dunno - do these ads make anyone want to buy Cavalli and Calvin Klein? Do these ads even appeal to their target demographic? I think a lot of it has to do with the vanity of the art directors/photographers assigned to the shoot - the more out-there and bizarre it is, the more attention it will garner, and the more attention their work gets, the more work they'll get.

Sorry for the long comment - this post just got me thinking (as do all your posts - keep up the good work!).

The more that I think about this phenomenon, the less that I am convinced that it has much to do with heterosexual male desire or hatred of women. Rather, I suspect that the deeper issue may be a prevailing philosophy of art and a set of aesthetic values that dominate fashion. It is not about how women and their bodies have functioned as objects of desire, or even as objects of hatred, but rather how they have functioned as objects of art. There is a different kind of misogyny (albeit not one driven by direct hatred so much as by cruel artistic indifference) at work here and it is not clear to me that straight males are most associated with this particular form of misogyny - the misogyny of aestheticism.

The aesthetic in question is governed by the autotelic conviction that art is for art's sake. High fashion, to present itself as art, must highlight this autotelicism. To be a body fit for high fashion, i.e. 'high art' fashion, the body must be detached from other ends in order to become purified object of art (this is also why much high fashion is completely unwearable). It must be torn free from the order of nature, stripped of the generous gifts of flesh, removed from its visible fecundity, presented as sterile and aseptic, with a blank affect, expressing no personal embodiment, and rendered indifferent to the order of desire and emotion. Anything that might suggest that the body may have a value or purpose or be related to ends other than those of the high art of fashion detracts from the art for art's sake aesthetic that is being striven for.The discomfort of the models' bodies is thus the point. The more unnatural or artificial the situation looks the better. The more 'natural' the situation or the body looks, the less artistic is would be. Autotelic art is art defined in terms of artifice and the unnatural. The position of their bodies is not an expression of hatred of women, so much as the indifference of high fashion/art to the comfort of the body. The more uncomfortable the body looks, the more that we are assured that we are viewing high art. By contrast, the models for low fashion smile, look relaxed and comfortable, and make connection with the viewer.

 I (a man) do not know on a rational level why these pictures turn me on, but they do.

Assuming it is not just some pathological fetish of mine (this might still well be the case), I would try explaining the fact that such poses are often used in fashion by the fact that they can turn people, mainly men perhaps, on. This would presumably lead to better sales of the product advertised in persons affected this way.

There could be an evolutional explanation for being turned on by this: A helpless woman in prehistoric times might have facilitated spreading your genes. Thus, people with this built-in reaction towards helpless-looking women might have spreaded their genes more successfully, when one looks at averages taken over a long time. This might have led to this built-in reaction still prevailing today, in societies where it is useless from a biological perspective and harmful from the perspective of society.

Life in societies where spreading genes is inferior to spreading thought is still a new thing after all, when one looks at it through the temporal perspective of biological human evolution.

Please excuse that I post anonymously.

Check out the photographer Yolanda Domingues - in her "Poses" project, she photographed women in everyday situations in the same poses as models in fashion shots, showing how absurd the depiction of women in fashion magazines really is. http://www.yolandadominguez.com/Poses/index.html

"Do we hate women that much?"

Yes.

Cue a bunch of d00dz mansplaining how it 'really isn't about that at all', and blahblahblah.

This reminds me of the discussion around similar (though slightly more anatomically impossible) poses in comic books. The discussion was sparked by the images at the Escher Girls blog ( http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/ )

Great piece- thank you for speaking on this topic.
 
Recently, someone dropped off some Vogue garbage - curious, I took a gander in the mag and could barely believe my eyes. There was so much sexism...so much woman-hating as well as racism and classism. High fashion, or rather, the entire industry of fashion as it flourishes today in fast capitalism, is one of the many industries that is blatantly anti-woman...Much like the cosmetic industry and the plastic surgery industry.It works as propaganda, essentially - the fashion industry, as it is often run by men with significant social power and wealth, whom establish mass-produced values and norms based on physical appearance and gender roles.Women are often portrayed in weak, warped and sometimes  even violent ways by so-called artistic dudes (and i know there are a few women). The whole industry feeds on assisting women in hating their own bodies and furthering the idea that they can be happy if they can consume enough. Women are told they need to shop, shop shop! and carefully construct their image, even going so far as to cut their bodies up and fill them with silicone. All of this is in order to meet the current patriarchal and racist beauty standards. 

/end rant

Perhaps people should look at this in terms of the woman's choice to pose like this. Isn't feminism about woman being equal? Having choices? As a woman, I am not even remotely offended by these photos. If these women did not want to pose like this, they would not have. Feminists should be more worried about women in areas where they do not have the right to choose their actions.

Maybe a trigger warning and putting these pictures after a jump would be appropriate.

These women don't look like they are raped and left for dead. These are
women who just came from a party where they drank way too much. The fantasy is to look good not matter what intoxicated state you are in. This is a female fantasy.

Anorexic contortionists wearing "fashion".  That sells stuff?  

I clicked this link from my blog reading list, and it took me a moment to realize it was socimages; I at first assumed I had clicked another blog I follow: http://www.ihurtiaminfashion.com/

And yes, those pictures are weird. 

I think it would be interesting to compare this type of "bent female bodies"  with the lolita bodies--- which has performed by super model lily cole at Play Boys years ago (http://photos.lucywho.com/lily-cole-photo-shoots-c15443954.html)

which one is more closed to the heterosexual aesthetic gaze?

I wonder if this is related to the other common trend of posing women in advertisements to look dead, or like they have been victimized.  
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/05/26/more-sexualized-violence-in-fashion-nsfw-trigger-warning/

These poses are simply bizarre.  Among other things, they ruin the clothing - how can I judge what a skirt or jacket really looks like?  I am inclined to assume 'bad' is the answer - that the pose is intended to make up for inaccurate tailoring.  As a petite woman with a pear shape I find many garments look ridiculous on me, so perhaps I need to start posing to distract from that?  Generally odd poses seem to accentuate something about the garment - the Calvin Klein ad makes the pants look particularly long and slimming - but in most of these the pose detracts from the clothing entirely.

Well, we're not really supposed to notice the women, they're basically animated clothes racks. However, a couple of those pictures had some kind of rapetastic undertones that seriously creeped me out. 

The ultimate submission.

That's creepy! Those women look like they're either injured or dead!

Fashion = marketing.  If the adds didn't sell they wouldn't be run by CK and V60.  Men are not a significant source of female fashion item purchases.  The purpose of these images is to convince women to purchase the item or brand.    If women did not pander to this (real or imagined) association between their own suffering and the attention of others, this campaign would not be successful.  
If male sexism is to blame here, it takes a round-about path.

Really? is this how manipulated women are? The outfits

 are both unique and daring.. I really can't say but they don't really look nice, maybe it has something to do with how they project how manipulated they are, but I'm just curious on what they're trying to gain with this..

The first and the last sicken me the most. Those women truly look dead to me.

And some of the comments here are seriously making me sick.

If you are a woman, it is not "our" society. Men have to keep on degrading us because most of them are a bunch of insecure gutless weenies.