Thank you.
Love,
Jill
Dear Jean-Paul Gaultier,
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index
11 Responses
Comments are closed.
Reproductive Health Matters
We’re in the Guardian
In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set.
Thank you.
Love,
Jill
Comments are closed.
thank YOU, Jill.
Sexytime!
Randy, Jill.
Thank YOU.
*drool*
This isn’t trolling, but a legitimate question:
Is this objectification? The use of unrealistic, oddly hairless and unnaturally pore-less bodies to sell something? Shouldn’t we be against this sort of thing? Isn’t this baiting the haters who will say we feminists have a double standard?
What are your thoughts?
[...] I’m too distracted to care. Thank you feministe. About Media By Exene on 22.12.08 at 3:31 am « It’s Not Fucking [...]
Is this objectification?
I would say no. Thinking shirtless fit men are hot isn’t objectification. Neither is looking at them. That’s only natural (for some of us). I can admire these beautiful bodies without thinking I own them or thinking I am entitled to use them without their consent for my own gains.
The use of unrealistic, oddly hairless and unnaturally pore-less bodies to sell something?
I don’t think using the human body to sell products is inherently wrong. The human body is beautiful and should be celebrated. And cologne is something that goes on the body, so the content of the commercial has something to do with what they’re selling. If they were selling something like cookies, then that’d be odd and tacky. And I just noticed that there’s no woman in this ad. A lot of ads for male hygiene stuff screams the message “smell like this, and hot girls will immediately go down on you.”
Shouldn’t we be against this sort of thing? Isn’t this baiting the haters who will say we feminists have a double standard?
I don’t think this is the same thing as some ads that treat women like objects. Was it a Michael Kors perfume ad wear the bottle was between the woman’s breasts, and her mouth was open a la blow-up doll? That’s objectification, because it takes a real woman and turns her into a sex object and provider of designer cologne, and that’s all. I compare this JPG ad to the J’adore Dior ad with Charlize Theron. She takes all of her clothes off in that ad. You don’t see anything though. To me, the nature of that commercial doesn’t say “objectification.”
“The use of unrealistic, oddly hairless and unnaturally pore-less bodies to sell something?”
FIrst off, not everybody is covered with hair. And how on Earth can you tell they are “pore-less”? The video is too low resolution!
My first comment in probably an entire year–or maybe more–and it is so deep and thought provoking.
I think a certain amount of objectification is natural for the human species (and I believe I wrote a post about this for Feministe this past summer! Woo, time flies!). I think it depends on how you do it. If a guy walking past me says, “looking good, babe!” – that’s objectification too, but it’s certainly not of the type I would mind. Therefore, I see no problem with pointing out a good-looking male – hairless or otherwise (I’m not big on the whole hairless chest thing, but whatever floats your boat, as they say).
Commercials, like anything else, are selling a fantasy. Fantasy has to be part of our daily reality – if we are to remain human beings, I believe.
*DROOL*
Wow. That’s four flavors of gorgeous, right there!
ThickRedGlasses — it sounds like a rationalization to me. The distinctions you make are too fine. Bottom line, its ok for women to objectify men, but it is not ok for men to objectify women. Double standard, but at least I am starting to get used to it.