Hypocrisy?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Aug 19, 2007 11:47 AM EDT |
So this blog entry had a link to a blog with the original ad. On the side-bar of this second blog, "feministing.org", was an ad for a book "Full Frontal Feminism". The picture used for this book was hip, belly button and quite fair skin shown as close to the pubic hair as to show no hair, with not a stitch of clothing in sight. I'm not surprised that sex sells. I'm not surprised that people know sex sells. What I'm surprised by is how people _act_ surprised that sex sells. The real question is "would you buy the servers so advertised?" Despite its internal protestations to the contrary, do you think the ad sucks? Then don't buy their product. |
| gus3 Aug 19, 2007 2:03 PM EDT |
[warning: blunt talk follows] I think the difference is in the implication that "our servers won't go down on you (and they aren't supposed to), even if she won't either (like she should)." The image of the woman is not indicative in any way of intimacy or arousal. It's a neutral, disembodied face, sexualized by the text for a cheap shot. Furthermore, the topic of the book is feminism (about women, including their sexualities), where the topic of the LJ ad is supposed to be Linux-based servers. In reality the LJ ad is more about the (mis-)perceptions of sysadmins, Linux users, and the ad's readers in general, and their levels of sexual satisfaction. And those perceptions are plain wrong, all around. This ad cost the LJ editor-in-chief her job in 2000 (or 2001, not sure the exact date). I'm hoping for a repeat result this time. |
| jacog Aug 19, 2007 2:09 PM EDT |
I think the issue is less about the sexuality of the ad and more to do with the fact that the ad automatically assumes all sysadmins are male. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 19, 2007 5:20 PM EDT |
The variety of viewpoints is fascinating. Personally, I think the ad was repulsive. |
| gus3 Aug 19, 2007 8:12 PM EDT |
jacog, that's only the tip of the iceberg. What if, instead of some bodiless woman, it were a picture of you in that ad? Would you take offense to that? Which makes me wonder: what does the model think of her facial image being used in such an exploitative ad? |
| dinotrac Aug 20, 2007 4:40 AM EDT |
>Which makes me wonder: what does the model think of her facial image being used in such an exploitative ad? Ten to one she thinks she got paid. Jacog got it right. Compare it to the Calvin Klein "kiddie-porn" ads of the 90s, a "gang-rape" ad by Dolce and Gabbana, the Gucci "woman's place" picture, etc., and this ad wouldn't give the model pause. Another day, another dollar for all involved. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!