Wednesday, June 22, 2005

degrading denim.

Has anyone noticed that the advertisements for jeans are getting extremely crude? You glance at the ad and you cannot quite make out exactly what it is for - aphrodisiac, viagra-substitutes, impotency cures – oh yeah, or just plain old jeans.

The last ad I saw showed a man and a woman, both bare - chested. ok… maybe they were trying to promote body comfort and confront body politics… but nope. the primary focus of the ad was on the man reaching for the woman, both of them looking like they were ready to mate at the drop of a hat - the jeans were not even fully seen for crying out loud!

An ad like this would typically teach a kid that:
a). wearing jeans means youre inviting sexual attention.
b). if some womans wearing jeans it confers on you the right to go around feeling her up – theres no considering that she has a space of her own, or is entitled to say no.

Hmmmm.

I saw this “healthy” advertisement in a newspaper that’s supposed to be famed for being conventional and respectable. You know, when I was in school we were told to read the newspaper regularly because it had relatively safe and clean information, improved our knowledge of current affairs blah blah. If this is the garbage that my kids are going to learn by way of “general knowledge”, thanks, but no thanks – im definitely banning newspapers at home.

Labels: ,

12 Comments:

Blogger sensiblystoned said...

ok, so you are going to ban newspapers, the next thing would be tv, magazines. Pity your kids then. But they are still going to get lots of uninformed ideas in the head some way or the other :)

8:07 am  
Blogger morpheus said...

I do agree with the fact that ad's nowdays dont exactly convey wht they are supposed to, and the only way companies do tend to market their product is to bring a sexual aspect in..i mean look at the ad's around us...u have scantily clad women advertising toothpaste and pens !!! really do tend to get lost on wht their ultimate mission is, but i dont think that banning newspapers or any other form of media is gonna solve the problem..as sensiblystoned rightly put across. The closest we'r ever gonna get is a regulatory agency,but then again the good ol familiar problem of censorship arises !!!! who decides what we get to watch ?? and even if that problem does get solved, its kids we'r talkin abt....curiosity rulez !!!!

10:54 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

take it for what it is. it is a stupid ad. it appeals to some. it doesn't to most.

don't get offended by it.

what's to get offended? the man was bare chested too!! :)

-the nay-sayer

2:53 pm  
Blogger ~phobiac~ said...

oh...yeah...I know which one u r talking bout.....the one with John Abe in it right...I was actually wondering what they were trying to do with that AD....

esp the Deccan Ch.....hopeless.....fulla crap like these....

right said ...even I used to read the papers to improve my english......jus wondering what these dayz kids would improve by reading these stuff....sad...

11:21 pm  
Blogger ~phobiac~ said...

some ads like ....the indica one...why cant everyone make decent ads like that !

11:30 pm  
Blogger Vetti Guy said...

As promised earlier.....

Great post. Very sensitive and responsible.Keep up the good work.

11:48 pm  
Blogger Vetti Guy said...

Just kidding.

Agreed there is lot of sleazy stuff out there. But why make a big deal just because sexulaity is involved?
For example,no one thinks its bad if you see a pizza ad where they show a pizza with lots of delicious toppings and stuff.It is meant to appeal to your senses, right? Pleasure from eating.Same thing if they show a perfume ad.Pleasure due to the fragrance.When you encourage these, then a natural extension is to derive pleasure from other activities too....like sex.Which everyone(including ad makers) want to exploit.I dont blame them.

11:57 pm  
Blogger wooaaooww said...

hmm..Mystic, am not sure if I can agree with you. The product here is a pair of jeans, which is not an age/gender-specific product. So am sure this is not the most intelligent way to promote the same. I have nothing against involving sexuality in an ad. It's about the context...

1:31 am  
Blogger krishna canchi said...

yeah...jeans arent age/gender specific....but a 40 or 10 yr old wont experiment with the latest "thigh tight" or "bell bottom" model ....those betn 15 and 25 are easily carried away coz they want to appear "cool" and sexually appealing...sexuality in ads , i think, is one of the easiest ways to attract this vulnerable agegroup...

2:44 pm  
Blogger m. said...

@ss: you know, life isnt exactly miserable without tv, newspapers and mags - im extremely happy without that trash for the most part! i dont mean to hide the world from kids... i intend to talk to em first about sexuality, sex and stuff, and then show em trash like this ad and teach em to deconstruct it!

@morph: if throwing in a sexy woman is the *only* way a company can sell its products, it doesnt speak much for the quality of its products. and it doesnt explain how there have been successful brands which havent resorted to such cheap tactics.

also, the focus isnt curiosity as much what information were bombarding children with. whether theyre curious and want to see this trash or not, its being thrust down their throats.

@the nay-sayer: just my take on it- i thought it was trash and especially inappropriate for a medium with such a mixed audience!

@ phobiac: havent seen the indica ad - been a while since i saw tv :) kids would probably only learn about current "affairs" from papers these days! ;)

@the mystic: :p! LOL... but temme. why always the sexual aspect? why always show a scantily clad woman when shes in no way related to the product or concept sold? and that too, why always show a scantily clad woman whos smirking inanely,as if shes always pleased that shes the target of sexual attention, and nothing else matters?

@wooaaooww: yesh! :)

@krishna canchi: yeah, youth are more vulnerable to these ads, but i wouldnt say being older means having more sense and being immune to these messages! (the concept of a brand wouldnt exist if that were so). i guess the desperation to be sexually appealing never really goes unless theres a mindset change, because our culture places such a high premium on it.

7:34 pm  
Blogger Mediochre said...

at mystic@: a woman in NOT a commodity, a pizza is. so however irresponsibly u portray a pizza, u can't make its life miserable or make it a target of unwanted sexual attention, which unfortunately u can do to a woman.
further, sex is supposed to be mutually enjoyable & it rarely is, because the male gets to dictate the terms - and these kind of ads reinforce that inequality.
@m.: keep scribbling !

8:29 am  
Blogger Aditya Bidikar said...

One ad I'd like to mention in this context would be a billboard I saw, advertising, of all things, a cornetto ice cream. The man was lying down, and holding the cornetto slightly below waist level, and the women was peeling off the cover of the cornetto with her teeth, while looking at us. The innuendo was so blatant, that I was almost amazed.

11:55 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home



Visit Greenpeace.org to help prevent environmental destruction.
Creative Commons License
This blog's content is protected. Whack this and you get whacked.