Now on ScienceBlogs: Spirited Debate with Ray and Kirk
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« Michigan Messenger Makes News | Main | McCain Babbles in Defense of Palin's Earmark Record »
Posted on: September 18, 2008 9:09 AM, by Ed Brayton
The Worldnutdaily is throwing a fit over what they call a "raunchy, topless, bondage ad campaign" for Rock the Vote featuring Jessica Alba. Here's the ad:
That's a raunchy, topless bondage ad to them? Seriously? Cuz if they really want to see a raunchy poster with Jessica Alba, I'd be happy to produce it (with her permission, of course, which seems a bit far-fetched, but play along anyway). These people are wound way too tight.
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
Tim Lambert 11.22.2009
PZ Myers 11.19.2009
PZ Myers 11.22.2009
Ed Brayton 11.22.2009
Greg Laden 11.22.2009
Comments
Hmmm, I'm not so sure. I've tugged one out to less promising material than that in my time.
Posted by: JC | September 18, 2008 9:20 AM
Ed , Please... produce that raunchy photo of Jessica Alba but only for comparisons sake 8)
Posted by: VicVanity | September 18, 2008 9:31 AM
That's not Jessica Alba. It's Conor Oberst. They're mad because they WANTED a raunchy ad featuring Jessica Alba.
Posted by: Heather | September 18, 2008 9:33 AM
It's amusing that the article you linked to spends about 1/3 of the space talking not about the current ad, but about "Good Luck Chuck". It appears - to me at least - that this ad is so mild that they had to find SOME way to fill up article space, since there wasn't really enough evil to justify a whole article.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | September 18, 2008 9:39 AM
Hmmm....Is it raunchy? Yes, I'd say so. It's obviously an attempt to grab attention to its message by saying "Hey look, hot (scared) woman in bondage." The term "topless" implies that breasts are actually visible, but otherwise I'd say their description fits. We're just so used to seeing everything sexed up in order to be sold that it's not that surprising anymore. There's also the disturbing implication of violence.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 18, 2008 9:46 AM
I've got to agree with Gretchen...I think it's disturbing (but not for the reasons the wingnuts undoubtedly will spout). I appreciate that they're trying to get the attention of and stir out of apathy the 20-something demographic...but it's disturbing to me that a woman being bound and gagged is thought to be the most effective way of doing so. I think a picture of Jessica Alba simply with a piece of duct tape over her mouth would have gotten the point across. But looking at this, my first thought is that she's being raped, not that she's being simply kept from speaking up about something.
Posted by: Dr. Kate | September 18, 2008 10:19 AM
I missed that article - guess I was too hung up on the 'editorial' calling Obama Hitler this morning.
Posted by: yoshi | September 18, 2008 10:29 AM
Wound. Way. Too. Tight... ROFLMAO!!!!!!
Posted by: Greg Laden | September 18, 2008 10:43 AM
Holy shit, this is the first time I've actually clicked through to a WND article Ed's linked to, and I have to say, not in my wildest dreams could I have come up with something so mentally unbalanced. "Hitler was a community organiser too"? "Obama: Lucifer is my Homeboy Too by Ann Coulter"? These people see themselves as the common sense crowd.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | September 18, 2008 10:47 AM
I also find the ad disturbing in the same way Dr. Kate does with additional layers of annoyance because the text does not fit the image. "only you can silence yourself" they say, showing a woman who has quite obviously could not possibly get herself into the contraption that she's in. Someone else obviously silenced and restrained Ms. Alba... and from the expression on her face, not in any consentual way.
I understand that they were going for shock value, but is it too much to ask that a) ads make coherent sense across the various media employed, in this case text and pictures and b) they not use an image that normalizes violence and non-consentual restraint to make that sense?
Posted by: kodiak | September 18, 2008 11:00 AM
I found that one to be one of the less disturbing ones in the series. They photo series includes men and women as well as multiple races. But they're all disturbing. They're supposed to be because they're are an artistic representation of disturbing aspects of our culture, apathy, ignorance, a lack of personal responsibility, and all the other myriad factors that go into low voter turnout.
If you looked at the images and weren't upset by them, that would be the failure. It's not just about "getting the point across." It's also about creating a visceral reaction, an emotional response that associates not voting with these uncomfortable images and the message that you're doing it to yourself. What I get from this campaign is that not voting is a form of masochism, which I'd say is an entirely valid message.
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 18, 2008 11:14 AM
To Kodiak's point about "someone else did it to her." I got that the people in the images were supposed to represent the power of your vote and when taken together in series, democracy as a whole. Within that context you are the one doing it to her/your vote. You are binding and silencing the power democracy gives you to directly effect your government.
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 18, 2008 11:21 AM
What I get from this campaign is that if you don't vote, you can expect them to bring out the gimp.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 18, 2008 11:26 AM
Gretchen:
Looks to me like that is the point of the campaign. Not implying violence in order to attract you to something, mind you, but rather in order to scare you away form something (and have you run into something else, which happens to be what they are actually selling).
Posted by: Valhar2000 | September 18, 2008 11:58 AM
Sorry.. but I'm not disturbed at all.
Firstly the duct tape is distributed in a very haphazard and sloppy manner. I mean if you are a serial killer you should at least pay attention to the details.
Secondly THAT COMB-OVER. Now that is disturbing. Jessica, pet, for love of god get hair plugs, anything to save us from that bloody awful comb-over. Norman Gunston with tits. sheesh. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 18, 2008 11:59 AM
Oh those poor vanilla worldnut folks...I'm glad I'm not one of their ilk. The sex life would be a real drag.
Posted by: stevogvsu | September 18, 2008 12:04 PM
I don't actually see it as all that disturbing, but then the folks I know who might get trussed up like that (or do the trussing) are folks for whom it's a stimulating experience. There is even often times fear (most often feigned - though they like it best if it's real), because that is part of the kink. Though honestly, whoever she is, she would do well as a dom, rather than a sub.
What I get from this campaign is that if you don't vote, you can expect them to bring out the gimp.
I have a friend who is a dom service provider, who once tried to convince me to play that role for a couple of her clients. Offered better than a hundred bucks an hour. Unfortunately I couldn't fit into the gimp suit. I do think that this could be an effective implication though, I sure as hell don't want them to break out the gimp on my ass.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 18, 2008 12:05 PM
If only it were that easy. Unfortunately I usually have to pay extra for that. ;-)
But seriously, you took away that they were threatening you? If so, and if that's the way most other take it, I'd agree that the campaign is a failure.
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 18, 2008 12:05 PM
Abby -
I'd gimp for you for free - if I could fit in the goddamn suit. Just no jaw balls - they make me retch.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 18, 2008 12:18 PM
Abby Normal said:
No, I didn't take away that the campaigners were threatening me. What I meant is that this photo looks like a still from Hostel (I think; I didn't see the film precisely because for that reason). It's selling the vote using an attractive woman who looks like she's about to be raped (or already has been), to put it bluntly. Quentin Tarantino might find that hot, but I don't. Regardless of its slogan, the viewers of this poster are not expected to put themselves in Alba's place-- they're expected to be turned on by her, and what's more be turned on by her being frightened and vulnerable. That's what I find cheap and disingenuous about it. It pretends to make a statement about being silenced and losing freedom, but it's really just saying "Hey, check out Jessica Alba looking scared in bondage."
Here ends my politico-aesthetic soap boxing. ;-)
Posted by: Gretchen | September 18, 2008 12:20 PM
Gretchen -
That's what I find cheap and disingenuous about it.
It's bloody well advertising, what are you expecting. Marketing folks aren't trying to be real, they're trying to make sales. It isn't pretending anything - the perception is in the eye of the beholder. On the one hand, you'll find that some people take it on it's face - perceiving the message as being what you say they are pretending to do. On the other hand, you'll find that many others perceive it the other way and assume that was the intent. Finally, you'll find people who figure the marketing guys failed, because rather than perceiving the face value, they just get hot over Jessica in bondage.
The important thing (from the advertising exec's perspective) is that some people in each of those categories are going to go out and vote because of that ad. That is all the makers of the ad are shooting for.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 18, 2008 12:52 PM
I've got to side with Gretchen, Dr. Kate, and Kodiak on this one. Surely there is a more tasteful way of getting the message across than the advertisement depicted here. It seems obvious to me that they are attempting to sell an image of rape, which is especially disturbing if you consider that the ad is being targeted primarily at 18-30 year-old men.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 18, 2008 1:07 PM
DuWayne,
1. The comment to which you replied was my personal reaction to the poster. I'm well aware that it's advertising-- that doesn't mean I have to like it.
2. Even though it is advertising, they're not selling a product. They're ostensibly selling an idea, and that idea is protecting one's own freedom by using what (minuscule) power one has to affect the course of government. What that has to do with Jessica Alba in bondage, I really don't know.
3. Do you honestly think that a single person who sees this poster is going to say "Wow, that's hot! I'd better go vote!"? If the answer is no, or not likely, then it's not even good advertising-- just a waste of money. If the goal is to actually make people think "Hmm, it's really important for me to vote in this election," then you could do a hell of a lot better to actually stimulate their concern about things which might change, and affect them personally, should the wrong person get elected.
So you have an ad which not only is likely to offend or at least discomfort a lot of people, but also isn't going to be effective at achieving its supposed purpose. Bang up job there, campaigners.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 18, 2008 1:27 PM
Interesting, Gretchen. I still disagree that was the marketer's likely intended reaction. But I can see where you're coming from and regardless of their intent, the important thing is how it's perceived. I'd love to hear what you think of the other adds in the series. Though I know you said you're done. So I won't hold it against you if you pass.
DuWayne, that's sweet. Thanks. I just remembered the last time I used that line. I had to fly and didn't have any photo ID (long story). So I had to go for extra screening. As I was getting a very thorough frisking I looked back over my shoulder and said to the agent, "Thanks, I usually have to pay extra for this." He nearly fell over with laughter and we had a nice chat for the rest of the screening.However, I will say that joking with TSA agents is not always a good idea. When asked if I had any chemical or biological weapons in my bags I once replied, "Only if you count my dirty socks." I figured it fell into the territory of, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. I mean, who would ever admit to it if they were? But evidently "dirty socks" is iffy enough as to warrant a two-hour screening. It was a little annoying, but mostly I just feel sorry for the dog that had to sniff those socks.
At least I've learned to leave at home my backpack with "THIS IS NOT A BOMB" written in big black Sharpie across it. Probably didn't help that it was a military surplus backpack. I honestly thought I was going to get arrested for that one.
But enough about me, lets talk about me...
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 18, 2008 1:33 PM
Hmmmm....I now seem to have an inexplicable urge to rock the vote.
Posted by: JRQ | September 18, 2008 1:35 PM
See point 1 of my post. Sloppy and unprofessional, A pretty piss poor psychopath, IMHO.
This ad appeals to the amateur rapist demographic, those who wish they could but don't have the cahones to do it.
It's a a sad indictment of the mentality of the advertising agency, and the segment of the population they were hoping to 'excite'. Pathetic really. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 18, 2008 1:37 PM
Gretchen -
Even though it is advertising, they're not selling a product. They're ostensibly selling an idea,....
It's still a product, the same as mega-church televangelists are are also selling a product. That the product is an idea is incidental.
Do you honestly think that a single person who sees this poster is going to say "Wow, that's hot! I'd better go vote!"?
Yes. Just like sexy adverts that barely show the product they are marketing manage to get sales from it.
If the goal is to actually make people think "Hmm, it's really important for me to vote in this election," then you could do a hell of a lot better to actually stimulate their concern about things which might change, and affect them personally, should the wrong person get elected.
But that isn't their job - it's seriously unlikely to happen in a short, single ad. Their ad is to get people thinking about voting - the more subconsciously the better. They cannot begin to cover the reasons that one should go out and vote. They can barely scratch the surface of the ideas necessary to make that happen. And if they could, a very few folks would pay the least bit of attention.
OTOH, sexy chick in bondage is going to catch eyes and connect that with voting in the minds of the beholder.
And inevitably, some folks are going to take it on it's face.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 18, 2008 1:38 PM
In my opinion, she's overdressed.
Posted by: Deepsix | September 18, 2008 2:05 PM
Abby said:
Oh, I meant that I'm done soap boxing-- or will try to be. I'm very good at over-analyzing and over-thinking things. But since you asked about the other ads....yes, they're shocking, and I would actually say most are a lot more creative than the one with Alba all taped up. The ball gag one? Not a fan. The best ones, in my opinion, are the woman with her mouth sewn shut and the woman with the single large nail through her lips. They convey the image of being silenced most simply and clearly, whereas the others (with the exception of bow-tie guy, who is just goofy) appear to be body modification enthusiasts. Get too creative with the method of sealing the lips and you just lose the point altogether.
I know we don't have any actual numbers to look at, but I do not believe this at all.DuWayne said:
I don't believe this either, but part of it is probably that I think trying to get people to go out and vote, without addressing who they vote for or why, is a stupid and wrong thing to do in the first place. It's not hard to take specific situations which might come to pass, should the wrong person get elected, and portray those on a poster-- the only "problem" is that your posters would be biased in that they would specifically speak either for or against candidates. Of course, you could make posters that argue different perspectives, saying something like "Is this the America you want to live in?"
Posted by: Gretchen | September 18, 2008 2:05 PM
AbbyNormal, to answer your "what about the rest in the series" I still see them as something violent being done *to* someone. I understand that you're saying that the person is supposed to represent the actual ability to vote being suppressed by the voter, but it misses the mark for me there too. Most people who don't vote do so out of apathy, not out of malice or scorn. But the way the ads are portrayed, someone has violently, maliciously silenced these people. They're crying. I know that people here are talking about bondage and kink, but that's not what I see in the ads, I see torture (I could certainly be wrong... ads are like art, everyone sees things through a prism of themselves).
So pretty much these ads didn't hit it for me, obviously you reacted differently to them, so they likely will hit at least part of the market they're aiming at... they just missed with me and will miss with people who see what I see in the ads.
Posted by: kodiak | September 18, 2008 2:26 PM
kodiak said:
True. I think that could have been averted if they showed, for example, a person zipping his/her own mouth shut, or pulling the duct tape over his/her own mouth. But you're right that as it is, it certainly doesn't look like these people have silenced themselves-- rather that they're being tortured by someone else.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 18, 2008 2:31 PM
(I've just realized that since the inability to open one's mouth is a phobia of mine I'm probably more likely to see these as disturbing violent ads than as interesting artistic ads. That scene from the Matrix where Neo's mouth sealed itself? gave me nightmares for months...)
Posted by: kodiak | September 18, 2008 2:31 PM
Ah. Then kodiak, make sure you don't see The Twilight Zone, the movie, or The Brothers Grimm.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 18, 2008 2:39 PM
Absolutely! Sorry if I implied I thought anyone's interpretation of the ads was wrong. We get what we get and that's all valid. We can only guess at what the advertisers wanted us to get. But it's probably not to surprising that each person who's offered an opinion on the intended message believes that the message we got was the one the advertisers were "really" trying to convey.
In fact the only person I can definately say has been wrong is Heather, for claiming it was Conor Oberst, not Jessica Alba. Though I suspect it was a joke. ;-)
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 18, 2008 3:38 PM
Oh, and Gretchen, I like the mouth sewn shut too. But I must confess, I've thought sewing Christina Aguilera's mouth shut was a good idea long before I saw the ad.
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 18, 2008 3:41 PM
The ad is grotesquely misogynist.
Posted by: PhysioProf | September 18, 2008 4:25 PM
No way; PhysioProf actually left a comment which didn't include his adolescent use of profanity? Don't you mean, 'The fucking ad is fucking grotesquely fucking misogynist'?
Posted by: Spartan | September 18, 2008 4:30 PM
It's interesting that of all the ads in that series, the Jessica Alba one is the only one that appears at all sexual.
Posted by: llewelly | September 18, 2008 6:27 PM
Gretchen -
I know we don't have any actual numbers to look at, but I do not believe this at all.
A lot of people have a hard time believing that a lot of advertising works, or should work. But the fact is that it does, when it is done well. Perfume commercials are a great example. Most barely touch on the actual name of the product or what it looks like, yet they work exceptionally well. Why? Because they use sex to sell it - pretty much subliminally (the product placement, not the sex).
I don't believe this either, but part of it is probably that I think trying to get people to go out and vote, without addressing who they vote for or why, is a stupid and wrong thing to do in the first place.
I actually agree with you on that, but I was meaning a more generic set of reasons. Explaining much more than what the ad says, would require much more than a single ad can bring together.
PP -
The ad is grotesquely misogynist.
And what if they had used a man, instead of a women? Not really seeing that myself, but then I am something of an S&M fan, so I am probably seeing this a little differently than others.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 18, 2008 6:38 PM
Or should I have put that;
Not really fucking seeing it myself. But then I fucking dig S&M and probably am seeing this differently than other fucking people....
Posted by: DuWayne | September 18, 2008 6:41 PM
I (and my girlfriend) agree more with DuWayne - picture is more hot than anything else. Not necessarily particularly appropriate for the campaign maybe, but I do wish people would cool down on the 'appeals to amateur rape enthusiasts' sort of rhetoric.
Posted by: Sivi Volk | September 18, 2008 7:06 PM
Oh it is fucking not. Just because something has a female in a less than favorable situation doesn't automatically make is misogynist. Grow the fuck up, or keep throwing the word around until it doesn't mean anything any more.
Look at the series. The worst any female in it has is one nail or some stiches. By contrast, a man has three bolts and another has a ton of staples.
Abby Normal has it right @11:14.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/beware_of_raunchy_topless_bond.php#comment-1113431
Posted by: tincture | September 18, 2008 7:17 PM
I have to say, I am not a fan of the ad. When I saw it for the first time, I sighed and thought "Kidnapping = sexy is getting so old." If the woman as victim theme in advertising wasn't so prevalent I would just glaze over it. But, unfortunately, it is not the case.
Posted by: Hilary | September 18, 2008 9:43 PM
http://feministavengers.blogspot.com/2008/09/media-hates-women-vol-1.html
Posted by: Hilary | September 18, 2008 9:48 PM
I'm a 23 year old woman and I find this ad not disturbing (I'm too used to seeing sexualized violence - and have seen this with Alba before i.e. Sin City) but just sad. She does look like a rape/murder victim - indeed it could easily be a cut scene still from Sin City - the bleary eyes and the fact that she seems to be naked. And I agree that it doesn't look like something she could have done to herself, thus contradicting the 'you're responsible' message.
I think it's easy for people who will likely never experience sexual violence (men) to dismiss this kind of imagery than it is for people who are at risk of sexual violence (women). The comments seem to reflect this.
Posted by: jess | September 18, 2008 9:49 PM
It's in bad taste IMO. All they needed is the head shot with the mouth taped up. The rest is gratuitous.
Posted by: Justin Moretti | September 18, 2008 9:49 PM
s&m is one of the most common fetishes, so it's no surprise that it's used in advertising. they could picture a foot with the word "vote" over it for the foot fetishists, but that's not quite as artistic, hey?
this is eye-grabbing, thought-provoking, titillating... in short, it's advertising. you're supposed to glimpse it, then do a double take. it works. obviously.
and really, isn't the idea of silencing yourself rather abhorrent? it must be, or there'd be no comments.
Posted by: arin | September 18, 2008 10:48 PM
As much as some people seem to want to make this all about females being victimized or sexually assaulted, from a rational viewpoint (instead of an OMG A WOMAN TAPED UP & LOOKING UNHAPPY IT MUST BE GLAMORIZING MISOGYNY viewpoint) it's clearly about not having a voice and being sad about it.
Like I already said, it's hardly just pictures of taped up women. You're making the same mistake the kooks at worldnutdaily are. You're focusing on one picture and reinterpreting it in the worst possible light while ignoring the context given by all the other pictures. FFS there is some guy w/ bolts through his lips, but of course that's of no concern, Alba has tape on and that's all that matters.
Two final points of thought, it would appear that Alba didn't have a problem w/ the shot and it's kinda unsettling that the thoughts of people claiming to be looking at it from a feminist viewpoint go straight to rape fantasies.
Posted by: tincture | September 18, 2008 11:32 PM
tincture,
I interpreted the picture as what it looks like to me. The fact that you interpret it differently is irrelevant to that, as is the fact that Alba consented to be photographed in this way. People consent to be depicted in all sorts of ways that send messages they didn't intend to send.
Only one person characterized the image as misogynistic, by the way, and I haven't seen anyone else agree with him. You're painting with a brush about a thousand miles wide-- it's not surprising that you missed the point.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 19, 2008 2:09 AM
Ok, all this pearl clutching over this one piece has gone really over the line. Anyone who takes the time to look at the entire ad series will rapidly realize that this image is, at worst, the second or thrid _least_ troubling of the series. Along with the (silly) bow tie and (possibly more troubling) ball gag ads, it represents one of the few that doesn't appeal to painful physical mutilation. If you want to bring up Saw and Hostile- that applies far more to the other ads than it does to this one.
And as far as the rape accusations go- well really, where do you get that? How, exactly- beyond your own preconceived notions that "woman in peril" must equal "rape fantasy"- does this ad suggest forced sex in any way? Let alone in a positive way?
About the only way anyone can support that position is through the convoluted reasoning that:
Some find Jessica Alba sexy.
Because of that, all images of Jessica Alba must be a reference to sex, and sex alone.
So, although this image of her is one of her in a situation that has nothing to so with sex as most of us know it, and which clearly appeals- negatively- far more to the fear of being a victim of self-imposed violence than it does to anything resembling rape, especially considering the thematic focus of the entire campaign...
This ad _must_ be an attempt to appeal to the usually untapped, but all important democratic demographic of the "amiture rapist!" Because, well- _it's Jessica Alba!_
Because it's impossible to imagine that Jessica Alba could ever dream of rising above her proper place as "hot-n-tot imaginary sex surrogate" for even a second. And certainly, there's absolutely no way she could have actually imagined that she was lending her image to a creative expression she actually believed in and understood. Let's face it, there's nothing what-so-ever she has offer the world but sex...
Posted by: uriel | September 19, 2008 3:41 AM
tincture-
pretty much what I meant to say, albeit with a lot more words...
Posted by: uriel | September 19, 2008 3:46 AM
Thank you, uriel!
While it is not beyond the bounds of reason that the advertisers were banking on Alba's sex appeal, that should not be the sole consideration for assessing this ad.
As for some of the critics who have noted that she could not have possibly taped herself up, therefore negating the message of the ad, well, sometimes people allow themselves to be silenced. They do so through self-imposed ignorance, manipulated feelings of powerlessness and many other reasons. Perhaps Alba's ad is meant to convey a person who feels powerless because of various constraints put upon them by others or their own self.
Whatever the exact cause of the silence, the ad is effective in that it draws attention and conveys an emotion. The emotion of powerlessness and a desire to break free. That is spot on for what many people feel. People in this country feel powerless. They feel that voting doesn't matter. Perhaps this ad will tell them, "those feelings that you have are what is silencing your voice...it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Don't buy into it."
I don't think that using masochistic imagery is out of line. I think the people whose minds automatically jumped to "rape" are the ones that need a little more self-evaluation. Helpless, yes (and that is the purpose of the ad...to say "you are not helpless even if you have been manipulated into thinking you are. You have a voice."), but rape? My lesbian, feminist mind didn't even go near that until I saw the comments.
Posted by: Pimientita | September 19, 2008 5:44 AM
Ed, that's the wrong photo. That one is from a worker safety campaign at a videotape factory. WND was commenting on a paparazzi photo of Jessica Alba sitting in a convertible with her seatbelt on.
Posted by: Ex-drone | September 19, 2008 7:13 AM
And what if they had used a man, instead of a women?
But they didn't, did they? And they wouldn't have, because images of men being tied up and bound against their will aren't the norm, the norm is seeing women bound and gagged and scared. What a piece of shit for an ad. Yes, it's misogynist, yes, it's vile, yes, it's entirely for shock value and having nothing at all to do with the point the ad is ostensibly trying to make. It's as bad as PETA caging naked women supposedly to demonstrate cruelty to animals.
and which clearly appeals- negatively- far more to the fear of being a victim of self-imposed violence than it does to anything resembling rape,
How on earth can you possibly get "self-imposed violence" out of that ad? She's obviously looking at *someone* out of camera range, and as has been stated, she couldn't have gotten herself taped up like that.
Posted by: Carlie | September 19, 2008 8:22 AM
Pimientita said:
It's one thing to say "You know, I didn't get that from this picture." People draw different inferences based on their experience, what they've seen in their lives, and those inferences aren't wrong or right. But please don't imply that people who see something different than you are somehow mentally or emotionally unbalanced.
Here's my inference path: 1) Jessica Alba, arguably the sexiest woman in the world, is 2) apparently naked, and 3) has black electrical tape across her mouth and around her body, and 4) looks scared and pleading. You don't have to be unhinged or hyper-PC to get "rape fantasy" from that. And I would note, by the way, that people who don't get that impression are not being accused of having rape fantasies themselves. I get the feeling from the vehement reaction from people like tincture and uriel that there's some confusion about that.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 19, 2008 9:38 AM
Gretchen, Carlie et al -
(Ed - lets keep this one to ourselves, I'd rather folks we know who aren't reading this not know about it)
Here's the thing, this is pretty standard submissive fare. I have had several partners who are very enthusiastic about being bound just like that (or much more firmly). And you know what, to a certain degree it is a rape fantasy. But it isn't necessarily a rape fantasy for the benefit of the person playing the rapist role, in fact it rarely is. It is generally for the benefit of the person playing the role of the raped.
I have never gotten anything out of playing the dominant. I have absolutely no interest in actually living these fantasies. But the women I have been involved with who are into that, derived something important to them from it. And in the process of dealing with women who are into that, I got to know a lot of people who are into S&M. From folks who just enjoy skirting the fringes of BDSM to those who are into serious pain and hardcore rape fantasies and those who live it 24/7.
There are certainly those who take it to an unhealthy level, I even know a few who fit that bill. But by and large, those who play that way have created a healthy, safe outlet for their urges. There are also a few who get into it for a time, use it to work out some issues and get over it. Key though, is that it is consenting adults engaging in consensual acts.
So when you say something like this; And I would note, by the way, that people who don't get that impression are not being accused of having rape fantasies themselves. I think you are missing the point (at least mine). I have never met a women who likes to be bound like that, for whom it isn't a rape fantasy. And honestly, I find the picture kind of sexy because it's not gross, like many S&M pictures are, yet it puts to mind lovers I've had, who were at their most satisfied when similarly bound (and looking rather terrified).
Posted by: DuWayne | September 19, 2008 1:03 PM
Carlie said:
Uh, yeah they did. 5 out of the 8 people depicted are men. The Alba poster is the really tame one, with the others depicting lips sewn together, bolted together, etc.
Since you didn't check the source material or read previous comments that said EXACTLY this, you ended up getting the facts wrong and drawing myopic conclusions.
Here's the link again.
Posted by: Spaulding | September 19, 2008 1:17 PM
Carlie said:
Uh, yeah they did. 5 out of the 8 people depicted are men. The Alba poster is the really tame one, with the others depicting lips sewn together, bolted together, etc.
Since you didn't check the source material or read previous comments that said EXACTLY this, you ended up getting the facts wrong and drawing myopic conclusions.
Here's the link again.
Posted by: Spaulding | September 19, 2008 1:21 PM
DuWayne,
Believe me, I know what D&S is. The thing is, though, there is no way to signify in this poster that the person Alba represents is "just playing," or any evidence that that is the intention. That makes bondage play completely irrelevant on a practical level, but more importantly it's irrelevant on a conceptual level as well. One thing we can be sure the poster campaign is not trying to convey is "Your choice-- vote, or engage in bondage play."
Err....like I said, I don't consider motivations for engaging in bondage play (male or female, dominant or submissive) to have anything to do with this poster.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 19, 2008 1:29 PM
Gretchen -
One thing we can be sure the poster campaign is not trying to convey is "Your choice-- vote, or engage in bondage play."
Not what I am saying. They are however, trying to equate something that many folks find kind of sexy, with the notion of voting and yes, on that level the motivations for bondage do have some relevance. The implication in yours and a few others comments, is that there is something wrong with finding this picture kind of sexy. You also seem to lack an understanding of the fundamentals of marketing.
There isn't just a single target that this ad is intended for. For some, it will make them seriously consider the face value intent of the ad. Especially when taken in the context of the rest of the posters. For others, it is about equating something they perceive as sexy, with the notion of voting. For others still, the perception is one of disgust - disgust that makes it memorable. I daresay it's a minority that are just going to brush past it and not give it another thought. For most people, I would guess it is a combination of all those perceptions.
The key though, is that the ad is going to stick in people's minds. Voting is going to stick in people's minds. And for a certain percentage of those people, it will help convince them to vote, even the people repulsed by the ad. Why? Because the ad got them thinking about voting - perked their interest.
I should also note that targeting people who are actual S&M enthusiasts would not be useful in an ad like this. Folks who are actually into it and find it attractive, probably already vote. They tend to be more educated and pay attention to things like politics.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 19, 2008 2:07 PM
DuWayne said:
You also seem to lack an understanding of the fundamentals of marketing.
If that's so, I can't say I terribly mind it. "By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they'll take root. I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You're the ruiner of all things good. Seriously, no, this is not a joke." -- Bill Hicks
Regardless, you have yet to show me that your theories regarding marketing hold any water. So what I'm left with are the following facts: a) the posters send a bad message, regardless, and b) they may or may not be effective in terms of getting people to vote, even though c) I honestly think they are of no worth if that goal is to get people to vote without regard to the issues of who or why.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 19, 2008 5:51 PM
Gretchen -
Regardless, you have yet to show me that your theories regarding marketing hold any water.
Watch commercials on the tee vee for about two or three minutes. Then answer this; Do you honestly think they would put that much into sexually based advertising if it wasn't effective? To the folks that create the advertising, this is science. They spend a lot of time and money figuring out what will sell to the demographic they are attempting to reach. And if they don't do that, they copy those who do.
They also do their best to cast as wide a net as possible - even if it means that they will get negative press. The WND posting a story about this is excellent for them - their ad gets reproduced and viewed by a great many more people, and they don't have to pay for it. For the most part, the context of the exposure isn't whats important - it's the number of viewers. Now this isn't such a positive, if it convinces World Nut Daily readers to get out and vote, but the principle holds true.
Read any elementary text on marketing. The more people who view the message, in whatever context, the better from a marketing standpoint. Protesters?!? Bring em on - by their very act of protesting something, they develop an interest in that thing. Believe me, I am not pulling shit out of my ass here. Being a fan of psychology, sociology, history, economics and language, I really love marketing theory* - which combines all of those things.
Depending on the product, those rules can change some, but for the most part, it is a very accurate generalization in marketing. Love it or hate it, the more people talk about it, think about it even horribly disparage it, the more the folks trying to market it are appreciating it.
*that is theory - I do not allow my child to watch commercial tee vee and avoid it myself as much as possible. I don't really go out of my way, but i do like to minimize the impact of marketing on my life and that of my family. At the same time I am also keen to take advantage of what I do understand and use it - which as a small business owner I do.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 19, 2008 6:08 PM
@Gretchen
You're right. I apologize for the implication. I just didn't see "rape" when I saw the image. I immediately got the point of the ad which, IMO, was meant to depict a way of being silenced and I also didn't see "fear and pleading," but sadness and a yearning to be free of the bonds. I don't think the picture was meant to glorify rape. I see the violence (the violence of being kept silent), but not the sexual violence.
Maybe I was a little harsh because I get tired of people lashing out at provocative images and/or trying to censor them because some people might get the wrong idea. Jessica Alba could have gone sans make-up and with just a piece of electrical tape over her mouth and some people (not necessarily you or anyone else here) would have still been offended simply because Alba is a sex symbol and, like uriel said, they wouldn't be able to see beyond that and their idea of what the advertisers were trying to say through the image.
My thought process went something like this: 1)Damn she's hot! 2)*reads the text* 3)Oh wow...interesting way to show her being silenced. Very thought-provoking and powerful image. This will definitely get the attention of a lot of potential voters. 4)*goes back to 'Damn she's hot!' since I'm registered and fully intending on voting already*
Posted by: Pimientita | September 19, 2008 8:21 PM
Spaulding, I did look at those ads, thankyouforyourassumption. The men are all clearly clothed, with the exception of the one man with the ball gag, and shirtless men aren't exactly titillating in a taboo sense the way a topless woman is. The one with the tape is is an entirely different category than the others. In all the rest, the people are dressed and have only their mouths modified, in a way that is pretty clearly over the top and not real. That one, however, is a pretty believable scenario of forced activity, since it's something that actually happens to women and is a well-known visual. It may have been just a misstep on the part of the advertisers, but if so it's a big misstep. You don't have a campaign based on bizarre self-modification and throw in an image that has classic rape connotations.
Posted by: Carlie | September 20, 2008 8:56 AM