I've been struggling over a piece on Donald Trump, trying to sort out my thoughts on a miserable election year. In the middle of this comes another hot-button topic- Calvin Klein underwear ads. CK has launched another overtly sexual ad campaign. They are already long-famous for them, but this one has gotten people more heated up than usual.
Here are the ads. There's no question they are more blatant than ever before in conveying sexuality. Models with their hands stuffed into their panties, seeming to grab at their genitalia. Models holding ripe, dripping, citrus fruit. All in panties just loose enough that we don't get a gynecological view. The one generating the most controversy is an upskirt shot of a woman in CK panties, saying 'I flash in my Calvins.' This has generated a great deal of complaint about the ads being too sexual, or demeaning to women.
There is one heated response here. Watch the video near the bottom of the page. It is from the CEO of Third Love, another lingerie maker. Heidi Zak, the CEO, tells us she is a strong and powerful woman, and proud of it, and that she believes women can do anything, without limitations.
I am not going to argue that CK's ads are subtle, or even especially tasteful, because they're not. I do think they are being labeled in wildly inaccurate and defining terms. For example, the upskirt ad has been attacked as pedophilic. I have a hard time understanding that. The model is clearly not a child or a teen. She is of age. And she is not being peeped at. She is flashing. There's quite a difference in activity. Peeping is passive and victimizing, while flashing is active and a choice for the woman.Whether the ad is in good taste is entirely debatable, but I can't see this as intrinsically demeaning, and it certainly is not pedophilic.
What is most striking to me about Third Love's response, however, is that it is sexist in its own way. For their CEO, women can apparently be and do anything they want, except to be openly sexual and appreciated for being sexual and beautiful. Here the difference between being peeped at and flashing is especially relevant, as a passive versus an active choice. No woman can be independent or thoughtful, who displays herself like the ads, or makes sexually suggestive remarks, or serves as an object of visual sexual desire. In other words, it's OK to be anything except sexually desirable, even if it is something you want to be.
Apparently sexual allure is sufficiently relevant for Third Love to make thongs and lace panties. You can view the entire Third Love collection here. Is the difference one of public display? Because lace underwear is meant for visual consumption. Maybe the issue is one of beauty and allure before function, as Third Way clearly appeals to comfort and sizing. Nothing wrong with that, but there's nothing wrong with the other either. Is it wrong in today's world for a woman to exercise power through sexuality? Is it wrong to look sexy in the eyes of men?
We can talk about what should be all day, but it is heavily dependent on the speaker. What should be is different for you and for me. But we really can't debate what is. And what exists is men's visual sexuality. That is a receptor level difference in cerebral construction. It's not a matter of breeding, or 'evolution of the social construct' or anything else. When couples want donor sperm, they ask for height and intelligence. When couples want donor eggs, they ask for beauty.
Any man, any one at all, will prefer a woman in CKs over one in Third World. And I've never known a woman who did not want to be considered sexually desirable. No one wants to be subjected to sexual degradation, but everyone wants to be attractive. I think society now confuses the two, making it bad to be sexually alluring.
Perhaps Third World is designing for daily work and the board room, while CK is designing for dates and the bedroom. That doesn't make CK bad. Thier ads are over the top, but that's been true for nearly 40 years, using images of both men and women.
Cut the crap, society. Beautiful women sell underwear.
Ted
Here are the ads. There's no question they are more blatant than ever before in conveying sexuality. Models with their hands stuffed into their panties, seeming to grab at their genitalia. Models holding ripe, dripping, citrus fruit. All in panties just loose enough that we don't get a gynecological view. The one generating the most controversy is an upskirt shot of a woman in CK panties, saying 'I flash in my Calvins.' This has generated a great deal of complaint about the ads being too sexual, or demeaning to women.
There is one heated response here. Watch the video near the bottom of the page. It is from the CEO of Third Love, another lingerie maker. Heidi Zak, the CEO, tells us she is a strong and powerful woman, and proud of it, and that she believes women can do anything, without limitations.
I am not going to argue that CK's ads are subtle, or even especially tasteful, because they're not. I do think they are being labeled in wildly inaccurate and defining terms. For example, the upskirt ad has been attacked as pedophilic. I have a hard time understanding that. The model is clearly not a child or a teen. She is of age. And she is not being peeped at. She is flashing. There's quite a difference in activity. Peeping is passive and victimizing, while flashing is active and a choice for the woman.Whether the ad is in good taste is entirely debatable, but I can't see this as intrinsically demeaning, and it certainly is not pedophilic.
What is most striking to me about Third Love's response, however, is that it is sexist in its own way. For their CEO, women can apparently be and do anything they want, except to be openly sexual and appreciated for being sexual and beautiful. Here the difference between being peeped at and flashing is especially relevant, as a passive versus an active choice. No woman can be independent or thoughtful, who displays herself like the ads, or makes sexually suggestive remarks, or serves as an object of visual sexual desire. In other words, it's OK to be anything except sexually desirable, even if it is something you want to be.
Apparently sexual allure is sufficiently relevant for Third Love to make thongs and lace panties. You can view the entire Third Love collection here. Is the difference one of public display? Because lace underwear is meant for visual consumption. Maybe the issue is one of beauty and allure before function, as Third Way clearly appeals to comfort and sizing. Nothing wrong with that, but there's nothing wrong with the other either. Is it wrong in today's world for a woman to exercise power through sexuality? Is it wrong to look sexy in the eyes of men?
We can talk about what should be all day, but it is heavily dependent on the speaker. What should be is different for you and for me. But we really can't debate what is. And what exists is men's visual sexuality. That is a receptor level difference in cerebral construction. It's not a matter of breeding, or 'evolution of the social construct' or anything else. When couples want donor sperm, they ask for height and intelligence. When couples want donor eggs, they ask for beauty.
Any man, any one at all, will prefer a woman in CKs over one in Third World. And I've never known a woman who did not want to be considered sexually desirable. No one wants to be subjected to sexual degradation, but everyone wants to be attractive. I think society now confuses the two, making it bad to be sexually alluring.
Perhaps Third World is designing for daily work and the board room, while CK is designing for dates and the bedroom. That doesn't make CK bad. Thier ads are over the top, but that's been true for nearly 40 years, using images of both men and women.
Cut the crap, society. Beautiful women sell underwear.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment