These Photos are Not for Discriminating Consumers!
When is the discriminatory treatment of women not really discriminatory? How about when an ad campaign shows women and men being treated exactly the same? Nope: that's still discrimination! At least, in South Africa. But to really judge, you need to see the photos, which follow the story from True's 13 March 2005 issue:
Weekly Weird News
Gender Discrimination
To call attention to its new Fall line, the Young Designers Emporium of South Africa has a new poster ad campaign in its shop windows. The "Brand Spanking New Fashions" posters feature models in their underwear sporting red marks on their thighs to imply they've been spanked with a paddle. The Law Society of South Africa has expressed outrage over the posters, which go "against the grain of eradicating the trivialization and humiliation of the female body," says Society spokeswoman Nonto Umlaw. "We show a man and woman being spanked," points out YDE Creative Director Sam Coleman. "It is quite surprising that no one said anything about the man." (Pietermaritzburg Witness) ...Well no: obviously he deserved it.
And here are the photos -- one's discrimination, the other is fine:
This advertisement is an outrage. It's horrendous discrimination for a woman to be "spanked" -- why, look at those red marks and everything! The store that ran this ad should be hounded out of business. |
This advertisement, however, is fine -- no problem seen; perfectly acceptable, please carry on. Any redness seen is probably just a color balance problem with the photography. (Photos courtesy YDE.) |
Most Recent Comments
Posted by Kay, UK on April 17, 2010:
Hmm... The thing that immediately strikes me isn't that they're spanked - there are people who have that fetish and who am I to judge - but that the woman is far more sexualized and hotted up than the male. It almost looks as if he thought he lost his keys while idly undressing after work, and scatterbrainedly got down on all fours and started thinking about where they were. The woman on the other hand while thankfully not eyeing the viewer, still seems to be posing more than the guy.
It would have been far more interesting (and hot) if the guy would have gotten the same treatment: Wearing nothing but a loose shirt and tight sexy shiny undies, legs in the spotlight and given the same shine treatment while wearing shiny sexy shoes (yes, there is such a thing as manly sexy shoes too).
The legs of guys is hot too, and a far too neglected thing in advertising. I've never gotten why guys seem so obsessed with their arms.
Posted by AllanW, Rancho Cucamonga on July 20, 2010:
I don't agree that these pictures are "exactly the same."
The woman is wearing "sexy" underwear, and nothing else (except shoes) below the waist. Her face is almost completely hidden in shadow. There is a fairly large red blotch on her leg near her butt, implying that there is much more hidden by the underwear, and that it was caused by a lot of spanking.
The man is wearing dark trousers, although they're pulled down to mid-thigh. His briefs are apparently designed to be functional, not sexy. He also has a red blotch on his leg, but at least the visible part is much smaller than hers, so even if it was caused by spanking, it doesn't seem to be as extreme.
To be fair, I haven't seen very much underwear for men that was designed to look sexy. What I HAVE seen looks pretty stupid to me - I'm not sure if other people feel the same way, but if they do, that certainly explains why there isn't a lot more of it, and it also explains why the guy isn't wearing it.
I don't think this invalidates the main point of this story: the two pictures have more in common than differences, so the idea that one is offensive and one isn't is pretty silly.
But I don't think you can truthfully say that the pictures are identical except for gender.
---
The photos are "identical" in what they are portraying: both have been exposed and show evidence of being punished. Simple as that. -rc
Posted by John, Honolulu on July 28, 2010:
M, Texas: that is both hilarious and disturbing. Anyways, I can understand their fuss. Just saying, which one do you think was used more?