Only in America? Or have I been living under a rock?
July 2nd, 2008 by AndySo I’m in Boston right now , and yesterday evening I walked past an Abercrombie store. Wouldn’t you know it - they have topless male models all around the place. Now I don’t frequent these stores, so I can’t say for sure that these models don’t exist in Toronto, but I can hardly believe they do. As I’ve thought about this, I’ve been unable to attach any positive/negative value judgement - I’ll leave that up to you guys. Right now, I’m just showing off what I believe to be a crazy phenomenon.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Yes they’re in Toronto, but not quite to the same degree. Usually only at the bigger ones.
Everyone and their nanny knows an “abercrombie model” these days, to be honest. It is pretty much the most generic, mediocre-paying type of gig for wannabe models and bachelor of arts students. In their eyes they’re “professional models” and that’s what they get to tell their friends.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Damn… still makes me laugh though
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Well, the moment they get paid for it, they’re ‘technically’ pros, so, I guess it works?
Sex sells, and I hate it, regardless of what gender’s being used. Blah blah blah, unrealistic ideals, body image and self-esteem, objectification, and so on. We’ve heard it all before.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:45 am
They’re pros the way someone that did extra work for a commercial is an “actor”.
As for the actual issue.. Who cares?
Attractive people sell their body and time in a million different ways… I don’t find anything morally worse about someone selling sex to survive if that’s the assets they were born with. Opposition to 18 year olds stripping seems to either centre around the model’s responsibility to society OR the business’ in a broader Kantian “what if everyone did this” imperative. I’m not sure either of these criticisms could withstand a more detailed analysis…
Either way… I could care less about unrealistic ideals, teenage body image, self esteem, objectification, etc. Parental/individual irresponsibility and obsessive coddling of teenage neuroses seem to be to blame for most of that stuff, not a topless douche at A+F or that Go Daddy hooch.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 am
It’s not so much an issue with someone choosing to sell themselves in that way, and in this situation any exploitation is basically “accepted”, so whatever.
It’s that sex is used so excessively to sell things (that have nothing to do with sex) that bothers me. You know, on a societal level. Like it would be better if it were not the case.
A couple models here and there are meaningless, but they’re bits of a greater picture. Do you really believe that being constantly exposed to images of an unrealistic ideal is totally harmless? Not everyone has the capacity (or training?) to filter that stuff out, or to examine it in a critical way. It’s nearly impossible not to be affected on some level.
And just because someone has crappy parents (re: parental responsibility) doesn’t mean they need to suffer from that sort of bombardment. Does someone deserve to end up with an eating disorder because their parents don’t have the good sense to tell them about all the BS in advertising? That’s part of why it’s illegal direct cigarette advertisements to kids, I’m pretty sure.
I’m not proposing a ban on bare skin, but I can’t help but feel like something is broken, here.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Eating “disorders” are behavioral problems, imo, not diseases. While being constantly bombarded with selection-biased supermodels may give one a warped sense of the world, I sincerely doubt there are many people that know those looks aren’t “average”. With the obesity epidemic it’s not that women feel that “all” women look this way, they just falsely (sort of) believe that there’s only one lone, attractive body type. This isn’t necessarily untrue - most guys, just like most girls, would prefer a fit, lean and sexually suggestive body frame, and commercials tend to rely on our most basic desires.
The problem, then, is a societal one just because of how individuals respond to the fact that their peers may not find their appearance ideal. Beer companies didn’t make men like breasts, they just realized they could make money off of them. Similarly, the issue isn’t that we’ve been collectively “duped” into finding something hot, but rather that we’ve been continually re-exposed to sexualized imagery that has evolved (like any other fad) into finding our current models ideal. The kid “deserving” to get a “disorder” is irrelevant - it isn’t the company’s responsibility to protect the emotionally retarded members of our society, irregardless of whatever tenuous connection their consensual expression of semi-nudity and photoshopped cellulite might have to lowered self esteem -> some girls getting depressed -> some parents not teaching their kids decent priorities -> a few people start writing emo blawgs about how nobody in home room wants to take them to prom. Boo hoo.
This issue isn’t gender-specific either - guys quickly realize when they don’t slot into the two dominant male “looks” these days (effeminate 14 year old boy a la Orlando Bloom, and rippled muscle man, respectively). The fact social trends lead to girls becoming more obsessive about their appearance, reading trashy novels about shopping as literature, and getting coddled into becoming self-absorbed Dr Phil wannabes may be a problem, but it’s a nuanced one. There’s definitely no way to regulate this, and lamenting about it is much more “oh well that sucks I guess” than “here’s what we should do”. Even 14 year olds just have to deal with things sometimes.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Well said Pavel. I knew we brought you into the fold for a reason.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Even if it’s not resulting in endemic social problems, you have to admit that it’s pretty fucking crass.
Dismissing it as emotional retardation is reductive, and you know it. The majority of people are not university educated, are not, and will never be, media literate. Your environment shapes your perception of values, and if all the media you consume directs it in one way or the other, of course its going to affect you. Generally, the values inherent in that media are neither here nor there (that is, besides the OVERRIDING value associated with consumption, which I will contend is certainly a net negative one) - I’m not sure if using sex to sell is either moral or immoral, but I think you’re remiss in saying it has a negligible social impact. I do think quantifying causality of that impact for good or ill is extremely difficult, though, so it becomes sort of a moot point.
Clearly, companies are not responsible for anything at all except making as much fucking money as they possibly can. I’m not saying that there’s any recourse to that, but I think it’s possible to say that, objectively, there are better ways to exert their tremendous influence on society.
Just because its never going to change, does that make it irrelevant?
July 4th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I’m with Andrew re: emotional retardation and media literacy.
Obviously there are going to be some people who suffer from self-esteem problems regardless of the content of most media, but I just heard today (unfortunately I can’t confirm it, so it might be nonsense) that 90% of Canadian women have “body issues” of some kind. I don’t think being that self-conscious is a product of gender, either.
As has been said, companies’ only responsibilities are to keep making dollars, however possible. Having said that, regulations on advertising already exist, and in many countries the regulations are, if not more strict, then strict in different areas. Sexualized advertising is illegal in a bunch of European countries (with the exception of ads for sex-related products, of course). Having said that, nudity is much more common as well, so I guess that’s neither here nor there.
Enforcing regulations is something else entirely. I forget the exact name of the project, but there’s something that was going on in Toronto called the Billboard.. something.. project.. (I dunno, I’m getting it confused with the Billboard Liberation Project, which I’m does culture-jam type stuff) - that involves reporting billboards that are illegally placed, and getting them removed. There have been cases when illegal billboards are removed, only to be put up again by the same company a week later.
You certainly can’t regulate the way people will respond to media advertising, but there’s no reason why the media itself can’t be regulated differently. Of course, in order for it to be effective there’d have to be some pretty far-reaching change… probably something like what will have to happen in the next couple decades, if we are to survive them relatively unscathed.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:05 am
You’re thinking of http://www.illegalsigns.ca I’m pretty sure. They’re an awesome group of people, and it’s a great project. If you were thinking of someone else, you should check this out anyway.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:46 am
I am terrified that even a young male liberal could be shortsighted enough to talk about regulating semi-nudity and “dangerous images on tv” for the “good of our children”.
That “90%” of women have body issues crap is exactly what’s wrong with news, empirical research and our self-centred youth, all neatly summed up in one uncited blurb of alarmist nonsense. How the heck could a social scientist accurately quantify these ideas? A PHONE SURVEY to 400 rich white women asking them “have you ever been unhappy with the way you look”? ugh.
The stuff you are quoting about sexualized advertising in Europe only makes sense when you realize that their fashion/arts/tv is inundated with so much slender + voluptuous nudity on a daily basis. In Italy their version of chatline infomercials had topless women touching themselves. In England I watched a documentary about dicks at 6pm on one of their only 5 tv networks.
I am shockingly frustrated at your rhetoric. “but there’s no reason why the media itself can’t be regulated differently. Of course, in order for it to be effective there’d have to be some pretty far-reaching change… probably something like what will have to happen in the next couple decades, if we are to survive them relatively unscathed.” This fluff is begging the question as to whether those regulations SHOULD be there in the first place. Absolutely nothing you said has even come remotely close to justifying these kind of sweeping regulations, nor even come close to addressing how practically impossible these judgment calls would be. Laws currently forbid underage nudity or any representations of “child-like” sexuality, and most things beyond that should be fair game. The second anyone tries to tell me that I can’t strut around in a thong if I so please they’re gonna have hell to pay.
If anyone thinks a child will get “scarred” from seeing a tit or asscrack they’re either ignorant as to true teenage sexuality (usually a sign of economic privilege/naivety), or moronic or both. If you think you could restrict my right to innocuous expression so that your latch-key kid doesn’t shallow cut themselves as you prozac your suburban ass you’ve got another thing coming.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Those are some nice assumptions you’ve made about me. Your last paragraph doesn’t relate to the discussion, so I’ll leave that out.
I guess I spoke in a lot of vague terms there. Sorry. When I spoke of “far-reaching change” I was referring largely to a change in attitude towards consumption, as will be necessary in the coming decades, because consumerism has left the world in a polluted and dangerous place. “We can’t consume ourselves to sustainability” and all that. As consumerism changes or dies, so will advertising, and hopefully in ways that make society more healthy rather than the opposite.
My problem is not with sexuality or images of sexuality in themselves. I couldn’t care less if you walk around in a thong, and I’d never try and stop you from doing so. It just pisses me when sex is used to sell stuff, because unless the product is related to sex or body care, it’s totally irrelevant. And, it does screw people up. Not everyone is as smart or thick-skinned as you are. I’m not saying people are stupid, but media literacy and high self-esteem is not a given.
I was off base on my ‘body issues’ quote. It came up in an unrelated conversation at lunch time and wound up in my post. Oops. Bad move.
I think you misunderstood the thrust of my arguments, but that’s probably at least in part because I didn’t articulate them very well. Maybe I still haven’t. I just have an axe to grind against sex in advertising specifically, not media in general. I think it’s scummy and manipulative and helps to shape a lot of unhealthy attitudes towards men and women alike. It’s capitalizes on pre-existing attitudes, no doubt, but it reinforces many unhealthy ones in the process.
Oh, and Andy, it was indeed Illegal Signs. Thanks for pointing them out.