Just because it’s almost International Women’s Day, doesn’t mean a woman shouldn’t be reminded of her rightful place.
She may have overcome innumerable workplace obstacles to get where she is today. She may be allowed to join the boys in the boardroom. But that doesn’t mean her primary role has changed. She is still valued for her ability to turn them on.
This role of catering for a man’s sexual fantasies is central to the Crazy Domain advertisement made by The Brand Agency in Perth. The ad depicts a male work colleague drooling over Pamela Anderson (ooh porn-star-as-office-seductress, how original) and her assistant. Both women are wearing tight fitting business suits with lace trimmed cleavage revealed.
One of the men fantasises about the two women cavorting in gold bikinis while milk (get it) is sloshed all over them. When he snaps back into reality from his dairy spraying spree, the assistant leans forward asking him if he would like “cream” in his coffee. Because even in real life, it’s the women who pour his beverages. Naturally he gets a face full of breast as she bends over him.
As a result of complaints, the Advertising Standards Board has told the company to remove the ads. The web hosting company is now complaining, blaming “feminist bloggers” for stirring up a fuss. Of course, no-one else cares less, just those crazy feminist bloggers. Go Feminist Bloggers.
Crazy Domains managing director Gavin Collins said the decision made “no sense and is completely un-Australian”. Because, you see, the Australian thing to do is to present women as imposters in the boardroom who distract men from very important work with their seductive ways, leading them down fantasy lane as it rains milk and cream.
I do agree with Gav though about the inconsistencies of the ASB in allowing other sexist ads such as recent one for Coke depicting a woman covered in chocolate and whipped cream and Lynx (who haven’t met a sexist stereotype they don’t like) with their airhostesses meeting every male need.
7 Responses
oh i see what they’ve done here. They’ve tried to cash in on the male consumers consumption of pornography by providing them with an image they’re familiar with. That is supposed to be semen isn’t it? Lets be real here.
Gavin Collins, you are incorrect when you say it is austray-an to objectify women in advertising, the words you are looking for are “unoriginal“ and “lacking any real creativity” and “sexist.” Right mate?
And yes, go the feminist bloggers. You may try to write them off Gav, but in this case they’ve captured the sentiment of many Australians who wouldn’t necessarily identify as feminist but who are nonetheless sick of this crap. That’s one of the good things about the internet, the ability to connect with others who share concerns and take action. Gavin, you might want to consider this next time you consider substituting pornography for creativity and social responsibility.
Again this is another example of mainstreaming pornography.
Let me name it for what it is; 1 minute of perversion and sexual innuendo aka porn with Pammy lasciviously erotic and lewd, desiring some go with a female so that men at home can get off on it.
Were we supposed to think that was a smart original piece of advertising and I can’t wait to get a crazy-domain website now? Were we meant to applaud them for an ingenious new theme?
Uh, maybe you should all stop giving Crazy Domains free advertising. The advert has done its job very well thanks to the “crazy feminist bloggers” and the rest of the media. It’s in quite bad taste and I don’t think any man over the age of 14 finds Mrs Anderson in any way attractive (I sometimes think that maybe she acting out some sort of clever parody as to what men find attractive in woman, but then I realise she’s probably not that clever). Articles like this only whip up more publicity for the company and don’t solve the problem.
I see your point, commentary on this ad might give Crazy domains more exposure, but it also gives the issues of objectification and sexism more exposure too. It is unfortunate and an unintended consequence if they benefit or profit from activism against them, however remaining silent has never changed anything.
Melinda the ASB forced the advert to be pulled. End of story really. The first I’d heard of it was when the UK IT news website “The Register” reported on it. I still haven’t seen the advert and don’t really intend to, but I think generally the banning of this stuff creates what they call the “Streisand Effect” where people hear about something has been banned and then actively search it out because they’re curious. So in effect more people have seen the advert now that it has been forcibly pulled than they would have if no one had taken any action. I understand it’s a bit of a dual edged sword, but that’s the reality.
After watching the segment on Labiaplasty (sp?) on Hungry Beast last night, I often wonder if censorship does more harm than good. I don’t understand why women would want to mutilate themselves like that. Having looked into censorship issues since Senator Alston tried to initiate internet censorship more than a decade ago, I really think society as a whole should take a long hard think about the unintended consequences that certain types of censorship could bring (and have brought already). Not that I think the world would miss much if this particular advertisement disappeared off the face of the earth, never to be seen again.
Ah yes the streisand affect. I heard about that ages ago and had to google it to find out what it had to do with barbara streisand. For those who don’t know, from memory, Streisand took someone to court because the photos this person had taken of the californian coastline from a helicopter (i believe for environmental research) showed her home and she considered this an invasion of privacy. As a result of this court case, many more people saw her home than would have if she had not gone to court. Thus giving birth to the term “the streisand effect.” I love the terminology.
Matthew, I think the point you are making would be stronger if the ad in question was rare, but this ad is just one example of a common trend. Many ads that portray women as sexually desperate and objectify women’s bodies do get complaints, but the complaints are dismissed by the ad standards board. Think of Lynx commercials as one example. The reason this one is notable – and therefore bloggable – is because the asb actually upheld the complaint.
Regarding the labiaplasty thing – i saw that. Horrifying. That episode raised a few questions in my mind, including:
“if the asb was to say ‘hey, these unretouched images are fine” (which is what the guy from the asb was saying about all but one of the images he was presented with) would they stop the photoshopping?”
I’m not convinced that they would stop. All other parts of a woman’s body are retouched, why wouldn’t they continue doing the same to her genitals? They’re already modified by the fact they are waxed. No, I believe that if the standards were changed, we would simply see more “genital detail” for sure, but definitely still photoshopped.
So i’m not sure if this is a problem with censorship. I think the problem is the weird and wonderful ways people will attempt to dodge the standards. These publications push the boundaries by using digital retouching and then declare that the the classification board is at fault for the resulting social consequences. Not their own actions of modifying women’s bodies – breasts, faces and genitals. The thing is, they actually don’t *have* to do what they’re doing. The other options are of course, for them to photograph women with pants on, or to have their magazine reclassified to a more restricted category.
Regarding what you said about “women mutilating themselves” this has been going on for a long time Matthew. Plastic surgery on faces, bodies, breasts. I can understand why women want to do it. A woman’s value is so tied up with her appearance and the images and messages she has received from the culture since she was young tell her how she should look.
Melinda admittedly I don’t think I have seen the Lynx adverts. I think I’ve seen the ones where th guy is made out of chocolate which I thought was utterly surreal and weird. I can’t remember any overtly sexist adverts on TV, maybe the Nando’s chicken one which was pretty groan worthy. I was waiting for the Benny Hill theme turn to be played over the top of the ad.
As for ACMA, I think a lot of the censorship involved with R18+ and X18+ seems to revolve around the female body, which is really strange. I’ve never heard of any censorship issues involving the male body. I think this is really sad and quite wrong. The female body and its functions seem to be a no go zone for some, and looking back in how these laws were created it falls back to elderly conservative male politicians (these laws go back to when Brian Hardine was in the Senate, in fact he instigated a fair few of them).
As for “all other parts of a woman’s body are retouched, why wouldn’t they continue doing the same to her genitals”. This isn’t actually true. Sure quite a number of magazines might remove blemishes from a woman’s skin (but not all do this), but they certainly don’t change the body parts like women’s magazines do. This pretty evident in a range of men’s magazines. Most mainstream R18+ titles have a large variety of women of different ethnicities, body types, breast sizes and defiantly different genital shapes. This is more evident in US and UK magazines than Australian magazines. I’ve read where some Australian magazines won’t print photos of Asian girls because they may look younger than 18, even though they’re in their mid 20’s.
I think the problem is the lack of pubic hair. In the olden days they could cover the genitals up with pubic hair. Now they can’t because the models have very little or none. While I think maybe Hungry Beast’s conclusions were a bit simplistic, I still think censorship causes more problems than it’s worth. You only have to look at the bizarre stuff in Japan to see why. With the law forcing depictions of pubic hair and genitals to be censored, all types of perversions and really odd sub sets of porn have popped up. I don’t think hiding or censoring the female body away from men or women is a good thing. The only way I found out what female genitalia looked like was via Penthouse. Sex education did not tell me anything about this. How is this fair to young men and women trying to work out what is normal and right?
7 Responses
oh i see what they’ve done here. They’ve tried to cash in on the male consumers consumption of pornography by providing them with an image they’re familiar with. That is supposed to be semen isn’t it? Lets be real here.
Gavin Collins, you are incorrect when you say it is austray-an to objectify women in advertising, the words you are looking for are “unoriginal“ and “lacking any real creativity” and “sexist.” Right mate?
And yes, go the feminist bloggers. You may try to write them off Gav, but in this case they’ve captured the sentiment of many Australians who wouldn’t necessarily identify as feminist but who are nonetheless sick of this crap. That’s one of the good things about the internet, the ability to connect with others who share concerns and take action. Gavin, you might want to consider this next time you consider substituting pornography for creativity and social responsibility.
Again this is another example of mainstreaming pornography.
Let me name it for what it is; 1 minute of perversion and sexual innuendo aka porn with Pammy lasciviously erotic and lewd, desiring some go with a female so that men at home can get off on it.
Were we supposed to think that was a smart original piece of advertising and I can’t wait to get a crazy-domain website now? Were we meant to applaud them for an ingenious new theme?
Vile
Repulsive
Sickening
Foul
Uh, maybe you should all stop giving Crazy Domains free advertising. The advert has done its job very well thanks to the “crazy feminist bloggers” and the rest of the media. It’s in quite bad taste and I don’t think any man over the age of 14 finds Mrs Anderson in any way attractive (I sometimes think that maybe she acting out some sort of clever parody as to what men find attractive in woman, but then I realise she’s probably not that clever). Articles like this only whip up more publicity for the company and don’t solve the problem.
Hi Matthew W,
I see your point, commentary on this ad might give Crazy domains more exposure, but it also gives the issues of objectification and sexism more exposure too. It is unfortunate and an unintended consequence if they benefit or profit from activism against them, however remaining silent has never changed anything.
Melinda the ASB forced the advert to be pulled. End of story really. The first I’d heard of it was when the UK IT news website “The Register” reported on it. I still haven’t seen the advert and don’t really intend to, but I think generally the banning of this stuff creates what they call the “Streisand Effect” where people hear about something has been banned and then actively search it out because they’re curious. So in effect more people have seen the advert now that it has been forcibly pulled than they would have if no one had taken any action. I understand it’s a bit of a dual edged sword, but that’s the reality.
After watching the segment on Labiaplasty (sp?) on Hungry Beast last night, I often wonder if censorship does more harm than good. I don’t understand why women would want to mutilate themselves like that. Having looked into censorship issues since Senator Alston tried to initiate internet censorship more than a decade ago, I really think society as a whole should take a long hard think about the unintended consequences that certain types of censorship could bring (and have brought already). Not that I think the world would miss much if this particular advertisement disappeared off the face of the earth, never to be seen again.
Hey Matthew W,
Ah yes the streisand affect. I heard about that ages ago and had to google it to find out what it had to do with barbara streisand. For those who don’t know, from memory, Streisand took someone to court because the photos this person had taken of the californian coastline from a helicopter (i believe for environmental research) showed her home and she considered this an invasion of privacy. As a result of this court case, many more people saw her home than would have if she had not gone to court. Thus giving birth to the term “the streisand effect.” I love the terminology.
Matthew, I think the point you are making would be stronger if the ad in question was rare, but this ad is just one example of a common trend. Many ads that portray women as sexually desperate and objectify women’s bodies do get complaints, but the complaints are dismissed by the ad standards board. Think of Lynx commercials as one example. The reason this one is notable – and therefore bloggable – is because the asb actually upheld the complaint.
Regarding the labiaplasty thing – i saw that. Horrifying. That episode raised a few questions in my mind, including:
“if the asb was to say ‘hey, these unretouched images are fine” (which is what the guy from the asb was saying about all but one of the images he was presented with) would they stop the photoshopping?”
I’m not convinced that they would stop. All other parts of a woman’s body are retouched, why wouldn’t they continue doing the same to her genitals? They’re already modified by the fact they are waxed. No, I believe that if the standards were changed, we would simply see more “genital detail” for sure, but definitely still photoshopped.
So i’m not sure if this is a problem with censorship. I think the problem is the weird and wonderful ways people will attempt to dodge the standards. These publications push the boundaries by using digital retouching and then declare that the the classification board is at fault for the resulting social consequences. Not their own actions of modifying women’s bodies – breasts, faces and genitals. The thing is, they actually don’t *have* to do what they’re doing. The other options are of course, for them to photograph women with pants on, or to have their magazine reclassified to a more restricted category.
Regarding what you said about “women mutilating themselves” this has been going on for a long time Matthew. Plastic surgery on faces, bodies, breasts. I can understand why women want to do it. A woman’s value is so tied up with her appearance and the images and messages she has received from the culture since she was young tell her how she should look.
Melinda admittedly I don’t think I have seen the Lynx adverts. I think I’ve seen the ones where th guy is made out of chocolate which I thought was utterly surreal and weird. I can’t remember any overtly sexist adverts on TV, maybe the Nando’s chicken one which was pretty groan worthy. I was waiting for the Benny Hill theme turn to be played over the top of the ad.
As for ACMA, I think a lot of the censorship involved with R18+ and X18+ seems to revolve around the female body, which is really strange. I’ve never heard of any censorship issues involving the male body. I think this is really sad and quite wrong. The female body and its functions seem to be a no go zone for some, and looking back in how these laws were created it falls back to elderly conservative male politicians (these laws go back to when Brian Hardine was in the Senate, in fact he instigated a fair few of them).
As for “all other parts of a woman’s body are retouched, why wouldn’t they continue doing the same to her genitals”. This isn’t actually true. Sure quite a number of magazines might remove blemishes from a woman’s skin (but not all do this), but they certainly don’t change the body parts like women’s magazines do. This pretty evident in a range of men’s magazines. Most mainstream R18+ titles have a large variety of women of different ethnicities, body types, breast sizes and defiantly different genital shapes. This is more evident in US and UK magazines than Australian magazines. I’ve read where some Australian magazines won’t print photos of Asian girls because they may look younger than 18, even though they’re in their mid 20’s.
I think the problem is the lack of pubic hair. In the olden days they could cover the genitals up with pubic hair. Now they can’t because the models have very little or none. While I think maybe Hungry Beast’s conclusions were a bit simplistic, I still think censorship causes more problems than it’s worth. You only have to look at the bizarre stuff in Japan to see why. With the law forcing depictions of pubic hair and genitals to be censored, all types of perversions and really odd sub sets of porn have popped up. I don’t think hiding or censoring the female body away from men or women is a good thing. The only way I found out what female genitalia looked like was via Penthouse. Sex education did not tell me anything about this. How is this fair to young men and women trying to work out what is normal and right?