Susan Douglas's "Sex 'R' Us" was nothing less than expected. In this chapter of her ever critical book, she discusses the 180 effect on our society and media as a result of the sexual revolution, especially the result on young women. Many mediums, "witnessed a revolution in the depiction of sexually suggestive and even explicit material." (Douglas, 167)
One of the first signs of tossing out any and all conservatism was in 1980 when the Calvin Klein began to release a series of underwear ads. That particular year, Brook Shields, a sexy 15-year-old, was the cover model and according to Douglas, screamed sex. In following years, Klein released many other ad campaigns which included print as well as TV media. They all crept a fine line bordering on "kiddie porn" which struck a nerve with right-wing religious groups, causing an uproar. These groups were disgusted with what they concluded were pedophilia marketing strategies and thought it had to be stopped. Funny how this was causing a scene nearly 30 years ago and we are still facing some of the same issues today. Just a couple of months ago GQ released an issue of their multi-million dollar magazine with stars from the hit show Glee on its cover in scantely clad stereotypical high school attire. Now unlike the Klein campaigns, all parties were well over the legal age. The problem this time with certain parents groups was that the inappropriately dressed role models were playing roles of underage students on their television show and thus by ipso facto the magazine was again using the pedophilia marketing strategy. I personally don't understand the problem, since the character Finn (who appears on the cover) is 28 in real life, a good decade older than any age of controversy. If some guy in middle America is perverted enough to make up in his imagination that the cover models, who are all of age, by a technicality are underage somehow and gets off on it, well then America, I think we have bigger problems.
Next, Douglas touches on the topic of the (sadly) hit show Toddlers and Tiaras and how the show exploits these little girls', some still in diapers, implicit sexuality. We are shown girls, all under the age of ten, who beautify themselves with make up, hair spray, and even false teeth, to win the beauty pageant's top prize. Moving right along, we examine the generational phenomenon of Abercrombie & Fitch. Now we all know their message is loud and clear as we see it in all of the advertising campaigns, our clothes are great for the all American male/female. But what most of don't know or don't remember is their A&F Quarterly which began production in 1997. This magazine was more than just a look book of the latest trends; "it promoted a lifestyle of Caucasian group sex, going down on your date at the movies, and mastering alcohol drink recipes" (Douglas 159), oh ya and Douglas forgot to mention that half the people in this magazine were naked (sort of ironic for a clothing magazine).
With all these notions of sex suddenly thrown into adolescents faces, its no wonder the presence of sexperts weren't far behind. Cosmo and Maxim gave sex education classes a run for their money as they progressively revealed rauchier and rauchier headlining titles trying to take advantage of the new sex revolution and tap into their reader's inner sex gods and goddesses.
Douglas appropriately includes a nod, while we're on the mention of sex, to the infamous show Sex and The City which undoubtedly changed, molded, created for all I know the sex lives of every women in America.
Now, Douglas briefly mentions the appearance of Pepsi ads as more evidence towards the influence of the sexual revolution on the media and how many commercials included drop dead gorgeous women being oogled at by unworthy male figures. I think Collins would agree that sex definitely sells. Then it is interesting, that just recently, Pepsi released a new campaign for its new 'skinny can' which features Sofia Vergara, the voluptuous Latina actress. What's ironic, however, is that it seems Pepsi did everything it could to hide it's model's curves and sex appeal (what the actress is best known for), an opposite approach from its ads in the past. I've included a link to the article I found for readers:
http://www.popeater.com/2011/02/14/sofia-vergara-pepsi-ad/
It leaves me thinking why Pepsi chose to do this? What there an ulterior motive? What could have caused the company to do a complete 180 back to the other direction?
No comments:
Post a Comment