Conference turris::womannotes-v2

      In a way this is almost an offshot of my "when is sexy OK" note.
      I believe that modern advertizing is trying to force us to buy
      anything they have to sell. Sexy is used both as the end, as in
      selling cosmetics, and the means, as in selling cars. But we buy
      it because it seems important to us. Ads use sex because it's
      effective.

      The real issue is why is that so compelling? Long before modern
      advertizing women and men were dressing in ways to attract each
      other. While women have had more of the "you must be attractive"
      burden placed on them men were not immune. The clothing worn by
      the upper classes in the 16th and 17th centuries was outrageous.
      Both sexes wore makeup and lace.

      I would hazard a guess that attracting a member of the opposite
      sex has been a preoccupation with humnans since there were humans.
      What constitutes attractive varies quite widely from culture to
      culture. What looks good to a bushman is not what looks good to a
      mad. ave. executive but both can be just as artifical.

      We, as women in our culture, are buying into the idea that what we
      see in magazines is how we need to look. That does not mean we are
      merely too weak to avoid being manipulated, it means the
      advertizers have found a fundamental human need (desire??) and we
      are reacting to it in the manner of our culture.

      What we want is not to look like the models in the magazine, what
      we want is to be desired by certain members of the opposite sex
      and be accepted by our peer groups. We have been convinced that this
      is how we can accomplish that. We may be able to replace this with
      some other means of accomplishing our goal but I don't think the
      basic goal will change. liesl

    re: .1
    
    Yes, Leisl.  Absolutely.  The manipulation is intentional.  It works.
     As soon as it stops working, they will stop doing it.  It will
    stop working when ther breathes not a single person on this planet.
    
    

    
    I'll answer here some questions from note 13...
    
    Firstly I haven't seen the ad here in Europe. However neither my
    wife nor I read European women's magazines. However I have seen
    what I believe is the same ad (but with totally different text)
    in a Thai women's magazine...
    
    As for the significance of the black bikini: this may be simple
    technical expediency. Black bikinis are easily made larger (in print) 
    with the aid of an airbrush... (if the original was a transparency
    - if it were a negative then a white bikini serves the same expedient
    role).  It is possible therefore that the original picture did not
    look like the one thast appeared in the US and Thai magazines. It may 
    have looked more like a typical St. Tropez scene.
    
    Not having seen the US version, does the text actually refer to
    the girl-child as a woman? my understanding of the very brief fragment
    quoted was that the text formed a sort of open letter *addressed*
    to the *women* of St. Tropez (and anybody else who happened to read
    it). The Thai text unfortunately is quite different so doesn't help
    me (it is much closer to my guess as to the meaning, spelling out
    how gentle the stuff is on children's skin, whilst allowing Thai
    women to go out in the harsh tropical sun. All of which bemused
    my wife as Thai women definately do not like to get sun-tanned,
    and my wife won't even wear a bikini or sunbathe in our secluded
    garden...) Ann's comment was "only crazy farang want to burn their 
    skins in the sun... you just look like you work in a rice field all
    day." (This sun-phobia was common in Europe a hundred years ago of 
    course)
    
    /. Ian .\

    	Until recently, most models were 12-16 years old, made up to
    look a bit older but to have that "fresh and Innocent" appearance.
    Then the mad merchandisers had the breasts of these girls wired
    and trussed to create "cleavage". In some cases, they were rubbed
    with abrasive cloth and oil was applied to "pink" them up.
    	More recently, the "older" look is taking over. Yuppies are
    in their thirties, educated enough to recognize a teenie in an ad,
    so Cheryl Teigs (41) and others are back in the modelling business.
    	Most women are intelligent enough to know that they can't look
    20 at 45 without surgery, etc., so Madison Ave. is pushing a youthful
    "look" by using older female maodels. They are also pushing models
    who have recently had children. Christy Brinkley, Carol Alt, and
    others who have maintained their figures w/o stretch marks etc.
    	There's disposable income out there and these guys do not want
    to see it sit your bank account, they want it in theirs. And they're
    at war everyday trying to get it away.
    
    Ken

    .3
    
    The ad that we've been talking about (as far as I believed) is a 
    commerical on the televison set.  Whether it's in a magazine as a 
    picture, I haven't seen that as of yet.  (I don't read "women's"
    magazines)  I have seen this ad on TV.  Just last night in fact,
    FOX station.  It's very sexual.
    
    Anna
    

    re .6  (Anna)
    
>   The ad that we've been talking about (as far as I believed) is a 
>   commerical on the televison set.  Whether it's in a magazine as a 
>   picture, I haven't seen that as of yet.  (I don't read "women's"
>   magazines)
    
    I did not see the ad when it was first being discussed here. I looked
    in the woman's magazines and found two versions of it. One was on
    a single page and the other was on a two page spread. The girl looked
    more like eight years old.
    
>   I have seen this ad on TV.  Just last night in fact, FOX station.
    
    I saw this last night, I think on the FOX station. It looked pretty
    much like the same scene that was depicted in the magazines. 
    
 >  It's very sexual.
    
    I didn't notice this. What I did think though, was that this would
    be used by older girls (11 - 13) to pressure their parents into
    letting them wear makeup, earings, and adult looking attire. "Gee
    ma, look this is in these days, just look at this ad."
    
    Les
              

    
    re .6: 
    
    13.379 (the first mention of the ad) doesn't say what medium the
    ad appeared in. However having seen a very similar ad in a foreign
    language magazine, I took the reference to textual content and 'posing'
    as refering to print. (I don't use the term 'modeling' or 'posing'
    for video ads as the subject usually moves, and I then refer to it as 
    'acting' - and in the UK context video 'models' have to be members of 
    Actors Equity and laws applicable to acting apply to the content, not
    laws applicable to still photographic modeling... however this is in 
    danger of being a rathole)). This misconception, if misconception
    it is, was underlined by the reference to the child occluding the
    lower part of the adult's bikini so as you couldn't see it. Again
    this implied totally static posture to me (a still photograph rather
    than a 15-30 second video segment). The only relevance to this is the 
    possibility of retouching however.
    
    If there is a US print version of the ad, I would appreciate it
    if somebody could figure a way for me to see it to comment on...
                                                  
    Alternatively could somebody recreate the storyboard and enter it?..
    
    /. Ian .\
    

    
    Incidentally I was talking to my (photographic) business partner
    last night and I mentioned this, and he said (on a slightly different
    tack) that a few months back he had seen the film coverage of one
    of the Paris fashion shows and *every one* of the swimsuit models
    was accompanied on the cat walk by a small child in a matching
    swimsuit, with matching hair colouring and styling, and identical
    make-up, and the "like mother, like daughter" look was being widely
    touted by the fashion moguls...
            
    Since the [US] ad posits a French scenario ("to the women of St.
    Tropez...") it would appear that, whatever the perception this
    generates in America, it accurately reflects the fashion scene,
    or at least a small piece of it, in Europe...
    
    /. Ian .\

In 607.5, the following statement is made:

"...photographers and model agencies wouldn't touch a teenage girl with a 
barge pole, so to speak."

This statement offends me. The casual violence of the image is a perfect 
example of just the kind of creeping sexism we've been talking about in
this notes file. 

Dorian

    re: .10
    
     What violence? Have you ever heard the expression "wouldn't touch it
    with a ten foot pole?" It seems to me that it is just an extension of
    that expression. No violence at all. If you see violence in that image,
    please explain it, cuz I sure don't.
    
    The Doctah

          
.5> "...photographers and model agencies wouldn't touch a teenage girl with a 
.5> barge pole, so to speak."

.10> This statement offends me. The casual violence of the image is a perfect 
.10> example of just the kind of creeping sexism we've been talking about in
.10> this notes file.                            ^^^^^ 

Re: .10

Has the author of .10 ever heard the idiomatic phrase, "I wouldn't touch
that with a ten foot pole"? Aha! Rampant, creeping sexism. 

Please feel free to go off on your own crusades, wherever they may 
lead you. However, I think you're taking a great deal of liberty with the
use of "we've". 

Perhaps, "I've been talking about" is a bit more accurate? You haven't
yet converted the masses (female and male) to your view of the world.    

Somehow I suspect with your example of "casual violence of the image"
you're not going to, either.     
    
    Alan

    Alan,
    
    why so hostile? would you like to be treated the way you've treated the
    author of .10? has it occurred to you that .10 may come from a
    different culture than you do? or that she's never heard the expression
    before? or that it strikes her differently than it strikes you? maybe
    you could work on giving people more slack. 
    
    liz... who thought we were all human beings dealing with other human
    beings but sometimes has to wonder what other people think they're
    doing. 

    Liz-
    
     I noticed the hostility in Alan's reply also. I have a feeling that it
    a response to having been charged with sexism when none was present one
    time too many. (Reminds me of an outburst I witnessed when a woman had
    been subjected to sexism one time too many. Her response was a bit
    hostile as well, and was magnified by her frustration.)
    
     Everyone could use some slack. Take what you need, and pass the rest
    on.
    
     The Doctah

    Perhaps Alan should reconsider his apparent idea that every use
    of the term "we" must include Alan Ross.  Since it only takes
    two people to permit the use of "we", and since I too have mentioned
    sexism in this file, the use of "we" is quite legitimate, even
    without including *anyone* else.  (In fact, that a man should
    wax indignant that HE is not included in a particular "we" in
    Womannotes could even be used as justification for the original
    (in this context) mention of creeping sexism.)
    
    							Ann B.

      Regardless of the motive or reasons behind the subsequent replies
      I find it hard to imagine the phrase "wouldn't touch them with a
      barge pole" as latent creeping sexism. To bring back a phrase from
      my youth "kick back and mellow out". Something both sides of this
      argument would benefit from. liesl

Uh, this is getting a bit off the topic.

Can we get back to cosmetics and its effects on women?

						--Q (Dick Wagman)

    Well, speaking first as a moderator, my response was to write
    privately to several of the persons responding in this string
    of notes.
    
    Speaking as a person and looking only at the notes content, I feel
    that person I inadvertantly used a turn of phrase that person D
    found loaded & reacted strongly to. Then person A reacted too strongly
    to person D and used words and phrases that were overly strong
    for the situation and then........
    
    Speaking again as a moderator. Please be aware that many of the
    women who come into this file are carrying a lot of painful
    agendas about many of the issues raised in the file. Very often
    they may react very strongly to phrases or situations that other
    do not see in the same fashion. It is important that we all be
    sensitive about this. It is especially important for male contributors
    to be sensitive on these issues, since many of these issues revolve
    around how women have been treated by/interacted with men in the
    past. 
    
    I have found that it is far more effective to write to people when
    you have a problem with what they say, and ask them what they
    mean by it, than to speak words in the file that could be interpreted
    as demeaning, devaluing, insensitive, etc.
    
    yours in sisterhood.
    
    Bonnie J
    comoderator

    
    Considering I wrote the "barge pole" note just before finishing
    work last night, and have just gotten back (it is now 7:20 in the
    morning...) I thank the previous noters for springing to my defence...
    
    If my use of idiomatic English offends, my apologies. I grew up
    in a fairly gritty part of Northern England, the heartland of the
    Industrial Revolution. It was here that the first canals were built
    (by the Earl of Bridgewater to get products to Manchester for sale...)
    as a result my idiomatic speech is loaded with references to
    canal-life. A hard worker is a "navvy" (from "navigator" - the people
    who dug the canals), and if I want to shy away from something I
    fend it off with a barge pole - and if the concept is too much then
    I wouldn't even get that close. The original connotation however
    has no element of violence - the barge pole's function was to prevent
    a collision, usually with the banks of the canal, or another boat
    - and nor of course does it's modern usage (avoidance is the most 
    non-violent solution I know). 
    
    Incidentally, most flats and narrers (canal boats) where operated by 
    the women of the family, as a quick visit to the canal museum at 
    Wigan Pier in England would confirm, and a race of women more able 
    to stick up for themselves than the boat-women would be hard to find, 
    except perhaps amongst the pit-head mollys (female coal miners).
    
    Anyway, can we please return to the regularly scheduled programmes
    now?
                                                                    
    /. Ian .\

    My opinion --
    
    I think it's very important for any woman in womannotes to be able to
    point to a phrase or analogy and speak for herself and say, "I find
    that offensive (or sexist, or whatever)."
    
    I don't think that means that the note has to be set hidden or the
    writer apologize in situations where a number of valid opinions
    could exist.  I don't think we all even have to agree.  I do think
    that we need to listen to what many different women have to say
    about what sexism feels like to them to even begin to comprehend
    how it impacts us in this culture.
    
    I think such an interaction is a valuable part of a file like this for
    the readers who will come later.   It's painful for me to see men
    (and women, too) try to stifle or deny a woman's personal expression
    *here*.  If we allow that to happen, womannotes merely becomes a
    mirror of the larger, sexist, culture, and not a place for exploring
    sexism in a way that allows us all to learn.
    
    Holly 

    Holly-
    
     How about starting a new topic (or finding an appropriate topic) where
    we could discuss this? I think you have raised some important points,
    but I don't wish to rathole the discussion at hand any further.
    
    The Doctah

    If you or others want to discuss this further, feel free to extract
    my note to the string.   For myself, I just needed to make the
    statement, and probably won't continue to discuss it further.  
    
    I agree that this topic should return to its original purpose --
    and I don't think that the process *about* this subject is that far
    removed from the content of the subject, if you follow me.
    
    Holly

    reply to Ian, somewhere back:
    
    I've been giving some thought to something you said a while back
    on the perceptions of Europeans vs. Americans and different behaviours
    being common in different cultures.
    
    Having grown up quite literally _between_ both worlds, I would have
    to agree with you that the perceptions are quite different.
    
    However, that doesn't negate the small-child-in-black-bikini as
    exploitation out of hand.
    
    Because a behaviour or attitude is commonly accepted doesn't mean
    it _isn't_ exploitive.  Frequently actions that _are_ exploitive gain
    acceptance from sheer repetition.
    
    If a culture condones the marketing of human beings as commodities,
    it is certainly exploiting them regardless of the strength and history
    it can point to.
   
    Whether the little girl in her black bikini is sexually suggestive
    is open to debate [obviously].  That children are being used in
    sexual contexts to sell is pretty hard to ignore.
    
    In looking at advertising and salacious literature, children are
    beginning to displace women as sexual objects, and women are trending
    more toward being the objects of suggested violence.  **
    
    I believe that this exploits them.  While I believe strongly in
    exploiting opportunities and talents, I am somewhat repelled by
    the segmentation and objectification of human beings in this context.
    
      Ann
    
    ** note:  boy-children are included
       note:  men are sometimes objectified as well, but not as frequently.
    	      I wouldn't wish to see them exploited more, either.

     It is a fact that the new fashion trend out of Paris is to have
    bathing suits coordinated between mother and child (especially female
    child). Since Ian brought this up, I have made a special effort to see
    if this is the case and I have seen several examples of this trend in
    my wife's women's magazines.
    
     I find it hard to accept as exploitive when it is precisely how people
    are going to be looking like at the beach. They are selling a product
    that will be used heavily by the beach going population. They tailor
    their advertisements to appeal to people in a manner that imitates how
    they will be attired. I have seen both the TV ad and the magazine ad
    for the product. I find absolutely nothing exploitive about either of
    them. 
    
     Switching gears now- have any of you seen the ads for the sports bras?
    They show a womans bare breast (side view) and say something about a
    woman's natural shape being worth keeping. They then have a graph
    showing the amplitude of movement of a woman's breast while running
    without the bra and with the bra. This ad was found in "New Woman"*
    magazine. For those of you that have seen it, what are your opinions
    about the ad? Is it exploitive?
    
    The Doctah
    
    *- I found the name of the magazine to be funny, since on the cover it
    had a woman with her shirt partially open and wearing no bra. I thought
    that was the "old" woman.
    

    No, no, no, Ed.  Using ~This is fashionable~ as an argument to
    claim that something cannot be exploitive or degrading is not
    really a great idea.  Consider corsets.
    
    							Ann B.

    Re .25:
    
    Absolutely. In my view, fashion itself can, and very often does, exploit.
    Consider spike heels!
    
    Also, has anyone pointed out that in the St. Tropez ad, the little
    girl's bathing suit top is not only black, but strapless? How
    "fashionable" is *that* these days in the under-six-year-old crowd?
    
    Dorian

    Yes, I did notice that there were no straps on the *child's* suit.
    That would mean - in reality - when she goes running around on the
    beach, as children do, that part of the suit would be down around
    her waist.
    
    It has also occurred to me that perhaps that was not a child but
    an immature looking adult whose picture had been photographically
    reduced and superimposed in front of the other woman---in that case
    they would both actually be women!

re: .27 

[side thought - oh my gosh! I'm using reply numbers! see 'hot buttons' topic if
you don't understand...]

The thought of it being a 'reduced woman' strikes me as very creepy.
But I can't quite place my finger on why.
	Mez

    re: reduced woman
    
     That is not the case in the ad in question. There is no question that
    the girl is a girl and not a woman. She appears to be around 8 years
    old.
    
    re: creepy
    
     Perhaps your apprehension stems from the fact that a reduced woman
    scenario would be tantamount to deception. It would also bug me that
    they were trying to make women out to be little girls. Women and little
    girls are similar- but they are not the same, and shouldn't be
    substituted for one another, especially for monetary gain. (I know this
    happens all the time).
    
    The Doctah

    re   reduced woman
    
    It all depends on how you see this ad.  Just because you don't see it
    as a 'reduced woman' doesn't mean everyone else sees it as you do....!
    
    When I first saw this ad (I'm talking commerical on TV.) I first
    thought it was a couple (gay women) and I thought, boy, the FOX station
    is a bit ahead of the times.  Then I looked back at it and realized
    that it was a child!  At that point, I felt disqusted.  I was folding
    laundry at the time, so I didn't actually watch the entire thing, but
    the next time I saw it on TV I sat down and watched it.  I still didn't
    like it.  I believe the advertisers could have thought of something
    a little more tasteful.  I will not be buying this lotion....
    
    Anna
    
    
    

I think that I sense a lot of denial and rationalization in defending
this ad.  (Am I wrong?). 

Jean Kilbourne's "Killing Us Softly- Images of Women in Advertizing"
really makes one aware of the the messages behind these ads.  This was
shown in ZK on Tuesday and I really recommend it.  It's a real eye
opener.

john

Re .24 and the ad for the jogging bra -

I for one think this ad definitely exploits women. Here are some of my 
reasons:

It cashes in on the "shock effect" of a nude female torso to draw attention 
to the product. This is the first ad for underwear I've ever seen where the 
model is shown *not* wearing the underwear!

It applies the label "Nature." to the photo, which shows the profile of a 
woman's breast when she is reaching high up with her arms. No doubt the 
pose was selected because indeed, that is the position in which breasts 
"sag" (horrors!) least. But, is it "nature" for women to go around 
reaching for the stars all the time? 

It doesn't show the woman's face; her head is cut off at the chin. (I
noticed the same is true of a current ad for Obsession fragrance, which
shows a frontal, if shadowy, view of a female torso - no head or face.)
This is Woman fragmented into Constituent Parts, an insidiously common
advertising technique that was pointed out in the film "Killing Us Softly,"
mentioned in an earlier note. By not showing her head or face, the ad
further dehumanizes, further objectifies the woman. Or perhaps models
aren't yet willing to show their faces in this new-porn-wave that has hit
women's magazines? 

It brings in Science to sanction the sales pitch. Or rather, pseudo 
science. The graph comparing the two jogging motions - with and without
Jogbra - seems to me a sick joke (how *do* you suppose they ever came up
with such a graph? Hm, let's see, I wonder how they measured ...), like the
one about deriving the equations for the forces holding up a strapless
evening gown. Since it is the essence of science to treat as pure object
whatever is being studied, this is carrying the Objectification of Women to
the nth degree. 

Now before I get jumped on with (as someone put it in an earlier note - 
accurately, I thought) "denials and rationalizations," I'd ask people to
imagine a comparable ad, with comparable photo and "scientific" analysis,
for men's athletic supporters. And I do mean imagine, since I'm sure you'll
never see such an ad. Because, in my view, it's not men's bodies that are
public property in our culture, fair game to be used for selling any and
all types of merchandise. It's women's. 

Dorian

    <flame on>
    I wasn't going to get into this string, but I can't stay out of
    it now...
    
    I *cannot* believe that people do not see the exploitation of the
    child in the 'black swim suit' ad.  No, it is not normal beach
    attire for a six year old child and I hope very much that I don't
    see children dressed like this on the beach this summer.  Not only
    is the swim suit offensive, the entire ad is offensive.  The child
    in the ad has imitated her "mother's" look--seductive expression
    on face, semi-closed eyes, tight, sophisticated hair style,
    sophisticated pose.  The child in the ad is not shown as a child,
    but a miniature woman, and I find this perverse and sad.  
    
    Children need to be seen as children, not as miniature adults. 
    I for one am sick to death of seeing children exploited, used,
    and abused in order to make a buck for some almighty Madison Ave.
    guru.
    
    <flame off>
    Maria
    

    re .33
    
    Thank you for expressing what I have been struggling with for a
    couple of days now.  (I've made at least 2 replies and then deleted
    them.)  
    
    Alison

    .33
    
    
    Amen!
    
    

    
    .31> John, well put!
    
    *I* think that any ad that uses a person [either gender] to sell
    a product that is not dependent on a *person's* sex is
    sexist. IE: Tanning lotion should be sold to *tan* [or not to tan]
    *not* to make men/women/children/ sexier. IE: Selling an aphrodesiac
    for women, *by* women would be OK.
    
    Since that negates about 99.4% of all advertizing campaigns, don't
    look for this in the near future...but I think it is important to
    attack the issue from an also *non-sexist* view...and condemn *all*
    uses of sexism in ads...not just female.
    
    I for one, always wondered if at least some men were not offended
    by being pandered to in such a way...It certainly reflects on the
    general assumption that men will buy anything that comes wraped
    in *sexual innuendo*...a clear cut to the old mental capacity...
    Hmmm?
    
    And, while I'm at it...[sigh]...I often also wonder at the thousands
    of *women* who will buy a product because some supposedly sexy woman
    is pictured holding it against her ample and scantily clad breast...
    
    I guess my point here [yes, there is one hiding somewhere] is that
    *consumers* are as accountable for sexism in ads as advertizers
    are. *Not* buying and stating *WHY* would have immediate outcomes.
    BUT, *we* all know that will never happen...why? Because like it
    or not, the majority of people *do* buy into sexism as a way of
    life.
    
    Is it nice?...No.  Is it fair?...No. Is it real?...You bet ya!
    
    The Doctah's point about that female rag...[wait! RAG is a synonym
    for magazine! Sheesh!]...is well taken. INSIDE, it has a bunch of
    stuff about feminism *AND* not-so-feministic stuf...but the folks
    publishing it know what sells...and she's sitting pretty right on
    the cover....
    
    One of the *FEW* mags I have seen lately that does not pander to
    sexism...at least blatantly...and *tries* obviously to combat it
    is LEARS. And even they...although not on covers...accept ads of
    a sexist nature. When challenged in a letter on this topic, the
    editor replied..."Economic realities"...Either they publish a little
    known, under-read, poorly published piece and accept only ads from
    companies that match the message of their editorial stance...or
    they accept ads from a wider variety of advertizers and publish
    a class act. They chose a class act.
                                          
    This is not a simple question. It crosses several levels of
    responsibility and moral ethics. There is no simple answer.
    
    Melinda

     This is directed to those of you who are really upset by this ad and
    others of a similar nature.
    
     When you go to the beach this summer, and you see an eight year old
    girl with her mother, both of whom are wearing skimpy suits, light
    makeup and are acting in a sexually uninhibited manner- will that
    offend you? Why or why not?
    
     If it does not offend you to see this type of behavior in public, then
    why would it offend you to see acceptable public behavior used as a
    vehicle to increase sales?
    
    The Doctah

>     When you go to the beach this summer, and you see an eight year old
>    girl with her mother, both of whom are wearing skimpy suits, light
>    makeup and are acting in a sexually uninhibited manner- will that
>    offend you? Why or why not?


I have certainly never seen this on the beaches of New England, and I 
rather doubt that I ever will.  When was the last time you saw a
"sexually uninhibited"  8-year old?  And if you did, I suggest that such
perception is in the eye of the beholder (from the statistics on child
molestation this warped perception is common to heterosexual males, 
apparently), and most certainly not in the child. 

    
    > both of whom are wearing skimpy suits, light makeup...
    
    I can't recall ever having seen an eight year old (outside of a
    magazine) wearing makeup, light or otherwise.
    
                             ...Lisa V...

      
>>    When you go to the beach this summer, and you see an eight year old
>>    girl with her mother, both of whom are wearing skimpy suits, light
>>    makeup and are acting in a sexually uninhibited manner- will that
>>    offend you? Why or why not?

Re: .38

> I have certainly never seen this on the beaches of New England, and I 
> rather doubt that I ever will.  

I don't know what beaches *you* go to in New England, but I have certainly 
seen some eight year old (or so) girls in "skimpy" suits, wearing light makeup. 
I'll give you the names of the beaches I frequent, if you're interested.

>                                       When was the last time you saw a
> "sexually uninhibited"  8-year old?  And if you did, I suggest that such
> perception is in the eye of the beholder (from the statistics on child
> molestation this warped perception is common to heterosexual males, 
> apparently), and most certainly not in the child.

Oh, we're back to the "not-all-men-but-always-men-are-molesters" mindset,
are we? Are you claiming that *no* eight year old girl is sexually unin-
hibited? (This does not mean that I'm implying that sexually uninhibited
children - male or female - are asking to be molested).

I have a general question to women: Do any of you wear skimpy, string-y,
or otherwise-"sexy" bathing suits when you go to the beach?  

If you do, how do you feel about yourselves?

  Alan  

I always get antsy when someone asks me (or people like me) a leading question
in notesfiles. But I can't quite but my finger on why...

Now the co-mod stuff:

Tone It Down Folks.
	Mez

Re: .41       

> I always get antsy when someone asks me (or people like me) a leading question
> in notesfiles. But I can't quite but my finger on why...

Mez, I'm assuming your comment was directed to my question in .40.

While you may think of it as a leading (as well it might be) question, it's
also direct.

Nobody is forced to answer who doesn't want to.

  Alan 

    Well, for your information...
    No, I don't own, never have, a two piece suit, skimpy or otherwise.
    No, I don't wear bikini type suits.  
    Actually I rarely go to the beach...like once every 5 years or so...
    
    Now, does that help?  Or is it really not relevant to the discussion
    at hand?  And, for the record, I rarely wear shorts ... personally
    I don't feel comfortable in public in them...
    
    As for the media, fashions, and cosmetics...someone said it well
    earlier, Until folks stop buying 'all this crap' , start writing
    letters protesting the stuff, and in general make it non-profitable
    for the sellers to market the stuff, things won't change.  Trouble
    is, I like most folks, don't take the time to protest officially.
     Oh yeah, I b*** about it to friends, family, coworkers, but I don't
    actually take the time to make it known to the vendors...and I should,
    and I will try in the future....
    
    Personally I find a lot of the ads...tv and print...objectionable...
    but then...different strokes for different folks...
    
    deb
    

<Are you claiming that *no* eight year old girl is sexually unin-
<hibited? (This does not mean that I'm implying that sexually uninhibited
<children - male or female - are asking to be molested).

What bothers me about this whole discussion is what we mean by "sexually
uninhibited". In an adult woman I would assume this to mean a woman
who is aware sexually but comfortable with her sexuality and is also
comfortable displaying it. I don't have a problem with this. But notice
I did include the idea of being sexually aware.

I think the awareness of an 8 year old girl is different. She may be
aware of her body etc. but I don't think most 8 year old girls are
what you would call "sexually aware" - and if they are then that should
be a cause for concern.

I once had a friend tell me that little girls who had been molested were
often "second" targets because like it or not they had sexual awareness, 
and for example got sexual jokes and innuendo's that most children their
age would not understand. This conversation really got to me - and I
think this is what bothers me about this discussion.

I don't see how you can talk about someone being sexually uninhibited if they
are not sexually aware. If an 8 year old is sexually aware then how come?
Is that a symptom of something else?

Muggsie

Alan, that doesn't help me figure out why I feel the way I do when asked a
leading question in a notesfile. _I_ know I don't have to answer it...

And it was not directly directed at you. I have seem lots of leading questions
lately.
	Mez

    If I were to see an 8 year old girl on the beach with makeup on,
    light or heavy, I'd tell her to wash her face!
    
    It's none of your business what I wear on the beach!  
    
    I all the time I've been to the beach (although the ad doesn't portray
    the subjects at the beach, I believe they are in a Roman Empire type
    setting) I have never seen an adult in a bikini with a small CHILD
    dressed exactly the same, posed in a seductive way getting their
    picture taken!
    
    Anna
    
    

    Re Alan, how do I feel about myself in a skimpy bathing suit?

    I feel like I wish I had a flatter stomach and a bigger chest, but
    I thank God that at least my legs and ass are still okay! :-)

    Lorna
    
    

Maybe we could simplify the discussion by just talking about women in
bikinis in ads and forget the kid for the time being...

What is the meaning of having women (and sometimes men) skantily clad
selling products and in many time seductive poses?  Why are all the
people in ads (especially women) totally made up, very thin, very
perfect?  What message does this give to women?  Why do we see pieces
of women's bodies in ads?  What reaction does this cause in the
viewer?  In men, in women?

Do women need these products to be loved?  Do women need to be perfect
to be loved?  Is physical appearance the most important thing a woman
needs to be concerned about?  Are women objects for men's sexual
gratification? 

What is this world of white middle and upper class straight people
depicted in ads?  Where are people of color, of different sexual
orinetation, older people? An interesting world where problems are
solved in 30 seconds by purchasing products.  Where we need to buy
things in order to be approved, to be appreciated, to be loved.  This
is the message, isn't it?  Where men all are successful businessmen
and success objects measured by their wealth and the family (wife and
children) they "have". 

How much does this affect our values, of what we think is important?
Let's really take a look at these ads and how we react to them.

If we did not buy into this model, what would life be like?  What if
we found out we didn't need any of this junk that is peddled to be
happy, loved, and appreciated?  If we saw that advertizing plays on
our worst fears and insecurities and desires.  If we found out that we
really didn't need much at all to be a fully alive human being! 

What if we could live our lives without images of how we should be? 
How wonderful!

john

     A couple of comments-
    
     I believe the "leading question" contention was directed at me. I
    would like to say that I tried to make it perfectly obvious where I was
    going with the question. I didn't try to bait and surprise. I thought I
    was rather straightforward, at least I tried to be.
    
     I think that people are reading more into the "sexually uninhibited" 
    thing than I meant when I wrote it. I was only trying to draw as much
    of a parallel to the ad as I could. Perhaps my incomplete mastery of
    the English language has contributed to this problem; I have chosen
    words that inaccurately express my ideas.
    
     The bottom line is that I think that it is possible to have a very
    similar scenario occurring in public. I am interested in how people
    feel about this. I get the feeling that some people feel that nothing
    like this ever happens in public. As I have personally witnessed
    substantially similar things, I feel that this scenario is more than
    reasonable. I have seen young female children dressed like mommy (so
    the color of the suit was different, it was still a bikini like mom's).
    I notice that children are often imitators- while mommy may be
    "sexually uninhibited," daughter may *appear* to be, simply as imitation.
    
    Re: molestation
    
     This contention is patently absurd. 'Nuff said.
    
     So the question remains, is it reasonable for industry to employ
    public behavior to sell more product, even when said behavior may be
    offensive to some?
    
     The Doctah

Re. < Note 607.31 by TOOK::HEFFERNAN "One Percent For Peace" >

>Jean Kilbourne's "Killing Us Softly- Images of Women in Advertizing"
>really makes one aware of the the messages behind these ads.  This was
>shown in ZK on Tuesday and I really recommend it.  It's a real eye
>opener.

Does anyone here know where I can rent a copy of this video?  I work in
CXO.  Thanks.

/Mike

For those who can see how offensive the St. Tropez sun tan oil ad is, and 
who want to write to the company and tell them so, here's the address on the 
bottle:

	Bain de Soleil Division
	Charles of the Ritz Group Ltd.
	New York City, NY 10019


Dorian

    If we're going to be offended by girls depicted acting like women,
    why aren't we equally offended by boys depicted acting like men?
    
    From my perspective, the sun tan oil commercial leaves a bit of
    room for interpretation.  In my eyes it's not clearly suggestive
    or exploitative.  (Sorry, sisters, I've seen too many young females
    acting like adult females in real life to be convinced that this
    isn't just another case of the daughter imitating her mother in
    style and dress.  Anyone remember the days of mother/daughter dresses?)
    
    But there is a series of commercials running that REALLY offends
    me -- the Jello commercials that show a boy of about 6-7 years old 
    acting like a sleezy con artist.  In one version he's trying to con 
    his mother into buying a shopping cart full of the product; in another 
    he's trying to con a female classmate into sharing the pudding from
    her lunch with him.  In both cases I feel -- literally -- sick to my 
    stomach when this child talks and acts like a Madison Avenue con artist.
    
    Or are "we" only concerned about female exploitation?
    
    Karen
                      

Physical abuse does not have to show itself as a broken leg or a
black eye.  Sexual abuse does not have to consist of penetration of the
female by a male.  Child abuse consists of broken spirits and broken
hearts and broken trusts and broken innocence.  

I feel that the St. Tropez ad is a clear, if covert, act of child sexual
abuse.  This child has been manipulated by the company into being a seductive,
sexual, non-child.  She has been trained to look and act seductively--
her body and her expression are that of an adult woman's, not that
of a small and innocent child.  She has been taught to send an alluring and tempting
message to the public--a message that she, no doubt, does not understand.
She's being used to appeal to the sexual yearnings of the general public--
perhaps the 'innocence' of using a small child is part of the appeal--
however, it is just this innocence that has been taken away from this
particular little girl.

I am also seeing a 'blame the victim' attitude in some of the replies.
The woman in this ad is responsible for herself and has chosen this way
to make a dollar; however, the child has been victimized--she has no
control over her body or herself--she was placed in this role by adults.
She is not responsible for the swimsuit, the posture, the makeup, the hair
style--these things were forced on her.

I am beginning to understand, to my dismay, why child abuse is so prevalent
in America and how it goes largely unnoticed by the majority...is it because
the adult does not recognize child abuse but rather, accepts is as 'normal'
or big business or simply 'marketing strategy'?

We need to begin to protect our children.

Maria

    Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
    
    In today's Worcester Telegram & Gazette, Sharfman's Jeweller's ran
    an ad which is obviously based on the Bain de Soleil ad.
    
    	A woman and a child in bikinis
    
    	"The Sharfmans Women"
    
    	Together.  Entrusting in the time they have made for one
    	another.  Savoring those special moments in their lives -
    	when the wearing of jewelry becomes the *only* conversation.
    
    	Visit our quality selection of diamonds and fine jewelry at
    	the Worcester Center Galleria/Beechwood Inn (Biotech Park)
    	(508) 791-2211.
    
    Yes, I called the store to register a complaint.
    
    

    Very well said, Maria.
    
    I cannot believe that anyone could look at that ad and fail to see
    the difference between it and a child playing "dress up."    
                                                                          
    The ad says "...the _women_ of St. Tropez."  She is a miniature
    duplicate of the woman in dress, facial expression and body movement.
    And, to be honest, it never occurred to me that the woman was supposed
    to be her mother.
    
  
    -Tracy
      

    Re:  Killing Us Softly
    
    The ZKO showing was sponsored by Louise Wilkins of Health Services
    and Laura Woodburn of the Stone Center Project.  Both can be reached
    on node UCOUNT::  for more info about getting the film.  
    
    Re:  Sexual abuse
    
    Sexual abuse and incest is so prevalent in this society.  Women
    are "coming out of closets" in droves to tell their stories, to
    describe the shame, pain and humiliation, and to reach out and realize
    that they are not alone and they did not cause the abuse that happened
    to them.  
    
    Many survivors carry around guilt for years -- and think to themselves
    things like, "If I only hadn't danced around the kitchen in my purple
    tutu when I was 3 years old, Daddy wouldn't have done that."  
    TILT.  Three year old children *are* flirty and seductive, and the
    adult is absolutely responsible for setting and maintaining boundaries
    in terms of behavior.
    
    I believe that ads like the one described here (and I have not seen
    it yet) contribute to the problem of sexual abuse and incest.  I
    believe that they help perpetrators justify behavior which is
    not appropriate with children.   Children do not have (or should
    not have) the experience that most 18 year old women have had to
    develop in fending off unwanted sexual advances.  By portraying
    them in a sexual way, I believe there is a subtle message being
    sent that these young girls are fair game.  Perpetrators of sexual
    abuse have been known to say of 6 year old girls, "But she didn't
    try to stop me."
    
    Anything for an almighty dollar -- including "selling" our children?
    
    Sigh.  Yes, this is one of my hot buttons.
    
    Holly
    

re: leading question and people jumping up to say "it must be me!"

I'm more interested in my reactions to leading questions than who I must be
referring to. Honestly, if I wanted to refer to someone[s] specifically, I
would. And I certainly don't want to spend time saying who/which I was reacting
to, because then people just get defensive. But, of course, more than one
question can (and does) get worked in a topic.
	Mez

    I don't really know what I think about this topic.  I haven't seen
    the commercial in question, of the mother and daughter in bikinis.
     I don't know if it would bother me or not, if I had seen it without
    reading this first.  I do know that I think that the media exploits
    women and makes many of us, to some degree, think that we have to
    look as much like models as possible in order to find love and
    happiness.  And, I know that when I don't get all the love and
    happiness I feel I deserve I partially do blame it on the fact that
    I don't look like a Playboy centerfold or the model on the cover of
    Cosmopolitan, because that's what most men seem to want in a woman.
    
    I think that sexual abuse of children is horrible, of course.  It
    is hard for me to believe that it is as common as it seems to be,
    though.  Nobody ever came remotely close to molesting me when I
    was a child, and I can't help but wonder if it was because all the
    adults I encountered were nice people, or if I was such a creepy
    little kid that none of the perverts who met me were interested.
     That may sound strange but it's the kind of thing you wonder about
    when you grow up with no self-confidence (about your looks or
    anything).
    
    I don't know if I think an ad like that would encourage someone
    to molest little girls, or if it would have no affect.  Maybe the
    people who would do something like that would anyway, and the ones
    who wouldn't dream of it, wouldn't anyway.  I don't know.  I'm not
    sure if I think the ad does any harm or not, apart from making women
    who don't look good in bikinis wish they did.
    
    (I know I sure wouldn't walk next to my daughter with matching bikinis.
     But, then my kid is 15 and has a good figure and I'd be at a decided
    disadvantage.)
    
    I do know I like those ads in magazines for Obsession for men, with
    all those gorgeous naked male torsos.  (Who *are* those guys and
    where do they come from?)  I wonder if that's exploiting men because
    most men don't look nearly that good naked.  It's still saying that
    it's very desirable to be goodlooking, but it hasn't been as important
    in our society for men to be goodlooking as it has women, so I don't
    think it bothers men.  Men know that even if they're homely, as
    long as they have money and power they can have a goodlooking woman.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    
    If you find yourself wanting to look like the woman in this (and
    similar) ad(s), don't you think our daughters find themselves wanting
    to look like the girls portrayed (as women) in these ads?
    
    So they make themselves look like that.
    
    And then we get the Errol Flynn defense: But she didn't _look_ like
    a girl... 
    
          
    -Tracy
    
    

	Well, I finally saw the ad the other night on TV.

	The discussion around this commercial reminds me of one
	(in -WN- V1) that centered around the Van Heusen shirt
	commercial. 

	Some Noters back then felt the ad pandered to male fantasies 
	of incest, because the ad was for men's shirts.

	Other Noters felt that the ad was rather innocent, that it
	was pitched toward females who were trying to find an appro-
	priate present for 'that special man in their life': husbands,
	boyfriends, fathers (This commercial was aired around Christmas 
	and Father's Day). 

	Now, I'm pretty certain that Bain de Soleil's biggest market in 
	America is female (and always has been). I also suspect that
	Bain de Soleil is trying to increase their penetration (sorry
	'bout that) within this market population.

	If, as some Noters claim, this ad is exploitative (by featuring 
	a 'nymphette'), what audience, then, is the advertiser trying to 
    	reach?

	  Alan  
        

    Re .64
    
    I don't see the point of your question. The ad is pitched to women
    who have the money to buy the product. The ad exploits little girls,
    by depicting this particular little girl as an adult female sex
    object.
    
    Is there some inconsistency here?
    
    Dorian
    

           
    Re: .65
    
    >                                         The ad is pitched to women
    > who have the money to buy the product. The ad exploits little girls,
    > by depicting this particular little girl as an adult female sex
    > object.
    
    That *was* the point of my question.
    
    Someone, in an earlier reply, gave the impression that this ad was
    just one more excuse for men to molest little girls.
    
    I had hoped that someone would be as explicit in his/her assessment
    of the ad - and to whom it's pitched - as you've been.
                                                          
    Can we then say that this commercial is just one more excuse for
    women to molest little girls?
    
      Alan                       

    Re: .48
    
    > Re Alan, how do I feel about myself in a skimpy bathing suit?

    
    > I thank God that at least my legs and ass are still okay! :-)

    Lorna, sounds fine to me!! :-) :-)
    
      Alan 

    re .66
    
    Your logic is peccable.
    
    Because an ad is "pitched" at a given audience, does not mean those
    potential purchasers are the only ones who'll see it and be influenced
    by it. The ad condones, and makes acceptable to the *general viewing 
    public* (which would include just about everybody), the attitude that 
    little girls should be regarded, in their sexual nature, just like
    women. This point has been made several times already in this string, 
    and very well too.
    
    Advertising in the mass media has become virtually an art form in and
    of itself in our society. Who a given ad is aimed at is of little relevance,
    I think, in terms of its impact in shaping attitudes and behaviors.
    Too bad the advertisers' sense of social responsibility hasn't caught up
    with their techniques.                                
    
    Dorian                  
    
    Dorian 

    I don't think anyone is saying that the ad is aimed at increasing
    child molestation....the ad is aimed at selling suntan lotion. 
    However, advertising often has other impacts...and these should
    be considered before running an ad.
    
    -Jody
    

    If it were just the print ad, Alan would have a much stronger case.
    I've seen the ad in women's magazines and fashion magazines, but
    not in other type of magazines.  Therefore, I would expect very
    few men to see the print ad.  We'd still have the argument against
    encouraging children to act like adults, but the problem would be
    the way females were taught to act, not the way males were taught
    to act toward females.
    
    Now that the ad has made its way to television, it has a much broader
    audience.  Not only are female children encouraged to act as adults,
    but males are encouraged to perceive female children as more adult-like.

	re "8-year olds not sexually uninhibited":

	Seems to me that people are (in general) most sexually
	uninhibited when they are pre-adolescent. They haven't
	yet learned from society that sex is bad.

	re "Never seen <ad behavior> in real life"

	If ads were restricted to real life situations, or even
	plausible real life situations, I'd wager most current 
	ads couldn't be shown.

					Tom_K

You know, that's just what I was thinking last night John: What _do_ those ad
folks think/talk about when they put an ad together? How do they sell it? What
clinches the sale? And what determines the context and time period the ad will
run?

Not that this would answer all the questions raised in this string, but it sure
would be interesting.
	Mez

	Check out the book "The Hidden Persuaders", by Vance Packard.
	It was written in the fifties, so some of the things are dated,
	but it gives a very enlightening perspective of the depth approach
	used to sell us everything from automobiles to political candidates.

						Tom_K

    Tom,
    
    I've read the book "The Hidden Persuaders" and I agree with you
    that it is a book that everyone should read. Most of the people
    that I've offered it to in the past have not been interested
    or have been somewhat embarassed.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Just as an aside... every year there is a prestiguous international
    competition held in France to find the world's best Television ads.
    
    A few years ago one of the judges was interviewed on CNN. He said
    (paraphrased loosely)
    
    "you can instantly tell the nationality of the ad. The Americans
    sing and dance (eg Shake'n'Vac) the British tell a story (a Land
    Rover winching itself up a dam - the overall winner), the French
    show nudity (Lee Jeans with the back pocket and logo drawn with
    grease pencil on the naked rump of a female model), and the Germans
    present facts (Volkswagen ad showing a white coated scientist detailing
    the specifications of a new car)."
    
    I suspect that what is happening here is that a campaign that is
    in the French mould, but much too tame for France is aggravating
    the US mind set by its oddity. Perhaps the models should sing a
    merry jingle and dance a few steps... (only joking folks...)
    
    /. Ian .\

    Earlier in this string the remark was made that the noter (I forget
    who, sorry for being impersonal...) had never seen, and hoped never
    to see such Mother/Daughter pairs sunbathing or being photographed
    on a beach in New England.
    
    I'd wager you've never seen an adult woman sunbathing or being
    photographed topless on a beach in New England either.
    
    Considering how far from the world median of acceptable beach behaviour
    prudish New England is, I am not surprised in the least. (Acceptable
    public morality in New England was once described to me as a mixture
    of the most repressive elements of Victorian England and the Puritans
    - and incidentally Victorian England was the last time it was
    fashionable here for girls to dress like their mothers)
    
    ---
    
    Inicdentally I have been told by a friend in the ad business that
    this ad won't appear on British TV in its American form because
    it is too long and "too abstract". A European version is being made
    for European TV (The French have their own version ready for release
    shortly - no child, and a topless female having BdeS oil rubbed
    into her shoulders by a male "Adonnis" type.) I've seen the story
    board of the Brit version and it shows the Mother sunbathing, talking
    to a friend about the value of BdeS in avoiding skin problems in
    later life, whilst their daughters (dressed identically to the
    mothers) are seen in the background playing with a beach-ball.
             
    /. Ian .\

    re. .77   Wrong!
    
    I have seen plenty of mother/daughters sunbathing on the beach.  I
    have seen plenty of people taking pictures at the beach.  But I have
    NEVER and hope NEVER to see anyone taking pictures of CHILD ABUSE
    on the beach.  And these are beaches all along the east coast, from
    Maine to Coco Beach, to the Caribean (sp?)
    
    Mother and daughters dressing the same, is something that I can't
    really give a bias comment to since I'm an identical twin and because
    of that, hate seeing anyone dressed exactly like someone else on
    purpose.
    
    I despise this ad on Ban oSoiel because it makes me think of child
    adbuse.  Period.
    
    Anna
    
    

New England is not as prudish as some people like to think...there is
    at least one nude-bathing beach in Rhode Island, and I believe there
    may be one on the Cape as well.  BUT that's beside the point.
    
    Nude bathing, or 'adonis' rubbing oil on the woman's shoulders,
    are beside the point. The point is that this ad shown in America
    shows a small girl, dressed provocatively, and acting seductively.
    Adults trained this child to look and act this way--there is 
    *nothing* childlike about this child.  And the message that comes
    through is that the 8 year old is sexy, is actively seducing the
    audience. And the message from that is, if this child were to be
    molested, it would be OK, because she asked for it.  THat is what
    I find so frightening and disgusting about this particular ad.
    Too many people out there think that children *ask* to be molested.
    
    BTW, to me, if this child in the ad was playing with a beach ball,
    or building a sand castle, I probably would not object as much to
    the suit she is wearing--if the ad people had shown this child to
    be a child, period, this ad would simply show a little girl
    playing 'dress up'.  However, this ad does in no way attempt to
    show the innocence and playfulness of children--
    
    Enough said.
    Maria
    

    Thank you for your note, Maria; that's exactly how I feel.
                                   
    Ian, I have no problem with the European ad you described.  It is
    an entirely different thing than portraying a child as a sensual
    woman.
    
    And, I hate to be redundant, but I do not think these two people
    are portrayed as mother and daughter at all.  Not only is there NO 
    interaction between them, they are referred to and shown as two 
    (sexy) WOMEN.
    
    -Tracy
    

    
    I have in fact now seen the photograph used in the print ad. I haven't
    seen the English language text (other than the 6 word sample "...
    to the women of St. Tropez ..." quoted earlier).
    
    The photograph is technically bad (visible makeup, visible airbrushing
    marks, secondary shadow from the studio lights...)
    
    It took me two guesses to determine the photographer, and I got
    the art director in one.
                  
    Whatever the moral position (and that is I submit somewhat cultural)
    there is no excuse for un-professional activity.
    
    Incidentally isn't US law like British law (requiring the parents
    to sign the release forms) in which case aren't the little girl's
    parents of somewhat dubious moral exemplitude?
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    

<flame on>

Re .76 and .77:

To help us New Englanders stop being such prudes about turning little girls
into adult women, simpering seductively in their sexy swimsuits and sultry
expressions, I suggest we ask the author of .76 and .77 to compose a merry
musical comedy review for us on the subject. He could call it "The Sound of
Child Abuse," or, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Beach"... 

Dorian

<flame off>

    If you do any reading on the culture of "child beauty pageants"
    in the US, you will quickly see that there are any number of parents
    (mostly characterized as 'pushy mothers') who are only too eager to
    turn their female offspring into precocious dolls in search of fame,
    fortune, and fantasies.
    
    There would have been hundreds of parents in this category ready
    to sign up their daughters to be in this ad, thinking that this
    might be her 'big break'.
    
    SIGH - my heart goes out to those kids whose futures are being sold...
    
    Holly

    RE .84 It's not their futures being sold, but their childhood.

    Re .77, regarding "Puritan" New England, there's at least one *legal*
    nude beach in Vermont (the ledges) and used to be two (the gorge)
    and you can't get much more New Englandy than Vermont.  True, it's
    not the ocean, but it's still a beach and still nude.  (There are
    no legal nude beaches on the Cape, but there are in Rhode Island
    and Martha's Vinyard.  The National Seashore rangers hate nudists
    because they think they wreck the sand dunes or something!)
    
    So, Ian, I guess you haven't seen all there is to see in N.E. yet!
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Shock horror. Well no actually as a contributor to MOIRA::NATURISM
    I am aware of the nude beaches. However the remark I entered was
    in reply to a remark about behaviour on "textile" beaches.
    
    [Some time] before I married I went to a NE beach with a woman from 
    Massachusetts, whose mother chastised her (in her thirties) for
    wearing a bikini on a public beach. I still think it will be a *very*
    long time before Brahmin morality, or simply public fashion, in
    New England reaches the point it has in Europe say, were, by and
    large, topless bathing is no longer a subject for comment - and not
    just on the (ghetto) nude beaches, but all beaches.
    
    In a society were topless is unacceptable and a bikini may be viewed
    as somewhat immodest, it is far from surprising that children's
    beach wear is viewed in a jaundiced, not to say archaic, light. It
    is but a short step from the Victorian situation where women changed
    in wheeled changing rooms standing in the sea, and bathed in isolation
    close to purdah, lest a man should see them in their bathing dress.
                         
    /. Ian .\

    
    Hi Ian,
    
    Not sure of this but are you intentionally bypassing the issue of
    this note by first discussing the technical quality of the photograph,
    and then, the bathing attire of ex-friends?
    
    I'm not singling you out but I see in this note the very common
    attitude of denial when it comes to child abuse.  Most adults refuse
    to face the fact that children are sexually molested by adults each
    day -- and that adults have the ultimate power to either continue
    this abuse or put a stop to it.
    
    Maria
    

    
    I am bypassing the issue? well not intentionally.
    
    I raised the questions vis-a-vis the photograph for various reasons:
    the subject of the child model wearing make-up was raised. I was
    taught a long time ago that (a) all models wear make-up, and (b)
    in a good photograph you can't tell. I wondered why the make-up is
    visible in this picture. Actually I don't anymore - the photographer
    in question is known for deliberately making it visible because
    it is claimed to emphasise the fantasy aspects of the picture. The
    dream landscape background (rather than a realistic beach) is also
    part of this scenario.
    
    I raised the question of beach attire (my friends, people I don't
    know, what is fashionable, et al) because at least one note said
    that they (the noter) hadn't seen and hoped not to see mother/child
    look alikes either sunbathing or being photographed on a beach (in
    New England). I simply intended to comment that because it isn't seen
    in New England does not mean it isn't seen elsewhere, and Bain de
    Soleil try to evoke a European imagery, and this sort of thing *is*
    seen in Europe.
    
    Is it exploitive of children? in my opinion yes. As a professional
    photographer I will not work with child models. This is admittedly
    due in part to the instructions of my lawyer, but that apart, I
    will not work with children because by and large they are working
    as models because their parents want it, not them. Child labour
    is abhorrant to me, even if it is pleasant, and pampers to the child's
    sense of fantasy.
    
    This picture (and I still cannot comment on the wording of the ad)
    suggests a scenario that is outside of normal reality. Children
    may (and do) wear identical bathing suits to their mothers or elder
    sisters, but by and large nobody wears make-up - at least not visible
    make-up - to sunbathe. Nor do people sunbathe in the setting of
    this picture. The picture suggests to me a dream like setting -
    a fantasy of sun-worship if you will - which of course is what the
    photographer intended. I don't like it technically, and I don't
    like it morally. Had it been offered as a work of art (as opposed
    to an advertising illustration) then my view would almost certainly
    have been different.
    
    That said the original objection (children wearing bikinis like
    adults) seems a case of New England nouveau Victorian morals that
    I find almost as objectionable. The secondary objection (referring
    to the child as a woman of St. Tropez) is *probably* a case of
    mis-interpreting the text. But not having seen it I cannot comment.
                                    
    /. Ian .\                    
    

I saw an add for Johnson&Johnson's sunblock 15 (waterproof) yesterday on the
TV. I _never_ would have noticed it but for this discussion. It was just a
bunch of kids having a great time in the water, and not getting sunburned. And
suddenly the comment in an earlier reply hit me in the face. Here were a bunch
of kids in stylishly bright one-piece bathing suits having a great time.

It can be done.
	Mez

    	This issue seems simple enough to me.
    
    	Had the woman appeared alone (with skimpy bikini, sexually-attractive
	posture, seductive expression,) we would most likely have no
    	trouble agreeing that the advertisers were using sex to sell
    	their product.
    
    	Now we see a young child next to her (and the child is quite
    	*pointedly* identical in bikini, posture and expression to the
    	woman in the ad...)  Is the advertiser *still* using sex (in
    	this case, the young child's sexual attractiveness) to sell?
    	YES!
    
    	Do some of us have a problem with the ethics of an advertiser
    	who would use a young child in the process of using sex to sell?
    	Most definitely!
    
    	Whether the picture was good quality or not, and whether the
    	phrase "to the WOMEN of St. Tropez" was meant to include the
    	little girl or not, and whether children in Europe dress like
    	their Mothers on the beach or not, the ad was using sex to sell
    	in the cases of BOTH the sexy-appearing adult woman and the sexy-
    	appearing young child.

    	In my opinion, using the ability of children to appear "adult"
    	and "sexually unihibited" in an ad (for the purpose of using
    	sex to sell) is reprehensible.  Simple as that.

    > It can be done.

    Mez saw the best of the competition, I saw the worst.
    
    Hawaiian Tropic has a 30-second spot panning from feet slowly upwards
    of a gorgeously tanned model in a skimpy bikini as she is applying
    the lotion...eventually we get to her head, she speaks: "white is
    for laundry".  (Justifying tanning, presumably.)  Talk about your
    blatant sex objects!
    
    Having a significant aversion to television, I only very rarely
    turn on my roomate's tube; yesterday I was trying to catch the news
    from China...anyway, this blatancy makes it seem like we're
    back-sliding, not making progress.  It keeps making me realize that
    television is about "them" manipulating "us" to get our money. 
    We're all hardwired to respond to sexual attraction and they keep
    trying to control us and our cash by playing that theme.  Grrrrr.
    
    DougO
    

    In today's Boston Globe the columnist Ellen Goodman referred to
    a Life magazine cover article on the 100th birthday of the bra.
    In her final paragraph she referred to the feature as 'selling
    sex as history'. Is there anyone who has read her column and seen
    the Life feature that would comment on the feature?
    
    Bonnie

Re .93 -

I just read the Goodman column and was about to put a note in on it (you
beat me to it!). I've seen only the Life cover (curvy model in white lace bra), 
not the article, but wanted to add a little more based on what Goodman said 
in her column...

Is this article another example of magazines' becoming desperate for our
attention, and using SEX (read: women's bodies) to get it? Goodman
questions whether the article is "a pitch to the audience that seeks
meaning in the first syllable of titillation," or "a straightforward,
unabashed photogenic look at the culture of clothing." As part of her
attempt to answer this question, she asked a number of men what they
thought the article was about, and they all answered, "Boobs." 

Goodman also mentions two tests that she has found help her decide when 
something has "gone too far":

"1) Is this something a reasonable woman would want on her resume?

2) Would they have done the same thing to a man?"

She notes how unlikely it is that Life would ever put out an anniversary
issue called "Hurrah for the Jockstrap." (shades of notes 607.24 and .32 on 
the ad for the jogging bra) 

Dorian                        

    
    re: .92 (DougO) -- Hawaiian Tropic ad
    
    AAARRGH -- I hate this ad, too!  That it so blatantly uses sex to
    sell goes without saying, and I especially hate the model's line
    "Because white is for laundry."  Yeah... and for redheads... and for 
    people who don't want skin cancer!
    
                             ...Lisa V...

    RE:86   (Vermont = New England = Purtain)  Not so.

Re .93 and .94

I saw the feature in Life Magazine on the Great Bra Hurrah. I'd say Ellen 
Goodman's remarks in her Globe column are 100% valid. It's not so much an 
article as a series of "come-hither photos" with long captions; or, as
Goodman also says, "a spread of luscious ladies over a sprightly history of
everything from falsies to Cooper's Droop." Near-porn masquerading as
History of Fashion. Nothing really new, but it's probably a first for the  
likes of Life.

So, *would* they have done the same thing to a man? *Will* Life Magazine
publish a feature--with cover photo--on the history of the jockstrap?

What do *you* think?

Dorian

    
    Given that different people see different things as unacceptable
    or "obscene", I was shocked, indeed horrified, by the following.
    
    Last night on British television the Green Party had a five minute
    "Party Election Broadcast" as part of the run-up to the forthcoming
    European Parliamentary Elections.
    
    Several speakers were featured. All were young children (say 8-11
    years old). Each in turn delivered - I am inclined to say "recited" -
    a political speechlet.
    
    I am most emphatically against the unacceptable process of inducing,
    perhaps brainwashing, the immature humans protrayed to utter these
    phrases. Heaven only knows what damage has been done to their normal
    intellectual development as a result.
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    Incidentally the fact that I am opposed to these ecofreaks politically
    has nothing to do with it - no party should feature speakers in
    their propaganda who are too young to vote.

    Re .99, I employed the strategic mumble during the Pledge of Allegiance
    in school.  I never found out what the actual words were.  Similar
    to that is just moving your lips when part of a crowd.  I was in
    a Methodist Children's Choir for 2 yrs. and never once sang out
    loud.  When I decided to quit, the adult who led the children's
    choir begged me to stay on.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re:.99
    still smiling in seattle!
    

The following is a letter I received in response to my letter of objection
regarding the St. Tropez commercial:


Thank you for your letter concerning our advertising for Bain de Soleil's
Protecteur Gentil Line.  I'm sorry that you found it offensive.

It was certainly never our intention to produce advertising that might be
seen as exploitative.  Our objective was to show that our products are
gentle, as the ad says, "even to a child's delicate skin."  We wanted the
girl to imitate the adult model, just as a daughter imitates her mother.
Both were using a high protection sunscreen, a daily practice strongly
recommended by dermatologists for adults and children.

We appreciate your sharing your concerns with us.  I think you'll be 
pleased to know that based on your letter and others like yours, we
reviewed our campaign.  The print ad is in July editions of a few 
magazines, but will not run thereafter.  In addition, we have re-edited
the commercial to be more focused on the adult model and product rather
than the child.  Please be assured, too, that I will share your comments
with our marketing group.

Please feel free to contact us again.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've seen the new commercial, and it shows the little girl briefly,
walking into the scene, but that's the only time she is shown.  I feel
really good about this ..

My questions to her would be:  if a child's skin is so sensitive and
they were trying to say that the product is gentle enough for children,
why not show the child as a child, rather than a miniature adult?
Also, why begin the commercial with, "to the *women* of St. Tropez", 
implying that this 8 year old is a 'woman'.

At any rate, I'm beginning to think that Madison Ave. was trying to
be 'sophisticated' and it backfired on them.  

I think people in general are becoming more aware and conscious of
child abuse issues--advertisers and writers are going to have to
catch up and realize that the public won't put up with child abuse
anymore, implied or otherwise.


Maria

    Maria,
    
    That's great!  I noticed last week that it had been edited and was
    wondering if it was for this reason.  You must feel great to have
    made a difference.  And I think that their response is really
    encouraging, beginning with the fact that they answered with a letter
    that is courteous and not condescending.
    
    Congratulations,
    
    -Tracy
    
                                                                          

    Congratulations, Maria, that's encouraging!
    
    						=maggie

    Good for you Maria!   I thank you!
    
    /Anna
    
    

      I can't resist entering another of Emily Dickinson's poems. It
      seems to fit this topic.

      A charm invests a face
      Imperfectly beheld,-
      The lady dare not lift her veil
      For fear it be dispelled.

      But peers beyond her mesh,
      And wishes, and denies,-
      Lest interview annul a want
      That image satisfies.


      The entire issue of cosmetics is that image which we are afraid to
      dispell for fear we will come up wanting in the eyes of men. The
      last two lines especially hit home to me. That fear that if you
      are really known no one will want you. That you will be deemed
      desireable by what you wear and how you look but not for the real
      you.

      The problem with fighting this image is that it's true that the
      "beautiful people" get breaks in life that the average and homely
      do not. I've read several (pop psychology, I know) articles on
      studies that showed that better looking people did get breaks.
      Tall people did better than short people and so on. Given that,
      it's very hard to resist the lure of a product that promises you
      access to that wonderful life. liesl

    .93
    
    FWIW--
    
    The Shaw's supermarket chain in the Worcester area has removed all
    their LIFE magazines from their racks.
    
    Maria
    

    
    I ask once again: what *was* the full text of the print ad? all
    I've seen quoted here are the opening words ("To the women of St
    Tropez..."). On the face of it I repeat that I consider it likely that
    this is a pitch to women to buy it for themselves and their children,
    and not intended to be inclusive of the children.
    
    I went home to my parents' for the weekend, and had occasion to
    show the photograph to my mother and some of her friends (all of
    mature years). All described the picture (without associated text)
    as "sweet" or something similar. When I asked about the risks of
    cancer etc, they all looked bemused. One said that that will only
    be a problem if the ozone layer is destroyed. So much for publicity...
    
    Inicdentally I saw three young girls in bikinis over the weekend,
    (one of them a black bandana style that was very like the one in
    the ad), as well as two rather young girls in trunks alone... and
    this in a rather conservative inland village (though it was rather
    warm - about 28C in the shade).
    
    Incidentally don't get me wrong: I am quite delighted that the company
    has seen fit to come into line with the cultural mores of the United
    States in this matter.
    
    /. Ian .\
    

    ...those cultural mores being that children should not be portrayed
    as sexy adults, in case that is not PERFECTLY clear...
    
    I have not seen the print (only TV) ad so I'm afraid I can't tell
    you what the full text is off-hand.                                
                                                                     
    This weekend, I could have sworn that I heard "To the people of  
    St. Tropez..." instead of "women."  Maybe it was wishful thinking.
    Anyone else hear it?
    
    -Tracy
    

      Sometime last week I caught the end of an NPR broadcast where they
      were saying Ban De Solei was being charged (and others I think)
      for false advertizing on the grounds that any SPF over 15 is
      hokum. They didn't mention the ad picture at all but were
      demanding a change in the text concerning the safty of higher
      SPFs. Didn't catch the whole thing so I don't even know who they
      wree talking to. liesl

Re < Note 607.110 by NOETIC::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante" >
                         -< they have other problems >-


>      Sometime last week I caught the end of an NPR broadcast where they
>      were saying Ban De Solei was being charged (and others I think)
>      for false advertizing on the grounds that any SPF over 15 is
>      hokum. They didn't mention the ad picture at all but were
>      demanding a change in the text concerning the safty of higher
>      SPFs. Didn't catch the whole thing so I don't even know who they
>      wree talking to. liesl

The issue of sexual exploitation was brought up at the end of the interview,
but they unfortunately did not have time to explore it in any detail.

/Mike

Re: .108 (Ian)

.108>    I ask once again: what *was* the full text of the print ad? all

                                To The Women
                               Of St. Tropez,
                              Protection Is A
                              Delicate Matter.

	Now Bain de Soleil creates ultra sun protection that's gentle
to your skin.  
	In SPF's 20 to 30, Protecteur Gentil guards against the sun's 
harmful rays.  Clinically tested for gentleness, it isn't harsh. Even 
to a child's delicate skin.  So light, it feels like liquid silk. And 
leaves you skin beautifully cared for.  
	For luxurious protection that's never at the expense of beautiful 
skin, indulge in Protecteur Gentil.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Seen in American Health Magazine)

	Amy

    
    Amy, thanx... Yes I can see how, coupled with the photo, that produces
    the reactions here.
    
    On a slightly different tack, I heard a report on our radio a couple
    of weeks back about high sun factor blocking creams and the "expert"
    said that there are big differences between the European ratings
    of sunblocks (done according to a DIN standard) and the equivalent
    American ANSI ratings. Apparently it only becomes apparent at ratings
    over 10, but a cream rated as say 12 in Europe might get a rating
    in the 20-40 range in the US. I wonder if this international scientific
    disagreement has anything to do with the references to advertising
    claims a few back?               
    
    /. Ian .\
             

    I saw the ad, and was repulsed instantly.  What bothered me was
    the make-up and the seductive look.  A little girl in a black bikini
    is usually just a little girl, in my opinion.  but a little girl
    w/ make-up and a seductive look on is repulsive and offenseve,
    regardless of her attire.  Not that I am condoning skimpy bathing
    suits for little kids, but most 6 to 8 year old kids, male or female,
    can get away with wearing the smallest, skimpiest outfits.  I have
    seen 6 year old topless female and male children.  It does not strike
    me as "offensive", depending on the where this nudity was seen.
     I think what pushed this ad from "mildly offensive" into outright
    despicable was the make-up and expression.  I also agree that the
    woman and child are *not* mother and daughter.  That bugged me,
    too.  and another question- who wears that much make-up, or any
    make-up at all when they are either sunbathing or swimming??  No
    one with any sense.
    Karen Kay (temp)

    			
Has anyone seen the current ad for Yves St. Laurent "Opium" fragrance, that 
shows a woman lying face down, nude to just below her rear end and swathed 
from there on down in a sort of gold cloth? Is it my imagination, or does 
she look dead? 

Do dead-looking women really sell merchandise? Why? And to whom?

Dorian

RE:                     <<< Note 607.115 by GEMVAX::KOTTLER >>>
                            -< Dead women in ads? >-

Yes,  and I thought that she looked dead too.  Kind of make you
wonder.  I have seen many images linked to violence to women in ads
but why in an ad targeted to women would that sell more perfume (in
the minds of Madison Ave)?

john

    Maybe these ads aren't targeted to women?  I work part-time at a
    cosmetics/perfume store, and there are many men who buy this stuff
    for their SO's. 
    
    This particular ad is extremely blatent in showing a woman who
    has been 'subdued', and ultimately, made 'dead'.  The gold cloth
    seems to put in a quality of 'refinement' or 'class' or 'richness'.
    The image that comes to mind is that of the preppy murder and
    central park jogger --- women of class and wealth who are ultimately
    subdued, put in their place, and killed.
    
    I think we need to write to these people and tell them that we're
    not buying their sh*t anymore.
    
    Maria
    

    Incidentally, the ad carried the name of Jordan Marsh, I assume
    meaning that that's where the stuff is sold.
    
    I saw the ad in Vogue Magazine, and someone else saw it in Boston
    Magazine.
    
    Dorian

    If she's dead, she probably needs *lots* of perfume.
    
    Bruce

I didn't think she looked dead - but I definately thought she looked to be in
the sort of stupor that smoking [real] opium induces...

/. Ian .\