Glamour photography, fine art nude photography, lingerie photography, swimwear photography — all of the above involve nudity. Sex sells — no explanation needed here. Or, at the very least, it will get you more likes on your page or your Instagram account. Is the sexiness in itself a problem? This is a recurrent debate. The #WomenNotObjects campaign, launched by Advertising Executive Madonna Badger, is calling on the advertising industry to put a stop to objectifying women for marketing purposes. As photographers, do we have a responsibility in this controversy?
Badger, co-founder and chief creative officer at New York advertising agency Badger & Winters, was inspired by a Google search and decided to raise awareness on the way women's bodies were used to sell pretty much anything. The loss of her children in a tragic house fire in 2011 made her see her industry in a different manner: "I want my life to have a purpose."
The video of the campaign has been released and it's going viral. UN Women tweeted about it and it got support from Ashton Kutcher, Alanis Morisette, and George Takei. Will it have an actual impact on the advertising industry? Unless Congress passes a bill to that effect, I doubt it. The goal of campaigns is not only to get results, but also to start a discussion. So, let's chat for a second here, because ignoring the problem is part of the problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21vOSVojv8o
Sex is in every visual genre: conceptual art, film, and photography. It is not an underground current; it is in your face on a daily basis. The campaign focuses on the problem of using sexualized women's body parts in a commercial capacity. But what about the norm of sexualizing women in imagery in general? Why would we frown upon Burger King implying oral sex with a seven-inch sandwich and not frown upon the fact that when a woman gets into a bikini, we photograph her on her hands and knees looking up, whether it is for a swimwear catalog or a personal series? If we want to show respect to women, does that mean we should not shoot them in a sexy manner at all? Are men's bodies just not sexy enough to become objects? Or maybe retouching male hair on torsos, thighs, and calves is too big of a deal?
We might fully agree with the precept of equality, frown on sexism, and generally treat women with respect in our personal lives. And yet, when we are editing our last shoot, don't we choose the image of the girl with a slightly open mouth and a lascivious pose to post on social media?
It would be easy for me to point an accusing finger at all the male photographers out there. Yes, the photography industry is dominated by the male human species, and it is a common assumption that men think about sex every seven seconds, so adding the two together could lead me to heated arguments.
Yet I am just as guilty of using sex in my imagery in order to get more traction. Hey, I am a photographer that loves skin and curves. Sexualizing has become an industry standard to the point where I am anesthetized. When I see those billboard ads that are accused of objectifying women, they do not shock me, or even worse, they do not get me thinking of all the possible implications that they could have. In that sense, I might be more of a photographer than a woman.
What does that say about the standards we commonly accept in our industry and keep reproducing without even being aware of them? As image makers, don't we have a responsibility in the way we portray the world, even if it is for a commercial purpose?
Can we point out the very first google result of "objectifying women" is a woman with men on a leash?
I’m always baffled by these attempted denials of biology. Do you really have to wonder: “are men’s bodies just not sexy enough to become objects?” This is not a question anyone who is even remotely honest would ever ask. I’ve yet to talk to a woman who wants more shirtless selfies in her dating profile inbox. On the other hand, I’ve yet to hear a guy complain about women posting pictures of themselves in bikinis to grab their attention.
Christian Rudder, one of the founders of the dating site “OKCupid” did a fantastic study of male vs. female attractiveness based on millions of profile photographs, and how effective it is in the ultimate “market” - dating. Let’s face it, dating leads to mating which is ultimately the point of all of this. Across the spectrum, men rated female attractiveness in a perfect bell curve. Women, on the other hand, rated 80% of all men less attractive than average. Think about that for a second. 30% of average looking men fall below the female perception of what the average man looks like. Not so with women. We play up women’s sexuality because it works. Lipstick, tight clothing, high heels, little black dresses. Women know it, and use it to their advantage in the dating market, and everyone’s fine with it. But under the bright lights of a photographer’s studio, suddenly everyone’s getting their undies in a bunch? It’s just juvenile.
"I’m always baffled by these attempted denials of biology."
Perhaps you'd enjoy living in a culture where the norms for male/female relationships are more neanderthal. If biology rules, why bother trying to advance civilization, right?
What's under discussion is much more than simply women making themselves look sexy to attract men. We're really talking about men paying women to represent themselves as available to men in ways they'd never behave on their own behalf in real life. Perry Ellis ran an image years back of a vulnerable, seemingly brutalized and underdressed woman being yanked off the floor by a muscular arm. It was savage. The message: wear Perry Ellis and you can take any woman you want, willing or no.
Utterly revolting and clearly misogynistic. This is an extreme example, but when you feed teenage boys a steady diet of this garbage, you shouldn't be surprised that many of them think "no" means "yes" and date rape on college campuses runs rampant.
Whoa Nelly, let's be careful of what we're saying here. It sounds like you're suggesting 3 things that might warrant further inspection.
1. The creative directors and advertising execs are all men.
2. The models are essentially virtual prostitutes, accepting money to appear available.
3. Women would never act in a way that makes them seem open to sex.
Let's think about the first point. While it's true that many of the people ordering these ads are men, there are also many women creating them. Some of the most powerful individuals in advertising firms and in creative director roles are women - I have worked with several such women. Their advertisements are no different than the ones created by their male counterparts.
As for the second point, you're painting the models as classless victims. While there obviously are some models who've been abused and forced by their family or circumstances into work they dislike, there are many, many more who do modelling because they enjoy it. Many attractive woman choose to model because it gives them validation of their beauty and they like to feel sexy and get reactions from men. In fact, I've never worked with a model who's felt victimized by a sexy pose. Indeed, they often push for more alluring shots.
Finally, this is where things really go down the tubes. You really think that women are magical creatures who never want sex and would never act seductively? Just because that's not something you've experienced, doesn't mean that women never act that way. Trust me, attractive, powerful men get as much attention from women as attractive women get from men. You'd be shocked at how far many of them will go to get their fix. I'm sure you're familiar with how women would throw their panties at Elvis and other superstars, now imagine what it's like in the digital era where selfies run rampant and casual hook-ups are the norm.
Now, your point about the Perry Ellis ad is good. While I've not been able to find that image, from the sounds of it it is a rape-y image that gives off the wrong message. Encouraging sexual assault against women is one of the few cases where I'd call something genuinely misogynistic.
But don't BS us about college rape. 25% of women get raped at college? There'd be riots in the street were this true. You think if everyone had dozens of friends who'd been raped, they'd just sit back and be fine with it? The big news stories lately have been proven as false allegations (mattress girl and UVA rape case). So far, all legitimate studies indicate that there is actually less rape in college than outside of it. Additionally, it looks like men are raped almost as much as women. As for guys not realizing when "no means no", I think you'd be surprised to find that this is universally understood. Just as murderers understand that murder is bad, rapists know that rape is bad. But that doesn't stop them. Fortunately, the number of psychopaths who still commit grievous crimes is very, very low.
Yes.... I will stop all the genes inside me that have been placed there since millennia to make this woman's dreams come true.
OH SHUT UP Already.
M.Skinner. Mankind has made considerable effort of evolution from the beast to the rationnal. I assume you do not practice rape, murder and slavery on a daily basis. I'm not saying this is of the same life&death importance nevertheless you could come up with a better argument. If you can't why not return to the cave you idealize so much. Happy hunting.
Ignoring the deluge of typical "dirty feminazi" accusations and rhetoric, you bring up a salient point, Anna. Thanks for making me think about something important today.