Image talk:Photo of magazine page.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'The advertiser seems to think he will have the most success by aiming at the straight man with a secret yen for young males. The scene is heavily redolent of bisexuality,'

While that's a plausible (and cute) interpretation, it certainly isn't the only one. The advertiser may be appealing to straight members of either sex, who might buy the fragrance for themselves or for a romantic partner. (I'm actually not sure whether it is intended to be a male or female fragrance.) Or perhaps they are simply trying to imply that the opposite sex is attracted to the scent, because of the proximity of the two scantily clad people of the opposite gender. Perhaps the viewer is supposed to see themselves in one of the characters. It seems like there are dozens of explanations; it seems wrong to suggest to readers that one of them in particular is correct, at least not without knowing the intent of the creator(s). -- Beland 04:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 From Talk:Pederasty 2 Interpretation 3 More perspectives needed 3.1 Open to interpretation 3.2 Sex in Advertising caption 3.3 Pederasty

[edit] From Talk:Pederasty

Whats this about? How does a bare-breasted lady and a guy in his underpants appeal to pederasts? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So as not to repeat the argument, I invite you to take a look at at sex in advertising for a pattern of androgynous and homoerotic campaigns. And if I might rephrase your question, what is the seminude adolescent doing in that tableau, and why was he placed there by the ad agency? Haiduc 21:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I assumed to represent the buyer, or the intended recipient of the cologne? It is mens cologne, right? What mens magazine is this, BTW? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, the buyer (or rather, the reader) is unconscious. This is subliminal advertising at its best. The perspective I am asking you to take is that of the "theater director" or playwright, who assembles a scene in order to create an effect. They could have put a dog there, but they chose an undressed boy instead. In a sexual scene. Hint: you are supposed to identify with the owner of the elegantly sleeved arm. And the ad is from the London Economist, about three years ago if I am not mistaken. A magazine read mostly by elegantly dressed middle aged men.Haiduc 23:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Christ, I'm surprised they let me buy it. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Huh, never crossed my mind, but then I read Guns & Ammo, and buy old spice cologne ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they were aiming at both male and female demographies--a unisex cologne. Dan Asad 13:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, who is this cologne designed for? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretation

My best guess would be that the boy is there to represent the older man's self-image. If you buy this cologne, you will feel this young and this virile, and have bare-breasted women in your oversize bathroom. It's similar to why packages of mens' underwear have well-muscled, thinly-clad young men on them. It's not an attempt to appeal to a gay or bisexual audience. It's an attempt to make the buyer think that they will look that good if they put on the same underwear.

At least, that's my interpretation. Again, it's unclear what the creator(s) were thinking. -- Beland 03:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The boy is looking at the man, not at the woman, who at any rate is almost old enough to be his mother. He is stripped to the waist, displaying his physical attractions, but the woman is NOT looking at him, she is looking at the man, and she is also exposed, revealing HER attractions. The sense of the ad is that the MAN is becoming attractive to boys and women as a result of using that cologne. The man is the (hidden) focus of the ad. He is the one you will become if you buy the cologne, and you will obtain the services of the appealing attendants. This is different from the hunk pictures on underwear because here we have a whole drama being played out, and the "subject" is not the hunk (or the babe, they are both "objects") but the suave and successful possessor of the sleeve. Haiduc 12:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I actually think the boy (the youthful self-image of the man) is looking at the reflection of the woman in the mirror, and the woman is looking at herself as she is doing her hair. Though it doesn't really seem to matter where anyone is looking. They could be seductively ignoring anyone else in the picture (and showing off), or seductively staring at them, or neutrally viewing themselves (or their alter-egos) for grooming. -- Beland 02:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed the discussion here, by the way, and was not aware of your previous (and repeated) comment about not knowing the intent of the creators. No, technically that can never be known, but we can make a darn good guess based on the evidence. And based on that I think it is pretty clear what their intent was. Having a background both in drama and in advertising, it is pretty clear to me anyway. If you have doubts, run it by a professional. Haiduc 12:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the intent of the creators could be known, by asking them. -- Beland 02:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finally, if your Feb 18 comment was a suggestion to modify the caption of the image, let me know. I like it the way it is but if you think it should be more general that would be fine too. Haiduc 12:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What I would do: 1.) Remove the photograph from Pederasty, and replace it with another, if desired. 2.) Leave the picture on Sex in Advertising, but remove all the caption and article text that tries to interpret it for the reader. Instead, give as much factual background about it as is available and relevant. (Like what product is being advertised for, if any, where it was published, etc.) There are plenty of other pictures that can be used to more clearly illustrate the various concepts appropriate to the article. I would expect to see a picture of a modern sexy woman selling something like a car, or a well-muscled man demonstrating some product aimed at housewives. An A&F ad would be a rather interesting subject, considering how they've been criticized in citable sources for being homoerotic, even though they often explicitly depict heterosexual couples. I also don't see very much androgyny in mainstream American advertising. I notice the YSL ad is from a British publication, and the Obsession ad is not sourced (but there is printing in French on it). There are certainly large differences between Europe and America with regard to the use of nudity in mainstream advertising, and also large differences between subcultures - consider sexy ads targeted at Christians in Arkansas, gays in California, or football fans in Milwaukee. -- Beland 02:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, in what regards the caption, I agree with you. There was way too much of my personal interpretation in the original version, and I have pulled it out and followed your suggestion as follows:

Yves St. Laurent perfume ad (Published in The Economist, London).
Well-dressed man (seen partly reflected in mirror) attended by two sex objects.

I did not delete your "debated" tag and will wait for your response.
Subcultures. Yes, advertisers speak in different tones to different audiences. The aim is to push the viewer as hard as possible without pushing beyond the boundary that causes offence. But that does not entitle us to slight advertising practices that we may not be familiar with in our own surroundings, which is what I sense in some of your comments. I especially think you are walking on thin ice when you try to carve out this new territory called "Nudity in advertising" which presumes that there is such a thing as non-sexual use of nudity in advertising.

Such a thing IS is possible, mind you, but rare indeed in a society that associates nudity with sexuality. If we were among the Yanomamo it might be a different matter. But as we are in the modern west (and both of us in America by the looks of it) public nudity cannot be separated from sex in most instances, least of all in advertising. I was amused to see even the Coppertone girl dragged into the discussion, here.

In what regards the use of the image in Pederasty, I am sorry but I think that would be a mistake. What you think, or what I think the ad creator's intent was is besides the point, to say nothing of the fact that people often reveal their thinking unconsciously. What IS relevant is the fact that the man is attended by two sexual figures which are not engaged in each other but which visually engage the man, one of which is a young male visually analogous with many of the depictions from ancient Greece. But I will change the caption there too. Haiduc 12:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, the woman looks surprisingly boyish to me (minus the boobs, of course). She has a somewhat male face. Take that as you will. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:35, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

[edit] More perspectives needed

Well, given my best guess at what is going on in the picture, I wouldn't say the new caption is an entirely neutral description of what is happening. First of all, if the boy is merely the self-image of the man, then he's not really being "attended", is he? The use of the term "sex object" is also implies to me that the boy and the woman are being objectified (and thus demeaned). That's certainly a common enough opinion, but it isn't the only one.

The idea that all nudity is inherently sexual is also perfectly valid and reasonably common, but it's also not universally held.

The idea that the boy and the woman are "engaging" the man (thus making the picture semi-homoerotic and also related to pederasty) is an interpretation - an opinion - which I don't happen to agree with.

It would be fine to present that opinion if other opinions are also presented in a fair fashion. However, at this point, we have only the personal opinions of Haiduc and Beland to present, and this seems dangerously close to the forbidden original research. Perhaps it would be better to find some reputable sources which analyze various sex-in-advertising and pederastic images. At the very least, we could use some perspectives from other Wikipedians. I'll post a request for comment. -- Beland 04:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I welcome the offer to open this up. In what regards interpretations, let me remind you of that useful old implement, Occam's razor. The boy a self image of the man?! Why then not the woman too? Really, keep it simple. As for the subject/object dichotomy, there is no need to impute disparagement. You right now are the object of my attention, and I am the subject of that experience. And by the way, you misrepresent my comments about nudity. As far as your disagreement with the interpretation, what principles of drama, art, or advertising are you bringing to bear to refute a description that is based on a literal reading of a straightforward text? Haiduc 05:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No original research. Just use the facts, drop your interpretation, as it certainly isn't objective or a sourced expert opinion. I think your interpreatation is nuts, and the concept of "subliminal advertising" has roundly been disproven by experts, so tryig to use that as your basis of your opinion (as you did above) isn't going to fly. -- And, incidentally, that's got to be one of the worst attempts to butcher Occam's razor to try to rationalize one's own opinions that I've seen in a long time. A simple explanation would be that the image represents sex appeal in general. The off the wall complex explanation is that it's really all just homosexual boy-love because, yaknow, the female's breasts being exposed is a big clue... ?!?! DreamGuy 05:59, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

(From RfC). The caption and explanation in sex in advertising sounds like original research to me. Unless there is a reference that supports the assertion in the caption about this ad then it should go too, replaced with an invitation to the reader to imagine the scenario intended, or simply to say that it is suffused with sex, and leave it at that. I think that article could as easily be broadened in a different direction—the use of implied depravity (heroin use, eating disorders, groups sex, etc) in fashion advertising. I've seen several articles in popular print media on the topic without even trying, so there are references available. (BTW, does "fair use" really cover this type of reproduction?) -Willmcw 07:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Open to interpretation

I'll agree that the image is ment to be sexy, but I dispute that it is necesarilly homoerotic. I'm sure it is to those who naturally find images of males erotic, but is a disagreeable and bizare interpretation to many others (as evidenced above). The image is open to interpretation, all we know for sure it that it is erotic, sex in advertising as it were. Lets leave it for the reader to make up their own minds. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • (From RFC) I think the very fact that there has been so much discussion about what this photo might or might not have intended to convey answers the basic question here, and that is simply that it's completely open to interpretation. It means different things to different people. I don't see how a real argument can be made that it is illustrative of pederasty. The article has plenty of illustrations already anyway, so why try to find a way to fit this ill-fitting shot into the tableau? Katefan0 19:08, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• • • Perhaps we should separate the two threads of the discussion, one on the Sex in advertising and the other on pederasty.
      

In what regards the first article, I agree with user Willmcw that a minimal caption would be best, one that describes the image - to which I would add a brief note on the target audience (the demographics of the Economist readership should be readily available). Here's one possible version: YSL perfume ad. Successful male figure (sleeve reflected in mirror) flanked by two sexually charged figures. [followed by readership note] User Beland suggested including alternative interpretations. Good idea, please provide one so that we can build the caption here first.
Side note: user Dreamguy seems to understand "subliminal advertising" in the context of cryptic words or phrases being beamed at the viewer. That is NOT the sense in which it is being used here. The sense here (and in the ad business) is that the appeal is indirect. The perfume is not being marketed as "Better than xyz" nor "Smells really nice" but through an attempt to arouse the reader sexually. In that sense *all* sex in advertising is subliminal. The current Citibank ad campaign is another good example - if not very sexy. I was disappointed, by the way, at Dreamguy's arbitrary removal of the image from Pederasty before the resolution of this debate - in contrast to Sam Spade's considerate edit in the other aticle.
The discussion about inclusion in the pederasty article is much more charged, obviously. But I have to get ready for work, perhaps we can postpone it till later? User:Haiduc (sig added by (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Of course, real life should always come 1st, and I am pleasently suprised you felt me considerate! I ment to be (as usual), but my intent was unusually well interpreted. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sex in Advertising caption

I will continue to build the caption, and I would be grateful for comments so that we may expediently resolve this matter. The demographics for the Economist are available for the clicking, so to speak. Therefore, YSL perfume ad. Successful male figure (sleeve reflected in mirror) flanked by two sexually charged figures. Published ca. 2001 in the Economist (London), a publication with a 91% male readership having an average yearly income of US$154,000. Haiduc 02:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's fine as a caption, though there is lots of curiosity about the target audience of the fragrance. If you look on ysl.com, you'll see that the company has fragrances for both men and women, though "YSL Paris", which appears to be the kind advertised in this picture, is a woman's fragrance. You'll also notice that on the web site, the women's fragrances are illustrated by pictures of sexy women, and the men's fragrances are illustrated by pictures of sexy men. Therefore, I would infer that these images are meant to make the potential wearers associate the product with making themselves sexier. Perfume is also a common gift, so there's a certain amount of sex appeal for partners of potential wearers. Given the largely male and largely heterosexual readership of the Economist, the boob shot is presumably intented to grab the attention of men who might buy the perfume for their wives. "My partner will be sexier if I buy this perfume for her." The men in the for-men ads are rather more mature than the boy in this ad; perhaps he is there to grab the attention of female readers who might buy the perfume for themselves. (Hmm...maybe the man in the sleeve is just an uninvolved bystander.) Anyway, as other people have said, this business of interpretation is all original research. The caption should just say (in addition to your fine suggestion) that this is a perfume for women. It's fine with me to add the picture back to sex in advertising with no mention in the article itself, but with the explanatory caption as proposed and expanded. Alternatively, we could add a better example from the ysl.com, which have a single person and which are less confusing. -- Beland 04:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree w Beland, and would say the pederastic nature of an ad for womans fragrance strikes me as rather unlikely. More likely is that the woman is ment to be seen as sexy, and that both men in the image are ment to either arouse a female reader or be self-identified by a male reader. Anything else seems like quite a stretch. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The news that the ad is for women's perfume is surprising, and stands part of my theory on its head. That was an inspired bit of research, Beland. (Yes, objective interpretation IS tricky, though not necessarily an oxymoron. And I do not mind the image being somewhat complex - we already have a simple one, and this will give the reader more to think about.) As for the caption, if there are no more suggestions, here is the final version: YSL ad for "Paris", a women's perfume. Successful male figure (sleeve reflected in mirror) flanked by two sexually charged figures. Published ca. 2001 in the Economist (London), a publication with a 91% male readership having an average yearly income of US$154,000. Thanks to all who helped get this straight, so to speak. Sam, do you want to post it or shall I? Haiduc 13:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't quite reconcile myself with calling any of them "sexually charged". Maybe if they were bent over or some such ;). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Would it be more accurate to label them "Gastronomically charged?" Seriously though, the best reason for removing that description is not that it is inaccurate but that it is redundant. Let's call them semi-nude and leave it at that. YSL ad for "Paris", a women's perfume. Successful male figure (sleeve reflected in mirror) flanked by two semi-nude figures. Published ca. 2001 in the Economist (London), a publication with a 91% male readership having an average yearly income of US$154,000. Cheers, Haiduc 18:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I will graciously accept the compliment. At the time, I thought I was just answering the most basic factual question (which someone else had already asked) with a trivial Google search. But hey. 8) -- Beland 03:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right on, that sounds good. Thanks for your copasetic take on the objections to the image interpretation, and well-reasoned compromise in response. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is especially interesting for me is the in the end we have devised a far better caption than what we started out with. And that reflects on another thing I like about this project - it is an exercise in egolessness, which works best when everyone can let go of preconceived notions. Maximum light, minimum heat. Cheers, Haiduc 19:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pederasty

As for this article, there seems to be more support for finding an alternative illustration than for re-including this picture there, so let's do that instead, shall we? -- Beland 04:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will see if I can find out anything else about the source and intent of the ad, but in the mean time I too have no objections to leaving it out of Pederasty. I will replace it with a couple of others, the Budweiser Ganymede springs naturally to mind. Haiduc 13:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)