Why would you want a phone...

when you could have a naked woman?

I'm sure I don't have to point out that this ad could just have effectively been done without using a nude model.

Of course, the big question to ask is what values do the advertisers want associated with their phone. In this case, as it will be with many others, it's obvious.

It would be hard to argue that this ad doesn't (poorly) use a heterosexual male fantasy to sell the product.

I doubt advertisers would even try to argue against it. The thin, blond woman is supposed to be as much a part of the phone as a blue tooth headset or SIM card.

In cases of useless nudity like these, it's easy to tell what the advertisers think good nudity. Could you imagine any other type of body being used seriously in this context?

But the nature of advertising gives rise to questions about the standards I'm analyzing. The one that I'm most interested in is, given the need for advertising (and other media) to appeal to a mass audience, what role do we play in tandem with this media to create the unreasonable standards often propagated in it?

Photo by Christine Chen.

Modeled by Karen Bullock.

Accessorizing women

Via Sociologal Images:


This image from a slide show seemed like a good place to start this project. According to the introduction, this series of photographs is advertising "just a few of the accessories you'll want to own this spring." I'll comment on this in a second.

For now, I want to focus on the model herself. Why, exactly, is she nude? Were the creators afraid that we'd assume the clothes she she wore were accessories we should own? Probably not. There are a number of clothes that she could be wearing that, instead, are on her.

This is an example of what is probably going to be a major theme in this project. Nudity for the sake of it. Not that this is necessarily bad. However, the category will be useful for teasing out who is considered acceptably nude.

The photographers could probably have used any sort of model, but they chose this one (which looks a lot like every other model you see). Of course, since they're essentially using this model as shelving, it probably would have been more efficient to use a larger model. More stuff in less photos. Or, since they're male accessories, they could have used a male model. You know, modeling them.

As the above quote implies, this woman is also an accessory. But large women and men aren't accessories, like this woman is. Accessories in these ads are sunglasses and briefcases and thin, large breasted, photoshopped women.

I suppose I should give them some credit. The site IS the online home of GQ.