I was sent the post The Cool Factor and The Display of Disinterest (thanks Praemedia), and instantly found the fetishy, modern, dominance/submission themed fashion porn from Suit Supply’s new ad campaign really hot. Then I clicked through to Jezebel’s post about the ad campaign two weeks ago (hey, I’ve been busy). I discovered there, that how I feel about these images, while first aroused and inspired and even empowered to enjoy my own fantasies — how I felt about them was Wrong. I was turned on by blatant sexism.
O rly?
IMO Jezebel seems behind the times with this. How women relate to sexual imagery of themselves has changed radically in the era of the open internet. We have stripped the power-over dynamic from even the days of Mad Men and have taken the eroticism as our own. If they find the concept of female sexual submission so offensive — if that is what you read into Suit Supply’s scenarios — they could read Women Who Like to Be Dominated in Bed: Talking to BDSM Submissives and be a little less judgmental about fantasies that might belong to those who would be their allies. Female sexual submission does not mean what it did 20 years ago.
Jezebel calls the ads Advertising That Will Make You Want To Shut Your Legs, “creepy and porno-like” and “gross depictions of women in ad campaigns.” Here, we’re also getting that “porno-like” is also Bad. Got that, ladies?
I beg to differ. Wait — that’s Beg to differ. Suit Supply’s Shameless campaign was a carefully designed ad campaign made by Carli Hermès (more images — outtakes? — from the shoot at that link).
Now Jezebel is going to hate me, which I’m sure they already did because I am creepy and porno-like. More images are after the jump.
Do you agree with Jezebel?
I’m an adult woman who’s been a feminist all my life. The image of a man in a power suit giving it all he’s got to a consenting adult woman is beyond hot. I think the scales have somehow shifted and, in our desire to empower women, we’ve accidentally made sex a bad word. But nowhere else can women feel empowered, sexual, sensual, and fully loved within their own skin than in their bedrooms with the partner of their choosing. It’s a shame we’ve forgotten the power of sex and the joy of submitting to someone else’s desires or them submitting to yours. Tsk, being a feminist is about more than just wearing a pink crocheted pussy hat and complaining about the patriarchy – sometimes it’s also about putting other women in their place when they try to slut shame women for enjoying natural pursuits.
My Suit Supply Upload : http://www.hesterscheurwater.com/2010/11/my-suit-supply-upload/
Submissive doesn’t necessarily mean weak, and certainly doesn’t mean non-consentual. To me, these images do not show female submission or male-dominance in a negative way.
I agree with all the other commenters who say th tea image is hilarious. I love it!
What are the names of the models in this campaign? Google hasn’t helped so far.
isle, thank you for commenting. Maybe you want to read what I wrote, especially the post about female submission on AlterNet (with quotes from feminists) and my follow-up comment. It’s not simply my own taste here; that is the point of the post, and the comments here seem to agree with that aspect at the very least.
Want to find me some examples of Jezebel being a) pro-porn and b) supportive of female sexual submissive fantasies?
Maybe this was critiqued because this is an all too common theme in advertising, of the clothed men and the sexually submissive scantily clad women? And the fact that there rarely if ever is shown the reverse (or just anything other) in advertising? Perhaps also because the pictures look wooden, stale, and ridiculous? (Not to mention the awkward composition of most of the photos.)
Also, I know how you tend to bash feminists for being anti-porn and prudish, but making that judgement based on one post on Jezebel for not agreeing with your own taste seems to be far fetched. There are many bloggers and commenters on that site with a whole range of viewpoints- many people disagree and discuss, which is what makes it interesting. Most people on Jezebel who dislike the ads do so because they find them terribly unoriginal, silly, and boring- however, other people who commented find them hot. Plus, I don’t think any blogger on Jezebel has claimed to speak for all women.
Meanwhile in the UK: ‘Dutch fashion firm under fire over window display’. Bonus points for the ‘think of the children!’ manouevre.
I love it. In fact, I really really love it. It’s got something fresh and gutsy to say about us. And that makes it all the hotter.
Now if they were all female…
What I see when I look at these pics (ads) are glimpses in the lives of some highly sensual people who are in their prime. I don’t see how anyone would have a problem with these ads, they are gorgeous eye candy (but am I the only one who likes the guy with long hair?) If people are going to call all pictures of (semi)-naked people porn then they should be trying to ban art museums and figure drawing classes.
Besides where is the “fun” in sex if there is no power transfer?
Hey, Violet, I know you’re hip to the manipulations of viral marketers — rather more on top of ’em than I am, in fact. I hope I didn’t come off as suggesting otherwise, or as suggesting that this material wasn’t blogworthy. It kinda sounds like you took my comment that way, and I can see how you might have, but I worked on the Jon Gray Mars-to-Venus “this is how it makes me feel when I encounter this sort of material” phrasing precisely so I wouldn’t come across that way. Looks like I may have failed though, and if I did, I’m sorry. I’m at least as touchy as the next person (and touchier than most) when I feel people telling me what I should or should not blog about (or sneering that whatever I blogged about wasn’t worthy of the attention) and I honestly did not mean to leave that impression.
By way of contributing further to the thread, I just found an interesting fashion photo featuring a non-fetishy woman in a very dominant pose over four huge muscular men. Possibly of interest:
http://www.erosblog.com/2010/11/17/the-modern-empress/
Well, gee, call me creepy and porno-like too …
Thank you, Violet, for critiquing ‘pseudo-feminists’ (ie, sex-negative puritans?) who are seemingly trying to constantly shame those of us who are apparently more sexually adventurous … not afraid to explore D/s … and currently feeling/being ‘shamed’ for this, especially by other women …
Also, very much like Sir Jaeris’ comment above …
I’ve read these comments several times; amazing people, amazing responses. I’ve seen a few reactions to this post in other places; overall the reaction is positive/neutral. I’ve seen at least two dislikes; one because the models look “too Abercrombie” and the other objected to sexist messages. Fair enough. I really wanted to see what people thought, and this is really helpful.
Overall I find them pretty hot, but I look at a lot of European fashion photography and the details here are fairly standard. I too would really LOVE to see a CFNM version of this — that is something that not only floats my boat, but would balance out the bias toward women on the bottom. Though I don’t know if I entirely agree that the women here are all on the bottom, yet I know that is my read on the images.
There is a subtext of a fetish at work here I initially saw but didn’t include in my post. With other educators, especially at SFSI.org I’ve gotten into deep discussions about the element of “not caring” rife in a number of fetishes — this here is seen as “cool” and perceived as self-absorption. It’s strong in fetishes like smoking: when smoking is the core exchange in sex work, for instance. There is a lot of agreement, among professionals and sex workers, that the turn-on for the non-smoker is that the girl is ignoring them.
Fascinating, no?
At any rate, my main issue was that Jezebel was so reactionary and judgmental, and damn anti-porn about the whole thing. It really struck me that this should be called into question and I wanted to see us decide for ourselves. I wanted to measure Jezebel. Turns out they don’t speak for a lot of us.
As for the marketing ploy of racy ads and creating drama for blog posts, I see it here and I see it all the time. I weigh that every time I send someone traffic. There was a bigger issue here, and I also thought the work was good fantasy material, worthy of a post.
Personally, I am hugely turned off by the guy with the beard, his facial expressions are not hot either, but I recognize that he is a Continental European “type.” Me want John Hamm! I think the biggest drawback, for me, besides the beard guy, is the fur coat. Fur is not hot for me, anyway.
I’m seconding Alex Ess’ comment “That being said, do you ever see like a Chanel ad with a gang of besuited women and a half naked man in distress?”
I myself identify as a largely submissive polysexual woman (in a relationship with a dominant guy at the moment), so I do like these on a personal level, but at the same time I do find it problematic that popular depictions of dominance/submission tend towards male dominant/female submissive. The few times a woman is shown dominant, it is in a highly fetishized “dominatrix” style, not, like this, a confident, business-like, woman in charge. It’s as if, for a woman to be shown dominant, she must be obviously different, fetishized, othered. And often played up for laughs or shock value.
It is not the ads out of context that are problematic, but the context wherein male dom/female sub -and pretty much only that combination – is portrayed as expected.
I’m looking again at these photos and thinking they would be infinitely sexier to me if the woman were dressed and the guy was nude. Hot. But that kind of scenario is very rare. I want to see more of it. Marketers: put some CFNM in advertising and I’ll be your viral stooge!
I like these; I don’t think they are creepy. They are porn-like. But I like porn. I’m constantly surprised by the people that don’t.
Jezebel. Pfft. Did you see the comments on “Professor Wants To “Shake” Some Sense Into Scantily Clad Student”? Because hatin’ on attractive women = feminist. I really wish people with a neurosis about seeing women’s breasts – or the outline of women’s breasts, or the draping of fabric in a way that suggests there’s breasts – would stop trying to rationalize it as a feminist thing. I have a irrational problem with heights but you don’t see me trying to come up with a political theory of why it’s actually the ladders that are the problem.
That being said, do you ever see like a Chanel ad with a gang of besuited women and a half naked man in distress? Not that there has to be a gender reversed version for an ad to be ethical, but I can see how if you’re not inclined to ID with the submissive it could be annoying how it’s always the men wearing the suits in fetishy advertising. (Unless there actually is a women in Chanel suits ad that I haven’t seen.)
I like these shots a lot. I think there’s a great humor to some of them, but more importantly, the women some across as genuine and as participants. They also come across as women. Sexual, adult, active, non-lobotomized women.
I disagree that women in submissive, sexualized roles in media inherently means something different now than it did 20 years ago. Sexism looks a hell of a lot different today than it did in 1965 or 1990, thank god, but it and its sex-negative influence on when and how women must be sexualized unfortunately haven’t gone anywhere. A lot of women have “taken the power as their own,” but I think we’ have a long way to go before that’s universal or even necessarily the norm. We’re not there yet. We shouldn’t pretend that’s not happening and that that’s not where things are heading (I’m looking at you, Jezebel), but I don’t think we should pretend we’re there yet.
So I disagree with that, but I disagree SO MUCH HARDER with Jezebel’s take that women being sexual in media is inherently negative, or that porn=bad. That’s just puritanical, anti-woman sex-negativism in feminist sheep’s clothing, and it’s not cool.
I like most of them and don’t mind any of them. Getting a bit racy with advertising sells.
I doubt the types that would be offended would be looking for a sexy cut on a suit anyway.
During my visit to Holland I have seen many of these ads on huge billboards next to the highway and at exits. There was more discussion on some billboard ads of an upcoming movie called ‘Sint’ as it scared kids the way ‘Sinterklaas’ was pictured. No one seem to be bothered by the SuitSupply ads.
For those who don’t know Suitsupply; they successfully sell Italian styled and tailored suits for a decent price. They are a known brand to business professionals in Holland.
Fairly artsy set of photos, and I like them overall. Don’t think they’ll get me to buy the brand’s suit over any other, but the do give me some interesting ideas.
I think it’s a lot like looking at photos from Kink.com – where an alternate universe exists, with fantasy for men and women becoming explicit in images.
So in order to be sure no women are oppressed, we must oppress those who find happiness in submission? To prevent the male from telling her her place, other women now command her to suit their expectations? This is confusing. How is this empowering? The images are ridiculous and wooden. To react to them at all is foolishness based on fear.
Turned on as hell. :)
The Tea one made me laugh, that was great.
I guess my typical male-ness is taking me over, because I don’t agree with Jezebel, but I also don’t read them because anything by gawker media these days is just crap to get page views.
Personally these don’t look all that dominant/submissive to me, looks more like ‘fun’
I find these images mildly pornlike and not in the least bit creepy … although the dude doesn’t seem that into her, or she him, in the typical manner of overpaid and underfed snooty-looking fashion people.
The images would make great paid display advertising in fashion magazines or on blogs.
But I’ve grown weary of publishing this sort of thing on my own blog as part of manufactured controversy. I HAZ IDEA! says the viral marketing guy at the agency. “We’ll shoot some edgy shit or other, we won’t actually place it anywhere that costs money, but we’ll leak it or put it on our facebook. Then when people start complaining about how transgressive it is all over the internet, we’ll pull it again and make some lame apology, which will trigger another wave of reposts. It will be everywhere and it will be awesome and best of all, it won’t cost us hardly anything except the cost of the photoshoot!”
I’ve fallen for it many a time; I still fall for it from time to time when the images are tasty enough. But increasingly, I resent the manipulation, and have come to feel that I we should withhold our attention until these marketers grow desperate enough to come to us like grownups and place these images with us on a paid basis as advertisements.
I think the one where she’s drinking tea while being fucked is hilarious.
None of this pics are overtly offensive to me. It’s the dark haired man’s facial expressions that ruin the dom/submissive vibe for me–for example, in the first picture he looks like he’s never seen a naked woman before! I can see why Jezebel was annoyed because the stuff they have him doing is rude and/or silly: why is he just looking up her skirt? The one where we see the reflection of her naked in the window could be a great scenario, but she looks *way* more in control of the situation than he does!
The dude with the ponytail looks like he might actually understand a little bit about how to be toppy, especially in the picture where he’s considering the woman’s ass. He could be thinking, “The crop? Or maybe a nice piece of ginger…”
Is that the house that was in “Sleeping With The Enemy?” If it is, that might explain the “creep” label.
I’m not sure what to make of these pics. I think the issue is that a suit is associated with work and business so there’s a “boss” implication. Yet none of the scenes are located in an office, except perhaps the first one – but she’s in distinctly sexual clothing there.
I’m not sure whether I like them or not. I suspect the ones where the guy looks bored are the less appealing ones. The one with the fur coat and the one with the g-string do have a certain frission that is nice.
On a side note, I’m rather partial to beards and ponytails.
Makes me want one of these suits.
However, I do not want a beard and ponytail.