Porn Aesthetics

John K. Taber jktaber at dhc.net
Fri Nov 24 08:50:31 PST 2000


kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net> wrote: < finally, consider that the line between objectionable representations of women in porn and representations of women in adverts, commercials, film, television are similarly problematic--if your problem is objectification, no? flip through a cosmo, the fall fashion issue.
>

Gawd, yes. A recycle friend who can't bear to throw things away gives me her back issues of the New Yorker. A recent one had an ad for Gucci. A woman is in a "fuck me" (kelley's words) pose under a freeway spaghetti bowl. She is dangling some Gucci accessories.

It strikes me as objectionable porn, but I'm confused by the message the ad projects, if any. I don't see who would be interested in the accessories except (some) women, and I can't imagine many of them would be enticed into buying by another woman in a fuck-me pose. How could that turn them on? Or, maybe the message is "you are fuckable carrying Gucci purses. Buy 'em now!"

OTOH, maybe the ad *is* for men. He has no interest himself in the accessories, but seeing the fuck-me woman, maybe he is supposed to think that if he buys the accessory for his girl-friend, she will be sexually activated, as if by Spanish fly maybe.

The freeway interchange also confuses me. Is that supposed to indicate sex qua sex totally depersonalized, what one does under freeway overpasses?

Who dreams this stuff up?

Anyhow, some of the most outrageous porn are ads in the New Yorker. I get the porn, but I don't understand the ads. They just baffle me.

-- John K. Taber



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list