mavrik - "that’s fitting that there is a bush in the middle.. she needs a lumber jack not a razer"

WTF??? I won't even point out that it's a TREE, it's LUMBERJACK, and the word is RAZOR... oh wait, apparently I will point those things out. My bad.

I am speechless at the audacity of this ad.

Does anyone have information on where it's located?

Well I don't understand why this is posted as an article on a feminist site.

This is simply artistic advertising protected by our first amendment rights.

Tasteless? maybe. To some I'm sure, others may find it amusing.

Sexist? Definitely not.

I think the real issue at hand is how society allows this to be ok, but an imaginary hard on or real penis would be considered offending or crude.

I personally think its because men still run society to a great degree, and could not possibly handle a picture (imaginary like this vagina or not) of penis larger than theirs, especially when their wives or girlfriends may be seated next to them driving by it.

(this are words from a man, btw)

"This is simply artistic advertising protected by our first amendment rights."
Aha, so we can’t discuss or analyze it because it is artistic or because it is protected by the first amendment?!

"Sexist? Definitely not."
I don't know. It doesn't seem so definite to me.

"I think the real issue at hand is how society allows this to be ok, but an imaginary hard on or real penis would be considered offending or crude."
Yes, and that's why this is something to be discussed on a feminist website.

I second sojourner's comments. Is this really supposed to be arousing though? It doesn't seem very arousing to me. I can't tell if that's what the creators were going for. More reminiscent of getting a pap smear.

"Yes, and that's why this is something to be discussed on a feminist website."

Then write a coherent article about the issue at hand, with supporting examples such as this.

Posting billboards with two testicles on opposing sides of the Sears' tower, marketing a condom for tight fits or a large man, would still draw chuckle from some, and be crude to others.

So no, the artistic marketing scheme for a lubricant is not sexist. Just simple advertising. Sex sells - just look at CK , Ralph Lauren, or any other designer ads. And when it deals with men's genitalia no one yells sexist, just crude.

Its simply the work of an innovative advertiser. Its meant to draw attention, and it clearly does. Job well done.

I hate the saying "sex sells." It's not sex you mean, it's women's bodies.

No, its sex. Men's cut bodies, large members, and cute faces are used in marketing to women as well. Perhaps you need to open your eyes a little.

This looks like a photoshop job -- possibly one of those Worth1000 contests.

"Its simply the work of an innovative advertiser. Its meant to draw attention, and it clearly does. Job well done."

Innovative possibly in that they used two billboards to represent a whole image/idea.

But spreading a female's legs to sell a product? Puh-sleaze!
Don't be surprised this is on a feminist website. Don't be surprised if women no longer wish to look at such images for face-value. Don't be surprised we question cars driving through the conceptual space of a woman's genitalia.

(I doubt you'll see many commentors here who believe finding men's genitalia "crude" in advertisements is a *good* thing.)

And of course sex sells, it sells because we keep selling "sex sells" and we keep selling more sex. Cycles may always be perpetuated--that's short-sighted.
My concerns are: when advertisements are a medium for consumers to make decisions on purchases and the medium displays two legs spread with a small bottle to the side, my question is: does this advertisement say something about a product or does it suggest we think something about women? And what is that "something"?

I'd like to propose a new rule on Feministing, because this issue has come up a lot over the past few months. Here it is:

As a Feminisitng reader/commenter, I pledge NOT to cry "first amendment rights" when someone disapproves of someone else's artisitic expression. I vow to remember that censorship is what happens when the government says that you're not allowed to display or say something. First amendment rights have NOTHING to do with whether or not I, the individual, find something appropriate, offensive, tasteless, sexist, etc.

As long as I'm not suggesting that the government sends in goons to take down the ad, I'm not violating anyone's rights. Really.

Jenphen: This is not meant as an attack on you. Lots of people have made this point about lots of issues, and it has clearly driven me bonkers.

Oh, and I think the ad is creepy.

Gross. This ad makes my stomach turn.

And right before lunch too. Ugh.

The first amendment applies to individuals, not corporations. And the concept of ads as art is arguable. This is just obnoxious.

As a non-American do I have to abide by the 1st amendment? ;)

Seriously though, sex may sell but so does sexism... The yorkie bar (not for girls!) advert proves this.
The two aren't mutually exclusive and many men do claim sexism in advertising whether their view makes it into the media or not.

Just because sexism can occur against both sexes on separate adverts doesn't mean that niether advert is sexist. That is like saying that men who can't get jobs in child care because of people being suspicious of men who want to work with children (and I've seen it happen) is not sexist because a woman can't get a job in certain parts of the armed forces (as a random example) even though she is up to the admission standards.

I'm pretty sure that this is in the UK or some other country where you drive on the left. Look at direction of traffic and then the cars heading the other direction to the right.

And oh yeah, Yuck. It looks like she's on the gynecologist's table. Maybe they should use this as an ad for getting your annual pap smear or getting some STI testing...

"This is simply artistic advertising protected by our first amendment rights."
Aha, so we can’t discuss or analyze it because it is artistic or because it is protected by the first amendment?!

If you reread what you quoted, I never said you could not. I simply said this is the work of an artist, and as such it is protected by the first amendment rights, regardless if it is printed or circulated by a corporation.

I also said I do not understand why this is posted on a feminist site, which is were a few readers used flawed judgment in saying the above quote.

This ad has nothing to do with sexism.

Its an ad, thats all. They are advertising a lubricant, in an innovative way.

Perhaps you would like the censor the media from using the female form at all?

Showing a female with a dog collar and leash yelping for some lubricant would be sexist.

Using negative space to conjure images of a sexual organ into peoples' mind that pass by and see the art, well thats not exactly sexist. By your reasoning, people shouldnt be allowed to use female body parts in advertising, simply because you dont like it.

Will you require people to greet you with the Hitler salute? If you dont like it, dont buy their products. If it enough people dont buy their products, then Im sure they wont be around long.

But to call an artist sexist for brilliantly using negative space in conjuction with the environment, well its just wrong.

I second chem_fem's sentiment. Turnabout is not fair play--it's just the same old shit, presented in a different way.
(Hey...potential song lyric there...)
Attractive men are and have been portrayed in ads in a sexually objectifying way (remember that old Diet Coke one?) but the instances in which it occurs are vastly outnumbered by the frequency in which the same treatment is applied to women. In fact, the intent behind those "turn it around" ads is usually to catch the viewer's attention by presenting an image that contradicts the norm. Therefore, many of the ads that objectify men still manage to enforce the view that only men are entitled to objectify women. They're still sexist, but they're not meant to be seen as representative of how things are or should be--they're a reversal of same, meant to be eye-catching and/or humourous due to their sheer incongruity.

However, that said, some things still remain sacrosanct, and therefore I'm betting that a version of this ad featuring clearly male legs (with the traffic driving blithely up his implied anus) would NEVER, EVER see the light of day.

Oh, and ditto the First Amendment comments. Your First Amendment right to express whatever sentiment you want doesn't override my First Amendment right to express my opinion regarding that sentiment; it just ensures neither one of us can get hassled by the government for doing so.

This ad mystifies me. I'm assuming they're marketing their product to women, but this ad seems unlikely to motivate many women to buy it. It might even make them want to deliberately avoid it.
So, from an advertising perspective...what's the point?

If I am understand Jenphen right, basically, he (I think he idenitified himself as a man, please correct me if I am wrong) is saying that a sexist ad is one that is degrading to women as per his example of a woman on a leash.

Well, Jenphen, you are not the be all end all of determining what is degrading. I find this ad degrading to women because it positions the vagina as a wide open space; open to anyone who wants in, a kind of public property that can be entered at will. I find that view of women's vagina's degrading. My vagina is not anyone else's property and not just anyone can get it.

Now you may not find this ad degrading to women, but obviously people disagree with you. And so, here, on this feminist site, we discuss.

I also want to second DT. (That drive me crazy too!)

(if this is sent twice, I apologize!)

Jenphen: there are two main reasons I find this ad sexist:

First, the use of women's bodies in advertising is often considered sexist precisely because men's aren't as often used: women's bodies are considered property, sometimes communal, sometimes solely the property of their husbands or fathers. You'll find lots of examples of this type of thinking in other posts, such as those about purity balls, or about restricting women's access to EC. This ad also underscores this thinking. Here, the people on the road are invited to drive their cars into her vagina. What else could say "a vagina is communal property" better than this?

Second, the very driving of a car into a (symbolic) vagina is at least marginally violent. Imagine a car driving into any orifice of your body. I can guarantee that many of the high numbers of women who have been sexually assaulted are imagining that very type of invasion. That might also explain why a man (you) would find this less offensive than a woman: he probably hasn't been sexually invaded, nor is it something he regularly worries about, like many women do.

Putting balls on either side of the Sears tower for an ad (which, AFAIK hasn't been done; see my first point) doesn't portray an uncomfortably invasive scenario for a man (see my second point), and so is not analogous.

I guess Jessica didn't feel the need to "write a coherent article" about this, because most readers here already understand it.

secondhandsally---

completely with you here. I think you could argue that this ad implies rape as well.

Also, men's bodies are used in advertising quite frequently, but it's not even close to the extent that women's bodies are. Men's bodies are typically made to look strong and assertive.

Often, women in advertising are made to look submissive and subservient, as in this ad for example. Women are often reduced to a body part (or two) and this ad reinforces the idea that it's okay to do that.

So, Jenphen, why wasn't a man's body used in this advertisement?

If this is an ad for lubricant, couldn't a man's anus be portrayed in much the same way?

I venture that a man's body was not used because society doesn't readily "invade" a man's body, though it is common thought and practice to invade a woman's.

The thing is, this is not just about "selling sex". To me, the picture is not sexy, it exudes vunerability. It indeed looks as though the woman is in her gynocologist's office. Furthermore, it isn't flattering the way men's bodies are portrayed in advertising. The woman in this ad is stripped of her personhood in a way that men are not, even when the ad using a provocative male pose.
Okay, now I get in trouble

I understand the need for debate, but since I am at work when I read these posts, I rarely get to post a full response to what I am thinking, but...It really PISSES ME OFF, when turds like Jenphen come here and add nothing insightful to the debate, just the same tired old lines that are repeated refuted. Guess What, asshat? Many people here think it is sexist. You can talk out of your asshole about "censorship" and "first amendment rights", no one is advocating becoming China here, the posters here simply are pointing out problems they see in the media, so shut the fuck up.

Jenphen, I don't know why you keep going on about the need to protect the first admendment rights of the company behind this "brilliant" ad. I don't think that anyone here has said that the ad should be taken down or censored in anyway. The point of this space is to discuss the sexist implications of advertising that expoits womens' bodies and sexuality.

You've got to admit its fucking absurd for you to compare the people commenting on this post to Hitler? Right? I hope you can.

Oh and thanks for the advice that if I don't like something, then I just shouldn't but it. I never would have thought of that on my own! Jeez

If you reread what you quoted, I never said you could not. I simply said this is the work of an artist, and as such it is protected by the first amendment rights, regardless if it is printed or circulated by a corporation.

Okay, but why bring up the First Amendment if you're not suggesting that someone is trying to violate it? Nobody has said the government should come in and tear the thing down. They've said they don't like it, and think it's sexist. That it's protected by the amendment (assuming that it's in the U.S.) isn't really relevent.

And... really... "brilliantly using negative space"? I've seen some brilliant uses of negative space in my time, and this hardly qualifies. Let's not elevate an obnoxious (and creepy) billboard ad to the level of high art, okay?

Personally, I find the advertisement creepy, and definitely think it smacks of a sexist mentality.

I think the real issue at hand is how society allows this to be ok, but an imaginary hard on or real penis would be considered offending or crude.

I personally think its because men still run society to a great degree, and could not possibly handle a picture (imaginary like this vagina or not) of penis larger than theirs, especially when their wives or girlfriends may be seated next to them driving by it.

If that analysis is correct (I think it's rather off the mark, but, whatever) that's still sexist.

Regardless, as others have already pointed out, the ad reduces women's bodies to something to be used and violated, and creates the rather violent image of cars driving through them. Taken alone, out of any social context, it might have ended up just creepy and in poor taste, but it's hardly the sort of thing that can be taken out of the context of the society that produced a mentality that said "Hey, what a clever piece of advertising." Not only did some moron think that this was a clever ad campaign, but he managed to convince his bosses that this was a clever ad. Somewhere along the line, someone should have thought "Wow, this is creepy, gross, and offensive. Maybe we shouldn't tie in the idea of driving a car through a woman's genitalia with our lube."

“If you reread what you quoted, I never said you could not. I simply said this is the work of an artist, and as such it is protected by the first amendment rights, regardless if it is printed or circulated by a corporation.�
Yes, and what was your point in saying that? Did any of us claim that it wasn’t protected by the first amendment?

“I also said I do not understand why this is posted on a feminist site, which is were a few readers used flawed judgment in saying the above quote.� I already explained to you why it is on a feminist website and the rest of that sentence doesn’t sound like English.

“By your reasoning, people shouldnt be allowed to use female body parts in advertising, simply because you dont like it.�

Oh please! When did any of us call for anything to be censored?!

“Will you require people to greet you with the Hitler salute?� Uh, what?! I am not requiring anyone to do anything! You are the one who is telling us we can’t talk about this because “If you dont like it, dont buy their products.�

secondhandsally says “Well, Jenphen, you are not the be all end all of determining what is degrading.� Exactly! And who is he to determine what can be discussed on feminist weblog and what can’t?

Sorry, I intended to write "...then you just shouldn't BUY it" not "but it"!

Jenphen:

Commenting on the sexist/crude nature of a piece of art does not -- I repeat, not...

a) mean anyone is supporting censorship (lose the Hitler analogies, please!),

b) mean that the art, as art, is necessarily awful. Art can be very well done, very communicative and evocative, and very clever, and still be morally/ethically problematic (see Leni Reifenstahl's Triumph of the Will).

And what would it take for you to see milder forms of sexism, everyday ways in which the sexes are not treated or represented with equal respect? Does it really take a woman being physically degraded and treated like an animal to get your hackles up?

Any advert that makes me think of a speculum as opposed to hot sex will not do its job. If they are, indeed, just trying to move this product and get people to buy it...I don't know any woman who would think of sex first and not stirrups upon seeing this.

ElleMariachi: That's because this ad was obviously not designed by women, for women, or with women in mind (except insofar as they can be represented as objects).

One of my favorite law professors used to have a saying about bad debate tactics: the first person to mention Hitler, loses.

Sorry, Jenphen.

Was anyone else as creeped out by one of the later comments at the link? Some dude had the audacity to point out that K-Y Jelly is "for you ladies" and therefore, apparently, we should favor ads touting it.

Oh how magnanimous of those men to allow us to have sex sufficiently lubed up that we might actually enjoy it, assuming they don't suck pathetically at it. Because, since we are obligated to have sex with men even if not properly aroused or remotely interested, really they have the right to do it without lube. How good of them to make this concession to us.

WHAT?! What The FUCK?! Are you pulling my leg until my eyes don't work?!! Are you opening my skull & shitting on my brain?! WHAT THE FUCK?!

WHAT?! What The FUCK?! Are you pulling my leg until my eyes don't work?!! Are you opening my skull & shitting on my brain?! WHAT THE FUCK?!

P.S.: Yeah, exactly what carolina girl said.

Law Fairy: the first person who mentions Hitler, looses

That's a fucking awesome!

Law Fairy - good call on the Hitler thing.
Vervain - you used the phrase "implied anus" and laughed outloud. In my office.
Secondhandsally - thanks.
Jenphen - you don't find the ad sexist. Okay. Clearly, some people do. But whether it's sexist or not, I don't think it's high art. Please.

Since we're all here on a feminist site, probably enough of us know to get our lube at our local (woman-owned?) sex shop where they sell the good stuff and you can try before you buy. And lube is for everyone, not just women.

Law Fairy: Please tell me you studied under Mike Godwin, of Godwin's Law fame!

Ugh. It's as though sex is something that's done to a woman, and we just lie there with our legs open waiting for anyone who's passing.

Considering that in relationships, I've always been the one to buy the lube, this brand is out.

jenphen: WE GET IT!! you dont think it's sexist. you have made your point very clear. what i dont understand is why your opinion somehow outweighs everyone else here. what's wrong with discussing our opinions about it?
yes, why is it that calling someone Hitler-ish is considered a valid method of debate. btw, i dont think he would have approved of its sexual message anyway. we gotta find someone else to idolize.

There should be a similar ad campaign with a man on his knees and his "virtual anus" bared, along with a gloved finger and wording about prostate checks. That would at least inject humor into a subject many men find uncorfortable.

Wait. This may sound sexist, but I "opened my eyes" persay, and I can't seem to find any of these "large member" ads you are raving about... unfortunatly...

Second, the very driving of a car into a (symbolic) vagina is at least marginally violent.

I sincerely ask (and do not have an implied motive or answer), if the ad had used two billboards on the same side of the road (i.e. no cars could drive through--assume also that no walkways or any other public access implications), but still using negative space would this ad be less offensive?

What if it had two billboards on the same side of the road and showed the entire woman sans the area implied with the negative space--would it be less offensive?

I think I know the answer, but I am curious to read the responses. (assuming anyone bothers of course)

having asked that, let me be clear that I agree this ad is a) tasteless, b) offensive and c) not effective.

This is an example of the triumph of misogyny over commercial self-interests.
"It looks fine to me!"

Edo: No matter where the negative space was, I personally think the ad would be creepy and in poor taste. Even if it included the rest of the woman's body. Sure, it wouldn't have the same violence to it, but there's definitely misogyny there. "Buy our lube! We can open any girl's legs awfully wide!" Ew.

This is one of the worst ads I'd ever seen. Icky.

And about the Hitler thing, the only thing that annoys me more than people who don't understand what the First Amendment actually means is people who use "Argument Ad Nazium" to justify their point of view:
"Man, I just don't get what people like about sushi."
"I bet Hitler didn't get sushi either, you lunch Nazi! Stop violating my First Amendment right to sushi!"

Holy shit. I would like to ask 'Jenphen' what he thinks sexism IS, since he keeps adamantly reiterating that this is not it....

Holy shit. I would like to ask 'Jenphen' what he thinks sexism IS, since he keeps adamantly reiterating that this is not it....

"Argument Ad Nazium"

Kalisti, I LOVE it. :)

And roymac, Godwin wasn't my prof, but he sounds like a cool guy. My prof was the equally cool (not to mention a wonderful human being) David Strauss at the University of Chicago.

Troll alert.

Two words: that's nasty.

Kalisti!,

Edo: No matter where the negative space was, I personally think the ad would be creepy and in poor taste. Even if it included the rest of the woman's body. Sure, it wouldn't have the same violence to it...

Thank you for the response. I thought as much, and FWIW agree. The implied "public access" would seem to be the insult added to the injury if you will.

Having said that,I think the suggestion that a similar ad with the backs of a man's legs and the implied negative space would be a great response to this ad. At the very least it might make the sexism a little more obvious to the myopic defenders of this egregious ad.

Omg why is it that the crazies come out when I'm traveling and only have internet access on my blackberry?! Don't feed the trolls, folks. I'll be back home and moderating in no time...

Trolling entails luring others into pointless and time-consuming discussions. Trolling often starts with a message that is “intentionally incorrect but not overly controversial." The goal of a troll is to draw in particularly naïve or vulnerable readers. “The object of recreational trolling is to sit back and laugh at all those gullible idiots that will believe *anything*�. Trolling and flaming often merge, in that in both cases, there is intent to disrupt the on-going conversation, and both can lead to extended aggravated argument. Specifically, he exploits tensions within feminism itself with regard to freedom of expression and the legitimacy of separatist spaces, making it more difficult for the group to take effective action against him.

We identify three definitional criteria for trolls:
1) messages from a sender who appears outwardly sincere,
2) messages designed to attract predictable responses or flames,
3) messages that waste a group's time by provoking futile argument.

Just a quick note from a lurker. If you follow the link provided, and then follow that site's link to the product's website (Manix, and the site is in French, fyi), this ad does not appear as part of the product's presskit at this time. (Apologies in advance if I've missed something, and of course the fact that this image may never have been used doesn't change its difficult nature).

I just want to make it clear that I think a male version of this ad would also be extremely offensive and disturbing. Men have a right to control what happens to their bodies, too, so this ad's "open access" assumption is just plain nasty all around, regardless of which sex it's applied to. The reason I brought up the notion of a male version of the ad was to illustrate why the ad was sexist--you'd never see a male version of this--not because I think it'd be a good idea to make one.

C-Bird, I've been looking, too. I've can't remember ever seeing a single ad that actually had a penis in it. I've also seen a LOT of movies, and penises (penii?) seem to be an endangered species there, too. I think I've only seen a handful, and never an erect one (outside of pornography, of course, where both kinds are quite abundant.)
Maybe we just haven't been paying close enough attention?

Count me in as someone who finds the ad disturbing and offensive; the second thought I had upon seeing it was that the lube manufacturer was trying to send the message, "it's so effective you can slide a whole traffic jam in there!" - a bad Benny Hill-grade sight gag.