Naked Dead Women Are Hawt!

New York Magazine, following the print mandate to produce year-end lists, came up their best and worst in pictures. There are some gems, such as "The Most Brooding Spread" that warrant a second look. There are some controversial ones -- remember the underage naked shots of sexy-and-seventeen model Ali Stephens? But the picture that takes the cake is the one that wins for Most Disturbing Ad. At the risk of giving haberdasher Duncan Quinn more attention than they deserve, here it is:

Alex Leo, a fellow Huffington Post writer, pointed out 5 advertising crimes against women that just won't die including rape, bondage, sluts, girl-on-girl action, and cum shots, but she forgot to add the ever more ubiquitous naked dead woman.

What is it about watching a well-dressed man either about to kill a senseless woman draped over the hood of his car that would make anyone want to buy their clothing? And why does she have to be nearly naked (and freshly waxed)? Did he just rape her? Or is he a necrophiliac? This ad campaign just makes me want to boycott their business. Which would be brilliant except it wouldn't do much good since a) I've never heard of them before and b) I'm not in the market for high-end men's suits. So I'll just settle for holding back my vomit and expressing moral outrage. Which is probably what they were going for. More people talking about them and their misogyny.

Think one ad doesn't make a trend? Here's one for a video game that is equally as awful. Want more examples? Google them yourself. And pray the FBI never has cause to seize your computer.

Anybody out there care to explain what the appeal of this kind of advertising is? I really don't understand. And hey -- you can always post anonymously!

Comments

[Catothemuchyounger]

I don't know what the first ad is supposed to be saying. She does not look dead to me, nor does she look like she is about to be killed (the necktie is not even tight). She looks passed out, more likely. In any event, it is certainly not an attractive or exciting ad, and I have no problem whatsoever with risque ads, as long as they involve adults.

The second ad looks awful, but then, it is for some amoral video game, so maybe it will appeal to its target audience.

[larry278]

It's the necrophalia thing. Having sex with a male or female fashion plate is like making love to a poorly embalmed course at the viewing. It isn't done in many circles any more. But some people still don't know that, such as ad people.

[ohioan73]

I think fashion ads are mostly over the top risque and suggestive because there is so much print ad competition within the magazines. If you open a Vogue, 50% (or more) of the mag is glossy fashion ads. The most memorable ads are the most shocking and "sexy" ones. These images are burned into the subconscious and affect the shopper the next time they are on Rodeo even if the shopper is disgusted by the ad. At the end of the day, its all about the Benjamins.

Women are particularly sensitive to risque ads because of the painful history of the world's female subjegation. Same way blacks would be offended by an ad that simulated a lynching where people are standing around fabulously dressed and posing near a hanging body equally fabulously dressed. The words "Dolce et Gabbana" does not soften the blow of this pain invoking image, its actually a slap in the face. I get it.

[wayoutleft]

the first one is a role reversal on all the ads where some chick is leading some hapless boob around by his tie. i have rudely had my attention redirected by a strong tug on my tie. like the guy in the ad, i was the only involved who was fully clothed- in any literal sense, anyway...

[lungfish]

Its all about perception... the chick got drunk, naked and took his tie before blacking out on the hood of a car... he wants his tie back.... how the heck did she get ahold of it to begin with???
The second is for a video game about an assassin, what do you expect? Just a play on words....

[ouroborous]

Oh for god's sake.

The first ad, while confusing and, yes, mildly sexist, didn't immediately strike me as being about a dead woman. There's a long history of risque shots of near-naked women draped on cars. That was my first impression: oh, the advertiser is trying to do a twist on the chick-on-a-hot rod photo, and is throwing in the tie because, well, that's what they sell. Is it kind of a stupid ad? Yes. Is it mildly sexist in that the woman is only an object of desire and not shown in any human way? Yes. Is it a raging sexist paean to dead women? Um. No.

The second ad is a *PLAY ON WORDS*. You see, there's this phrase "beautifully executed" that people use. And now, this game is about being a *HITMAN* -- you, EXECUTE people. So, combine "beautiful" with "execute" in the context of the game and...

Look, both ads are in poor taste. Both ads appeal to 16-year old boys more than grown men. But if y'all are gonna go out looking for something to be offended about all the time, I guarantee you you'll find it. Sexism is alive and well, but I guarantee you it has more to do with not taking women seriously or believing that they're just as potentially competent as men, than it does with the fact that men like to look at women's bodies, coupled with the fact that advertisers have almost no taste.

[gymbunnybee]

Nicely said!

[LiberalBuzz]

Both ads are disgusting. And I have noticed the same thing. I keep wondering about just who is posing these things and who is okaying them from the company. The company after all has the final word on what gets printed and what doesn't.

But I gotta admit these two ads are just plain bad. Can't figure out why killing women is supposed to be such a hot advertising item.