Caged Black Women

Black women are often featured as sexual objects in fashion advertisements. In this ad the black model is not making eye contact with the viewer, her breast are exposed, her face is covered up by a mask, and she is wearing a type of bondage apparatus. She is contrasted with the confident white model who is making direct eye contact with the viewer and is clothed. The implied message in this advertisement is that the black model is purely a sexual object to be possessed and looked at, but the white model commands more respect from the male viewer.



These two images are terrifying examples of the way black women's sexuality is reduced to racist notions of animal aggression. These black female representations were articulated in Bell Hooks' article Selling Hot Pussy where she uses examples of different black women to describe how white viewers have enjoyed seeing black sexuality as something "exotic" and "animal" in order to further "other" them. In the top image, the model is carrying a whip and has chains around her ankles. Both items are reminiscent of slavery.

However, the model is smiling and naked and the image is suggesting that she likes being chained up, whiped, and treated like an animal. In the next image she is naked in a cage baring her teeth like an animal. If that wasn't enough the sign above the cage reads, "Do Not Feed The Animal." In these fashion advertisements, the photographers made blackness "othered" by depicticating their sexuality as something deviant and animalistic. These types of advertisements make black women into racist caricatures that are not only demeaning to the black models, but all women of color.

LeBron James Vogue Cover

This cover was at the center of a huge amount of controversy in 2008 after bloggers began to notice historically racists parallels in the imagery. To many, the image shows a gorilla like angry black man who seeks to possess a white woman. When bloggers started to point out the possibility of this World War I recruitment poster as being the model for the cover, people noticed that the similarities between the two were indeed hard to ignore.


One blogger from Watching The Watchers put it, "The positions of James and Bundchen, the way he holds his mouth, the color of his clothes, the color of her dress, the curls of her hair, the placement of her feet inside his and his arm around her waist, the basketball in the club hand, and his hunched-over posture." He believes, that Annie Leibovitz (who has a history of referencing iconic images in her own photographs) was blatantly referencing this poster in her photograph.

This type of photograph is not at all uncommon. It is typical for white athletes to be portrayed smiling or laughing, while black sports figures are portrayed as angry and violent. To me, this image is overtly racist and resorts to horrible stereotypes about black men as violent animals. But many do not see it this way. For as many bloggers who posted about the apparent racism in this cover, they recieved dozens of comments about how they were looking too much into things and reading what they wanted out of the image. One woman said, "James is a huge, black beautiful masculine statue and Gisele is a feminine, sexy gorgeous doll. I didn't see any kind of racist overtone to it. I still don't. I think there is such a hypersensitivity to race still in this country." Another commentor said, "It's a magazine for god's sake. Quit trying to be the pc police. I don't give a damn if she's with King Kong or Godzilla, it's a damn magazine that wants to sell some issues."

This cover is blatantly racist and harmful in the same way that Time's infamous OJ Simpson cover is. In both cases viewers have to wonder, "how could editors have missed this," and "was this intentional?" I think that regardless of intent--although it could be easily argued that Annie Leibovitz knew exactly what she was doing--this image is communicating and perpetuating racists notions about violence and black men.

Moschino Ads

For those of you who felt that the Lebron James Vogue cover was only borderline racist, I'm sure we can all agree that there is absolutely no amount of subtlety in these ads. When viewed as a whole, these ads represent segregation. The races in these advertisements are not allowed to mix. When viewed individually we can understand why. The Asian and black models are represented as exotic while the white models are represented as perfectly normal. The white models are even allowed to wear more than just two colors unlike the other women.

This probably doesn't even need to be said, but the Asian women in the advertisement ARE ALL WEARING YELLOW! I'm not sure that I need to outline what is racist about that, but in case you missed it, dressing an Asian woman in all yellow is highlighting her ethnicity in a way that makes her an other. She is not a normal woman, because she is first and foremost Asian and that is why she is marked by wearing yellow.

In the black advertisement all of the woman are very dark skinned and have afros. Like the Asian women they all have almost identical hair. Likely because the afros are wigs. The white women however, all have blond hair, but their hairstyles vary. Also, the black ad is the only one to feature a nude model. This is another example of where black female sexuality is made exotic and is allowed to be gazed out openly much more so than other women.

These ads came out around 2007 and because they are relatively new and because they are not at all subtle, I have to wonder: why are these ads intentionally racist? Is it an attempt to be creative or artsy and bring attention to racial issues? Even if that was the case (which I suspect it was not) once again, the intent means very little. The effect of the ad is to make Asian and black women the other when compared to white women. How very fashionable.

Lesbian Invisibility

Both of these ads depict people of the same sex in an intimate position with the other. However, the connotation of the images is notably different. When looking at the two images a person would assume that the two men are gay because most straight men are not intimate with one another in terms of cuddling and touching. The opposite is true with the advertisement of the two females. Although the girls are embracing each other similarly to the men, it does not connote lesbian to viewers. This leads to the idea of lesbian invisibility in mainstream media. When two women kiss or embrace in a advertisement they are not assumed to be gay, but many of times they are viewed as heterosexual women expressing love for the other women. Lesbian representation is also depicted many times with the heterosexual male in mind. In doing so, it removes the idea of lesbian as an actual sexual preference and turns it more into a performance for the pleasure of the heterosexual male.

In conclusion, it is our belief that even though society has made large strides in terms of equality, we still have a long way to go. Because of the discretely stereotypical representations in modern day advertisements regarding race, gender, sexuality, and social class many times the media to blame for popular social clichés. However, a strong possibility is that the media is simply representing a realistic view on society and we ourselves are the ones to blame. Either way, instead of mindlessly gazing at advertisements from popular brands, audiences should take a more critical look at the media that surrounds them

Sexual Removal

Although some companies kept their sexuality ambiguous some campaigns did begin to specifically target the gay market. Absolut Vodka’s campaign towards the gay community since 1981, has been revolutionary in recognizing the gay market and supporting gay advertising; however, their advertisements, as Helene Shugart suggests, "skirt the realities and implications of homosexuality by desexualizing". Through desexualization Absolut can reach the gay market by supporting the gay community, yet avoiding the uncomfortable sexual representations. In the first advertisement, it shows that the company supports gay marriage, but the bottles allow the company to remove any human connection. Furthermore, it is not only Absolut that desexualizes gays, but also other companies. This AAA ad is targeting the gay community and the only reference to homosexuality is the gay pride flag. By not showing gays in a romantic situation it removes what is uncomfortable for people about homosexuality: their sexuality.

If many companies are beginning to support the gay community and there is less negative representation in the media, then the question becomes why there is still such inequality for the gay community? Although it may seem that the visibility of gays in media and advertising symbolizes their acceptance in mainstream culture, it is really representative the the commodification of homosexuality. Critic Ragusa states that companies, "fascination with homosexual identity is partly motivated by the new desire to sell more than commodities; by postulating products as symbolic signs of success, agents creating consumer culture credit consumption with the power to surpass class representation" . Thus, by equating consumption to social legitimacy companies make it appear that homosexual advertising symbolizes their acceptance in society, when in reality gays have not found equality through consumption.

Sexually Ambiguous

In both these advertisements for Abercrombie & Fitch only one thing is clear: sex sells. Each of the highly sexualized images features a perfectly sculpted male figure at the center of a group of people. In the first advertisement the male is facing away from the camera displaying solely his back side, while in the second advertisement the male's face is cut off showing only his chiseled abs and 'package'. Without faces these men become solely sexual objects, with their perfect bodies on display for the entertainment of the group surrounding them. In the first spread there is not even Abercrombie clothing in the picture and they are clearly not selling yellow towels, thus concluding that the sole purpose of the advertisement is to sell sex.

Now that it is established that Abercrombie is selling sex to interpellate their viewers, the question becomes what kind of sex are they selling? The first image features 'All-American' men in a locker room where one of them is being forced to strip. Generally, the locker room is a symbol of hegemonic masculinity's associated with athletes; however, this ad questions whether all the locker horseplay could have homoerotic undertones. Furthermore, in the second advertisement there are guys stripping a guy, but there is also two girls stripping the guy. Abercrombie uses what Alexander Doty suggests as a "conventional heterosexual(izing) narrative device of using a woman to mediate and diffuse male-male erotics". Therefore, Abercrombie does not fully commit to the gay community in their advertising by keeping their advertisements sexually ambiguous and allowing the viewers to decide the meaning for themselves.

I chose these particular Got Milk Ads because both actors are portraying similar types of characters from action/adventure films. While both characters are basically superheroes, Hugh Jackman is staring at the viewer head on with a focused/angry look with his muscles exposed. In Angelina Jolie's ad she is looking away from the camera, lips pouting, no muslces exposed and although her character in the film is not always fully clothed, the bikini in the ad is far less than her usual attire. Showing once again that while the man appears strong and dominant, the female appears weak and sexualized.

I chose these 2 particular Got Milk Ads to compare because they are both of popular music artists that are in similar genres and have similar fan bases. While Rihanna is a sex symbol for many men, Chris Brown is just as equally a sex
symbol for women. However, in these two ads, it is Rihanna who is laying on the ground seductively with her cleavage in clear shot. Her lips are pouted, she is in a sexy dress, and her eyes are staring at the camera inviting the viewer in. Even though this is just a simple Milk ad, specifically targeted towards younger audiences it still seems to sexualize the woman. In Chris Brown's ad it has him jumping in the air tipping off his hat with a goofy look on his face. This is not a sexually explicit ad by any means and instead portrays the male as fun and harmless but the female as a sexual predator.

These ads are both for the same company and product, however one is for men and the other for women. The men's ad shows a man swimming with an extremely competitive expression on his face. There is no writing on the ad except

for on the actual cologne bottle. In the female ad it says DAVIDOFF Cool Water WOMEN. While it is clear this perfume is for women, it still states WOMEN on the ad. Also, the female in the ad is not swimming or doing anything competitive, rather she is wet and staring at the camera seductively. These ads imply that if you are a man and you buy this cologne you will be seen as a strong, fierce, competitor but as a female you will become wet and sexy, everything a man wants you to be.

When women aren’t being typecast as sexualized individuals, they are also being used as maternal figures. In the prominent ad campaign for Got Milk, one advertisement depicts a beautiful blonde woman with a long red gown, holding a glass of milk in one hand and a child in the other. The image and slogan both equal a woman that can either be a sexy runway model or a good mom with no other roles in society. While this advertisement talks about maintaining a healthy weight, the male Got Milk advertisements focus on maintaining strength and muscle. In an attempt to target certain audiences, Got Milk has stereotyped men as aggressive and dominant, while women are sexual, need to maintain their weight, as well as their families

Social Class

I chose this ad because it represents the difference in social class very blatantly. Even though all the models are portrayed in a jail cell, some are just represented "better" than the others. Here, Sarah Jessica Parker is the one that stands out the most. She is wearing a lovely, expensive white gown with the perfume in her hand. Her hair and make up is nicely done as if she just walked out of the salon. Also her expression represents the fact that she doesn't mind being inside the jail cell as long as she has her perfume with her. In addition, the phrase "I just had to have it" supports this idea that it was worth being in jail to have this perfume. On the other hand, everyone else is staring at her in awe, as if they want the perfume. They seemed amazed at the fact that she has it. Also their appearance is very dirty compared to Sarah Jessica Parker. So even though they are all in the same situation, none of them are as good or better than the girl with the perfume. She is the only one that is admired and that everyone is envious of.














I chose this ad because it shows the difference in social class by what one is wearing. One side of the ad has a white, blond, gorgeous woman wearing Versace. We can implied that she is wearing Versace becuase of the text. Also you can imply that she is the owner of the estate because if she can afford to wear Versace, she is rich. Also her posture is very important. Unlike the two maids on the other side of the ad, her back is straight and her hands are elegantly placed, emphasizing the fact that she is educated and well respected by her maids. The other side of the ad also emphasizes the fact that they are maids because of the way they are dressed but also the way they are standing. They are standing unlike the blond woman with, with respect. They seem like they are getting ready to bow down or greet the woman. Their body language shows that they are ready to serve the blond woman in any shape or form. Lastly, the fact that "Versace" is not on the side of the maids, emphasize they are not wearing and can not afford the clothes designed by Versace.



















This is a private jet advertisement with very strong meaning through it's text. "It helps to come from a powerful gene pool" clearly represents the fact that people with powerful genes are the only ones who can afford to have or even ride a private jet. So who are the people with powerful genes? We automatically think powerful means richness. Any one who is powerful always seem to have a lot of money. We are socially constructed to think this way. So if you don't have the money than there is no chance of riding a private jet like this one. This always emphasizes the fact that no matter how hard you try to become rich sometimes its never enough. Some times it is all about luck and what family you were born into. In other words, richness in this case can not be earned or bought but born into.