Elizabeth Scripturient (the delinquent, ecumenical (hermionesviolin) wrote,
Elizabeth Scripturient (the delinquent, ecumenical
hermionesviolin

Dove: Real Women Have Curves

So, i wandered over to shipbuilding’s journal [it occurs to me that i should start friending people i regularly wander to; this is also a perfect time for you to pimp me the brainy folk on LJ] and dude, that Real Women Have Curves Dove beauty campaign? Is for a cellulite firming cream. Boo like whoa.

It has also been pointed out that “Real Women Have Curves” as a slogan for anything is problematic since it implies that skinny, flat-chested, etc. women aren’t equally “real.”

Relatedly, the results of the One woman, two messages study don’t surprise me. Near the end the author writes, "Just how confident is Nicole? She agreed to let us leave her photo unretouched (after a little hand-wringing), so others could see her as she truly is." This makes me sad, ‘cause while i didn’t scream “hottie!” when i saw the picture, she is far from unattractive. Kinda pear-shaped, but dude, it happens. Far preferable to famine victims and basketball-boobs.

Also, Roeper, you suck.

"If I want to see plump gals baring too much skin, I'll go to Taste of Chicago, OK? I'll walk down Michigan Avenue or go to Navy Pier. When we're talking women in their underwear on billboards outside my living room windows, give me the fantasy babes, please."

*sigh* Sorry to burst your bubble, but some people’s fantasies are “plump girls.” The mainstream media standard may be one thing, but that doesn’t mean that everyone’s fantasy is in fact all one thing.

I’m personally not particularly attracted to the images in this ad campaign since the women seem rather flat to me -- more fleshy than we’re used to seeing, but still without real curves -- but i’m not particularly uppity about this, and certainly there have been women (and men) supposedly more “conventionally” attractive whom i have seen in advertisements for one thing or another whom i have found not at all attractive.

The other Sun Times piece (woman reporter) contains this gem:
A colleague pointed out to me that he has no problem with the ads and that the scantily clad women are attractive. He said the problem is we expect ads always to show only the most beautiful women. He claims if the Dove 6 put on clothes (please, really) and were in a Chicago bar, they'd be considered attractive.

It's like standing someone who you think is tall next to a basketball player. Do that, and your pal ends up looking like a dwarf.

I get that it's all relative, but that's all the more reason why they shouldn't be on a billboard. See, ads should be about the beautiful people. They should include the unrealistic, the ideal or the unattainable look for which so many people strive. That's why models make so much money. They are freaks -- human anomalies -- who need to be paid to get photographed so we can gawk at them.

I see "real people" all the time. I don't need "real people" to sell me things. I'm a "real person" and I don't want to see me on the side of a bus -- and trust me, in my underwear neither do you. (And speaking of underwear, what's with the lingerie these women are wearing? It's like Sears catalog, circa 1983.)
I’ll grant that one wants particularly attractive people to sell you things, and i’m certainly in the “these women are rather plain” camp, but i think there are a lot of body types that can be hot, and it’s a total cop-out to say that just because we’ve only been shown one body type as teh sexor that that necessarily means all other body types are only hot when they’ve got other selling points.

(As for the complaints about the Sears boring undergarments, it seemed fitting to me since Dove is all about pure&natural.)
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 3 comments