Up
Calvin Klein gets rich and richer by advertising his stuff in ways that degrade women, because the degradation attracts attention and thus multiplies the effect of all of Calvin Klein’s advertising. That’s what the Huffington Post quotes a scholar saying, at least (and I don’t doubt it).
What ad is it this time? An upskirt one. Geddit? That’s great because it’s something guys do stealthily without the consent of the women and girls whose skirts they peer and photograph up.
Commenters voiced their disapproval on a number of aspects of the ad, including how Kristin’s youthful appearance prompted many to confuse her for a minor (she is 23, for the record). They also took issue with the pose itself, which mimics the often-exploitative upskirt shots found on pornography sites. Both Kristin and photographer Harley Weir have stood by the image despite negative feedback, but the National Center on Sexual Exploitation consequently launched a petition urging Calvin Klein to suspend the campaign, stating the image glamorized sexual harassment:
Up-skirting is a growing trend of sexual harassment where pictures are taken up a woman’s skirt without her knowledge, or without her consent. Not only is this activity a crime in many states like New York, Washington, Florida, and more, but it is also a disturbing breach of privacy and public trust. By normalizing and glamorizing this sexual harassment, Calvin Klein is sending a message that the experiences of real-life victims don’t matter, and that it is okay for men to treat the woman standing next to them on the metro as available pornography whenever they so choose.
But, the HP says mournfully, we can complain all we want to, but doing so only motivates Calvin Klein to do it more, because it makes him even more money. Ok, so I’m part of that work to make Calvin Klein even more money. Whatever. He’s also even more notoriously a scum bag.
What astounds me is that any marketer could think this is okay. It is so incredibly obvious…but so many people don’t seem to notice how exploitative it is.
porn — pure and simple
I don’t understand something here. I assume this ad was designed to sell women clothes, to move merchandise.
What aspect of that image could ever prompt a women to purchase a Calvin Klein product?
Yep. That is s seriously disturbing marketing image. But they knew that, of course. No publicity is bad publicity. So that’s women exploited twice over.
John – I think the idea is that it’s not the ad itself that inspires women to buy the product, but the added name recognition that the notoriety of the ad bestows on Calvin Klein that’s CALVIN KLEIN. Branding is all.
Reminds me of Klein’s skeevy ads from the late 90s, with jailbait models (both sexes) posing in what looked like a 70s basement rec room (and, in the flesh-crawling TV spots, being interrogated by an offscreen older man). The company affected shock that anyone would think the campaign intentionally evoked underage porn.
John: In a vacuum, nothing. But we don’t live in a vacuum. We live in a society that teaches women, constantly and unceasingly, that they must be sexy (but not too sexy), compliant (but not have sexual agency of their own) and otherwise available to men who pursue them (but never pursue the men).
In that environment, this ad says to women who have been raised in this toxic stew that CK is all about all of that. CK is simultaneously reinforcing the messaging, and profiting by it.