1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amn0Zst4LXA Overweight woman breaking photocopier
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjdeN6sdFOo&feature=related: Sexy woman on photocopier

My last post on Jessica Simpson’s questionably abject sexuality has been further aggravated by the recent discovery on YouTube of two very divergent ads concerning the photocopying of women’s genitalia. Sounds purvey? That’s because it is. Beyond the office gimmicks and Christmas party antics of wayward secretaries, (see Bill Murray’s “Scrooged”) the narrative of women teasingly producing papered copies of their privates has become a popular culture cliché reproduced in numerous movies and TV shows to illustrate the illustrious sexual antics of water cooler-bound office environments. The first commercial for a repair service, displays (what polite commentary would term) a ‘curvaceous’ woman, mounting the trusty office copier for some playful libidinous revelry, yet, the copier smites her, declaring “select larger paper tray” at which point she unleashes a fury of technological/psychological angst; kicking, hitting and demolishing the disobliging machine. This ad is contrasted by the second clip for “Double A quality paper,” during which a “sexy” woman mistakenly pushes the copy button whilst climbing on top of a photocopy machine to reach an upper office-room shelf. As this copier frantically spits out numerous copies at a rate rivaling the rapidity of an Olympic sprinter, one must compare the differences both explicit and implicit. The first woman attempts to solidify and produce a copy of her sexuality whilst is refused, the second inadvertently is violated and mass-produced regardless of her own will; the first is humiliated due to a refusal to acknowledge her sexuality, the second by the refusal to stop acknowledging and producing a spectacle of hers; the sexuality (or lack their of) of the first woman ultimately ends up wreaking destruction and damage whilst that of the second produces a state of erotically induced bemusement for a naive office boy who finds himself privy to the perpetual duplication of this woman’s genitalia. And thus is spelled a duality of erotica; abject versus object filtered through the medium of un-cooperative office equipment. This commercialized visual dialectic of culturally worthy, versus unworthy female sexuality makes me question which position it is actually better to occupy. Would I rather be the woman rejected, abjected and forced into a frantic state of violent rebellion? Or perhaps the hapless victim and objectified fetish; placed upon the pedestal of the phallocentric gaze whereby my sexual identity is distributed en mass through “grade A quality” pop culture replication. Providing an Eden for esoteric French theorizing, one could ponder for millennia over the simulacra implications of producing multiple copies of female Va’ Jay Jay’s. Are we diluting the realness of our own sexual identities and anatomies in an “uninterrupted circuit without reference or circumference (Baudrillard, 6)?” If so, what does the refusal of the first copy machine speak to? Perhaps there are abject-defined limits to simulacric replication as mediated by the mechanistic agents of simulation distribution—the trusty old office copy machine (technological surrogate and allegorical instrument of hegemonic supply and demand). If plasticity is in fact our “modern paradigm (Bordo, 245),” perhaps the copy machine is merely providing a gentle nudge encouraging said plump female to realize her determinist, postmodern, potential and actualize the fantasy of limitless bodily determination (Bordo, 245). Maybe then (once repaired) the machinery of pop culture sexual censorship would be willing to mass-produce her femininity as well. Lamentable, Lamentable.

1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gby0zfCYiA: Paris Hilton Carl Jr's Burger Commercial

2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EVsm5JsyB0: Accolo Spoof of Paris Hilton Commercial

You aren’t a….feminist…are you? Said with a reservation one might expect if probing another’s penchant or inborn proclivity towards whips and chains S&M, or child pornography. And it is true, I frequently feel the need for a disclaimer, a scarlet F emblazoned on my chest: branded, labeled and quantified: bra burner, possible deviant and probable lesbian. Well, as a modern, non-deviant, man-loving, La Senza Club member, I can assure you the traditional homogenizing stereotypical signifiers—which are automatically pinned to the lapels of females which dare to admit their feminist inclinations—are largely false (not to intend that lesbianism is negative). Most of us do not wish to de-masculate and destroy all men, or rampage on random fanatical feminist rants (although infrequent indulgence must be admitted as a luxury). Yet there descends a judgmental and pensive gaze by many who become privy to the feminist skeletons occupying my closet. These skeptics appear severely troubled, as if they have been exposed to a contagion like smallpox they thought had been eradicated years ago. Why has feminism within our popular cultural vernacular been marginalized and characterized as a pseudo-profanity and antiquated-unmentionable; destined to be relegated to the graveyards of clichéd “isms” of yesteryear. Not to say the desire for equality has been abolished, but labeling ones desire for such under the rubric of feminism has become the pop cultural equivalent of social suicide; a clear declarations of ones “out-of-touchness” with the “realities” of modern life. As delineated in the article “Talkin’ ‘Bout Whose Generation”, Candis Steenbergen details how feminism has become lost (especially third wave feminism) amidst the glossy images and catchy tag-lines of post-modern, post-feminists who parade their “ostentatious sluttishness” (Germaine Greer as Quoted in Steenbergen, 262) and self-claimed, fully-realized sexual/social/political equality as legitimation for draining the life-blood out of feminist activity. So how does my lamenting the tragic death of pro-feminist declarations fit in with an analysis of sexuality and advertising? Enter exhibit A; the self-proclaimed non-feminist (Jay Leno) pro-“equalist”—fervently-fetishized, hyper-sexualized and scantily-clad—modern matrona of so-called post-feminist “liberation”, Paris Hilton. A recent TV commercial for Carl Jr.'s, features a “hell-hath no fury like a half-dressed woman with a burger fetish” Miss Hilton, writhing, cooing and seducing viewers in a quasi-orgasmic, fast-food romp. Beyond the rather ironic juxtaposition of processed cheese and processed femininity, this tragic moment in the history of modern womanhood, to me, is indicative of sexual liberation gone horribly and calorifically awry. Such packaging’s of femininity, with their “chic, inoffensive, commercial qualities” which can be easily fashioned into “painless products for the public to consume,” (Steenbergen, 260) are categorically opposed to the stereotypically psychically-conjured notions of “typical feminists” as “anti-men, anti-sex and obsessed with notions of women as hapless victims (Steenbergen, 259).” Paris stands (or rather gyrates) as a pro-man, pro-sex, take-charge meat-eating maven who will have her post-feminist burger and eat it too. See embodies the prototypical post-feminist mascot of women who have “made it” as delineated by Steenbergen; #1: heterosexual (check) #2: white (check) #3: able-bodied (slightly scrawny…but…check) #4: well-educated (Ok...No) #5: financially successful (double check) #6: overtly sexual (triple check). Yet I would suggest this pretense of “freedom of sexuality” in a world in which women’s liberation has presumably triumphed, has a much more sinister reality of false-freedom and sexual subjection. One must ask, for whose benefit is Paris parading herself in fancy swimwear and perfectly spray-tanned perfection? Freezing the narrative in moments of lingering erotic contemplation, Paris is fetishized along with her gargantuan fetish burger, fetish devouring fetish, object consuming object in the quasi-varnished realm of tiny Chiquita’s lecherously consuming fat-infested foodstuffs. Monetary benefits aside, such acts of grossly sexualized product pimping, undoubtedly situate themselves, and find their cultural saliency within dominant narratives of passive, objectified, bound and idealized femininity. Thus on the terrain of liberation and freedom, both sexual and gendered, they quickly loose their cultural clout. It is these false-heirs to the sexual revolution, which paper over societal inequalities and pervasive subjection and discrimination and instill the perception that “because some women have prospered the systematic inequalities facing all women have vanished into history.”(Steenbergen, 260) If only Gloria Steinem could have predicted that hocking coagulated beef products through slutted-up images of femininity would prove to be one of the many post-modernist re-fashionings of decades of feminist labour, would she have invested so dearly in the cause of female liberation? And not to place the weight of the post-modernist world on Senorita Hilton’s shoulders, yet the reality remains that ladies are being led astray and bestowed with a false consciousness which leads to “misguided non-participation in the women’s movement (Steenbergen, 260).” Some may suggest Hilton is channeling a gendered version of strategic essentialism, whereby stereotyping logic is re-directed by an agent subjected to the false epistemology and essentializing dialects of ideal and appropriate femininity and female sexuality. Or perhaps Hilton gains some vicarious masochistic pleasure through a knowledge of and participation in her own objectification. Not to critique what rubs anyone’s particular Buddha, however I am inclined to believe Hilton remains contently oblivious and imprisoned by the false hopes and ephemeral phantasmagoria of post-feminist ideological prisons. Further, proving the androcentric nature of phallically constructed presumptions of female sexuality, Hilton stands as a prime example that “a sexualized society does not guarantee sexual pleasure for all individuals (Mariana Valverde as quoted in Steenbergen, 264).” As noted by Ariel Levy in Female Chauvinist Pigs, concerning Hilton's creepy night-vision sex video with pedophilia-flirting, C list celebrity Rick Solomon, one may attest to Hilton’s incredible disinterest (bordering on atrophy-induced boredom) in the actual act of sexual performance. As such, one may assume Hilton has had her sexuality painted on like a coat of pop-culture varnish, brushed over her specifically tailored visage of modern pre-packaged femininity by the hegemonic middle-men of societal mass marketing. Attesting to the utilization of particular visions of female and human sexuality in general for the purposes of advertising, recruiting firm Accolo, stating quite perfectly at the end, "Hiring the right person makes all the difference." Please check this out (for incredibly convincing visual cultural commentary) yet be prepared to be slightly freaked out!

1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GirDKrfH9j8

In the world of Tom Ford, every day is a sexual holiday. Metro-sexual, heterosexual, bi-sexual and homosexual, the advertisements for Ford’s lines of clothes, cologne, sunglasses and lifestyle provide viewers with a cornucopia of sexual subjectivities, ripe with the possibility for multiple readings and interpretations. Ford is known for his sexually lavish life-style and sales pitches, in which he blurs and distorts bounded notions of sexuality presenting a stylish visual paradise where the well-dressed, well-groomed and overtly-sexual flourish and frolic in their couture-coveting glory. If advertising is, as delineated by Sut Jhally in “Image –Based Culture: Advertising and Popular Culture,” an image-based “propaganda system for commodities” where “happiness lies at the end of the purchase (Jhally, 252),” what kind of happiness is Ford selling through his materialistic sexual menagerie? I would assert that if advertising is in itself a “part of a new religious system (Jhally, 252),” Ford seems to be the maverick messiah of avant-guard, hedonistic mass-commodified spirituality. A proud gay man himself, Ford is infamous for his sexually explicit magazine appearances--whether he be snapping the toned tush of another man in a fantasy shower scene (obscured only by ill-placed tan lines), lounging with young naked male models on a couch, or playfully seducing a “classically” nude Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightly on the cover of Vanity fair--Ford features himself prominently and perpetually as the gender-transgressing grand puppeteer of libidinous revelry, controlling, dominating and subjecting the other figures in the scene to his all-powerfull sexual omnipotence. Combining domination with rampant consumerism and sexual heterogeneity, it makes me ponder that if the “commodity image-system…provides a particular vision of the world—a particular mode of self-validation that is integrally connected with what one has rather than what one is—a distinction often referred to as one between “having” and “being”, with the latter…being defined through the former, (252)” what kind of “being” is Ford defining through the possession and purchase of his products and his lifestyle? Clearly he is a man who enjoys his options, yet disturbing to me is the pervasive objectification and denigration to which women are subjected in his quasi-laminated world of build-your-own sexual subjectivity. Blogger activity discusses his latest menswear campaign, in which men “who are obviously gay or extraordinarily metrosexual” (according to blogger assertions) are treated to the crotch-grabbing, clothes-ironing attention of extraordinarily naked women. Is this subjection? Well it certainly seems to be a rather asymmetrically-tilted field of over-exposure Ford is dishing up. One may suggest that this is due to the fact that this is a menswear campaign, in which one could assume the more naked females Ford could pack into his campaign the better in order to entice and entrance heterosexual male consumers. This may have undertones of truth, as perhaps Ford is trying to expand his consumer base through the tempting fantasy of miraculously conjuring an army of sexy naked female servants through new-found fashion fanaticism. Yet interestingly, the men in these advertisements seem remarkably apathetic and indifferent regarding their birthday-suit bound female counterparts. Thus perhaps, in a post-modern market economy, such contrasting and semi-contradictory ocular signifiers allow for, as detailed in Katherine Sender’s “Selling Sexual Subjectivities”, the “construction of multiple narratives…multiple kinds of desire (Sender, 309).” In this chic domain of idealized yet disinterested masculinity, one is presented with the diametric visual opposite of a “stiflingly narrow narrative” (Sender, 308) and is instead treated to a psychically interpretable rainbow of orientations and attractions. Images of the masculine and feminine remain, however—as dictated by cultural standards of conformity—highly circumscribed within rigid bodily measurements and appearances regardless of their ambiguous and rather ambivalent orientations. Such is exemplified in his new cologne campaigns, which feature bottles of Ford’s fragrance strategically positioned in the feminine crevices of baby-oiled, Brazilian-waxed supermodels. One particular ad, in its rather bizarre juxtaposition of women’s genitals and a fragrance supposedly typifying the essence of a man, proves both confusing and crude, moving from the playfully suggestive to oriface-exposing quasi-pornography. It seems, as well, Ford may have missed the mark is his choice of visual pairings, as a particularly incensed “YouTuber” articulated quite bluntly over his self-declared confusion regarding an ad which, for him is saying “Tom Ford Cologne, smell like a pussy (See YouTube video link above).” If Ford is indeed playing with polysemy and multiple perspectives, one could assume such an ad would also entirely (perhaps inadvertently) eliminate his homo-sexual clientele, for although a gay man may be a girls best friend I have yet to meet one wishing to smell like her nether regions. As such, Ford may be the maverick modern Maharajah of non-dominant sexual perspectivism and conspicuous consumerist fantasy, yet there remains the pernicious and perilous topography of one-size fits all sexual imagery--which has ensnared many a product-pusher staking their claim to the entirety of the sexual spectrum--and a discernible undercurrent of female subordination and hegemonic acculturation. Thus, for myself, I shall chalk him up as yet another half-baked post-modern mass-marketed mysoginist....whose only discerning feature is his rather splendid attire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlRwwGMczFw: Women “talks back” to accusations of Jessica Simpson’s fatness.

My last blog which mentioned Jessica Simpson and her appearance in a Pizza Hut commercial has been bothering me in light of the recent controversy surrounding her slightly more voluminous figure. Brought to my attention by Fox News, the ever-reputable distributor of up-to-the-minute Pulitzer-worthy reporting (insert sarcastic tone if unfamiliar with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly in general), expounded about Jessica’s battle of the bulge—her weight “crisis”. Even more shocking than this, is a New York Post cartoon, the brain-child of controversial cartoonist Sean Delonas, in which an overflowing Jessica—rippling in rolls of lard—is pictured dumping now boyfriend Tony Romo for an awaiting Ronald McDonald lounging in the background, awaiting his hefty honey. Something is wildly amiss here. Between the lust-laden image of a toned, svelte Jessica—the woman who (taking a Freudian stance) stops the action/ narrative of the Pizza commercial in moments of lingering erotic contemplation—and the (not so different) vision of a slightly softer woman who is condemned to pop-culture perdition for her curves—there is a disturbing disjuncture. It appears culture condones a woman selling fast food (popping tidbits of greasy pizza in the mouths of salivating hormone-raging puberty-ridden teenage boys) as perfectly sexual and attractive. Yet, heaven forbid she should actually eat the sustenance she is selling (as suggested by Mr. McDonald in the background) lest she be condemned to abjection, de-sexualization and extirpation from her gaze-worthy glory. It seems our culture has a psychical pre-disposition and underlying male-determined affinity for the visual presence of anorexia-embracing “titsickles”, and that a woman with moderately expanded curvature immediately provokes a disgust which is debated on the likes of CNN and Oprah, and pondered by a probing Dr. Phil, detailing the consequences of “letting oneself go.” As speculated in US Weekly, Jess jumped from a meager 120 pounds (when she donned her daisy dukes in Dukes of Hazard) to a "shocking" 135. Well considering the average American gains 10 pounds over the holidays, and Jessica herself confirmed she had to work out 2 hours a day to get down to her “fighting-weight”, such gradual hip expansion seems expected and normal. And call me crazy, but doesn’t her size 6 (according to a horrified US weekly) still make her well below the national average of size 12 (according to last count)? And what is this saying to an “average” size woman? Obviously if Jessica is advertised as fat, anyone over a size 10 must be morbidly obese! Such a crisis. Looking at the Post cartoon—which vilifies Jessica as a horrid creature drowning in the fat folds of her non-existent neck—and comparing this image to the real visage of the woman which spawned such (moral?) outrage, there seems to be a shocking and ugly truth revealed about the circumscription of female sexuality within rigid borders of minimal body size. Perhaps this is to be expected, as the “classical” “bourgeoisie” female body has always—as delineated by Professor Musial—been bound and kept rigidly in check; an industrialized female medium of non-suggestive consumption and the policing of excessive pleasure. Well pardon Ms. Simpson for taking pleasure in something other than a treadmill and the resultant crisis of bodily ambiguity brought about by the minimal increase in the circumference of her thighs. The demonizing accounts which poured forth from pop-culture think-tank’s (post full-figured horror) suggest a pathetic desire to manage a collective cultural anxiety provoked by exposure to what is wrongly considered abject. In response to the grotesque (I still can’t believe her body could be considered as such), condemnation became a defensive mechanism by which culture maintained its collective sense of boundedness. The cartoon, as a vastly outrageous conflation of Jessica’s body, represents the visual channeling of societal paranoia; an exacerbation of the abject intended to showcase the horrific consequences begotten by the betrayal of self-restraint. The sad reality of this scenario is that this perceived transgression (of our ephemeral and ludicrous cultural body standards) is most likely not, as explored in Laura Kipnis’ article on Hustler magazine, a cultural/class critique aimed at confrontation with middle-class hegemony achieved through the disavowal of the “classical body” and, by extension, classical sexuality. In all likelihood Jessica has not strategically rebuked cultural limitations of female corporeality but simply deviated from her inflexible regime of carrot sticks and “chicken of the sea”. Although this happens to “normal” women continuously and perpetually throughout their lives (according to diet demi-god Dr. Phil the average woman gains and looses the same ten pounds 31 odd times in their life---shall we all capitulate now?) such occurrences at the level of celebrity (who seem to hold the collective hope of society in their representations of idealized human perfection) are presented as irrational, pseudo-unsanitary and outwardly declared as repulsive. The agent of corporeal abjection meanwhile becomes a cultural marker forced to justify her out-of-control flesh and appetite, backed into a discursive corner where she must claim her right to display such an expanded bodily reality (which in reality is merely normalcy). Thus are produced the Tyra Banks of the world which must scream “So What?” when interrogated in the media over their 'heinous' 160 pound 5’11 figures. How does this all tie in with advertising and sexuality you might ask? Well, it has occurred to me that advertising exists beyond the realm of glossy print spreads and TV commercials and is present in many forms of cultural production. The Post cartoon, which cruelly mocks and ridicules Jessica for daring to eat the types of food she is paid to sell through her (formerly intact) sexuality, are hocking and advertising a cultural perception of the female body and female sexuality which is both powerfully communicative and tragic in such power. As in Japanese Cartoons of the early 20th Century which worked to psychically manipulate Japanese society into accepting Japan’s newly-adopted occupation of imperial megalord (in their budding establishment of the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere) such modern cartoons of bodily critique display a similar sort of odious manipulative intent; creating a sham of an bodily-conscious, pop culture Co-Prosperity sphere where wayward women are brought under the cultural imperialism of middle-class bourgeois sexual hegemony and forced to conform to minuscule clothing sizes or be displayed and contorted as anti-sexual wild-beasts of enormous consumption. This instance has laid bare the corruptive social constructions of modern advertising and the processes which shape our collective conceptual framework and systems of meaning regarding appropriate and appealing female sexual display and worth. The number of people which have picked up on this absurd characterization of Jessica Simpson as fat-beyond-salvation is encouraging, however, regarding the average man/woman’s ability to form negotiated and counter-hegemonic readings (according to the canonical work of Stuart Hall). Although some social sectors have obviously fallen in line with the fat-filled falsehoods of pudge-panicked capitulators, the Woman’s heartfelt shout out to Jessica Simpson in video #1 (in which she emphatically declares Ms. Simpson NOT fat, comparing a svelte Jessica to herself at 5’5 and 160 some odd pounds) is both heartwarming and culturally encouraging. Yet interesting to me, regardless of the insightful cultural commentary this woman doles out unapologetically (including her self-declared of curve-appreciating mentality) she none-the-less finishes off with a rather startling pronouncement “ohh! I’m getting a treadmill soon” (something to that effect) and proceeds to do a “treadmill happy dance.” So therefore we should condemn the streamlining of body image which dictates we abstain from all things carbohydrate, yet if given the chance for self-alteration, break out into a song-and-dance interlude? Obviously there are limits to our encoding and decoding capabilities, perhaps some middle-ground resonates most accurately; a negotiated reading in which one digests some of the malevolency of prevalent body-conscious hegemony attenuated by the independence of postmodern carte blanch, pick-as-you-choose identity constructionism.

Ultimately, although I pledged to myself that my blog would not degenerate into a discursive rant over body image, it is obvious to me now that provincializing the perception of the body and removing it from cultural advertisements of femininity and female sexuality is impossible. Oh well, at least Jessica can relax and enjoy a slice of the pizza she worked so hard (?) to promote now that her dirty dietary laundry has been aired.

1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t31mrzY21sU: PETA commercial (and critique)
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ibth4Jav-s: PETA man spoof
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEqHOETejjU: Jessica Simpson ad


Sex has become such a generality and pervasive medium utilized by advertisers that I rarely am surprised when a new company “gets naked” to push a product. Yet PETA, for me, was a slight shock. Beginning with Pamela Anderson and her nudist “stand-ins”, in department store windows, declaring “I would rather be naked then wear fur” or “Give fur the cold shoulder”, PETA entered a new, and rather exposed stage in its war against meat. Whereas PETA is no stranger to nudity, it was a nudity of a different sort, the naturalist, hippy-dippy-trippy nudity of long-haired activists storming runway fashion shows and splashing red paint on overly-priced fur garments. And while this still occurs, PETA has adopted a highly air-brushed and overtly sexual veneer as of late, a nudity not purely for its confrontation properties but rather for its attractive, smoothed-out perfection, designed to entice, excite and perhaps convert one to the lifestyle of flesh-abstention (within regards to food that is) and animal loving, fuzzy-wuzzy benevolence. I am recalled to the Frankfurt School and Adorno and Holkheimer for one has to wonder; when vegetarianism as a lifestyle is now paraded and sold through the vehicle of highly sexualized, over-perfected images, it must be true as they asserted that “culture now impresses the same stamp on everything.” (406) This makes sense when contextualized among the meat-loving megagiants of the food industry who have also trod down the pseudo-pornographic path, merging images of scantily-clad suggestive females, beckoning “hungry” audiences to try their tempting tidbits. When Pizza Hut can convince Jessica Simpson, to tantalize every pimple-faced adolescent boy’s taste buds and, well…other regions… (OK penis I said it)…with blond hair blown by some phantom wind machine whilst she drops Pizza bits into their salivating mouths—(see video URL listed above) who can blame an organization hocking broccoli to show a little skin? Again reverting to Adorno and Holkheimer, this clearly displays that in its bid for survival, PETA is going mainstream, entering and embracing the Culture Industry with full force and open arms (and other appendages) and proving that “even the aesthetics activities of political opposites”—veggie lovers and their animal devouring antithesis—both prove to have “enthusiastic obedience to the rhythm of the iron system.” (406) And that system, ladies and gentlemen, is one run on Sex. As vegetarians remain relatively on the margins of mainstream dietary habits, and in light of the fact that inferior forms of culture have “always relied on [their] similarity with others”(412), PETA has thus shown its perceived need to conform to the hegemonic style of advertising of the social hierarchy which is revealed as being constructed principally on highly sexual imagery. Showcasing the 4 principles of the culture industry outlined by Professor Musial, PETA is now 1: homogenizing its images, (all vegetarians are sexy, nudist females) 2: showcasing a distinct standardization and predictability (all vegetarians are sexy, nudist females) 3: dealing with falsehoods (all vegetarians are sexy, nudist females) and 4: presenting a pseudoindividualization of Vegetarians (all vegetarians are sexy nudist females who hate ugly meat-lovers) These four principles are represented in perfect unison in PETA’s banned and damned 2009 Super Bowl commercial which offered up racy, soft-porn choreography featuring sexy, scantily-clad protein-protesting femme fatales, getting their proverbial “freak on” with pumpkins, zucchinis and cauliflowers. Evoking the spirit of Neo Marxism, one can perceive that an intensely false consciousness is being produced here, an idealized, erotically-charged world in which all vegetarians are perfect, tanned, toned and horny. In accordance with their desired infiltration of the world of Super Bowlers—occupied by chicken wings, beefy nachos and more succulent animal carnage than could ever be deemed decent—PETA has thus deployed its bevy of nutritionally conscious temptresses to undermine Jimmy Dean lovers across North America, declaring how “studies show that Vegetarians have better sex.” Well that had to put a damper in their barbeque-sauce-drowned flesh fest. Although many horror struck activists groups railed on PETA for its objectification of women (and rightly so), one has to wonder if this is the reason NBC finally pulled the commercial, or was it the disturbingly contradictory impulses driving Joe Normal to question his commitment to chicken products when faced with abstaining feminine goddesses promising eternal sexual gratification for those who abandon the meat-laden road to libidinal perdition in favor of the sexy vegetarian path less trodden? Pizza Hut, for one, had to be a little peeved, as vegetarian pizza’s make up but a fragment of their gross national sales. Beyond sales figures and the false presumptions that all vegetarians flourish in crystalline perfection (which disenfranchises an entire population of vegetarians who wish earnestly to save poor, helpless, animals yet can’t save themselves from cellulite), there is a collinear, pernicious and implicit suggestion which irks me to no end. Where, oh where are the sexy, writhing, vegetarian men? Granted, the most salient examples of male vegetarianism such as Moby may not fit the bill, yet who says all those females showing veggies a “good time” in the Super Bowl spot actually were vegetarians? Yet there is not even the slightest pretense of a single naked male veggie-lovin tree-hugger in any of PETA’s campaigns! Well, ever party has a pooper and that’s why I’ve invited Freud, for the man’s diagnosis of the human psyche although wholly phallocentric and incorrect on a few minor quibbles (sorry, but I have never had penis envy; don’t want one, never will) proves disturbingly accurate for our PETA fiasco. Obviously there is some odious psychological implication to selling vegetarianism to a mass audience, exclusively through the imagery of ravenous, over-sexed females. If men are not the only carnivores reeking havoc on animal sanctity, then the gaze of mass consumer culture must be assumed to be wholly inculcated and accustomed to viewing the world through testosterone-colored glasses. Here female sexuality is a generalized medium, a conduit catering especially to the gaze of men but also to females. As well, please see URL link #2 for a spoof of the PETA commercial performed by men to see how perfectly or, rather absurdly the substitution of female veggie “fluffers” actually is, thus proving that the gaze is one-directional and cannot not be inverted and subjected to a man, even when the subject matter is itself as absurd as vegetable eroticism. PETA has thus done to the human animal a deed it condemns others for doing to any other species of living creature; commodified, subjugated, abused (yes…I would judge that making women perform fellacio on a gourd is abuse) and peddled women and female sexuality, all in the name of “animal” rights.

In an Australian advertisement for Lee Jeans, renegade badboy American photographer Terry Richardson was paid $200, 000 to capture this dirty, pseudo-pornographic, "got milk" image. Although the public has been assured that no actual sex occurred on the shoot (unlike some of Richardson's other projects), and beyond the mere infractions on animal rights (which surely has a collection of PETA advocates up in arms), one has to wonder the appeal of merging commercialism, mass commodification, apparel (aimed at a 15-30 age range) and overt and unapologetic "beastiality". In the highly competitive denim market, Richardson has become a hot commodity, charging big names (such as Gucci and Levis) big bucks to "smut up" the denim market with ever-escalating visual depictions of unapologetic, raw and animalistic (taken to the next level with an actual cow in Australia), sexuality. Harkening to culture scholar Laura Kipnis and her work on Desire and Disgust within Hustler Magazine, one is forced to ponder the use of the abject, in the selling and mass commodification of an object (jeans). It is my belief that Lee Jeans is presenting a counter hegemonic stance in its corruption of classical and bound bourgeoisie sexuality (which I shall assume traditionally does not involve cattle) and is fusing this transgression of the social orderings of sexuality with their bottom line. Unlike, what one may refer to as the "elitist" brands of denim (such as Seven's or True Religion) which cater to a market above $100 range, Lee presents a host of products aimed at a far less affluent crowd. In its sale of trendy yet affordable, it has reveled in its "crusade for explicitness" (Kipnis, 222) showcasing pubic hair, body fluid, tattoos and (a distinct absence of denim wear) images which glorify the social settings of lower-class living. This is a sexuality that is far from normative, and appears largely unromanticized (minus the airbrushing). Mimicking and showcasing the styles and trends of higher-priced brands within a setting of explicit sexualized class antagonism and transgression, Lee is commercially "giving the finger" to an elitist commercial market (a gesture which models in Lee campaigns have explicitly done). Commercialism has thus found an outlet in the "transcoding between bodily and social topography" and elevated sexually explicit intersectionality to the level of mass commodification. To me, Lee is to True Religion what Hustler is to Play Boy, and is constructed in direct opposition not only to the classical body, but also the classical brand. Yet it must be admitted that as middle class white men read Hustler, so to does Lee draw its commercial basis from a wide societal spectrum. As well, brands such as Gucci (The top image) which boast style alongside their astronomical price points have also deployed a cornucopia of libidinal ocular interplay. One may thus view Jeans as a premier outlet for the new carnivalesque. A traditional uniform staple of the working class which may now be found in the closets/ hovels of millionaires and paupers alike, jeans are a medium of apparel which offers both rebellion from and momentary entrance into the realm of fantasy and class transgressing festivity. Marketed as such, they are clothing which is emblematic of the "raw". If in the modern era, as delineated by Peter Stallybrass and Allon White in their article "Bourgeois Hysteria and the Carnivalesque", the carnival has been sublimated, perhaps Jeans have become an odd materialization of that sublimation. Serving as spectacle, indulgence and anxiety for numerous societal strata, Jeans, have become the clothing conduit for carnivalesque. It is in their advertising that the carnivalesque and abject element of denim wear has been thrust into public consciousness. Bought under the pretense of partaking in the ad's encapsulation of lust, lechery and social indecency, denim becomes a manifest article of the carnival which is worn throughout the day and accompanies the wearer throughout their travels within the circumscribed realms of social hegemony. -----Perhaps a Stretch? Well the basic underlying tenents remain... denim is marketed and sold to an ever-increasing degree within an ever-sexualizing world of marketing with the utmost in sexual extremes. It holds the remarkable capability to be ubiquitous to the point of cliche whilst retaining its rebellion.

Why Does Sex Sell?

Sex. (n)

A common denominator of the human experience. A physical act geared toward the procreation and propagation of the species. A common divisor between adolescence and adulthood.

An all around good time.

A mass commodified, streamlined, homogenized tool of mass marketing, product prostitution and consumer exploitation.

Why has sex, in this over-visualized market driven consumer universe, become such a powerful medium through with numerous products have been marketed, pitched and promoted. How has sexuality been utilized to peddle everything from yogurt, cars and soft drinks to beer, animal rights groups and fast food chains? Not only has sex been used, but used very VERY effectively. And thus I come to this quandary, searching and hoping to view sex from a new perspective, an analytical perspective, one of active engagement (intellectual that is). With the hopes of investigating how sexuality has become a tool to stock our pantry's, empty our wallets and over burden our existence with numerous products which we acquire due to the suggestive marketing strategies and advertising ploys of companies all too willing to pander to the kinky predilections of the human species. And how has the use of sexuality and sexually charged imagery impacted modern sexuality, sexual expression and sexual identity as we know it? That is my quest...Here is my blog! A few wise words to ponder....

• No matter how much cats fight, there always seem to be plenty of kittens. ~ Abraham Lincoln
• Sex without love is merely healthy exercise. ~ Robert Heinlein
• Sex is emotion in motion. ~ Mae West
• Sex relieves tension - love causes it. ~ Woody Allen
• Condoms aren't completely safe. A friend of mine was wearing one and got hit by a bus. ~ Bob Rubin
• Remember, if you smoke after sex you're doing it too fast. ~ Woody Allen
• The best contraceptive is the word no - repeated frequently. ~ Margaret Smith
• Men get laid, but women get screwed. ~ Quentin Crisp
• Sex. In America an obsession. In other parts of the world a fact. ~ Marlene Dietrich
• When a man talks dirty to a woman, it's sexual harassment. When a woman talks dirty to a man, it's $3.95 a minute. ~ Author Unknown
• Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love. ~ Butch Hancock
• To hear many religious people talk, one would think God created the torso, head, legs and arms, but the devil slapped on the genitals. ~ Don Schrader
• Sex on television can't hurt you unless you fall off. ~ Author Unknown
• My reaction to porn films is as follows: After the first ten minutes, I want to go home and screw. After the first 20 minutes, I never want to screw again as long as I live. ~ Erica Jong
• Familiarity breeds contempt - and children. ~ Mark Twain
• We all worry about the population explosion, but we don't worry about it at the right time. ~ Arthur Hoppe
• Love is the answer, but while you are waiting for the answer, sex raises some pretty good questions. ~ Woody Allen
• There is nothing wrong with going to bed with someone of your own sex. People should be very free with sex, they should draw the line at goats. ~ Elton John
• There's nothing better than good sex. But bad sex? A peanut butter and jelly sandwich is better than bad sex. ~ Billy Joel
• When a guy goes to a hooker, he's not paying her for sex, he's paying her to leave. ~ Author Unknown
• The good thing about masturbation is that you don't have to get dressed up for it. ~ Truman Capote
• A dirty book is rarely dusty. ~ Author Unknown
• If you use the electric vibrator near water, you will come and go at the same time. ~ Louise Sammons
• I think I could fall madly in bed with you. ~ Author Unknown
• Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't! ~ George Bernard Shaw
• Flies spread disease - keep yours zipped. ~ Author Unknown
• Don't knock masturbation - it's sex with someone You love. ~ Woody Allen
• When a man goes on a date he wonders if he is going to get lucky. A woman already knows. ~ Frederike Ryder
• Don't worry, it only seems kinky the first time. ~ Author Unknown
• My father told me all about the birds and the bees, the liar - I went steady with a woodpecker till I was twenty-one. ~ Bob Hope
• Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? ~ Murray Banks
• I once knew a woman who offered her honor So I honored her offer And all night long I was on her and off her. ~ Author Unknown
• Tell him I've been too fucking busy - or vice versa. ~ Dorothy Parker
• My cock doesn't talk politics. ~ S. Sachs
• I think men talk to women so they can sleep with them and women sleep with men so they can talk to them. ~ Jay McInerney (This one in my estimation speaks the most truth)
• An erection is like the Theory of Relativity - the more you think about it, the harder it gets. ~ Author Unknown
• A student undergoing a word-association test was asked why a snowstorm put him in mind of sex. He replied frankly: "Because everything does." ~ Honor Tracy
• Sex is interesting, but it's not totally important. I mean it's not even as important (physically) as excretion. A man can go seventy years without a piece of ass, but he can die in a week without a bowel movement. ~ Charles Bukowski
• When authorities warn you of the sinfulness of sex, there is an important lesson to be learned. Do not have sex with the authorities. ~ Matt Groening
• There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal, particularly in women. Chief among these is the Mercedes-Benz 380SL convertible. ~ P.J. O'Rourke
• I'm not cheap, but I am on special this week. ~ Author Unknown
• A woman occasionally is quite a serviceable substitute for masturbation. ~ Karl Kraus
• To succeed with the opposite sex, tell her you're impotent. She can't wait to disprove it. ~ Cary Grant
• My message to the businessman of this country when they go abroad on business is that there is one thing above all they can take with them to stop them catching AIDS, and that is the wife. ~ Edwina Currie
• I'd like to meet the man who invented sex and see what he's working on now.~ Author Unknown
• The common thread that binds nearly all animal species seems to be that males are willing to abandon all sense and decorum, even to risk their lives, in the frantic quest for sex. ~ Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer