Friday, August 19, 2011

Yeah right, Roger David. This is not sexualised at all.











The only good thing about this ad is that the comments in The Age are disparaging, and with the brief browse I took, there were none that said something like: oh what are you all going on about, it's nothing. Nanny State blah blah, this is what we've come to? Starving children in Africa and you worry about this, it's just a bit of fun, etc.
Fact: the girl above has a barcode on her shoulder that says SLAVE
Fact: the girl above has something in her mouth that makes her look gagged or ready to receive a penis
Fact: the girl above may be eighteen, but she doesn't look eighteen.
Fact: the slogan New Love Club doesn't mean Buy Your Clothes at Roger David. What could it mean? Could it means she is so young, she is new to love? She is a virgin? She is a child? It sounds to me like a pederast's personal blog page.
Fact: the girl above isn't wearing any masculine clothes, garments that you might suppose a person might buy at a Roger David store
Fact: there is no male model wearing clothes that you might suppose you could purchase at a R D store.
I really wish that imbecilic marketing/ad agencies used things other than the sexualisation of children in their quest for controversial and high-profile campaigns and their pursuit of the dollar. They think we are idiots? No, they know that the response to this will put RD way up in the google returns list. It makes them edgy, funny that. RD always seemed so daggy. Oh, that means it's worked and all my moaning is completely irrelevant.
Link to Age article: http://www.theage.com.au/national/banned-ad-inappropriate-20110818-1j07e.html?comments=67#comments

22 comments:

Alex said...

Jesus, even without the suggestion of child molestation, that's creepy looking.

Fact: the girl above has something in her mouth that makes her look gagged or ready to receive a penis

Okay, I know that 99% of people are not going to make this connection, but back in the day, British porn distributors used to cover up penetration (and ejaculate, I think) on movie jackets with little Union Jacks (example here *feel free to moderate*). That's the first place my mind went.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said, and would also like to mention two related things that irk me further: 1) having this stuff on huge billboards where you can't not look at it. 2) Hearing parents unthinkingly tell their eight-year-olds that they look "sexy".

BookMoth said...

"Hey! If we market these t-shirts as 'unisex', maybe no-one will realise they're misogynistic and sexist!"

http://www.newloveclub.co.uk/index.php/shop/

Augh. Pass me the bucket. It's like the last one hundred years of women's liberation never happened.

Anonymous said...

The heart symbol is the symbol of the brand. Its also a trend in the UK to make symbols with your hands Like lady GAGA. Look at the brand, 'Hype means nothing'
she does have something in her mouth, she is gagged, but its not about sex its about not having a voice. A generation feeling like they are not being heard by their government. Tuition fees being increased 3 fold.
The slave stamp is not a sexual comment. Its a comment on financial slavery and debt. Debt = Slavery not freedom.
You people have issues if you look at this and see sex rater than a provocative comment on an issue affecting a generation that you’re obviously out of touch with.
This is not remotely sexually provocative to a younger generation that has grown up with internet porn on tap.

what a cool brand for inadvertently creating such a debate with its work. Thats what all good subversive artists do. Instead of just dismissing their reasoning as a lie or a clever masterminded publicity stunt, why not look at the issues that have been highlighted by its explanation.
This has no doubt been created by a youth generation for a youth generation.

Anonymous said...

I dont see it as sexualised. She’s not wearing make up and thats why you see her as looking too young…!! Hypocrisy
There are much worse images than this one by New Love Club.
Look at French Vogue:
http://lemonsblack.com/far-too-much-far-too-young/

Alex said...

Well, Anonymous, I certainly agree that the Vogue one looks even creepier.

You people have issues if you look at this and see sex rater than a provocative comment on an issue affecting a generation that you’re obviously out of touch with.

I have issues because I didn't twig that an ad for men's clothing would be making some incredibly veiled comments about social economics rather than using the oldest strategy in the book? Out of touch, am I?

...Actually, the fact that I barely know who Lady GAGA is leads me to think you may have a point.

Alex said...

...But I'd still be surprised if a vast majority of shoppers were joining all of those dots (don't know why that didn't come out the first time).

MG said...

Wow, look at this Alex. Commenters. Goody.

Where do I start?

You know what, I'm not going to pick apart every sentence, cause that's what it would take. Anon number 1, you make so many excuses there and I'm not buying a single one of your points. It's a fucking clothes ad, so that simple fact negates every thing you say. You are trying to make it about the political and the social. And then you blithely say that for a generation that's grown up with porn on the internet, this is nothing. Doesn't make it okay. You're the one with the problemm, the skewed view.

This is subversive art? It's advertising. Nothing more, nothing less. This has been created by a youth generation - maybe - for a youth generation, maybe. But it's still about making money. It's not edgy, it's exploitative.

Read Alex's interesting snippet of info about the Union Jack being used as a censoring button. This to me is more evidence of the messages being sent by this ad. Not so subliminal at all.

I'm glad to see though that my blog has good returns in the internet searches. Managed to drag in at least one apologist for the Roger David 'juggernaut.' (Snort).

Anonymous said...

roger david is the wrong market for that kind of stuff. Thats why the over-reaction. The way that generation of people perceives imagery is different to the way a 20-something generation would see the same image.

Anonymous said...

The union jack thing in that porno, thats so obscure... claiming its an industry trend, please its one movie with a London theme so they used union jacks. I doubt very much that they saw that movie.

Anonymous said...

The majority of people who have a problem with this image are the people who are objectifying her. Because this girl has no make up on and appears younger they are actually disgusted by their own sexual objectification of her. This type of projection is actually quite revealing. Freudian I know. People who don't view images in the same way don't have issue and cant see the fuss.

Anonymous said...

You shouldn't just expect advertising to prey on peoples sexual drives. Some companies attempt to appeal to specific markets on other levels. This image is London specific and relates to current events there. It was created for the student market by London based 'New Love Club' and was used by Roger David and as such has been taken out of context in Australias middle market.

Anonymous said...

I dont think New Love Club are using that image as an advert, Roger David did. New Love Club create imagery and it looks like they are starting to create thought provoking imagery. Unfortunately, it seems, taken out of context it just goes over the heads of people who see a teen in an ad and just see sex in every aspect of an image that actually discusses another issue entirely.

Alex said...

Well, Melbs, you're spoilt for choice now.

Anon, I can personally attest that the use of Union Jacks on British porno jackets was common practice for a good number of years. You don't have to take my word. It should be simple enough to verify.

I had a look at the New Love website and they seem to use a lot of images of young women in various states of undress. Whether or not that's anything more than a cynical attempt to flog t-shirts is open to interpretation, I guess; but as one Anon said, if you're going to use the above image to sell men's clothing, in Australia, without making any attempt at providing any sort of context, it makes whatever your artsy political message is, kind of hard to discern.

MG said...

Indeed Alex but they are all the same anonymous; making different points in different comments.

So I hope you're getting paid anonymous, for propagating the party line. My blog really must rank pretty high for you to have found this post. Do you get paid by the hour or by the comment? Astroturfing is a growth business it seems.

Anonymous said...

I take issue when people are propagating the same mindless media fed line seemingly to make them feel self-worth.

Hows your ranking?

MG said...

That doesn't make sense anon. Want to try again? I'll give you another shot.

BookMoth said...

Ooooh you have a troll! So exciting!

MG said...

I know Bookie. Very exciting but they seem to have gone.

Anonymous said...

How can anyone claim that an image like this is subversive or artsy or clever or anything else? What the hell is subversive about sexualised images of young women - or children - these days? They're ubiquitous and blatantly misogynistic. Trying to pretend they're pro-women is laughable.

Mendozafalr said...

roger david is the wrong market for that kind of stuff. Thats why the over-reaction. The way that generation of people perceives imagery is different to the way a 20-something generation would see the same image.

Gunarajfmqq said...

How can anyone claim that an image like this is subversive or artsy or clever or anything else? What the hell is subversive about sexualised images of young women - or children - these days? They're ubiquitous and blatantly misogynistic. Trying to pretend they're pro-women is laughable.

Anonymous said...

chwilowki tychy
szybki kredyt pozabankowy
pożyczka na dowód bez zaświadczeń o zarobkach pko
kredyt bez bik pod hipotekę
kredyty hipoteczne
pożyczki pozabankowe
pożyczki bez bik