Here’s a wrong-headed moment moment: the MTV advertisement you see above is a Portuguese safe-sex ad aimed at women. It makes the unsubtle comparison that having unsafe sex is like pointing a gun at your vagina. Powerful!
Today’s media-weary people, adolescents especially, are harder to reach with messages as advertisements saturate our visual world more and more. Yet the clueless ladies at Jezebel.com (owned by Gawker Media) think this is a horrible message.
Megan Carpentier, under the heading “Safe Means Never Having a Gun Pointed at Your Vagina” wrote this when posting the ad [*UPDATE: Megan's post was removed from Jezebel, she denied writing it, then she put it back up but with a different picture (see below)]:
This safe sex advertisement from Portugal reads, “Girls, protect yourself. Demand your partner wear a condom.” Sexualizing rape and domestic violence and putting the onus on women to protect themselves scream “safe” to me, too.
Please, Megan. The message is pretty clear, and only antsy “ZOMG! Weapons and women!” types would see this advertisement as “sexualizing” rape. When you look for a message, you get that message. Except you get this one wrong: the message has always been that women must be responsible for their own safety when it comes to sex and not rely on the man to do it for them. That’s been a historically pro-woman stance that you now berate.
The ads themselves aren’t meant to make you feel “safe” Megan, they are made to make you feel unsafe so that your behavior–ensuring condoms are used–will keep you safe.
Carpentier links to another “ZOMG!” site that takes these ads out of context, the ironically-named Contexts.org. They have a running “Sociological Images” bit. They make the point that the penis is, once again, shown as “inherently or naturally useful for enacting violence and women’s bodies inherently or naturally vulnerable to violation from men.”
Please! A campaign designed to get women to think about their own safety and to protect themselves is now being turned around as a campaign that will hurt women and that encourages/sexualizes rape and violence against them.
I can’t explain how the left can take interpretation so bizarrely out of focus as was done here.
Wikipedia photos to be deleted
NYC Wedding March – September 26, 2010
Joaquin Phoenix is a poser
Flushing Meadow Corona Park skate park
East Village Park and Williamsburg Bridge photos
100 People I Photographed for the Creative Commons
Pakistan flood devastation statistics
Cordoba House / Ground Zero mosque protest photos
The void in my blogging (and some photos)
Rihanna video with Eminem about Chris Brown?
1. My 5 year old son saw that picture before I could click the box closed (shame on me!) but his interpretation of what he saw was quite interesting. After sharp intake of breath, widened eyes and a boyish chuckle, he advised “that’s not very nice. Someone’s going to staple her butt ?” To which I replied with a smile, “yes dear. And that’s not very nice. Never staple someone’s butt, sweetheart”. Honesty is not always the best policy.
2. I think this chick removed the post after she wrote it because she had the same emotional gut reaction that my child had. The photo is shocking. So Megan may have temporarily lost her mind. Once she had collected all her marbles and thought it through, I gather she realized the potency and purpose of the message, and removed her blithering post. Just my 2 Cents…..
Anyone who starts a conversation with “Dude” is probably about to say a whole lot of defensive bullcrap…..AND anyone who ends it with “get over yourself” is probably still feeling speechless at the end of that same defensive bullcrap.
“Dude” and “get over yourself” are like the crunchy chocolate bullshit cookies that hold in the sweet creamy defensive bullcrap filling.
“dude, i’m, like, 22 years old and a shit paid blogger for gawker, stoned out of my mind and you srsly expect me to know what the hell i write? oh. my. god. ew! stop pestering me! go away!”
lol. how long has that bastard of the seven sisters been at jezebel? I only go to gawker. sometimes.
I bet sales of both guns and naked women increase dramatically in Portugal, huzzah for advertising! But they really should have posted a phone number or website if they wanted my gun/naked women business…
Dear Megan:
This is an example of a beautifully scaped vagina. No reason to envy, get mad and muddle with angry slur.
Its called laser hair removal, and should take care of your problem within 6-8 weeks.
Hugs and kisses.
M.
Twitter: davidshankbone
says:
@Cheeri- I’m not sure because like you, I don’t usually go to Jezebel, although I like Gawker.
@Dan – What happened to your old gun/naked woman service?
@Michal – good advice!
@Sam – I think Megan’s “putting the onus on women to protect themselves” idiotic statement embarrassed her, she realized it was stupid hours after posting, and decided to also get rid of the visually assaulting photo at the same time since so many women were commenting (you can see – they’re still there) as though they were traumatized. She could have just said, “We received some complaints about the photo, so I wrote a new post” and be done with it. Now she looks like a liar.
“I also don’t know why you feel entitled to pester me for hours because the title of a post changed. Get over yourself.”
Wow! Who would possibly believe that you would care enough to read what this nit-wit writes, respond to it on your own blog, and then when she removes it, ask her why.
Get over yourself, David!
it looks like she put the original post back up, but without the photo she had before. its funny that for a post that was put up at 5:20 it sure has a lot of comments time stamped before it appears. i guess jezebels readers are so in sync with the site they know what they’ll write before they do and start commenting before a post appears. maybe their menstrual cycles all work the same way.
I’m with Samantha here. Anyone who starts a comment with “dude” is not only being patronizing but is also classless.
The picture is art, IMO, and speaks volumes to anyone who has a clue about what women are subjected to. This is something that needs to be said and showed.
Well done, Dave.
Hey this is kind of fun…
Cecilia- who would possibly believe you care enough to read a nit wit’s blog, then read another blog about the nit wit’s blog, then post a comment like anyone would care what you have to say…
Cecilia get over yourself.
Megan Carpentier is not only being unfair to her readers, but untruthful to herself in regards to really making a positive point about the “safe sex” image she utilized in her post. Talk about twisting something around to suit the ideals of a misguided thought process into the realms of rape and domestic violence. Just looking at the ad is shocking, but it sends a clear message. Take responsibility for yourself as a women and empower yourself to “call the shots” when it comes to sexual activity/conduct. The same can be said for the male population as well.
As for being asked why a change occurred on upon her post. The reply from her is juvenile in nature or possibly just a prime example of someone who cannot justify their stance for the sake of sensationalism.
Dude, am I right or wrong? Ha…
Twitter: davidshankbone
says:
You hit the nail on the head, Bobby – the image is shocking and powerful, but I think the Jezebel lasses transferred valid critiques and applied them to the wrong image. That people thought it actually sexualized domestic violence and rape shows how far off course they are.
It’s a shame – the ad was meant to provoke a strong response. Unfrotunately, it’s shock value was completely taken out of context by Megan and Jezebel. It’s far easier to criticize and warp a safe-sex ad. Both the left and right do it, both writing with equally myopic views.
I also find it worrisome that women are so afraid and scared, that an image whose intent they already knew, nonetheless reacted to messages it never intended.
What Dave dude said….
I don’t have a comment about this whole bicker fight back and forth between one blogger and another- I don’t read either of your blogs! so there! But someone did send me this link so that I could take a look at the ad and I DO have a comment about that. At first glance (and second and third and fourth
it seems like a very violent image. There is a naked woman with a gun being pointed at her. The analogy is that not using a condom is dangerous to your health, and I totally get it, but I can’t help but think of the other analogies that can be drawn. Sex is violent. Sex is unsafe for women. A man’s penis can be used as a weapon against women. And finally, due to the woman’s very sexual and provacative positioning, that violence is sexy. I also wonder what survivors of sexual violence, particularly survivors who were raped with objects, or we could even take it a step further, survivors who were raped with guns, might feel seeing this image. If nothing else it is certainly an in your face ad campaign and has inspired a lot of discussion. I just wonder how many women saw it and then went out and bought some condoms or initiated a conversation with their partner about safer sex practices as compared to the number of women who saw it and felt less safe, less powerful, more objectified, triggered, and violated.
Twitter: davidshankbone
says:
Steph, multiple contexts can be drawn from just about any image. What sort of advertisement would be more effective in getting the message across? Certainly two women walking on the beach discussing safe-sex ala a Summer’s Eve commercial would not work.
The effect of the ad is to say, in instant imagery, that you need to protect yourself against STDs with the use of a condom, and if you don’t you are putting your health at risk. The response from Jezebel’s readers seems to be, ‘that image does not make me feel safe and leaves me unsettled.’ That was the entire point of the ad.
My sense is that Carpentier wrote a cheap blog post, not thought-out very well, about a visually jarring image that was meant to be.
From the commenters’ reactions, it seems the image managed to convey a different message from what it was supposed to do. That means the image is not doing what it’s supposed to do. MTV should probably redo/rethink how to minimize misconception. They did try their best though
It’s all very subjective as an image can convey a lot of different messages depending on who views it.
Twitter: davidshankbone
says:
I don’t think that just because some political types find a far-flung interpretation of the image that it is not effective. The image is meant to get women to think about safe-sex and protecting themselves. I’d say I haven’t seen many more effective ads than this given the attention and conversation around it.
Hi there,
I was looking for this image to see what the discussion on it was like. It was actually included in someone’s anti-advertising presentation, oppressive media.
I agree with Stephanie. It is a very violent IMAGE, although the message in small letters on the top right corner tell us what it means. Shankbone, you’re right, it IS supposed to leave us unsettled, it is thought-provoking. BUT…
Honestly, there could have been a better way to portray this.
I am living with the lifelong result of unprotected sex but I never formulated this type of metaphor. There could have been a better way to reach the masses, without creating such a wild tangent.
Every woman’s body is precious, and she needs to protect it from harm.
The image of a gun pointed at her is too strong when violence against women is so widespread.
I see what you’re saying, but yeah…
My main argument is…
I’m not stupid, I don’t need a picture of a gun to understand danger.
You know what I’m sayin’?! Lol
Show me tombstones, doctor’s office visits (like the new HPV commercials), real-life effects of STDs…
They didn’t emphasize these enough in grade school.
Sincerely,
S
Twitter: davidshankbone
says:
Good points. I will say that the ad was tremendously effective in having people see it, think about it, and discuss it. So, for its creators and sponsors, it is likely considered a success no matter.