There are some who are quick to point out how women are photographed in other places that are not just the home or some sexual setting. Take the famous picture of the woman in the blue overalls saying “We Can Do It!” that appeared during wartime for example. This particular piece of propaganda demonstrates how women can feel powerful in their own right as they held down the home front while the men were away. Not only that but they helped to provide the materials that the soldiers needed over on the battlefield. The other interesting thing about this poster is that it is similar to the recruiting poster of Uncle Sam proclaiming “I Want You For U.S. Army”. What makes these two pieces of propaganda similar is that they both serve the same purpose of riling up the public to serve their country because they have the power to do so. Even though there have been empowering uses of women as propaganda, however, the majority of ads with women has been degrading as this paper will show.
This statement was particularly prominent in the 1980s which was an era that included sex in everything (Zimmerman & Dahlberg, 2008). Ever since then it has been “rare to view an hour of television and not see a suggestively dressed or undressed female, whether in a program or a commercial” (Zimmerman & Dahlberg, 2008, p.71). The question is why has this become the norm? Why has our society chosen to not only make sexual references subtly but blatantly? Should this even be happening? Many would argue that it should not be happening for having sexual imagery everywhere and in everything women see, especially teenage women can lead to them acting out in aggressively sexual behaviors like whoring. Now while this may be an exaggeration this incredible amount of sexual imagery has led to an increase of teenage girls not only participating in sex but getting pregnant as well which often leads to them not being able to complete high school let alone go to college.
This increase in sexual imagery has also led to a third wave of Feminists who instead of complaining that these advertisements objectify and degrade women embrace and act on their sexuality (Zimmerman & Dahlberg, 2008). Not only that but they see their sexuality as a power which they can utilize to their advantage for this new view “separates women from men and sees women as the dominant sex” (Zimmerman & Dahlberg, 2008, p.72). Thus it can be argued that by taking advantage of the overwhelming use of sexuality, women, particularly those who are college aged, they are taking back their identity by altering the purpose of sexual advertisements. Regardless, it is clear that the goal of feminists has changed to fit the times even if it’s different from the original goal of the first wave in the 1960s.
Now in regards to Sophie Dahl’s advertisement in question, it is obvious that, like the third wave feminists, Dahl agrees that women should embrace their sexuality. What makes this statement so apparent is that the ad itself is a naked woman posed suggestively on a poster promoting Opium. It should be pointed out though that while the woman on the ad is posed in an erotic way, she is still covering her breasts with her hands which suggest a sort of shyness in revealing her naked body. Not only that but “her supine position and diverted gaze insinuate that she is a passive recipient of her pleasure, rather than active, dominant, or in control” (Fernholz, 2013, p.6). In other words, even though Dahl’s advertisement appears sexual, it is contradictory in the fact that the woman seems modest and a bit unsure of the position she is in which makes one wonder what Dahl’s goal truly was in creating this ad.
Fernholz argues that instead of Dahl’s ad being a testament to women’s sexuality, it is about the makeup and styling of the model thus making it “a product of lighting, airbrushing, and makeup artistry rather than a woman in charge of her own body” (Fernholz, 2013, p.6). If this is the real reason behind the ad, then why has there been such a controversy over it? Could it simply be because the woman in the photo is nude? To be honest, it is probably because sexuality is so prevalent in modern society that any time someone sees something displaying a naked woman they automatically think of sex even if they cannot see the woman’s privates. But what if, like Dahl’s ad, that the purpose is not in exploiting a woman’s sexuality for whatever reason but to merely show off a product? It probably seems far-fetched, but it could still be possible.
All in all, it is clear that the issue of how a woman can express her sexuality is still prevalent even today and will most likely still be in the decades to come as they continue to discover who they are and how they fit into society as it too continuously changes. The fact that society still has such an influence on how women act and perceives themselves is in itself incredible for one would think that in the modern era one should be able to portray themselves as one sees fit not by society’s standards. Whether or not this will become a reality is hard to say but hopefully through people like the third wave feminists and Sophie Dahl it may come to be and women will finally be able to do what they believe is right in terms of who they are and how they want the world to see them.
Bibliography
Catalano, C. (2002). Shaping the American Woman: Feminism and Advertising in the 1950s. Constructing the Past. 3 (1). p.45-55.
Fernholz, M. (2013). Opium: Bottling and Commodifying the East. Available: http://www.drake.edu/media/departmentsoffices/dussj/2013-2011documents/Opiumfernholz.pdf. [Accessed: 3rd July 2016].
Zimmerman, A & Dahlberg, J. (2008). The Sexual Objectification of Women in Advertising: A Contemporary Cultural Perspective. Available: http://pure.au.dk/portal/files/10594/8_-_sexual_objectification_of_women.pdf. [Accessed: 3rd July 2016]/
