the practice of letting girls in for free or at discount to encourage them to go to clubs is common place to say the least, a practical application of the idea that you can't have a good party if there isn't enough eye-candy to grind up against.
it is a curious act of reverse-discrimination, showing preference to women even though the only thing they did to earn it was to be born with two x chromosomes. but ultimately it is for the benefit of the guys who (according to cultural mythos) are all looking for some hot piece of ass to take home at the end of the night; no one likes a stag party (unless it's at a strip club) because there's no chance of getting lucky.
the problem is that it reinforces the deeply embedded idea that women are there for the sake of men, that if a dude goes to a club or party, it is his due to get that women be there for him. women get in free because the implication is that they'll be giving out much more...
this summer a friend informed me of a practice where club managers actually pay attractive twenty-something women to sit in the club, drink a bottle of top-shelf (on the house), and look like they're having a really fucking good time.
i know a lot of people will tell me this is not at all like prostitution; others will tell me that girls who pose topless and covered in a fine mist in diesel jeans ads are also not like prostitutes.
they're right: prostitutes make a lot more money.
but to me, this all looks like sex-work. in each case, women are being paid to do something because they are "sexy". the message sent is: "dudes, you might get laid" ... that no money is exchanged for the actual sex act does not change the essence of it.
that said, i for one, can't say i would turn down a paying gig in which i sit on my butt, get drunk and basically have an awesome fucking time... so go figure.
So what should be done about the marketability of a woman's sexuality? Anything that is highly valued in society will be marketed in the hopes of profit, even something as abstract as the idea of a sexy woman. Simple economics would dictate that the demand would have to drop, or alternative demands would have to rise. Perhaps if everyone shared your disdain for such advertising, it would be easy, but that is a very distant future, if at all.
ReplyDeleteSeeking desirability in ourselves and our mates is an innate instinct. What constitutes the recipe for desirability is subjective to each of us, usually being some proportion of physical attractiveness and emotional attractiveness. And clearly, one of those is more easily advertised than the other.
So trying to change the market on women's sexuality is going to be difficult. It's easier to market and already has the upper hand. And what alternatives should compete? And what should Diesel do instead? They are a fashion company, so the look of the wearer should be a selling point, no? If it's too sexy or provocative and too exploitative, then should they just tone it down a bit? Opt for a different brand image? If "sexy" is their current setting, what could they change their advertising tactics to? Family-friendly, rugged, casual, classy, etc; all these markets are markets that already exist for fashion. To simply say they shouldn't do "sexy" is an untenable position. But if they do do "sexy," then they have to be competitive. And in that case, it would be which advertising can be the sexiest.
I'd say focusing on the exploitation/marketability of a woman's sexiness is the wrong target. Sure, it sucks, but I don't believe it is something that can be directly affected. Whether you agree with me on that or not, I think we can both agree that the original problem this causes is the undermining of women. The endemic mindset is that their sexuality becomes favored above other traits. But I don't believe that their sexuality should become downplayed to favor other traits; there is nothing inherently wrong with being known as sexy or attractive. The problem everyone has is when they ONLY think of women as sexy, attractive, and there for men's pleasure. And to combat that, the cultural perception of women needs to be adjusted to become more aware of the other traits. How this is done is up in the air (strong female characters in media, awareness?), but I don't think the marketability of a woman's sexuality can be fixed.
P.S. I'm not sure if I made this up or heard it somewhere, but I recall something about men paying women to have intelligent conversations with them, and nothing else. Is this equally or less prostitutioney than selling sex? If the guy gets off on talking to intelligent women, it's sort of prostitution, I guess. But is it "less?" Can the amount of "sex" you sell make a grayscale out of sex-work?