So, recently I opted in to receive free year subscriptions to a few magazines. I’ve done this before and received a year of Latina, Popular Science, and some outdoorsy one for my dad. This time there’s a different outdoorsy one for dad, Readers Digest, Ebony, and Elle.
Elle is the first one of mine to show up. The April issue that’s super huge, which I suppose because of all the spring fashion going on. Kerry Washington’s on the cover, although TRESemmé did a huge thing for them, so they have an extra cover over Washington for this issue.
I’ve had fashion magazines before. I’d either purchase a single copy at the store or at one time I dabbled in subscriptions to Seventeen and Vanity Fair. There was also that Vogue’s Fashion Night Out event I attended, in which I received the huge autumn super deluxe issue of Vogue simply for being there.
However, I’d never really paid all that much attention to high fashion ads in the past. With this issue though, there were a few things that made me make faces and then I remembered that fashion ads have been this way, at least since the early – mid nineties.
This ad is still all sorts of wrong. She’s advertising a dress for women to purchase and wear. But, she’s wearing a barely there dress, beckoning me with her hoo-ha and well, if even I did swing that way, this is not a tasteful ad.
It’s a dress no one but perhaps a few very wealthy women will ever wear, or even want to wear for that matter. I’m pretty sure the fashion industry hasn’t changed all that much, so it’s just a woman trying to sell women the clothing that she’s wearing. As in I mean I’m certain it’s not gay-forward as this is just what the fashion industry does. To sell, mainly straight women their clothes. This is “supposed” to say, “Hey ladies, this could be you seducing some man. Just buy these clothes!”
But, really, this ad isn’t telling me that I could wear that and seduce men. It’s just telling me that some twelve-year-old look-a-like is posing in women’s clothing that she’s trying to sell to women… for men to look at her. It just all seems sloppy now to me.
As a teenager, I might have seen this the way they intended, that I could be awesome to men if I could only lay my hands on that Calvin Klein dress! But, really it just looks like kiddie porn to me and it’s distasteful. If I was even considering buying anything Calvin Klein, this ad would certainly make me say, “Nope. No thanks. Not now!”
Seriously? Who the hell are they selling these shoes to?! All this is, is the beginning of girl on girl ON GIRL porn… with shoes. They say they’re selling shoes, but if that’s what this was really about, we’d see three different styles of shoes… in colour. You have to really look at this to even say, “Oh, hey! There are shoes on those gals. This must be an ad for shoes! Well golly!”
I don’t want to buy these shoes. They’re not shoes to write home about and while I can appreciate the female form, three ladies that look like they’re about to be getting it on does not make me want to buy shoes. It makes me want to say, “Oh, hey I’ll buy shoes from someone else… who actually has interesting shoes and doesn’t need naked porn ladies in order to try and sell their boring shoes.”
The Sister thinks it’s a brave ad. She liked it. But, she also tends to strive to not be seen as a prude, so I can’t really take this into full consideration. Her last comment was “Most people probably saw it the way you did; they didn’t like it… not that that’s bad…”
The Sister also thinks I have a problem with being too prudish. The ad is lovely and fine for art. Women are fine. Naked women are fine. I’m not over here all “Eww grody naked women… and they’re touching! Ewww!!!” I’m over here thinking, why are these women naked and touching to sell me some shoes? Is it necessary? Is it really an ad for me? Or is it just the whole sex sells thing. If so, are women seeing other naked women touching and thinking, “I HAVE to have these shoes!” because what? They’re thinking that these shoes will magically make them look like this? These shoes will somehow magically make men think they look like this? Is this ad even for women at all? Is it pushing a boundary that doesn’t need to be pushed? Or is it fine and I’m just a prude? I’m really just seeing these two ads and wondering why the ads were made. Why they were really made. Is it just “Ooh, this will be fabulous! Let’s cross a line, push the envelope. We’ll be legends in the spring couture line-up of ads. People will remember this!” Is it just art for arts sake? I simply have questions here.
I also forgot how oh-so-not-charming nor amusing these magazines can be. “Which is perfect because silk PJs are totally trending and pair perfect with stilettos.”
Who wrote this? Try not to read that in a “gag me with a spoon” Valley girl voice. I dare you. It just comes to naturally reading that. I think it’s the “totally” that really gives it some oomph.
Are silk pyjama’s “totally” trending right now… with stilettos? I have absolutely no clue. For all I know they “totally” are! It would be funny if the writers were joking, but they’re not. This was the most ridiculous quip in the magazine, but it wasn’t the only one. There were things far worse than “daytime dance party!!! Who needs coffee when you’ve got amazing tunes to get your day started.”
Tell me, honestly. How many of you, by a show of hands, get up and start rocking out to your favourite tunes? I’m surprised there isn’t a picture of a spunky, super awake girl in nothing but tiny undies and a tank top jumping around to her awesome tunes. You know. You’ve seen the picture. It’s THE go-to picture for things like this.
None of it was true to life or real. I do admit that I might have been completely loopy for this type of stuff as a teen, but now it just seems really juvenile. It’s just everything we think famous people do, and need to be told that’s “totally” how we should live our “awesome” lives.
Also The Sister claims that it would be perfectly lovely to wear silk pyjamas with stilettos and go to Target. She won’t do it, but she’s certain that loads of people would and are doing this. I just don’t see it. Is she just trying to be contrary? Sorta seems so, since she’s completely on board with the idea, but doesn’t actually want to wear that out in public.
I generally don’t have anything against OPI, except for the price. I liked that they had an India and Germany theme and purchased colours from those lines. I also like the polish names. We all do. But when it hits so close to home it seems rather hokey.
“Really? New Orleans? But that’s my backyard. That’s not awesome or exciting. Well, I suppose for people who don’t live here it is… but still that’s kind of dumb. She’s A Bad Muffaletta! You’ve got to be kidding me. ”
I’m sorry but I can really take them seriously anymore. A muffaletta is a sandwich. I know these are always a play on words type of deal. But it’s like saying “Don’t Chef Boyardee Me.” or whatever. It’s this sandwich with salami type meats and a topping of chopped up olives and … stuff. It’s not cute like a macaron or something, it’s dirty grub food. This is not the word you’re looking for OPI. Just no.
I understand that most of the things made in high fashion are simply art. Wearable art, but still art none-the-less. You either like it or you don’t. Incidentally I don’t love this jacket. But the clothing is not the reason I’ve included it.
While I don’t understand why they’re in the bathroom together and she just wants to dry her hands and he’s all “But I’m SO pretty! We must leave now Frenra! To the Gucci mobile to find Dranara so she can fit me for an even more hideous cowboy jacket.”
The reason I included it is because I actually like “Frenra’s” outfit in its entirety… and because somehow I’ve ended up being fashionable, because apparently Frenra there is sporting some pretty epic granny glasses and if Gucci say’s they’re the new hot item, then by damn they must be!
Again, Gucci with the granny glasses and the Judy Bernly blouse. I find it fabulous. well, the blouses and the glasses. But again Gucci says I’m in style. Which I find amusing, but it is something that I did certainly notice.