Whoa. No idea. I'm confused. I wouldn't say this is the "new masculinity" that Nixon talks about in "Representation."
But maybe the "third sex" of homosexuality? The words at the end say "gay ad," but Joe Namath is (i think) a straight former NFL player? Wikipedia doesn't seem to mention his sexual orientation.
It's definitely odd though, because I would never be more persuaded to use a product/clothing designed for females after seeing it "used" or advertised by males. Lol hopefully someone can explain this one for me
This is interesting. I like how the people who put this commercial together included a pretty girl kissing him at the end, as if to say, "This guy's legs look good in pantyhose, but he's still masculine and straight, and girls still find him attractive."
Yeah, I noticed that too, Kate! What's wrong with having good-looking legs? Male or female, it's a pretty enviable physical trait to have...
Also, this made me think of Marc Jacobs, the fashion designer, and his affinity for kilts (or "man skirts" as I guess they are known in the United States). I know that he is a gay man, but it's interesting because he is so hyper-masculine in terms of his appearance as opposed to how he used to look when he first began his career designing for Perry Ellis.
I find it kind of funny that male immodesty generally makes people uncomfortable. If this add was a women lying down, showing off her legs in pantyhose, no one would blink an eye, nor would there be a need for her to kiss a man in order to establish her heterosexuality. Even as a female, I feel odd when watching this add. So maybe Nixon is right-- the gaze is always masculine, making an add like this outside the norms of heterosexuality.
Whoa. No idea. I'm confused. I wouldn't say this is the "new masculinity" that Nixon talks about in "Representation."
ReplyDeleteBut maybe the "third sex" of homosexuality? The words at the end say "gay ad," but Joe Namath is (i think) a straight former NFL player? Wikipedia doesn't seem to mention his sexual orientation.
It's definitely odd though, because I would never be more persuaded to use a product/clothing designed for females after seeing it "used" or advertised by males. Lol hopefully someone can explain this one for me
This is interesting. I like how the people who put this commercial together included a pretty girl kissing him at the end, as if to say, "This guy's legs look good in pantyhose, but he's still masculine and straight, and girls still find him attractive."
ReplyDeleteYeah, I noticed that too, Kate! What's wrong with having good-looking legs? Male or female, it's a pretty enviable physical trait to have...
ReplyDeleteAlso, this made me think of Marc Jacobs, the fashion designer, and his affinity for kilts (or "man skirts" as I guess they are known in the United States). I know that he is a gay man, but it's interesting because he is so hyper-masculine in terms of his appearance as opposed to how he used to look when he first began his career designing for Perry Ellis.
Have a look at the before and after:
Before: http://static.oprah.com/images/tows/200602/20060227/20060227_101_350x263.jpg
After: http://mysticmedusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/600full-marc-jacobs.jpg
I find it kind of funny that male immodesty generally makes people uncomfortable. If this add was a women lying down, showing off her legs in pantyhose, no one would blink an eye, nor would there be a need for her to kiss a man in order to establish her heterosexuality. Even as a female, I feel odd when watching this add. So maybe Nixon is right-- the gaze is always masculine, making an add like this outside the norms of heterosexuality.
ReplyDeleteWhoa he looks like two different guys in the before and after!
ReplyDelete