Amy Jussel at Shaping Youth http://www.shapingyouth.org/blog/?p=969#comment-156406 called this TARGET ad to our attention and asked us what we thought. The ad didn't strike us as forcefully as some, but that could be the point here. The innocence and playfulness of making snow angels (with the hat and scarf, the girl smiling, perky--as much as one can be lying on one's back--in that usual over-the-top Target way) is as primary as the sexual availability/suggestion of sexual violence of the spread eagle position on the target (and the camera angle). Could it be that it's this combination that's so disturbing, the blend of innocence and sexualization? We're seeing more of this all the time, whether it's the VS Angel Collection or the Bratz Dolls (with the little halo over the a) or sexy/innocent Halloween costumes for little girls. These are the kinds of images designed to be so subtly suggestive that people are called crazy or dirty minded for questioning them. But of course in reality they normalize these relationships--i.e., between sexy and innocent. The sad reality is that a girl lying on her back spread eagle is more provocative and attention getting (and thus sellable) then a girl snowboarding or standing on the center of the target in another sort of pose. What do you think? Are we reading too much into this?

Comments

[Her Grace]

I don't think you're overreacting at all. In college, I took a logic class, which (weirdly) delved into subliminal advertising. There's sexual innuendo in nearly every (adult) ad, even if it isn't blatant. This one, however, doesn't even try to hide it.

[Felicia]

This is happening more and more all the time. Its intentional and sad that we've stooped so low to sell products.

[Shaping Youth]

Hi ladies...thanks for posing the question, amidst what's turned into an absurd brouhaha, and all out flame-game of my post on the Mn.Speak site. Really wish they'd elevate to a more cerebral level and bigger context than this one Target ad...

As I've reiterated many times before in this absurd 'debate,' this is a comparatively MILD case of an ongoing, profoundly damaging objectification trend in advertising and marketing in general which has gone beyond the obvious products (beer, fashion, cologne, etc.) into household goods and ‘family firms.’

A gazillion new links are on Shaping Youth in the comments section from others who concur this was no ‘oops’…

Here’s hoping it either escalates into a larger context or fades out altogether, for instinct tells me somewhere there's a snarky creative director pumping fists with a “yes, we got what we wanted, free publicity for Target.” Or worse...

"Yo! Let’s copycat this ‘crass enough to claim cluelessness’ objectification on all our accounts… not ‘Axe’ level stuff, just ‘edgy’ enough to start a viral pundits war and get the blogosphere blazing, woohoo!"

Eesh. For that reason alone I’m not posting an update on Shaping Youth and moving on to more important issues.

I’ll continue to add new links in our comment section, including yours, but I’m stickin’ with my original assessment & analysis and hope that the conversation evolves into ‘bigger picture’ discourse of what we’re putting out there in the way of ambient advertising and subversive messaging, to boys and girls alike.

[hello]

you guys are reading to much in to this....it is probably overexposure to the stuff you see -doctors get this problem all the time when first in the field...

[hello]

i went and saw the original picture and it is not bad-the icon makes the legs longer and distorted but in the regular picture they are fine and two, the person is not 12 -it is a teenager and she is not even centered in the picture -she off center to the left.