Advertising critics response to Tom Ford perfume campaign

Tom Ford makes clothes only for men. He makes fragrances only for men. Why do his ads feature women? That was a rhetorical question.

First ad: the woman is biting the f*** you finger. B***j**, much? Other than the sunglasses, what in hell’s name does this have to do with men’s clothes? Oh wait. This isn’t selling clothes. It’s selling a culture.

Second ad (fragrance): the woman has a completely shaved body. This is not anywhere near a natural body. The bottle is placed between the legs. The hand leads to the bottle. The hand is an invitation. The bottle is the gift. Conveniently, it also stands in the place of the vagina. Message of the ad: if you buy this cologne, you also buy vagina. The woman has no head. She is not a real person.

Third ad: Actually has some men’s suits. Anyway, men can remain clothed. Women must be naked and available. Buy Tom Ford, buy a naked woman who will grab your crotch.

Fourth ad: Buy Tom Ford, buy the opportunity to stare at the naked shaved crotch of a woman.

In case you were wondering, the answer to the rhetorical question is that objectifying women is very profitable in the fashion industry. It’s an entire industry built on the assumption that people will pay, a lot, to be objectified (the clothes make you, man, not you your clothes). Clothes = identity.

Tom Ford’s response to criticism that his ads are sexist?

sunburntmirth.wordpress.com

This response is by someone clearly against the fact the woman are objectified in Tom Ford ads. All of the response is negative which shows the contrast against how people reacted to Chanel No.5.