In early 2002, Wacoal put up a series of posters (the same images adorned their website) advertising their latest products. With the caption, "perfect jugs", a woman clad only in her bra-and-undies was carrying a pitcher of some drink. Likewise, the words "great tits" described a similarly dressed (undressed?) woman against a background of birds that were identified in fine print as "titmouse" birds. A "Nice melons" poster portrayed the 90% nekkid woman surrounded by melons. "Hot buns" with the same woman with a tray of bread. Witty? Exploitative? Unfortunately, the campaign has since been withdrawn and the propellerheads has no copy of the images on file for you to judge.

Anyway, Sol sent in a rather scathing commentary to Wacoal through their website feedback portion. The reply by somebody identified as "Rhindy", Sol's comeback, and some reactions from the floor are below.

If anybody who reads this happens to have a screenshot or a copy of this poster series, please email me. Thanks.

Dear Doris, (a.k.a. Sol)

Gee I don't think I can call you Jugs. How about something more realistic, like Teacups?

Saucers

----

When I worked in an entertainment company, I had the chance of being a creative person and generate ideas and gimmicks. So when I saw the Wacoal ad for the first time, it was very funny to me. But it's not the content of the ads that was funny to me, but the creative people behind this. Actually, walang arrive/dating sakin yung ads, natuwa lang talaga ako sa mga nakaisip nun. (the ads didn't make much of an impression but i was amused by whoever came up with the idea)

My personal opinion, tingin ko it would be offensive to some women, pero okay lang for other women. Siguro tingin ng Wacoal na maraming babae ang ma-a-attract ng ads nila at makaka-angat sa sales nila. And they gambled kahit na alam nilang meron ding ma-o-offend. (I think it would be offensive to some but not all women. Wacoal probably thought that many women would be attracted by the ads and it would help sales. And they gambled even if they knew that there would be some people who would be offended)

My opinion, the company will be punished or will be rewarded depending on the acceptance of the public. If the idea is not okay to many women, then the company will surely suffer from decrease in sales. Let's see. Let the wallets do some talking.

Idea and opinion ko lang to ;>
(This is just my own idea and opinion)

-Jon

----

Hmm...what are Wacoal's previous ad lines? I've never really noticed their ads till now. Now as for these new ads, now I actually think they're cute, even though when I first saw them I was kind of shocked that I should see these things in uptight Singapore.
Hmm, perhaps I might be called unmodern for this, but exactly what is sexist about portraying women as objects of sexual desire? Are not those posters relying on male sensuality the same thing? Is not getting offended at portrayals of females as sexual objects and not getting offended at portrayals of males sexism in itself?

Honestly wondering,
Rex

The only evil thought is the refusal to think, and the only stupid question the one left unasked.

----
In my opinion, portraying men or women as objects of sexual desire is an insult to human dignity.

:0)
Junjun
----

But why??? Sex is human glory at one of its most intense...I guess not the kind that passes for "sex" with some people...when they think of it as a dirty chore (!!) only to be performed for the sake of having kids...eeeeek!

Anyway, I find that when people look at me as an object of sexual desire, it's one of the greatest compliments ever possible. Why should we deny an essential part of the human spirit?

Rex

----

Hi Guys,
I've been following the discussion over the Wacoal ads on Hot Pandesal for quite some time and --- with great interest.

I don't buy Rhindy's explanation. Why?

First of all, there must be a distinction between advertising and being critical. Advertising is hardly about being critical (I have a hard time thinking of ads that are "critical"); advertising is not about changing the world or "educating" people or giving people alternative ways of thinking about themselves, their bodies, etc. We wish it were; some people who work in advertising wish it were (at least, that's what my ad agency friends say) but that's not the case. Advertising is about selling. This is the sole motivation of advertising. It's about manipulating and/or taking advantage
of public opinion so you can push your product and carve a niche in the market and make as much money as you can. That's what the Wacoal ads are about. That's what Rhindy's reply to Sol is about.

Second, Rhindy uses public opinion as a rationale/defense for putting out those Wacoal ads. He talks about "existing standards of decency", the grandparents who they polled after the ads came out,etc. He talks about "market research" and how men and women here in Singapore take to the innuendo like "ducks to water". He talks about the magazines and newspapers that use the words. And he pulls out all the stops when he cites " well educated women" as using the language themselves. But we must remember, public opinion (i.e. "existing standards of decency", is just that --- public *OPINION* --- and public opinion is hardly the least discriminatory and unchauvinistic way of thinking there is in the world (e.g. look at the case of "public opinion" regarding refugees and immigrants in Australia now; look at "public opinion" in the US immediately after the Sept 11 bombing; look at "public opinion" regarding domestic workers here in Singapore and elsewhere).

Third, I really have a bone to pick with this Rhindy guy with regards to his claim that the ads are "empowering". While it is true that " Various ethnic or minority groups, for example, will turn a derogatory ‘label’ that others level at them and deliberately attach it to themselves", such an act is not done in a vacuum but is accompanied by other changes within the text (in this case, the pictures in the Wacoal ads) or on a bigger scale. I don't think the Wacoal pictures, as such, really depart from the "classic" lingerie ads in their appeal to the "male gaze" (and please take note that both men AND WOMEN can look at such ads with a "male gaze" as women have internalized this "male gaze"); if anything, the accompanying words ("jugs", "Melons" etc.) REINFORCE this "male gaze" instead of changing or making fun of it as Rhindy claims. I think any claim made by a *lingerie* company that they are "empowering" to women is highly questionable, in the first place!

Finally, I think that a confident, sassy and clever woman would put a man, and especially, the one she loves in his place, if he dares call her breasts "jugs", "melons" or "tits". A confident, sassy and clever woman would drop a guy who is attracted to her, is "driven mad", loves her for "looking this fantastic in Wacoal lingerie". A confident, sassy and clever woman does not need lingerie of a certain type and certainly, not of certain brand, in order to feel sexy or feel good about her body. This is something that Wacoal will never say. This is something advertising will never claim. And while, we may not be able to do anything to make Wacoal apologize for or retract their ads, this is something, consumers such as those of us here in NUS, should know, whatever reaction we may have towards those Wacoal ads, and whether or not we buy lingerie.

Bea

----

Everyone should be responsible for themselves, and as responsible people we should expect the same of other people. So Wacoal must be held responsible for any ads in their name. So must the ad agency. But then who will enforce this? Consumers, of course. The forces of a free market are the most objective judge of right and wrong. Of course, if we do not agree with its decision, we can choose not to take part, by boycotting perhaps. That is why Sol's call for a boycott is perfectly just, as it leaves its reader with a choice, and does not persuade by force of anything other than the reader's sense of what is right. Boycott them if you want, but I won't (then again, I'm not a consumer :p or so you think... ;p heheh)

Rex

I might not agree with you, I won't fight for your right to speak out
either. However, when I fight for mine, indirectly you shall also benefit. If you fight alongside me, you are my comrade. If you fight in front of me, you are my leader. If you fight behind me, you are my follower. If you fight against me, you are my enemy. But if you don't fight at all, you are my parasite. Think about it ;)

----
Advertisers are the most directly responsible for creating the ads. That's what they're in business for. Profit-maximizing companies are responsible for demanding such ads (scandalous, high-publicity, sensational...) and are also responsible for producing goods and services that satisfy consumer wants; that's why they're in business. Consumers are responsible for making the decision to buy those goods and services because they believe what the ads tell them (only Wacoal can make me sexy, let alone empowers the whole wide world of female sisterhood; only Bodyshop can make me a responsible citizen who cares for the environment; only Johnsons baby powder can make me feel like a loving father to his children, only Jollibee can be the place where my kids feel at home, only Megamall can be an airconditioned sanctuary where my family can spend Sundays---as opposed to Luneta or perhaps even church). But all of these profit-maximizing companies, and believe me this might just as well include Bodyshop or Johnson's baby powder, are out there because the cash is up for grabs. If Bodyshop really wants to be a worldwide do-gooder, then why do they have such fat profit margins and why do they care to be listed on the stock exchange? Are they doing consumers a (dis)service with their pricing policies? Are they also not pursuing a long term profit maximization strategy? The common denominator among all of those for-profit organizations who use advertising is this: they all exploit human values (whether or not these values are the right ones or the wrong ones), they play with human sensitivities in order to affectively seduce people to make them rich. That's the sinfulness of capitalism. Frankly, speaking I find it so offensive. But what's a better economic system to replace the only thing we have so far? Will we ever find one or will we still end up with the next best thing? We may propose our values and beliefs to others but we ought not to impose these on them.

Miggy