is this dillards ad offensive?

[AngelSoft]

Ehh I dunno. I mean, my main issue is the fact that homecoming is a specifically high school event. And thus the girls attending it are going to be more or less minors. So referring to them as hotties, just on that point alone, is creepy. There’s definitely some sexual undertones in the wording of the ad and that shouldn’t be included in an ad aimed at underage girls.

[Kimstu]

I agree that “homecoming hotties” is kind of inappropriate for an ad about high school girls. (It also seems rather unsuitable as a marketing device aimed at an audience of the girls themselves and their parents, who presumably are the ones buying the prom dresses they’re advertising. If someone was marketing a male grooming product to high school boys with promises that it would bring all the “homecoming hotties”, I would still think that was kind of inappropriate socially, but it would make more sense to me commercially.)

Following up Eonwe’s excellent discussion of various underlying issues by quoting myself from the concurrent thread about the problems of comparing standards of behavior for art/advertising with those for individuals:

@Kimstu

[…] We all agree that in general, art and advertising aren’t always governed by exactly the same rules as individual behavior, right?

For instance, it’s almost universally agreed that it’s inappropriate (not to mention illegal) for people to walk around naked in busy urban areas. But it’s generally (although not unanimously) agreed that it’s okay to display sculptures of nude human figures in busy urban areas (at least in western societies strongly influenced by the arts traditions of classical antiquity). Public display of an artist’s depiction of some behavior is not exactly the same thing as real-life individuals voluntarily choosing to engage in that behavior themselves.

This also pertains to, say, public performance or broadcasting of rap music songs with obscene lyrics. Would it be appropriate for an individual to stand on a street corner and shout at specific passersby obscene invitations taken from rap songs? Definitely not. Is it equally inappropriate for a store to be playing a selection of canned music which includes some rap songs with similarly obscene lyrics? Most people would probably say no, even if they think that such a commercial soundtrack is still somewhat inappropriate in its own right.

Similarly with advertising. As a society, we seem to have accepted that it’s okay to depict at least some behaviors in advertising media that would be inappropriate for individuals to imitate in the same circumstances. E.g., underwear-ad posters showing women or men standing around in their skivvies, which would definitely not be considered appropriate behavior from real individuals in the places where the ads are displayed. Or, say, perfume ads where the models may not even have reached the skivvy-wearing stage.

So I think that’s the context we’ve got to consider when we ask if it’s okay to show, for instance, a prom-dress ad containing the word “hotties” or a billboard for Hooters. I’m not arguing that advertising media can never be inappropriate—on the contrary—but I think it’s pretty obvious that the appropriateness standards for advertising media are not identical to those for the behavior of individuals.

Even by those comparatively relaxed standards, though, I still think that describing high school girls, who are mostly underage, as “hotties” is a bit too sexualized for my taste.

[Scumpup]

Anybody who is not offended many times over by that ad is a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a neo-Nazi, and an animal abuser. Anybody who sees that ad and continues to shop Dillards is all those things AND a Trump-sucking greedhead.

[JohnT]

Ok.

Anyway, asked my daughter and her response (via text):

“Uhhhhhh, a little. Just kinda uncomfortable because they’re minors and the people writing the ads are adults, lol. Not really offensive, but uncomfortable.”

[WOOKINPANUB]

At this point the discussion is about the term “hotties” as applied to teenage girls but I really do think even more than I initially did that they’re referring to the dresses themselves. If you look at the pictures below them, the captions for the evening gowns and the shoes are talking about the merchandise. Not that it has any bearing on what we’re discussing; just saying.

[Kimstu]

@WOOKINPANUB

At this point the discussion is about the term “hotties” as applied to teenage girls but I really do think even more than I initially did that they’re referring to the dresses themselves. If you look at the pictures below them, the captions for the evening gowns and the shoes are talking about the merchandise. Not that it has any bearing on what we’re discussing; just saying.

I think you’re right, especially comparing the parallel captions “Homecoming Hotties”, “Special Occasion Stunners”, and “Entrance-Making Gowns”. The pattern does seem to be one catchy phrase per merchandise category.

But that just leaves me even more baffled, since I’ve never encountered the term “hottie” used to refer to a thing rather than a person. Either their usage is a little idiosyncratic or I am just totally out of touch with cool slang, which is a very plausible explanation.

[WOOKINPANUB]

@Kimstu

I think you’re right, especially comparing the parallel captions “Homecoming Hotties”, “Special Occasion Stunners”, and “Entrance-Making Gowns”. The pattern does seem to be one catchy phrase per merchandise category.

But that just leaves me even more baffled, since I’ve never encountered the term “hottie” used to refer to a thing rather than a person. Either their usage is a little idiosyncratic or I am just totally out of touch with cool slang, which is a very plausible explanation.

I have visions of middle aged ad execs going “what’s the word the kids are using these days. . . Hotties! Yeah, that’ll grab 'em!”

[UnwittingAmericans]

FWIW, I don’t think any of them are hotties, so ring me up for teen model-shaming or whatever the fuck applies.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@UnwittingAmericans

FWIW, I don’t think any of them are hotties, so ring me up for teen model-shaming or whatever the fuck applies.

I want to check out their older sisters for hotness.

Possibly their moms.

[JohnT]

@JohnT

Ok.

Anyway, asked my daughter and her response (via text):

“Uhhhhhh, a little. Just kinda uncomfortable because they’re minors and the people writing the ads are adults, lol. Not really offensive, but uncomfortable.”

Update: in her opinion, the ad is referring to the girls as hotties.

You heard it here first!

[Bricker]

Certainly no high school girl wants to be thought of as a hottie.

Take the ad down.

[JohnT]

… well, they are fine with having other High Schoolers thinking of them as a hottie, Bricker.

[Little_Nemo]

@UnwittingAmericans

When in doubt, take offense.

There’s like 20 offensive things about that if you’re willing to put a little effort into it. Go back and keep looking at it until you come up with more.

Or just claim that somebody else will take offense and then complain about what those imaginary people are saying.

[Kimstu]

@UnwittingAmericans

When in doubt, take offense.

There’s like 20 offensive things about that if you’re willing to put a little effort into it. Go back and keep looking at it until you come up with more.

@Scumpup

Anybody who is not offended many times over by that ad is a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a neo-Nazi, and an animal abuser.

@Bricker

Certainly no high school girl wants to be thought of as a hottie.

Take the ad down.

:rolleyes: This illustrates how divorced from reality the self-described “anti-PC” crowd is on these issues: they’re reduced to mocking straw opponents for outrageously silly views that nobody here actually endorsed.

@Little Nemo

Or just claim that somebody else will take offense and then complain about what those imaginary people are saying.

Yep.

[UnwittingAmericans]

When in doubt, say “straw man.”

[Kimstu]

@UnwittingAmericans

When in doubt, say “straw man.”

Except that there’s no doubt at all about the strawman nature of your arguments.

[Bricker]

@Kimstu

Except that there’s no doubt at all about the strawman nature of your arguments.

My argument is not a strawman. It’s merely lazy and sarcastic.

But, lazy though it is, it is directly responsive to:

Women are in (have always been in?) a struggle to gain agency over and control how they look (or more precisely how they feel about how they look) independently of the male gaze.

[Kimstu]

Well, if you feel like (and are capable of) making an argument on the issue that’s not lazy, I’d be happy to discuss it with you.

[Scumpup]

@Kimstu

:rolleyes: This illustrates how divorced from reality the self-described “anti-PC” crowd is on these issues: they’re reduced to mocking straw opponents for outrageously silly views that nobody here actually endorsed.
Yep.

I’m not anti-PC. I don’t think I’ve ever complained about it or, if I have, certainly not often enough for me to be part of a “crowd.” What I definitely am, though, is anti-shrill self-righteous smug jackass. That brings us to you…

[The_Bad_Ideas]

@AngelSoft

Ehh I dunno. I mean, my main issue is the fact that homecoming is a specifically high school event. And thus the girls attending it are going to be more or less minors. So referring to them as hotties, just on that point alone, is creepy. There’s definitely some sexual undertones in the wording of the ad and that shouldn’t be included in an ad aimed at underage girls.

Students in high schools age ranges from 14-19. Age of consent in the US ranges from 16-18 so your statement that the ad is aimed at underage girls is while perhaps not quite an outright lie, dubious at best. same thing goes with your assertion that all of the girls who will attend homecoming or going to be “more or less minors.”

In fact more upperclassmen, and thus those of legal age when it comes to sexual activity attend homecoming dances these days.