This is a 2008 campaign ad by the male suit designer Duncan Quinn. The shot depicts a woman in lingerie on the hood of a car, appearing to be strangled by a man in the brands clothing. When reviewing the brand itself it is clear to see that this is a very classic suit brand for the “man’s man” audience with the website featuring fine suits, fast cars, expensive wines and guns. The website in itself sets up a very dominant male aesthetic which is translated into this image with the well-dressed male dominating over the injured woman who appear to be lying almost lifeless on the car bonnet. In “What should we tell our daughters?” the event of women protesting the difference in the way men and women were dressed in tabloids outside of the Sun offices was discussed, “one journalist summed up the difference between the two with a single word ‘clothes’. (As in men are allowed to wear them and women must be stripped bare” (Benn 2013). This statement is very relevant within this ad campaign as the attire of the female compared to the man suggests a similar shift in their status with the man appearing more put together and less dishevelled than the female which makes him seem more powerful. The combination of this ad and Benn’s statement also implies that there are some serious ethical flaws within modern media platforms in how men and women are portrayed with stark differences in status and modesty.

Height is also another status suggesting feature of the image as the strong pose of the man compared to the woman draped on her back suggests the male is in control. The female model also has what initially appears to be a noose around her neck, however on closer inspection it is actually one of Quinn’s ties. This use of the product is quite sadistic in how it is controlling the female and potentially killing her – this idea is supported by her body positioning and the addition of blood spilling from her head onto the bonnet. A tie for is usually a symbol of power and its use in this image has contorted this meaning into something more grotesque and almost implying that a woman should be controlled by the man by having them on a leash – theoretically or in this case literally – and being submissive.

Another ethical issue raised in this ad is that it stimulates ideas of abuse and rape which is suggested from the female’s attire, the tie and the male models smirk which is unnerving to view as it adds a very sinister tone to the already disturbing image. These ideas of a woman being submissive and suggesting abuse are an out-dated mindset and to be discussing within this campaign as it seems like something from earlier times in history when women “should be in the kitchen” and subordinate to their husbands/men. Ethically this does raise some queries as this is not a modern-day way of thinking amongst most of the population which makes it an even more controversial idea to be suggesting within a fashion campaign as morally it is wrong to control someone, especially like this through physical and sexual violence. In Melissa Benn’s book “What should we tell our daughters?” she discusses how feminism has helped morph societies views from the 1960’s views and mentions the Linda Grant tweet about how “in 1979, she could not apply for a store credit card” (Benn 2013), “unless the form was signed by her husband or father” (Benn 2013). This quotation from Benn’s book illustrates the notion that the type of relationship and status balance between the man and woman in this Duncan Quinn ad is outdated and society – for the most part – has expanded beyond that making this ad ethically wrong in how it belittles societies progress over the years regarding improved equality between the sexes.

References:

Benn, M., 2013. “What should we tell our daughters?”  John Murray Publishers