Show Us Your Boobs — Teens? So Says Diesel Ad Campaign
My latest article at David Horowitz’s NewsReal
It seems that advertising executives now think it’s totally cool to include teens in that whole “sex sells” marketing tool. Diesel Jeans has a new ad campaign running, called Be Stupid (sadly, they mean it unironically) wherein they encourage people to “have balls.” Okay, “having balls”, or as grown-up like to say, taking risks, has its merits and on the surface is a good thing. However, you don’t need to be stupid to have guts. You also don’t need to be trampy:
Image courtesy of We Are The Real Deal
Show us your t*ts, girls! Yes, girls. The ad ran in Nylon magazine, for one, which, while not officially a “teen magazine”, is read by teens and young women. Objectify much, Diesel? Not to mention, the tagline “stupid has balls.” Hey, guess what? Smart can have “balls” too. In fact, I don’t think it takes any balls to be stupid. Stupid is easy.
It’s easy to be shocking. It’s harder to be smart. I think Greg Gutfeld said that, but I’m stealing it because I like it. Aside from the fact that the entire ad concept is lacking reason, the above suggested ‘be stupid” moment is a symptom of what has been happening to our children over the past couple of decades. Not only are some trying to turn them into little adults, they are sexualizing them and trying to turn them into little trampy versions of themselves. Here are two more Diesel ad photos, this time from their Kids Collection itself:
Image courtesy of we are the real deal
Nice. So, where is N.O.W.? Where are all the For The Children organizations? Is this acceptable to them? Is this why Hollywood onerously defended Roman Polanski? They think kids ARE sexual beings? Of course, I’m sure that, according to them, the rest of us must all be philistines and not enlightened enough to get the concept.
I’d wait around for your answers and pathetic attempts at justification, faux-feminists and faux For The Children ™ people, but I’m busily trying to raise a daughter who respects herself and makes smart decisions, not “stupid” shock factor ones. Thankfully, she isn’t old enough nor “edgy” enough to read your magazines. By edgy, I, of course mean the total opposite of edgy.
You see, that whole “We are so balls-y and brave” shtick doesn’t play anymore. For that to work, you have to not take the easy route every time. You think flashing boobies makes one a rebel or an individual? It does not at all. It doesn’t make one a rebel, but, rather the antithesis of one. It makes them sheep, albeit in super cute clothes. It is not being brave or showing your individuality. It’s merely doing what you think will endear you to the “cool” kids. The cool kids, by the way, are asses. Instead of being stupid, trying being smart and learning that Teachable Moment (that’s right; I took one of your favorite catch-phrases and used it against you. )
My daughter also doesn’t get fancy pants Diesel clothes. My goal as her Mom? That she is never “stupid”enough” for you, Diesel.
Jenny
Lori Ziganto
somegit
Snark And Boobs 
If I took that picture and made it public (the top one), I would be in jail and deservedly so. The middle pics just are skeezy, and the bottom ones: I would expect to see that on SE 82nd here in Portland. The pedobears are having a field day. Of course, the only people who commit that crime are Catholic Priests (sure thing?) (Eyes rolling into head.) Where is Keith Oblermann calling people “mashed up bags of whatever.” Oh, I forgot, only tea partiers are evil, soulless, moralless reprobates. The fact that the Loony Left (the same assclowns who protest the Tim Tebow commercial) can actually say nothing about this is quite revealing (even more so than the be stupid ad.)
PS: Great goal for your daughter, Lori.
OMGs… I had no idea about this (I’ve been so out of the loop… I never pick up a “fashion” magazine anymore. Can’t be bothered.)
Lori, thank you for posting this. As a child safety advocate and an anti-pedophile activist, I find this sort of thing disgusting. Thank goodness there are parents like you who care more for their child’s emotional well-being than how trendy and popular their child might be (and the truly “cool” kids, the ones who have enough self-respect to *be* smart, are always well-liked anyway, trendy or no.)
While I’m not the Morford fan I once was (before the wake-up call) I thought you’d find this piece disturbing:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/04/11/notes041108.DTL
Yep. And are happy with *themselves* They don’t need to follow along with anyone else.
If I took that picture and made it public (the top one), I would be in jail and deservedly so.>>>
You’re kidding, right?
This just depresses me.
What is it about the picture with the girl on the ladder that should make anyone who took the picture “go to jail?”
What would be the charge?
First of all, the girl in the picture is an adult model. The ad is stupid, I mocked it myself. The makers should go to “bad idea jail.” And you should go to “hysterical jail.”
If you’re for suppressing the ad I’m afraid you should take a refresher course on the Constitution. Bad judgement, bad taste and bad ideas, that do not break the law, are protected.
As for the kid’s pics – you seem to be responding to the “attitude” of the pictures. Have the kids smile and point, as if they are seeing skittles and unicorns, and where is the “pedo factor?”
I mean, seriously, save the pedo hysteria for things like… um… PEDOPHILIA.
Put a straw hat on the kid in the suspenders and call him Huck Finn and we have the beginnings of a play about Americana.
Geezus.
Do you know for sure that she’s an “adult model”? She looks to be about 15 or 16 to me. Did you know that most models for “adult” products, such as make-up, perfume, clothing, etc., start out at about age 12 modeling those products? Anyone starting out in the modeling industry at 18 is getting a very late start.
However, I’m sure she’d have to be an adult for that ad to be run in the first place. The sad fact, however, is that it’s target audience is teens and ‘tweens. If she actually was the age she looks, the photographer could be charged with producing child pornography (CP), and any magazines distributing it could be charged with distribution of CP. Why would that depress you?
If she were a minor, I’d like to point out that CP is not “protected speech”.
However, grooming children is not protected. The sad fact of the matter is that pedophiles use ads like this to help them groom children. The fact that such ads are “mainstream” only serves to start the grooming process *for* them.
Having helped to shut down many child porn sites (yes, real child porn sites), I can tell you that going from pictures like those above to real CP isn’t as far a stretch as you may wish to believe. Taking innocent pictures (kids just doing what kids do, like playing video games or whatever) is the first step. Getting them to pose is the next step, then getting them to remove articles of clothing (like their shirt) is the next step. I mean, look at the Polanski rape case. That’s pretty much what he dis (minus the first step) before drugging and raping a 13 year old child.
After that, the pictures start to get more explicit.
It’s not hysteria. It’s drawing a line between what is appropriate and what is inappropriate and even borderline and sticking to it, not giving predators an inch with which to manipulate children or society. It wasn’t so long ago that if a woman was dressed as the first girl in the third picture were raped, she’d be told she was “asking for it” by dressing like that (of course we know that no one ever asks to be raped.) Now little girls (and that girl doesn’t look a day over 10) are being encouraged to dress that way. How can anyone not see a problem with that?
It depresses me to think that you have set yourself up as the arbiter of what is “pornography.” Separate the photo at the top from the two at the bottom. They have nothing to do with each other and shouldn’t have been conflated together in the article to suggest that the Diesel Clothing line ads, made specifically for kids, had nudity in them.
The girl on the ladder is not pornography. The ad does not make the claim that she is any specific age. The ad appeared in NYLON magazine, which, despite the articles claim, is not a teen magazine. It’s as much a teen magazine as Vogue, InStyle, Elle, or Allure. How you come to the conclusion that the girl is underage is beyond me. I have a copy of the ad and what you can see of the girls face she looks well into her 20’s.
>Did you know that most models for “adult” products, such as make-up, perfume, clothing, etc., start out at about age 12 modeling those products? Anyone starting out in the modeling industry at 18 is getting a very late start.>
This is evidence that would be presented in the court of HOOEY. You’re a proponent of connecting dots that aren’t right next to each other, huh?
You also seem to disregard what I’ve clearly written.
You wrote, “If she were a minor, I’d like to point out that CP is not “protected speech,” after I wrote,
“If you’re for suppressing the ad I’m afraid you should take a refresher course on the Constitution. Bad judgement, bad taste and bad ideas, that do not break the law, are protected.”
Did the “that do not break the law” part not appear on your computer screen? It’s the essence of my entire point.
Now, as for the bottom pics. They stink. I don’t like them. They are legal.
The slippery slope where you detail how these pictures are the gateway to child porn is fascinating. But there isn’t a thing you can do about it legally, nor do I want you to succeed if you tried. I don’t want YOU, or anyone like you, deciding what you think is appropriate or inappropriate when dealing with imagery that is legal. You wanna play slippery slope?
Okay. You decide that in YOUR view a 12 year old in a miniskirt, wearing eye shadow and lipstick is inappropriate.
You make the case that this is the GATEWAY TO CHILD PORN!!! So you manage to somehow make that imagery illegal. My kid plays “dress up” with mommy’s make-up and clothes. YOU spot my kid walking around the house in the get-up. I own a camera… Why should I trust you not to try and make a case against me to have my kid taken away and me put in jail. You have already demonstrated to me your penchant for connecting dots, assigning motivation, seeing things that only exist in what “could be” not what is.
You’re more dangerous than you think.
How sad for you that strangers on the internet can make you so depressed. There is medication available for that, you know.
I didn’t say that it was “pornography”. I did say, however, that if the girl in the first picture is a minor, then it is CP.
That’s like saying that cigarette ads in the 80’s did not target minors. They did, and these do.
Did I say anywhere that I felt those ads should be illegal? Don’t think I did. Talk about connecting dots… If doing so, as you seem to think I do, makes me “dangerous”, you’re equally dangerous. The only mention I made of legality was with regard to CP not being protected speech.
With regard to the fist ad pictured, I do believe that they should have to document the ages of any models used in ads with partial nudity or in sexual situations and be held accountable if the model is not legally an adult.
What I would like to see, however, is for people to hold companies accountable for such disregard for child welfare, much the same way people did with the cigarette companies. Put the information out there and let consumers speak with their $$. Most of the responsible parents I know wouldn’t give a dime to a company who puts out ads like that. Even if, as you seem to believe, the “boob flasher” ad isn’t targeting kids, those are the ads that will get the kids’ attention and make them really want to wear the clothing in the other two ads.
My 12 year old niece would see that a mile away (well, she did take a class that teaches children how to spot marketing tactics used by corporations who target children). If a child could spot that, why can’t an adult?
It doesn’t depress you that you’re on the web defending child porn by claiming the slippery slope argument which is a logical fallacy? I work with PACA and Dodiafae and I’ve been known to traffic in the R rated stuff. Sounds to me like you’re defending corporations sexualizing children but I’m not sure why.
Well I am sure but I’d like to hear it. Are you working up the guts to claim it’s OK to have a little CP for personal use? Or did you already say it? You’re so long winded I skipped a few of your paragraphs that seemed like they’d be boring.
It’s not hysteria. It’s drawing a line between what is appropriate and what is inappropriate and even borderline and sticking to it, not giving predators an inch with which to manipulate children or society.>>>
Followed by:
Did I say anywhere that I felt those ads should be illegal? Don’t think I did. Talk about connecting dots…
Um… what does “drawing the line” mean?
If you’re incapable of stating your position, and then “sticking to it,” why would anyone debate you?
My name is DPunch and I endorse this ad…
and tight jeans…
and yellow-green hi-tops…
and red ladders…
but not nubile young teenagers flashing their boobs at security cams (the resolution sucks).
Furthermore, if what you are saying is that there is nothing illegal about any of the photos than the debate is over. The one with the girl on the ladder is a stupid ad because of the ridiculous copy that accompanies it. As far as the picture goes as a stand alone piece?
It’s a great photo.
Before you jumped in I was addressing the loon who said he would deserve to go to jail for displaying this picture. He deserves to go to a mental asylum.
As for the pictures of the kids? They are in bad taste because it assigns an attitude that is not natural to kids of that age. I hate that kind of stuff. Precociousness is obnoxious, even when in the movies kids are given lines to read that are way beyond their years.
But there is nothing illegal about these pictures, nor, according to you in your last comment, should they be.
Debate over.
Donkey,
I thought it unfair to put all these ads in one article and conflate them as the same. It’s probably what caused the first guy to virtually give himself a prison sentence for what he was thinking (notice he kept using the first person, odd that he didn’t use 2nd or 3rd person) because he associated the ladder picture with being one in the same as the little kid pictures.
The fact is, the girl on the ladder is damn hot, and there are night watchmen all over the world hoping that this will appear in the security cam one night. In fact, they get on that ladder every night and clean the lens and check the focus, just in case.
Sorry, ladies.
I was using hyperbole to make a point. If you get beyond the use of first person, my point is that no one is questioning the propriety or impropriety of these shots. Like my critics, I am a staunch defender of the First Amendment. That allows me as well as you to speak an opinion of these ads.
“Before you jumped in I was addressing the loon who said he would deserve to go to jail for displaying this picture. He deserves to go to a mental asylum.”
I saw no disclaimer as to the models age. At a different angle, and with a zoom lens, it would fall into the category of adult photos. I would comment further, but I have no love of redundancy.
excuse me “model’s.” Oh the curse of bad grammar.
Speaking of slippery slopes, I think this entire thread illustrates how people with strong opinions, dealing with an important topic, can find themselves not realizing that they are on the same side of an issue, with perhaps maybe 6* of separation.
I’ve stated several times that I denounce the pictures with the kids. I don’t like the pictures. I agree with the assessment that Diesel should not get any responsible parent’s business. All I said is that the picture is not illegal and I don’t think it should ever be made illegal.
I’m one of the principles of a conservative website,for crying out loud. But I am a constitutionalist, and I take that very seriously. I’m not for making bad taste illegal. Because that gives others the opening to interpret many legal things as in poor taste., thus challenging the legality of things clearly in a gray area. It would merely be a vehicle to censor things that people just don’t like.
I believe these pictures are reckless, a bad choice, exploitive, everything that you’ve said.
And regarding Stharry… I believe we are also in agreement, now. I think he thought he was looking at an underage pic and I didn’t realize that he thought that to be the case. I thought he was going overboard about nudity in an ad for a fashion magazine that “could” be viewed by minors.
Had he had the higher resolution pic that I had he would clearly see that she was an adult, and it never dawned on me that he could only see the small pic on this site.
Kumbaya all.
wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww