Please stop publishing large glossy images of bean-pole shaped women and labelling them apples and hourglasses.
The picture's a little small, but is still clearly retarded.
Kayser, the women in your ads are bean-poles, plain and simple, and no more or less beautiful than other body shapes for it. But this is not my point.
My point is that terms such as apple, hourglass, and pear have been adopted to encourage recognition in women, particularly the impressionable and the young, that female bodies which are something other bean-poles* are completely normal and should be acknowledged as such. In addition to being normal, bean-poley women are privy to a pervasive and subtle series of advantages that other-shaped women often miss out on. To commandeer these body-shape terms to sell underpants lacks taste, responsibility and also plain logic. I may be rounded but I'm not blind.
Are these ads trying to convince non-bean-pole shaped women that Kayser's skimpy lace concoctions are designed just for them? Because all I'm seeing is standard issue underwear models. Men may like them, but men don't buy that many briefs, so I'm stumped.
HOURGLASS FAIL, people. Honestly, the presence of a-cup breasts does not an hourglass make. A female they make. A diverse gender but generally a breasted one.
Until I see a pear shaped bottom, preferably sporting requisite dimples, snugly wrapped up in your undies, I remain utterly unconvinced that they will be anything other than a literal pain in my arse.
On behalf of the young and impressionable, I would also like to add FUCK YOU KAYSER, YOU ABHORENTLY RECKLESS PIECE OF CRAP COMPANY. GIVE ME BACK MY PEAR.
* I heard these women referered to as zucchinis tonight, and needless to say was filled with mirth.
5 comments:
I can't really see any appreciable difference between those four models! I certainly see NO APPLES and NO HOURGLASSES. And as a bit of a zucchini myself, I reckon all of those undies would be really uncomfortable. I have a pair of lacy french knickery ones, and they are scratchy as hell, and they ride right up my beanpole bum.
I'm a bit cynical about any large corporation purporting to represent a wider range of women. I still think it's just advertising trickery. They've realised we won't swallow the old shit, so now they're trying to be a bit clever about it. Even something like the Dove `Campaign for Real Women.' They're still trying to sell products, aren't they? There's still the assumption that we will be better and more beautiful (in all our ageiness and fattiness and ethnicity yada yada) if we buy their products.
I was on the look out for new undies recently and saw a promo for these instore... the promo had standard size eight neck to knee mannequins with singlets on labelling each as APPLE! and PEAR! and so forth. There was nothing golden delicous apple about it.
When they describe women like that my mind just starts thinking about food. Pear - baked with ice cream and hot caramel sauce. Apple crumble. Hour glass - well it must be sugar in the hour glass. I feel my mind is making a very unhealthy, irreversible neurological connection between semi-naked girls and food that I can only see ending in some "Leaving Las Vegas"-esq binge on naked women and food. HELP!
(uhh yeah, the models were totally bogus).
"...well it must be sugar in the hourglass"
Nat Graf, when you produce phrases like this, it makes total sense that we are friends.
And Leanne, I totally owned a similar pair of undies when my body was more svelt than it currently is, and they were as uncomfortable as wearing a nappy made out of a bail of hay. It is reassuring to hear that you had a similar experience!
Post a Comment