Rape as a war crime is so hot right now September 21, 2007 Jill Vogue Italia, I think you just outdid yourself. I’m with Lucinda. via Jezebel.
oh the spread is vapid and even mildly offensive, but so is most fashion photography. but if it featured similarly lurid and ridiculous posturing, but of Alison Bechdel characters draped out in sexy wear and poses reading some ridiculous post-modern decon lit crit, you folks would drool over it. so don’t hyperventilate about vogue italia.
Um…wow. For one, where is the fashion they are supposed to be showing? What the hell. How do they think that it’s ok to just glamorize rape?
Oh, jeez. Um, the one with the woman who looked like she was crying, lying next to a sleeping soldier is particularly awful. Who thought this was a good idea?
I really don’t see the “rape as a war crime” connection directly in the pictures themselves (although, the picture where the woman is lying in the cot with the soldier, crying and looking frighten while he looks content is as close as it can get, and the one where the soldier has the woman in a lock while in the mud as well). However, the fact that they are glamorizing war, while innocent people die, resources are wasted, communities are wipe out, people are displaced and lives are destroyed is disgusting and vile. In those ways, I do see the rape connection.
I shouldn’t say “glamorizing war,” they are converting it to porn. They are making war pornographic. Just needed to emphasize that. Again, I do see the rape connection, in that perspective, along with the other aspects I mentioned.
There’s also the tragic history of sex slaves in war. Weren’t there recently a bunch of headlines about Japan’s history of that in World War II? And then there’s the sexual assault and rape of female soldiers. Maybe it’s reading too much into this, but that’s what comes to my mind when I think about war zones and sex, not high fashion and sexy good times.
The images seem like are coming across as a cross between Girls Gone Wild and a USO visit by some hawt models. Tribal bacchanal with our boys uniform. The single photo with the model on the cot crying is probably the most questionable as far as the possibility of rape, don’t know what they were going for that there. She is crying for the soldiers? She is crying because she has just spent the past few days of the shoot living in dirty rough conditions and it is bad for her hair? She is crying because she has just been raped? Sexist, oh yeah, promoting rape? Don’t know that I would go that far. I have to agree with L-K the whole thing does glamorize the ugliness of war that is the worst thing about it.
It’s not reading too much into it, but it is a different level of interpretation. I think the spread is intending to insert sexualized females into a space that is considered to be all male. It’s a common technique in erotica/porn, right? It’s hot for both women and men because the woman is subverting the masculine space, but the man ultimately gets the woman. The problem comes with the fact that war zones aren’t an all male space. Female soldiers aside, there are lots of women in war zones. And their participation in sexual acts is coerced. So, while I understand how people are viewing the spread as not offensive (inserting females into an all-male space can be pretty sexy), I’d say that reading between the lines (and we should ALWAYS read between the lines when it comes to images that we are presented with), there’s something much more upsetting that’s going on here. Everyone is mentioning the photo with the woman crying because that’s an image that crosses the line. Suddenly, the woman isn’t having a ball in this unstable, risky space- she’s upset and scared, and we realize that it might not only be because she’s in a dangerous place, but because she’s with a dangerous man.
Most of those photos are wretched, although I have to say, I like the one where the model is tattooing the soldier’s ass.
Yeah I can see it. If you’re operating under the assumption that the default position of a soldier or Marine is a monster and a rapist, then any picture with men in uniform and sexualized women implies rape and violence. Because we’re not actually people. We’re walking, talking oppression machines. And there’s no possible way women could be having fun with a bunch of us of their own volition.
this was on ljfoto_decadent. i remember vividly one comment saying ‘i know there’s gonna be a hissy fit over this but i think the photos are hot, and i know most soldiers would agree on that!’ but i could probably find a bunch of women in the Bosnian camps who might disagree just a little. bah.
Most of those pictures look to me like examples of the age-old idiom, “Conquering heroes welcomed home by adoring (and sexually hungry) women” – sex and war have been associated with one another for a long time. Regardless of whether the women in the pictures are the willing welcomers of their own menfolk, or rape victims, the message of the idiom is always the same: victory in war brings ownership rights over women. So, regardless of whether the women in those pictures are perceived as victims of rape, or willing participants, in most of the pictures (with the exception of the tattooing one, and I think there was one where the woman had the soldier by the throat or had some similarly aggressive posture towards him) the message is one of male ownership of females.
There’s also the tragic history of sex slaves in war. Weren’t there recently a bunch of headlines about Japan’s history of that in World War II? You don’t even have to go back that far — Dyncorp was trafficking sex slaves in Bosnia while the UN and US troops were there, and some of the soldiers were prosecuted for participating. The problem isn’t that every picture is condoning rape and/or sex trafficking. The problem is that women are, once again, shown as the “other” when it comes to the military, despite the fact that many women who are in the Army or the Marines are dying in Iraq right now alongside the men … or, as they’re shown in this layout, the “real soldiers,” as opposed to the sex-toy female “soldiers” who are only there to entertain the men. I can’t find it online, but do they allow women in Italy’s armed forces yet? The most recent reference said that they were banned and it was up for a vote in 1999, but I didn’t see the results.
I don’t think I’ve ever been so disturbed and upset by a fashion ad! These women have dead looks in their eyes and their mouths are all slightly open. They’re all oiled and dressed down and being handled by big, dignified dudes. They’re window dressings! They’re floor lamps! They look like slaves! How could anyone look at these pictures and think, “we should publish these and pretend to be proud of them!” This, from a girl who spent most of last night sexing up a drawing of a Jedi that I intend to sell. I have nothing wrong with sex and sexiness, but I can’t stand making women look undignified, powerless, and subservient.
So, for the most part, the photo spread was tasteless, and some of the images were disturbing (the obvious one being the hurt and distraught look on the model’s face next to the serene soldier). However, it does beg an interesting hypothetical question. I do believe that it’s possible to do hot, sexy, empowering heterosexual erotica through photography. Also, both supermodels and soldiers are classic sexual fantasy archetypes for many people (models are usually chosen for their sex appeal, and “there’s something about a man in a uniform” is a standard cliche). Given those two facts, it ought to be possible to do an erotic photo shoot with soldiers and models that wasn’t so… creepy. What would be different? Personally, I think interspersing several shots of female soldiers posing with male supermodels would go a long way towards improving things… any other thoughts?
“…Most of those pictures look to me like examples of the age-old idiom, “Conquering heroes welcomed home by adoring (and sexually hungry) women” – sex and war have been associated with one another for a long time…. Not unless the men returning from in-theater are being barracked in field housing, and there is no on-camp discipline. These pictures (not even well photographed or well presented) illustrate more of the same “sensibility” that was shown in a fashion ad last year that really looked more like the beginnings of gang rape.
Wow–I had a very different reaction. I thought the women were completely undermining the traditional image of tough guys at war, and they seemed to be equal participants. I found these pictures to be very subversive towards the status quo. Men and women were both presented as sexually powerful beings, and the women were not “performing for,” they were “interacting with.” As others have mentioned, the one image of the apparently distraught woman in bed is jarring, but I thought the overall effect was interesting. Because we already have such strong feelings about the treatment of women during wartime, women in the military, etc., is it simply impossible to present male soldiers as sexual beings without triggering a negative response? Henry’s point is well taken. The old Benetton ads created a lot of discussion too–some good, some bad. This layout reminded me of some of those.
Pic 1: couples snuggling happily Pic 2: perfectly safe, just a woman and a man armwrestling Pic 3: a group of friends roughhousing: men holding the women up Pic 4: women blindfold a man and playfully force him to drink whisky Pic 5: woman and man almost kissing Pic 6: male soldier fixing his female friend’s dress strap Pic 7: women blowing smoke in male’s mouth Pic 8: left: mixed crowd jumping, right: mostly naked female looking at camera Pic 9: Women sitting on man’s lap, after drinking Pic 10: Friends playing outside Pic 11: Women tatooing man’s butt Pic 11: Women & man lying in mud, she looks in pain Pic 13: mostly naked woman looking playfully at a man Pic 14: Women and man snuggling (she’s on top) Pic 15: crying woman lies next to a man who looks satisfied Pic 16: women posing for camera Pic 17: women lying on top of a man, holding him Pic 18: man holding a woman Honestly, most of the pics seem fine to me. Picture 11: could be interpreted several ways, either they are wrestling and she’s hurt or maybe they just fell on the ground after a bomb went off and she’s startled or hurt. Pic 15: maybe the man raped her, or maybe she just had sex for the last time with her lover before the battle starts and she’s afraid for their safetly. I cannot conclusively say that the pictures are sexist/pro rape or not. Most of them are completely neutral, but some could be interpreted to be malicious. Since there is no conclusive evidence, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah I can see it. If you’re operating under the assumption that the default position of a soldier or Marine is a monster and a rapist, then any picture with men in uniform and sexualized women implies rape and violence. Actually, Henry, as I said, it implies that there are no women soldiers or Marines who are serving their country alongside the male soldiers. It implies that any female soldier or Marine you see in Iraq is there simply as a sex toy and is not there to do her job in the military. I take it that you are also of the opinion that women soldiers and Marines are there solely as sex toys for you, or you would have mentioned the women that you work with side-by-side who are qualified to be there and shouldn’t be denigrated by the assumption that only men are “real” soldiers and Marines.
Wow–I had a very different reaction. I thought the women were completely undermining the traditional image of tough guys at war, and they seemed to be equal participants. I found these pictures to be very subversive towards the status quo. Men and women were both presented as sexually powerful beings, and the women were not “performing for,” they were “interacting with.” As others have mentioned, the one image of the apparently distraught woman in bed is jarring, but I thought the overall effect was interesting. Yeah, I kind of lean this direction, too, with the caveat that a few of the pictures (the one with the crying girl in bed with the sleeping soldier, the one of the girl pinned in the mud) being weirdly out of line. I also liked the one of the model tattooing the guy’s ass, and the one with the mud-covered couple kissing with the purple drape flowing behind them. The title of the spread, I think, seems like they were trying to go for a subversive-ish, 60’s esque kind of thing, like Hair with expensive clothes? Like instead of going to battle they had a love-in in the desert? Which I wouldn’t have a problem with. But, like that Fascist Police Force thing they did last year, it seems like they couldn’t make any sort of an interesting point in any sort of coherent way without inserting some pretty severe misogyny. I’ve never seen American Vogue go that far.
I take it that you are also of the opinion that women soldiers and Marines are there solely as sex toys for you, or you would have mentioned the women that you work with side-by-side who are qualified to be there and shouldn’t be denigrated by the assumption that only men are “real” soldiers and Marines. That’s somewhat of a stretch, don’t you think? With the exception of the first picture, I didn’t assume the women in the photos were in the service. I also didn’t make the assumption that because there were no female soldiers in this scenario that a statement was being made about whether or not women are serving in Iraq. It’s a fashion ad, and a ridiculous one at that. But there are plenty of units in the field where there are no females, and I just took it as this being one of them. As far as female Marines being sex toys for me, I have to tell you that I’m scared to death to try and get involved with a female Marine. There are so many ways that can go badly I wouldn’t even consider it.
First Henry says: If you’re operating under the assumption that the default position of a soldier or Marine is a monster and a rapist, Then he says: I have to tell you that I’m scared to death to try and get involved with a female Marine. There are so many ways that can go badly I wouldn’t even consider it. So, to recap, from his own mouth (well, keyboard)” Being sexually intimidated by male Marines: offensive and unfair. Being sexually intimidated by female Marines: HI-FUCKING-LARIOUS! And he didn’t even try to pretty up the language or disguise it at all.
So, to recap, from his own mouth (well, keyboard)” Being sexually intimidated by male Marines: offensive and unfair. Being sexually intimidated by female Marines: HI-FUCKING-LARIOUS! Jesus. How about “sleeping with someone inside the same totalistic control structure that you belong to, when either of you could end up the other’s superior” = “bad idea.” — ACS
That was utterly disgusting. The photos made me feel very strange – it was as though I was unsure of whether or not they were trying to say that women that serve in the military are mere sex objects, or if they were trying to objectify Iraqi women, or something else… The entire layout was unsettling and rather turned my stomach. It is no surprise that Vogue (from any country) would do a spread that is misogynistic in nature…
erm. the implications of possible rape made me uncomfortable, sure, but am i the only one totally fucking blown away at the fact that they showed a man blindfolded on his knees ala abu ghraib being held captive by some model like its just thee sexiest most fantastic thing to ever happen, like dehumanizing torture is the hotness. its actually difficult to even believe this shoot is real, ive been an avid fan of fashion and by default fashion mags for years and it really is rare for a spread to reach this excessive height of absurdity. the whole concept reminds me of the sort of spread they would shoot on ugly betty, where they go waaay over the top to poke fun at fashions ridiculousness, like Fabia (gina gershon’s character) wanting to base her ad campaign around chernobyl. shit like this shouldnt actually be published.
These fashion pictures are disturbing on multiple levels. In addition to the rape implications of one picture and the glorification of war, I felt these pictures trivialized war as an light-hearted entertaining event in its exploitative glory….not a horrific event that brings destruction and immeasurable suffering. IMHO, these pictures are grossly obscene. Though I did not experience war firsthand, I’ve heard numerous stories from parents, relatives, and family friends who suffered through different wars as refugees and/or soldiers. None of them thought of war as anything more than a series of terrifyingly horrific experiences they hoped would end as soon and as permanently as possible.
Given the epidemic of rape against both women in the occupying army and Iraqi women and men, I don’t see any way this shoot can be interpreted besides a glorification of sexual violence in wartime.
I thought the women were completely undermining the traditional image of tough guys at war, and they seemed to be equal participants. If you mean they’re equal participants in the same way a prostitute in a frat house is an equal participant, then I’m right there with you. Except boys in Frat houses tend not to have heavy weaponry at hand. And freedom for the prostitute is just outside the the Frat house’s door. The women here are trapped in a war zone. I suppose that makes it all the more sexy for the war /porn lovers out there. Note the disparity between the number of men and women in the group shots. The implied threat is obvious. Note how women are dressed, or, more to the point, undressed. Women don’t prance around topless or in ill fitting slinky black dresses during normal daily activities, even in Italy! Finally the most obvious shots– the woman being wrestled in the mud, the distraught woman in the bed, the arm wrestle the scrawny woman will surely lose. These are not outlier shots, as a few people above want to claim, they are central to this grotesque fantasy. Every single gesture, prop, expression in a high fashion photo spread is intentional. There are no accidents here. (this comment got stuck in mod, so I’m reposting. Could you just erase the stuck one? Thanks!)
Caig R: Not unless the men returning from in-theater are being barracked in field housing, and there is no on-camp discipline. That’s true in the literal, present, world. But if you read war accounts from just about any period in history, you’ll find that it’s both real and an archetype that soldiers are “rewarded” for their success, or for their courage before battle, with sexual favours. While they are at war, rape becomes a weapon of war. Certainly, if you read fictional accounts of war, these themes crop up again and again, whatever the period of history from which the stories originate. So that’s why those pictures to me tell the story of “men who are successful in battle/are just about to go into battle, have a right to whichever woman they choose”. They are a fictionalised format, and telling us an archetype, not the reality.
Vougue wanted to shock people. We have all seen things in the media that have jaded our senses. They have gone above and beyond acceptable. Currently I am stunned with just having seen the pictures, with it’s tremendous shock value. Quite frankly, good job Vougue.
“…hey are a fictionalised format, and telling us an archetype, not the reality…” Except that advertising of this type trivializes patriarchal/privilege loading of the archetype, and helps to make its attitudes more acceptable to the public.
That was so wrong on so many levels: 1.) I’m sorry, where’s the fashion? 2.) I’m sure women in conflict zones just *can’t* wait to be ‘liberated’ by the occupation army! 3.) That Meisel guy did a similarly disturbing (but not nearly as bad as this) State of Emergency photoshoot in (surprise) Vogue Italia last September.