Skip to main content

is this the worst advertisement ever in the history of mankind?

ok, sadly, it probably isn't, but it's still pretty disturbing.

i was flipping through the march issue of in style and i came across this ad. it looks innocuous enough at first, even kind of adorable.


if you're having trouble- or are trying to avoid looking too closely- the text reads:

an intimate moment captured in two distinctive fragrances for her. designed by ashley olsen and mary kate olsen.

look, i'm aware that "intimate" doesn't always mean something sexual, but throwing a naked chick who looks like she's been knocked unconscious from a four hour fuck fest does tend to lead you in that direction. and then that idea barrels like a runaway train into the image of an equally exhausted and happy-looking puppy passed out just south of the lady's nasty bits.

what the hell am i looking at here? because it kind of looks like the aftermath of a human-pet cuddle session that crossed a line somewhere.

furthermore, why is looking at this supposed to make me want to experience the smells that go along with the moment? it's one thing to say that you like the smell of your bed when you put on freshly laundered sheets, but that's not the vibe i'm getting from this. i'm guessing those sheets smell a lot like co-mingled sweat and wrong.

i like my perfumes a little on the edgy side. in fact, i wear men's scents fairly often, because i find that they work better against my skin than a lot of women's ones. so i'm not usually one to judge people for liking perfumes that are a little off the beaten path, but there does still seems [to me] to be a massive difference between the smoky, leathery darkness of tom ford's "tuscan leather" [a personal favourite, by the way] and an afternoon of hot dog sex as a signature scent.

perhaps this means i'm no longer hip to what the kids are doing these days. looking at this monstrosity, i'd like to say i'm ok with that. i'm seriously so incredibly ok with that

Comments

Bellyhead said…
XD ACK! I spit out my coffee this morning while reading this.

This whole ad evoke just WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

It's not even slightly crossed the border sexy wrong. NEWP.

JUST WRONG.
Kate MacDonald said…
It's actually a great relief to me that I'm not the only person who can see the WRONG.
Lani said…
What the? What were they thinking?! Definitely creepy.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …