Please, selling Violence & Sex is SO overrated

Decoding and Deconstructing Advertising


For this blog, I searched for interesting advertisements on Google as I was at a loss on what to analyze. After a few hours of searching, I found an advertisement for duncan quinn (a luxuriously high class clothier) that I would quite like to express my opinion on. 

First off, I’ll be blunt: to me, it’s revolting, dehumanizing and, in a way, insulting to women who have  the least bit of pride and decency. 

To begin, duncan quinn plays on our culture’s trend of male dominance over women. The actor is portrayed as having the idolized masculine strength to overpower and exploit things to his do his bidding. Note that I said things, as he is quite literally objectifying women, and once he is done with them, he can throw (or drag by the neck with his necktie) them away as if they are inanimate, useless objects that lack the ability to feel.

“Surely,” I thought, “this can’t be the only advertisement that duncan quinn has. There must be another ad by them that is less horrific...”

Nope. This one ad was the only image results of duncan quinn ads that had a woman in it. What was even better (no, not really) was the fact that almost every result on the first five pages turned out to be this ad. I was quite disappointed. I then decided to read up on Duncan Quinn’s company history on the official website. The About Duncan page revealed a shocking statement: “The year was 2003, and New York was still in the thrall of suits bearing a close resemblance to trash bags. The first duncan quinn store opened ... and was an immediate hit” (duncan quinn).

WOW, Egoistic much? 2003 was not too long ago, and the style of men’s suits have not changed radically, so it is a very deprecative, opinionated statement. Clearly the owner does not have much regard for anyone else but himself. Why am I not surprised then that this ad came from his company?

NY Magazine has also stated that it is “The most disturbing ad found in December 2008 fashion magazines” (Ivaskiv). 

Every webpage I found in my searches have given very negative comments regarding this advertisement. With this being said, why would duncan quinn even make an ad that is so offensive to so many people? The meaning of the ad is obvious, but the decoding of it by the audience is of an oppositional view, because who do not agree with this misogynistic ad (Chandler, Daniel). This obviously would not do well for business.

In the twenty-first century, women, for the most part, are now seen and treated as equals of men. Yet in these fashion magazines, we are still seeing the exploitation of women’s sexuality and objectification, to be manipulated by men as they please.

However, let’s not get overboard with the emotions and really analyze this ad. This advertisement shows that sex sells, a ridiculously dominant element in thousands of ads. The model is very seductive in her translucent bra and panties, lying bare and open as if she’s only there for you to look at and devour. Her face is hardly seen, making her a faceless person that you cannot sympathize with. Her lack of facial appearance also gives a generality, stating that this is what all women should be and are like. The ad also shows that if you wear Duncan Quinn’s (minimum) $4000 custom suits, you will be able to get desirable women, and you can even do whatever you want with them, killing included (duncan quinn). 

Better yet, you won’t feel any shame, because you’re wearing a possibly $15,000-or-up suit (if it's custom tailored with textural fabric that only your suit and your suit only will have!) that gives you unimaginable power to do as you please. I mean, look at the guy in the ad! He still looks fresh and having a great time in this dire situation. He’s leading by example, holding her like a dog on a leash. The poor girl is suffering from male hegemony.

Great, now I’m worried about when I grow older and have to attend these high class, fancy, business parties. I see no advantage of putting violence in their ad.

Once again, I have to stress Innis’ theory. He believes that too much exposure to a certain medium will have harmful effects (Postman). This duncan ad is not the only one that displays such dehumanizing acts, as our media constantly promotes violent films and stories. 

A good example of the negative impact of such violent displays is Ted Bundy, the serial killer. He became obsessed with violent pornography, stating that the consumption of it helped shape and mold his horrifically violent behaviour(Cline).

Bundy believed that “sexualized violence” led boys “down the road to being Ted Bundys” (Cline). This ad is clearly violent, with many sexual connotations and denotations. Is this not a form of violent pornography then? Why are we letting it run loose in our media mainstreams, where children can see it?

Like I said before, our society is sadly desensitized and dehumanized. Please help rehumanize our culture so this world is a better place for all of us to live in. No one wants to be like the girl in this ad, or suffer the pain or heartache caused by murderers like Ted Bundy simply because of his exposure to violent pornography.

Works Cited

Chandler, Daniel. “Encoding/Decoding.” Semiotics for Beginners. 3, April 2005. 15 November 2009. Web.

Cline, Victor. “Sex Offenders’ Use of Pornography.” Pornography’s Effect on Adults and Children. New York. Morality Media. Print.

duncan quinn. “About duncan.” duncan quinn. 2008. 15 November 2009. Web.

Justin Ivaskiv. “Sexy violence.” Media Dissemination. 14, July 2009. Web. 15 November 2009.

Postman, Neil. “The Humanism of Media Ecology.” 2000. 15 November 2009. Web.