Liaison Dangereuse, a German online lingerie store, recently released a new video advertisement. With Arabic-sounding music in the background, a woman is shown getting out of the shower (we can see, from the back, that she has no clothes on), putting on her make-up, then walking (wearing nothing but high heels – to each her own, I suppose) to her dresser, where she puts on her underwear, bra and socks, all the while looking at herself in the mirror. Last (anyone see where this is going yet?), she puts on a burqa. The final scene is of her face at a window, with this phrase showing up: “Sexiness for everyone. Everywhere.”
Some have suggested the add may be empowering (and, according to this one, especially empowering for “women in certain desert nations.” I’m not even going to go there.) As Dodai of Jezebel writes, with some reservations, “You could view the woman in the commercial as confident and self-assured.” True. Furthermore, unlike the major impression given in a different discussion about Muslim women’s lingerie, the confidence and “sexiness” that this woman displays are seemingly for her alone; she is not wearing this clothing simply to be attractive to a man. We can perhaps even take from this an empowering message for everyone, the idea that we can all feel sexy, if we so choose, without anyone else having to see us or to think of us as sexy.
But, all of that said, the empowerment message doesn’t really hold up. There is a whole lot of irony that these images are made so explicit in a public advertisement, given that they are supposedly valuing a sexuality that isn’t overtly expressed on the outside. The public spectacle of an apparent private moment of expressing confidence in one’s own body obviously negates the privacy of that moment.
All the other arguments aside, it seems therefore pretty hard to argue that this ad is something positive or empowering, if it would probably be rather offensive and disrespectful to most of those who would presumably be the ones it attempts to empower.
And, although the message seems to be about personal sexuality, there’s definitely still a strong male gaze and sense of objectification (and exoticization) at play, and it’s pretty unlikely that this was irrelevant in the construction of the video. One online response to the advertisement referred to its protagonist as an “exotic hottie” that the audience (and I’m guessing this is referring specifically to the heterosexual male component of the audience) is “treated to.” Another says:
Welcome to Friday, gentlemen, a day when your mind drifts to thinking about risking surfing porn from your work desk. Well, here’s a video appetizer, via Berlin ad agency glow GmbH, for German online lingerie store Liaison Dangereuse. Tagline: Sexiness for everyone. Everywhere.” It’s got brief bare butt, and an ending twist that’ll make you Catholics feel a little guilty.
So yeah, sexiness is “everywhere” and “for everyone,” ready to be served up as your pre-weekend porn appetizer. Great.
More important is the bigger context in which this ad appears – the fascination about Muslim women’s bodies, and the curiosity about what’s “behind the veil.” In fact, this isn’t even the first time that Muslim women’s lingerie has been discussed on MMW; apparently, it’s a hot topic. Why? As I’ve said previously:
What could be a more titillating image than that of a Muslim women (presumably veiled, of course) picking out something sexy to wear when in her private harem home? It might as well be proof of the Orientalist fantasy of the seductive, exotic temptress that exists within every Muslim woman, if only we could unveil her. (*shudder*)
Sadly, this isn’t even remotely new; see, for example, the kind of work that’s been done on the behind-the-veil/into-the-harem writing of colonial times. Meyda Yegenoglu’s Colonial Fantasies or Malek Alloula’s work (summarised fairly well here) are interesting places to start. The obsession with the veil (and with what’s under it) has a long history, and one that is intricately connected to colonization, racism, and sexism. This advertisement does nothing to disrupt that history, leaving us with a character who is still being objectified, as a Muslim and as a woman, even when this is under the guise of female empowerment.
Krista Riley is a graduate student in sociology and equity studies, currently living in Toronto. This piece was previously published at Muslimah Media Watch.
” character who is still being objectified, as a Muslim and as a woman, even when this is under the guise of female empowerment”
I think that is the effective argument against both wearing hijab and not wearing hijab.
That being said, maybe it’s not such a bad thing to acknowledge female sexuality (no matter what the woman’s wearing), even if it is for the purpose of pleasing the opposite sex?
I don’t see anything particularly derogatory about this ad.
i agree with the author. when i first saw this ad, i was annoyed at how it seemed to do nothing but perpetuate exoticizing orientalist fantasies about veiled muslim women. what’s the point of that?
also, good point about how the apparent message of being sexy for oneself and not for others (which is arguably “true confidence”) loses its legitimacy given the context of the ad and the way it is filmed to mimic the male gaze.
the bottom line is that this ad is vapid, and just another sad example of the “sex sells” philosophy, only this time tinged with some good old-fashioned orientalism.
but aren’t those “orientalist fantasies” the same ones that muslim men who prefer veiled women tend to hold anyway? So then is it really so orientalist?
And what, exactly, is “being sexy for oneself”? Turning yourself on to masterbate? I mean if you’re a heterosexual woman, you’re thinking about the “male gaze” when you’re trying to look sexy. Naturally that was included in the ad.
The problem, IMO, with using sex as an advertising tool is when it promotes negativity for or about women, or promotes the idea that a woman is nothing if she is not sexy. Sorry, but I don’t really see that here. It’s no more offensive that a Victoria’s secret “angels” ad.
given that we were watching an *advertisement* not a news piece, i think it was excellent and clever. it was for a lingerie store, and the woman looked very sexy. and i don’t think there is anything wrong with the twist at the end, since the point (or one of many purposes) of a hijab or burqa is to allow a woman to keep her sexual desirability for only those closest to her—not to rid a woman of her sexuality entirely.
*shrug* i thought it was a great ad, and agree with living3d – it didn’t seem to intend negativity or oppression against women or muslims, or muslim women.
as a last note, european standards for sexuality and nudity in public life are also quite different than american ones, so perhaps that plays a part in some of the nudity being present when it might not have been necessary for the ad’s success.
I’d like to draw attention to the author’s following point:
[More important is the bigger context in which this ad appears ??? the fascination about Muslim women???s bodies, and the curiosity about what???s ???behind the veil.???]
This is indeed an important issue. It’s important because Muslim women’s bodies seem to matter to so many people in so many ways. They matter to Muslim men and women who argue (in a variety of ways) about the “appropriate” way to dress and behave. They also matter to non-Muslim men and wommen who argue (in a variety of ways) about the “freedom” of dress and behavior. As such, this ad is locked within a set of predetermined discourses. It operates according to the cultural logics of “Western” sexuality and “Eastern” sexuality. This leaves us with a particular set of questions and answers that verge on the stereotypical.
I think that one of the important issues here is how NOT to see it according to this dichotomous logic. How else can we understand this ad? What critical questions does it raise about the viewers? Indeed, to focus so much on the woman’s body is to remain trapped within the framework that leaves women as objects and/or spectacles through which we debate other things. What, for example, is sexual about the ad and what does it tell us about our own ideas about women and their bodies?
Orientalism rarely *intends* negativity and oppression—it intends the exotification of particular perceived-as-alien cultures. The occurrence of negativity and oppression is more a byproduct of the flattening and misrepresenting of cultures as a form of entertainment. Or rather, there is negativity (imperialism), followed by that sort of imperial victor’s fascination with the targeted societies, leading to a deepening of the perception of those societies being populated by a people who are little more than a kind of performance art, leading to further justifications of the imperialistic motives.
Muslim women’s bodies have for centuries been the targets of orientalist fantasies. Trying to disconnect an image drawn up in the exact tradition of those fantasies is like trying to disconnect blackface from racism.
And no, in general a Muslim man’s potential preference for a veiled partner is not best described as orientalist. There may well often be fantasies at work there as well, but (repeat, in general) those fantasies are more likely to draw upon visions of the definitions of chastity, purity, and privacy, and not an idea that Muslim women constitute an exotic culture in want of imaginative voyeurs.
It’s interesting to note the name of the company-Liaison Dangeruese, a nod to the French Novel of the same time, written in the late 1700’s. The main point of the novel is that a male is in a “duel” with another and his main target happens to be the man’s wife. He successfully seduces the man’s wife. And on through the rest of the novel which is full of hedonistic pleasures, cruelty, and revenge.
From that angle, one can assume that the Madame is the character shown in the ad, the company introduces her to her sexuality, and by the gaze in her eye at the end of the ad, she needs more than what she has.
Is it because it’s a German ad and we know the feelings of the Germans toward Muslims-ie they should never gain citizenship, converts should have an identifier on their ID cards, and raids on mosques throughout the country? What if it were an Arab owned company who had the same sort of ad? Would it then be offensive to those who see it as a non-derogatory ad?
In my very unhumble opinion, I think it’s through the eye of a western male introducing sexiness to the burqa clad woman who is in need of something more than she has. It’s the look in the eye that bothers me more than her bare bum.
I’m starting to think that people are just seeing in this ad whatever they want to see.
But Michelle, I’m having a hard time respecting your arguments.
1.) “leading to further justifications of the imperialistic motives” – I’m sorry, but what “imperialistic motives” are you really trying to argue that this ad is supposedly attempting to justify?
2.) “Trying to disconnect an image drawn up in the exact tradition of those fantasies is like trying to disconnect blackface from racism.”
Well, no. When confronting blackface – a clear form of ridicule – the solution has been simple to not do it or wear it. In this case, which image would you deem unacceptable? What is it in this ad that is visually derisive or insulting? Forbidding the abaya, or women who wear the abaya, from wearing lingerie obviously isn’t the solution – because they aren’t the same thing.
3.) “And no, in general a Muslim man???s potential preference for a veiled partner is not best described as orientalist. There may well often be fantasies at work there as well, but (repeat, in general) those fantasies are more likely to draw upon visions of the definitions of chastity, purity, and privacy, and not an idea that Muslim women constitute an exotic culture in want of imaginative voyeurs.”
a.) How can you feel justified in even generalizing the fantasies of a muslim (in this case arab) man? There is no legitamite way for you to really know this unless you had known many such men either as a fellow man, or as a prostitue. Even then it would be a long shot.
b.)I wasn’t describing their view as orientalist – I was saying that what we are calling “orienalist” in this situation isnt such, since it isn’t solely the perspective of an “other culture”.
c.) I think it’s entirely subjective as to whether this woman is “in want of imaginative [I think you mean “imagined” here, btw – there’s not much of her body that is left to the imagination, afterall] voyeurs.”
d.) I would argue that this ad appeals to “chastity, purity, and privacy” – but also includes sexuality. I strongly doubt that muslim/arab men leave that out of the equation. That being said, I don’t think the perspective here is offensively foriegn, or “orientalist”.
I am not arguing that the ad is itself justifying imperialistic motives … that would be ludicrous. What I was speaking of was how orientalism in the broadest sense fits into a bigger picture of the way international politics play out, in response to the notion—as implied by Anjum—that what does not intend oppression can not be oppressive in effect.
As for the blackface comparison … the fact is that there *is* a history of European depictions of Muslim women as rather dehumanized, secretive sensual objects, and it is a history that has done Muslim women no favors. I fail to see why this ad is less connected to that history than, for example, the recent controversial French Vogue photographs of a white model painted to appear black is to the history of blackface entertainment. Independent of the history of racial parody there is nothing objectively offensive about painting one’s skin to be any color one chooses. Independent of the history of colonial harem fantasies and the like there is nothing objectively offensive about a more sensual representation of an impersonal covering woman. But the point is these things are not independent of their histories, and all cultures need to be sensitive to their own histories of imagery.
I do think it’s disingenuous and uncalled for to suggest that a woman commenting on one small range of motivations that a man might prefer a veiling partner is uninformed (or potentially a prostitute … really a rather odd thing to say). The body of materials on hijab, justifications for hijab, and preferences for hijab put out into the public by men is huge. Overwhelmingly so. It is not unreasonable to draw some conclusions about some men based upon those materials. And some of those conclusions do point to the existence of certain fantasies which are not, in fact, connected to the European history of fantasies drawing on Muslim women. There may well be Muslim men who do hold similar fantasies. There probably are. But on both public and private levels … on the levels of interacting with the public discourse on the subject and on the level of personal interactions … a statement like “but aren’t those ‘orientalist fantasies’ the same ones that muslim men who prefer veiled women tend to hold anyway” just doesn’t hold up.
I’m not really clear on how the ad appeals to chastity, purity, or privacy, personally, but that’s neither here nor there. And no, I do not think that overall Muslim men (why do you keep qualifying that with “Arab”?) remove sexuality from their view on hijab, but I would argue that the sexual component falls more under the category of marital privacy (or possession, which is a whole other conversation to have) … but again, not so much voyeurism. For the orientalist Muslim women were very simply exotic beings they could not have, and built fantasies upon. Whatever a given Muslim man’s interest in hijab may be, it would be a serious stretch to try to connect it to that.
(And no, I did mean *imaginative* voyeurs … as in the tradition of using the imagination to fill in the blanks on what one wishes to see but in fact does not. See, for example, the history of art surrounding Turkish women’s public baths.)
Perhaps an important aspect of this ad concerns its economic elements. The company is, I think, ultimately trying to capture a market: Muslim women. Granted, there is no such thing as “Muslim women” except as a category of women who identify themselves as Muslim. However, the ad seems to be trying to carve out a space in the market in which ideas about “being sexy” can be sold to Muslim women and their partners.
“Sexiness for everyone” essentially means that this particular experience of being sexy can be consumed by anyone. It’s attempting to bring the space of sexual intimacy into the public in order to sell something. I guess we can ask how we as Muslims (a diverse bunch, to be sure) feel about how sexuality can be brought into the market through advertisements in ways that don’t fall within the East/West debate. I’m wondering what alternatives can we imagine to this ad that sell products aimed towards creating “sexiness” for Muslims as consumers? Or, are there good reasons for keeping the commodification of sexuality off the television?
Years ago, I came across a stat that about 70% of the world’s lingerie is purchased by Middle-Eastern women. I cannot back this up and am sure it’s much inflated, but I know it’s well-whispered (amongst Muslims and non-Muslims) that some of the most provocative lingerie is worn by Middle Eastern women. Was it on here that I read about the Syrian edible thongs? If not, read this: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article5039741.ece
At any rate, I agree with Anjum, it’s pretty clever advertising.
The image being promoted in this ad is nothing new, it’s just that before it was only spoken about. It reminds me of a passage I read in Wendy Shalit’s book, A Return to Modesty, where a man describes how he finds veiled women most attractive as it leaves much to the imagination. Just the chance of glimpsing her silhouette as she moves, seeing a bit of her wrist, . . . catching glimpses of the forbidden heightening sensitivity and making even the slightest exposure/fantasy much more alluring versus someone who just lets it all hang out there. Makes you rethink the purpose of the veil . . ..
I can see this in a nuanced way. One one hand, yes its true that colonized women used to photographed in overly sensual poses to contrast with their full-body veils. I’m not sure why they sat for those photos though.
But it is true that women who wear veils often are dressed up underneath and its private like the article’s writer said. But I’m not sure why this video was included if she believes that.