Does that model look alarmingly young to anyone else?

The copy and meaning is de-fetishizing virginity and emphasizing how hot a woman with experience is. But I do agree with the above posters that the woman/girl looks inappropriately young for both a man of my age and for the implication.

Logrus, ew. Under the guise of "de-fetishizing virginity," which is totally not the focus of this ad, tons of icky icky disgusting perverted assholes have ended up fetishizing "experience" instead.

This amounts to insisting that women, in order to be attractive, must be totally sexually available to all men at all times and have a lengthy sexual history to prove it, possibly a much more lengthy sexual history than many women actually want. The pressure to have sex is just as pernicious, if not moreso, in our current culture than the pressure not to have sex and does just as much damage to women.

Please never use the phrase "how hot a woman with experience is" again. Women are hot for reasons other than our sexual history and the solution to the fetishizing of virginity is NOT NOT NOT to support the virgin/whore dichotomy by fetishizing women with another kind of sexual history. The solution would be to value women for our brains and interest and talent and emotions and humanity and stuff. Duh.

voltairyne: Please don't attempt to control my voice.

Sex is awesome, sexual experience is also awesome so long as it isn't the subject is in control of their own sexuality and it's projection it's a great thing.

If you were to say that you dislike the fact that sex is being used to sell things unrelated to sex I'd have to agree with you, not because I have a problem with sex but because I have a problem with the assumption that my genitals control my wallet.

If anything I have a problem with Tracy impying that sexually experienced women = "used". That term is intrinsically negative and bound to further the impact of people who use that kind of thinking to oppress women's sexuality.

An advertisement like this one is an attempts to convey some of the same elements of a work of literature; it's an attempts to tell a story about the principles to convey the meaning the folks paying for the ad want to associate themselves with. In this case the short phrase is playing on realized sexuality or, as I put it, "experience". Now you might read into it some sad tragedy to the nature of the subject's sexual history that makes you find it revolting, and that's fine and it's your prerogative but it's not inherent in the text or subtext of the ad.

As to "valuing women for their brains": Are we talking real-life or one page photo adverts here? Because I can state that sexuality is attractive to me you're assuming that I'm into stupid women, aren't you? Well how nice of you to assume that. For the record I'm not a 40'x20' flat white sheet, so I'd rather not be projected on.

Point of fact there is no disparity between a sexual woman and one with brains, in fact I can direct you to a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that women who have a greater degree of education are considerably more sexual on the average. Also note please that the only opinion I expressed about the appearance of the model was in the form of a negative.

Must sell house... live in cardboard refrigerator box... drive used BMW...

There just...Are no words.

On further examination I would also like to say I dislike the association with the concept of ownership that the ad conveys. That bothers me a lot.

Please, nobody tell me where the key is supposed to go...

(P.S. I hope someone has already sent this into Ms. for their "No Comment" section.)

While I find this ad pretty gross for all of the above reasons, an argument could be made that they were trying (and failed, I want to be really clear on that...this is a devil's advocate sort of statement following, here, for the sake of conversation) to cast a women with sexual experience in a positive light. "You know you're not the first," but you want her anyway. Just thinking out loud at what they could have been thinking when this was approved by whoever approves such things.

P.S.

BMW of North America, LLC
300 Chestnut Ridge Road
Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677-7731

Angry letters, anyone?

I'm with anna here. I think it's a positive step when sexual experience is seen as a positive rather than a negative in a society so puritanical as this one.

However, any progress reflected on that count is lost by this ad, which compares a woman to a car, sexual intercourse to ownership, and portrays an apparent 13-year old as a sexual object.

Hey, Feministing! You think THIS ad is anti-woman? You have sold space on your site to Coloradans for Economic Growth, who have a series of misleading ads in support of Bob Schaffer. Schaffer is one of the most anti-choice members of Congress in history, and now running for the U.S. Senate in Colorado against the pro-choice Mark Udall. I am usually very pleased with the pro-woman advertising on this site, but this one is way off base. Reply?

Logrus: For the record I'm not a 40'x20' flat white sheet, so I'd rather not be projected on.

For the record, I'm totally stealing that phrase.

I'm not even sure how this is supposed to sell a car. "You know you're not the first - but that's OK because we're BMW!"/"You know you're not the first, but experience is sexy!"? That said, the young lady in the ad looks very, very underage - which is rather disturbing in and of itself.

If I wanted to buy a used car, I would be drawn to advertisements of, oh... cars! I would not be drawn to advertisements of women or girls as sex-objects that just happen to have a BMW emblem in the corner.

Stupid ad that wouldn't influence me to consider buying a used BMW, but I just don't like ads that attempt to use sex to sell me something, you know, like almost all ads.

But also for me the real disconnect is linking the idea of sexual experience with a photo of a very young woman.

Huh?

ew, this troubles me for a couple of reasons.

a) lorgus, i get what you're saying about defetishizing virginity, but that's not all that's going on here. first off, since the girl is so young and arguably "looks" virginal, the ad could really be taken as implying that as long as the woman LOOKS like she's never been driven before (i.e., young), then experience doesn't matter. this could be a valid interpretation given that they're trying to market used cars as still attractive. next, fetishizing experience isn't really any better than obsessing over inexperience--either way it reduces the idea of women as objects. i don't object to the use of sex in advertising altogether in all contexts, i just think there is WAAAAAY too much advertising that sells one very limited notion of sex to one gender (men!) of one orientation (straight!) in one particular way. maybe if there was more of a balance in advertising that objectified everyone equally, i'd be less inclined to think of ads like this (apart from the model's age issue) as in any way harmful.

b) the model looks way young (even if in reality she is 18)and it just adds to the creep factor. not because 16-year-olds can't be sexual or anything, but that the target audience for (even pre-owned) BMWs is clearly much older.

The add is from Greece.
Advertising Agency: BBDO Athens, Greece
Creative Director: Theodossis Papanikolaou
Art Director: David Kaneen
Copywriter: Daphne Patrikiou
Published: June 2008

I tried to find her age but couldn't. I wasn't please about the knee jerk reaction assuming she was 13 without any proof. But I can't refute it, so eh. At what age to women get peach fuzz running down the entire side of her cheek?

It also seems to me like the ad is implying that you know you're not the first because she is hot, and obviously hot girls, even if they are 16, are there for everyone to have sex with.

It is also interesting how young she looks, cause I feel like a lot of guys I know would find this creepy. Most guys with enough money for beemers are probably old enough to be that girl's dad, and I don't think you have to be hugely feminist to find a picture of someone your daughter's age being totally sexualized in a mainstream publication to get a bit creeped out. I was pleasantly suprised by how many guys I knew were completely creeped out by those Victoria's Secret nursery rhyme ads, and this ad has the same effect.

yeah paul, i think it's wrong to assume the model is underage without any evidence--people age at different rates (i'm 27 and i get carded for cigarettes), although models often are very young. what was more disturbing to me was that they deliberately picked a model who either is or looks pretty borderline age-of-consent to begin with and used her not in an ad for, i don't know, energy drinks or video games or something targeted to teenagers or college-aged people, but to the audience for luxury cars, which has got to be a good bit older than both the model's real and implied age (if in fact there is a difference).

Paul, I don't think anyone is saying she IS, in fact, underage, but pointing out that the fact that she distinctly LOOKS underage [I agree], is creepy. They didn't just approach her on the street on the spot and book her for this ad- she was CHOSEN for this, on purpose, presumably based on her looks. That leads us to logically conclude they were trying to find someone who looks sexy and very young for this ad.

I think rileystclair hit the nail on the head with her "I might have a history, but I still LOOK young" reading of the add. That is far creepier than even my original thoughts about the way this fetishizes experience [while it is good to de-fetishize virginity, this is not the way to do that], reduces women to objects, and has a distinct element of ownership involved. Not to mention the "ugh" factor of yet another ad that really has nothing to with the product it is trying to sell. Gross.

rileystclair: next, fetishizing experience isn't really any better than obsessing over inexperience--either way it reduces the idea of women as objects

I disagree. Objects don't acquire experience, as the acquisition and improvement of skills is a function of the intellect. This ad may still be objectifying for other reasons, and it is actually unclear if it even is promoting the desirability of experience in the first place, but in general, attributing experience to something cannot be objectifying.

In any case, since when is finding experience desirable a "fetish?" Besides people obsessed about virginity, where could anyone find a sexual person who wouldn't, all else being equal, prefer a partner who is more competent at sex?

Lauriez:

This isn't the first time Feministing has featured contradictory ads. I've tried to contact them several times in the past over similar issues and my comments were either deleted or ignored.

Ick.

Actually, I read that as, "so what if you're not the first, she's still hot." Regardless of the interpretation, ick.

alice, i guess my reading of it stems from the fact that this is a car ad--the car attains "experience" from being driven, that is, operated and enjoyed by people, not the car's having driven itself around. equating a woman's sexual experience with a car's experience gives the impression of a passive experience, rather than an active one.

i think you're misunderstanding what i mean by fetishizing also. the's NOTHING wrong with saying "experience is a good thing", but there is something wrong to me with making experience a mandate for desirability. to me the same act is taking place--a man is the sole arbiter of a woman's sexual value and the single criterion by which he assigns that value is experience--not intellect itself or personality in any way. although i guess you could say there are two criteria at work here--experience and appearing young maybe. anytime one places a value on a single aspect of a person, be it appearance or some trait it's troubling to me because it reduces a person with a multitude of traits to just one thing.

rileystclair:

"but there is something wrong to me with making experience a mandate for desirability."

Why? What is wrong with you being allowed to set any standard you want when looking for a sexual partner/lover/partner? So long as you're making that choice of your own volition, how can it be wrong? It's no different than any of the thousands of specific criteria people use "needs to have this degree, needs to be this faith or not that faith, needs to have voted this way on that issue, needs to have read this book and felt this way about it" to pick whom they would feel more desire for or compatibility with.

But even then it's a stretch to say that desiring a thing or finding a thing desirable is exclusionary to other things. Certainly you, in your own life, have some kind of criteria for desire, perhaps gender might even play a role? If you are attracted to one kind of genitalia over other kinds is that not a focus on sex?

a man is the sole arbiter of a woman's sexual value and the single criterion by which he assigns that value is experience

I think your heteronormalizing sexuality. If you don't think that women who are attracted to women can and do focus on or appreciate the same aspects that men who are attracted to women do then you need to get out to more lesbian bars end events.

Objectification of the person or gender in which our sexual desire is focused is part of the very nature of physical attraction. Performance/skill is a facet of this.

Also you're overlooking the vary nature of the subject/object relationship in pretty much all sexual encounters. Both partners make an assessment of the other partner based on each encounter.

The fact that your personal focus is on blaming "the man" for his desire to have fulfilling sex with his partner seems pretty narrow minded when everyone wants good sex. Certainly women and men have the same right to desire good sex.

Does the ad place a value on a single aspect? Yes. It's also a single page ad, with one photo and just a short phrase used to convince people to shell out 40k for a car someone else didn't want enough to keep.

Show me a collection of ads of similar size that actually depict a complete picture of a person please.

Paul commented at July 17, 2008 3:18 PM: "At what age to women get peach fuzz running down the entire side of her cheek?"

For at least some of us, when we're little girls. I've had peach fuzz running down my cheeks and on the rest of my face as long as I can remember (and some of it started turning to coconut fuzz when I was 10). Maybe I got it at age 2, maybe I got it at age 1, maybe I was born with it, I don't remember far enough back to tell.

She looks 13 how? Why? Are all the women here looking haggard for their age or something? I know plenty of women who look very young. I agree with logrus that there is some projection going on.

This conversation is as interesting to me as the ad itself. The spectrum of feminism is fascinating.

Here is what I took away from the ad- the great thing about a premium car is that when you are done with it you can pass it on and the next person can get some pleasure out of it, too (before they pass it on again). Don't worry about your fear of commitment. We don't expect it, and neither does she.

BTW, in my part of the world, used BMWs are very popular among late 20/early 30 something men in software and finance. I think this ad would work perfectly on them. Sadly.

Mama Mia: I don't think of it as "fear of commitment" I think of it as a humane desire to inflict myself on another human being as little as possible. ;)

Hi Jessica, thanks for responding to my comment. BTW, I tried to contact you through the contact us section of the website but I got an error message.

The ad I am complaining about appeared on July 17th right above the horrible picture of the young girl being compared to a used car. It has had different content during different times I have logged in today, but it was posted by the Colorado Club for Growth. One message - the version changes - says, "Tell Bob what you think about renewable energy". The art is sort of pretty anime-style graphics and the messaging is about thanking Bob Schaffer (former member of Congress, Republican from Colorado's Fourth Congressional District, currently running against Mark Udall for an open US Senate seat.) for his activism in promoting clean energy solutions. (Schaffer was actually an official of an oil company.)

My main concern is how anti-choice he is; hosting his ads is equivalent to advertising Right to Life, as far as I personally am concerned.

Thanks for looking into this. Cheers, Laurie

um. okay, there's a whole lot of nitpicking going on here, but it's pretty easy to see that this ad builds its attractive strength off of the concept that this woman is about to be ridden like a car. i mean, the metaphor is that straightforward.

i don't care about personality (it is a poster, after all) or age (um, i think the agency knows enough about what they're doing to know when someone looks young, adult, mature or old - they did land a bmw account, after all) or heteronormativity (yeah, i'm sure this tripe is targeted at out gay and bi women in greece - riiiiight), this ad is straight-up comparing a woman to car... it's _not that deep_. suggesting that just because someone else has taken her for a spin doesn't make her less sexy and placing her, quite clearly, in the objectified and passive position of being a surrogate for an automobile (and laying on her back with her arms up). it's layered on a long history of women being treated as sex objects, not actors with their own agency, and if you can't see that, it's 'cos you're trying not to see it.

there's some folks who've been commenting here who, perhaps, have had too much time in the university and need to take a step back.

dang.

saying that it's okay, too, because a one-page ad must be expedient is a cop out... i work in design and have worked on plenty of one-page ads, billboards, posters, etc., and it's not the only option out there to position a woman as a stand-in for a car, though it is a played-out, clichéd and pretty boring option - if that's what you're into.

shit. i love my (definitely past the age of consent) bmw and now i just feel dirty for bigging up their - and not in the good way. and it takes a lot to make me feel dirty in a bad way.

re: feministing's ads, i have a feeling they weren't intentionally deleting any real criticism of what they're doing. i haven't noticed any, but, as evidenced by jessica's comment above, they are taking such concerns seriously. c'mon, le fay.

peace and blessings

oops... "bigging up their ultimate driving machines" i meant to say...

lorgus, i think you're losing a lot of what i'm saying by applying it to a larger context than this ad.

if you think this ad is aimed at lesbians, sorry but i think that's way off base.

my comments are all made within the context of advertising aimed at heterosexual men to sell luxury goods using very young women's sexuality and in particular, those that go the extra mile, as i believe this ad does, and equate the model with car. that's really all there is to it. of course people are free to make whatever mandates they wish about who they date, my comment was about THIS ad suggesting THIS mandate, which is just a variation of the purity mandate that has been foisted upon women for ages. i'm not "blaming" any particular man--but merely analyzing the perspective of the creator and intended audience of this ad, which is a male one.

i'm also in no way denying that physical attraction is a normal part of human sexuality. once again, we're talking about ONE ad that happens to reflect some sexist gender baggage our society has been lugging around for quite sometime. like i said before, in a world where men and women were equally used in similar way to sell things, maybe this ad wouldn't ick me out, but we all know that's not the case.

Logrus-
True, sometimes the car is ready to move on, too!

This ad isn't very hard to dechipher, and no it absolutely is not "defetishizing virginity." BMW is constantly running ads about how you can't tell their used cars are used (excuse me, "pre-owned" as they're usually referred to, curiously not in this ad but whatever). This ad is saying, in a nutshell, "You're not the first to fuck her but you won't be able to tell." Car companies aren't going to print ads that are saying their used cars actually FEEL like they've been used. Get it?
This girl's incredibly young look just supports that, in my opinion. And haven't we all heard the theory of men being obsessed with sex with young girls (i.e. want their woman hairless all over, etc)?

Morgan La Fey:
Before the switch to the community blog, they had no control over what ads were shown on the site (now, apparently, they do). So, I doubt they were ignoring you; there was nothing they could do about ad complaints and they told their readers about that fact more than once. I believe there may have even been a post about it, not sure, but it was definitely discussed on more than one occasion.

I've been around these parts for awhile now, and, unless you say something incredibly offensive or threaten someone, they don't delete comments here. There were some issues with comments not getting posted due to a technical glitch in the weeks leading up the change over which, again, they addressed. But, it takes a lot more than complaining about an ad to get a comment deleted.

Car companies aren't going to print ads that are saying their used cars actually FEEL like they've been used. Get it?

Exactly, dana. They are emphasizing the fact that the young woman looks and feels "new", even though she’s "used". The owner is the only one that knows she's been "used" by someone else. No used car ad in their right mind would emphasize the fact that the cars are second-hand. They want you to know it’s in like-new condition.

I don’t see how it could be interpreted any other way without really stretching and ignoring the context (ie: it’s a car ad, cars don’t have “experience”). It’s a blatantly using a woman as a stand-in for a consumer good – it’s the very definition of objectification.

i think it's ironic that lots of readers of a website that uses an icon of a super-skinny girl with big breasts and butt making a sexual gesture with her hand are getting angry when a car company essentially uses the same iconography.

is it OK when feministing does it because it's "satirical" or "ironic"? because i think the ad's designers are also going for satire and irony. (whether or not this is successful....well, that's another issue.)

baddesignhurts: Feministing didn't *invent* the logo, though. And they're not using it to sell anything.

I think that's a horrible parallel, regardless of how you feel about the icon of this site. So what, because the few people who made the choice about what icon Feministing should use [most of us commenters were not included in that decision] didn't make the choice you think is appropriate, none of us can talk about how offensive we think THIS ad is?

No thanks.

I find it interesting that some people commented that applauding experience and de-fetishsizing virginity is a step in the right direction but are creeped out that the girl looks underage, it just seems a like a contradiction to me. You all do realize that many girls do start having sex at a young age. It seems like you guys are saying sexual experience is great but the media should not portray young girls as sexually experienced.

What this ad is really saying is "I might have a few miles on me but I used some of those vaginal tightening drops so I'm as good as new."

Why are so many people defending this ad? BMW is comparing ownership of used cars to sex with women. That's misogyny, period. You're going to applaud them just because they say "used" women are just as good to own and objectify as the "new" ones?

And doesn't BMW think women buy cars, too? It's astounding how many companies just ignore half their market.

Creepy.

That girl looks like she's about 15 years old. Are they trying to sell stuff to pedophiles?

Peter: That girl looks like she's about 15 years old. Are they trying to sell stuff to pedophiles?

If they are, they're doing a very poor job of it, since pedophiles are attracted to children, and a 15 year old would be an adolescent.

baddesignhurts: The woman in the logo is holding up her middle finger. Although "fuck" is so heavily interchanged with "have sex with," I would not say that the woman in the logo is "making a sexual gesture."

I agree that a lot of comments are over-theorizing what is an obvious metaphor.

I believe the interpretation of this ad is very black-and-white in objectifying a seemingly-virginal (looks and vaginal elasticity, for lack of a better term) young woman by comparing her to a luxury car that happens to drive well.

All in all, it amazes me that even with many more people (not just women) becoming aware of sexism in society than in earlier days, a company can run an ad like this, and somehow think it's a good idea.

THANK YOU ShelbyWoo. Whether BMW is privileging virginity or sexual experience, it's still using sex (i.e. women's bodies) to sell a consumer good. And it's COMPARING a woman to a consumer good. The male gaze just never goes away, does it? I guess BMW hasn't gotten the memo that women earn money and make purchasing decisions, too.

Mama Mia, half the commenters on this thread aren't even feminists. Feministing attracts a lot of misogyny-apologists.

Baddesignhurts, ever heard of reappropriation?

Sarah: Considering only a handful of the 20+ people who commented defended the ad, even in a devil's advocate sense, I'd be interested in hearing your take on which of the other 8 or 10 are impostors.

To tell everyone you disagree with (or in this case, half the people you do agree with) that they're not actually feminists is insulting.

You all do realize that many girls do start having sex at a young age. It seems like you guys are saying sexual experience is great but the media should not portray young girls as sexually experienced.

Um, no. This isn’t “the media,” it’s a used BMW car ad – not a TV show or a movie, it’s an advertisement. And, they aren’t portraying her as “sexually experienced.” One more time…IT’S A USED CAR AD and cars cannot be “experienced”. They are portraying her as “used” but still looking “new,” like a car. This has absolutely nothing to do with young people having sex and everything to do with comparing a woman to a car. It’s not difficult to understand unless you deliberately ignore the context.

To tell everyone you disagree with (or in this case, half the people you do agree with) that they're not actually feminists is insulting.

No, what’s insulting is people defending this ad. It’s blatantly comparing a woman to a used car. If you don’t see the problem with this ad, you are either not a feminist or you seriously need to reassess your feminist values and ideals; because if you defend this ad, you are defending the objectification of women. Objectification of women = misogyny and sexism, which insults all women. Of course, that isn’t what SarahMC said (I, however, do not have a problem saying it).

SarahMC didn’t say that anyone that disagreed with her was not a feminist. What she said was there are a lot of anti-feminist asshats that come in here and delight in defending misogyny just to stir shit up. Frankly, it’s not hard to spot them. And, where do you get that 20+ people are defending this ad? There were about 2-3 commenters defending this ad. The overwhelming majority of the commenters found the ad offensive, because it's fucking offensive.

Hard Candy, if young girls are experimenting with people their own age, great. But this ad is aimed at people old enough to buy a used BMW. Get it?

thank you, shelby.

while policing ideology is usually a losing proposition and can alienate potential allies, there are certain lines to draw and, well, you drew 'em just right. hands down, any redeemable aspects to this ad pale in comparison to its overwhelming disgustingness on several levels.

thank you, shelby, for saying it more succinctly than i could. this is a no-brainer.

>>

of course. but who drew the line saying sexualized imagery/content was offensive in BMW's case but not in feministing's case? as far as i'm concerned, exploiting imagery of a female body, even in icon form, in order to forward one's financial interests/gain exposure is pretty deplorable. especially because feministing's very name is a play-on-words of a sexual act. (i get that it's supposed to be all ironic and tongue-in-cheek. not sure how effective that is, considering the earnestness of most of the comments.) it's meant to shock, and judging by the responses here, the ad's been quite effective at shocking people.

this ad grosses me out, most especially because i would bet money that the photo is a stock image, and if so, the model probably wasn't consulted about the content of the ad, so it's entirely possible that she thought her image would be used to sell lotion or something instead of essentially being labeled a slut. UGHHHH. (reminding me once again, why i left my career in advertising.)

Shelby, et. al.
Please re-read the statement, as you've taken the wrong meaning from it, and correspondingly attributed an argument to me that I never made. I said:
Considering only a handful of the 20+ people who commented defended the ad, even in a devil's advocate sense, I'd be interested in hearing your take on which of the other 8 or 10 are impostors.

To restate, I said more than 20 people have commented here, and only a 2 really defended the ad. Even if you were to accuse those two people of not being feminists, as you did, Sarah's comment indicates she believes 10 more people who have commented aren't really feminists, they're just pretending (or what, exactly?), a notion which I found insulting. That was my only point.

but who drew the line saying sexualized imagery/content was offensive in BMW's case but not in feministing's case? as far as i'm concerned, exploiting imagery of a female body, even in icon form, in order to forward one's financial interests/gain exposure is pretty deplorable.

Again, there is a world difference between using women as a stand-in for consumer goods and re-appropriating an icon to symbolize a feminist space (and, I’m not sure who you think is forwarding their financial interests with the Feministing logo). Context, baddesignhurts, context.

@identity:

I did misread your comment and I apologize.

Seperate from my response to identity, I stand by my assertion about those that defended the ad.

What a gullible group you have assembled. Somebody with a bit of wit takes the cover photo from LA FIERA INDOMABLE by EMILY MAGUIRE and PhotoShops it with a BMW Certified Car ad and the feministing.com community goes crazy!

http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-la-fiera-indomable/2900001161259

Save your letters ladies and sign up for a TinEye.com account that will allow you to see a photo's origins.

Another tip, take a look at the font and layout. Would a professionally made creative use such bland font in such small type to state, "You know you're not the first."?? Probably not.

How many "lifestyle" ads have you seen from BMW where the car was not prominently featured... I could go on, but hopefully a few have learned something from my posting.

hey, internet savvy,

local dealers, while they're supposed to be held to brand standards, do have some leeway in doing whatever they want... and, i much prefer the local ads out of poland on the same tip, which actually feature (omg) cars!

also, if the folks here are so gullible and all, i think you should also share your ire with adsoftheworld.com and several other places where this images has appeared.

or, better yet, why not appeal to whoever owns the photo (be it the publisher or photographer) and have them go after the greek agency which it looks like really did use the photo, considering there are credits for everyone involved. unless, of course, they licensed it, which is not out of the question, considering that the image they used is complete and high quality, so they had to have access to the source used for that book cover.

tineye is a pretty cool service, by the way, but it's still in public beta so folks here would just have to rely on the fact that this ad has been reported on all over the place as legit, credits and everything... so, yeah, go on teaching the people... you feel good about yourself now? seems like pixid would be a better fit for finding origins, though.

@InternetSavvy

I think it's just as likely that the same stock photo was used to create the two images (a la The Everywhere Girl)

The credits for the BMW ad are listed here. Looks legit to me.

Ah, well ladies, InternetSavvy has schooled us!

Apparently, because it’s PhotoShopped, we shouldn’t be upset. Never mind that it’s still a misogynistic piece of crap. Never mind that someone thought it was ok to appropriate someone else's art to turn it into a sexist fake ad. Nope, no reason at all to be offended by a fake ad comparing women to cars!

Sorry, InternetSavvy, but the fact that it’s fake only makes it slightly less offensive. It’s not “wit,” it’s not even original. Sexism is only funny to sexists.

And, don’t you think it would have been a little more appropriate to contact the author of the post to tell her it’s a PhotoShop job allowing her to post an update instead of just haranguing the readers and commenters? I would think someone claiming to be “internet savvy” would know that, but you seem to be more concerned with putting us our place then actually being helpful.

But what to I know, I’m just a gullible, crazy, humorless feminist!

but, rhowan...InternetSavvy was trying to teach us a lesson and you just ruined it!

Shelby,
I'm not sure that I agree. A corporate entity which puts out something like this does so with the direct intent of linking the the content to its name. That it passed the scrutiny of an organization that cautiously looks out for their reputation, and they thought it was okay, is a lot more telling than some random, anonymous person with an internet connection and a computer. If we were just pulling misogynistic photoshops people thought were funny off the internet, there are much, much worse things out there. This ad is made especially relevant by virtue of who created it.

identity: I’m not sure why you are directing that at me. I was specifically responding to InternetSavvy telling us poor, stupid women that we shouldn’t be offended because it’s fake (which it is not, apparently). I said is that if it was PhotoShopped, it’s still sexist and misogynistic. It's still comparing a woman to a car. But nowhere did I even imply that an individual posting this as fake ad was on the same level as a corporate approved ad – maybe you need to take your own advice and re-read my comment.

I send this to The Papa, and asked for his reaction, without him reading any of the comments.

The Papa: Um, she looks about 14. And... too sexual. And.. 14. And... tasteless.
Me: It's a BMW ad.
P: (squints and looks closer at the screen) Seriously? What the heck does she have to do with a car? Still tasteless.
Me: The copy reads "You know you're not the first".
P: (eyes bug out and a WTF look crosses his face) Nice. Extra tasteless.
Me: Would it bother you if she was 25?
P: Yeah, yeah, I think it would.
Me: What about 40?
P: If she was pulling 40, and had a drink in her hand, and looked like last call at 3am... nope, still creepy.

At that point I turned back to my computer, and then he pipes up with, "I mean, it's BMW for pete's sake. Seriously?"

This is coming from a pretty middle-of-the-road, slightly hilbilly, definitely testosterone-y man.

And the ad copy... it's a USED CAR. Are the trying to tell me that a woman "with experience" (because knowing you're not the first certainly implies at least more than one lover) is used? I hope not, because I don't think at this point I would pass Carmax's 40 point inspection test.

Seriously. Ridiculous.

Shelby Woo, true an ad is not a form of media but it sends out its message using the media i.e. magazines, television commercials, so it still sort of fits into my explanation. I'm not saying the ad is not sexist, what I was pointing out was the contradiction of the people praising the ad for highlighting sexual experience but then saying they don't like the fact that the girl look so young. It is almost like they were saying sexual experience is great but not for young girls.
SarahMc What type of product would it be ok to sell giving off an image of a sexually experienced young girl, would it ever be ok?

Shelby,

I re-read, and my comment still stands. I directed at you specifically because you said that if it would've been fake that would makes it only "slightly more offensive". Since fake would mean the creator is the aforementioned anonymous misogynist with an internet connection instead of a conscientious corporate branding attempt, I see a greater disparity in offense than you stated.

I call it progress, since when the last time you saw an objectified woman being praised for promiscuity? Isn't there a book about that double-standard being advertised on the left sidebar of this website?

I think it's legitimate to find this ad offensive because the use of sexuality in advertising is exploitative (duh) and tacky, but I refuse to believe this ad is selectively harming some subsection of women. I understand that if women go from being objectified for being young and virginal, to being objectified for being promiscuous single moms, that's the wrong kind of progress, but in that case your criticism should be more broad based.

Decrying the ad simply because of the girl's age occludes the fact that none of the specifics really matter, any person being turned into a sex object to shovel product (especially when that's the entirety of the ad's content) is tasteless.

Aside from the discussions here about whether or not it is a step forward if the ad is de-fetishising virgins what really gets under my skin is that this ad is for cars and so is aimed at men.

The last time I looked women do actually drive...it seems to me that BMW simply see cars as (a) just for guys or (b) think that even used ones are out of womens price range, making assumptions about our income levels

I'm 25, earn £45k ($90k) a year, am the main breadwinner and am totally hacked off with people assuming that this won't be the case...grrrrr

Anyway, have written to the ad agency & BMW.

BMW say on their website that one of their principles is a climate of 'mutual respect' for all of their employees, how do they think their female employees feel to be represented by a company that runs this ad?

What effect do they think it will have on female shareholders? This is of course assuming that they can believe that shareholders might actually be women!

Sorry, long ramble but very annoyed :(

@HardCandy: It is almost like they were saying sexual experience is great but not for young girls.

I read those comments as saying it’s disturbing to use a woman that looks so young in an ad that is obviously meant for a demographic of a much higher age. I did not read where anyone has said that sexual experience is great but not for teenagers/young women (I didn’t use the term “young girls” because it can cover an incredibly broad range of ages). It isn’t that an experienced teenager/young woman is a bad thing in and of itself. It’s a bad thing when they - or a model that looks to be a teenager - are use that to sell cars to a group of men that are much, much older (there is no denying this ad is aimed right at hetero men – and most BMW owners aren’t under 20).

I understand your concern as I also agree that sexually active teenagers aren’t a bad thing, heck I was one once. But, I just don’t see anyone on this thread that is implying that a sexually experience teenaged/young woman is terrible. They’re just objecting to the use of it in advertising. Though, the topic of sexually experienced teenaged/young women and how the readers felt would make an interesting community post.

@identity: If you have disparities in how much something offends you based solely on the author/creator, great. I don’t. I find it offensive, period. I am angrier that it’s a real ad, but not more offended.

Of course, your first response to my comment wasn't about whether the real ad was more offensive than a fake, was it? You accused me of not seeing that a real ad from BMW had more implications and ramifications than a fake by a random person. If that is a discussion you'd like to have, fine (although I agree that a real ad does indeed have more implications, buy you didn't bother to ask my opinion, you just assumed you knew what it was), but you don’t get to tell people whether they should be more or less offended.

Shelby,
I didn't register how "offensive" I found it and how "angry" it made me as independent factors, as you've now explained that you did. I'm sorry that I misunderstood what you meant, and that you feel I put words in your mouth. However, I never "accused" you of anything, I made an inference about what you wrote that was evidently incorrect based on a simple difference in how we were using terms. When you misread what I had said and completely misattributed an argument to me, I politely corrected you, you seem to be the only one "accusing". Nor did I "tell people whether they should be more or less offended," I just explained my opinion on the matter, the ostensible point of a comment board. I can't, therefore, understand your hostility or your accusations.

Since we're in apparent agreement on the issue save for our miscommunication in our word usage ("offensiveness" versus "offensiveness" + "anger provocation"), I kindly request that we drop our semantic argument.

Isn't there a board that has to okay advertisements for BMW? Isn't there any women on it? This ad is disturbing and sad.

agreed - the fact that the girl looks like a 12 year old with make up on is alot more offensive than the text of the ad.

I agree that this is equally wrong for someone to do on photoshop...but just to clear this up it is not linked with BMW.....

Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding an advertisement you have seen online.

After consultation with our Advertising Department, I can assure you that this advertisement has no direct affiliation with BMW. We understand your sentiments and we as a company would not endorse such an advertisement.

The BMW Logo has been used for fraudulent purposes and the details have been passed to the relevant department.

I am sorry that you have had cause to contact us under these circumstances and for any upset that this has caused.

Yours sincerely

BMW Group UK