Sexist, Voyeuristic, Pervy Ad of the Day: Calvin Klein
I am sorry, when I get rained on the last thing I feel is sexy. Classy stuff.
Thanks to cmasson for the heads up.
Update: Sorry here is the link and it looks like this was created by students in advertising school.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sexist, Voyeuristic, Pervy Ad of the Day: Calvin Klein .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13211
eeew!
So, don't wear Calvin Klein products in the rain?
You know, I don't think that this actually happens in real life, only in "As Good As It Gets." So, putting it on a billboard is waaaay over the top. No pun intended.
ugh! fuck you Calvin Klein
I hope that when it dries out it looks rumpled and dirty, and people associate rumpled and dirty with Calvin Klein.
hahaha! love this comment.
I notice Feministing never said anything about that disgusting Hardees commercial with Padma Lakshmi, eating a hamburger and pretending to have sex. That was disgusting, nasty and sexist. I don't see how a hamburger is connected to a woman's body.
Yeah, I had expected to see that on here. Of course, I'm probably guilty of making sex moans while eating a hamburger.
Anyone have a link?
Here it is on YouTube. It's quite subtle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8nJKa13sBo
I agree with you. That burger ad is really disgusting.
I don't think it's that awful. At least it mentions her accomplishments and shows her enjoying food. I'm much more offended by ads that glorify being overcontrolling of one's own hunger and apetite.
I agree that in some ways it shows Padma in a really positive light, and as an agent not just an object.
It is very sexual, but why is that necessarily bad? I'm a queer woman, and I thought it was kinda hot. yes, it definitely is made for a male gaze, but lets destabilize the idea that its only men who like to see attractive women.
What's so "disgusting" about the Padma Lakshmi Hardee's ad?
It shows a woman actually enjoying her food (which is actually pretty subversive in our fatophobic diet crazed society, which considers female appetites of any kind a cardinal sin)
And yes, it shows Lakshmi enjoying her burger in a sensual - in fact flat out sexual - way, while reminiscing about an adolescent sexual fling.
Eating is a pleasure of the flesh - just like sex is - and there is an inherent sensuality and sexuality in eating a good meal.
[Not that I'd necessarily consider a Hardee's burger a "good meal" - but that's besides the point]
And the ad didn't dehumanize Lakshmi - both the voiceover and the images emphasized her well known love of gourmet food, so she wasn't just a "hot chick" but a well rounded human being with interests and feelings.
What's so terrible about this ad combining eating and sexuality?
It would be nice if they had a companion ad with a similarly conventionally attractive male star (let's say - Jason Statham, or David Beckham, for example) presented in a similar fashion so the straight women and gay men would get a similar ad to enjoy.
Bottom line, just because an ad is sexy doesn't mean it's sexist.
I was going to say the same thing about this ad, that maybe there could be a companion ad with some dude's junk getting all soaked in the rain, but I couldn't imagine how it wouldn't just look like he was peeing his pants. (Then again, some people are into that, so it would be targeting a whole different demographic...)
Actually, I was talking about the Padma Lakshmi Hardee's ad here!
Which could totally be done just as sexily with a male actor as it was done with her.
But the same goes with the underwear ad - you could have the male model in a t shirt that becomes see thru when it rains - and you could position his body so his entire torso was visible, no matter if the shirt was wet or dry, so his underwear would always be visible.
Maybe this is a cultural thing (as I grew up in Europe and only recently came to the US) but... I don't see what the big issue is with this. How is this ad extremely sexist, voyeuristic and "perverse" (where I come from, the word "pervese" is frowned upon by feminists and anti-defamationists)? I mean, yes, it's an underwear commercial and as such it features people in underwear, and yes, adds generally wants to have an element of "sexiness", and yes here it's women being objectifies (and at least in Europe, Calvin Klein frequently have objectified male models) - and yes: all of this can play in to a general gender-reinforcing system... but how is this particular one different than most? And what makes it "pervy"?
I'm asking, not to dismiss this post, but to get clarification and understanding. Maybe there's something that I don't see. Surely it cannot be that the add changes according to the weather that's seen as "perverse"?
I think that Calvin Klein also has photos of male underwear models in the states.
What's wrong with the word perverse? I don't have much of an opinion on it, except to think "wait, does it mean the same thing as perverted?"
"perverse" means (in the discourse that I come from) that which is "non-normative" and condemned as "un-natural" or "deviant". Homosexuality used to be seen as "perverse", BDSM too, all fetiches, everything queer etc. The word "perverse" is basically a word to denounce some sexual or gender-related activity as "unnatural" and dangerous. Sure, some activites are dangerous (pedophilia for instance) but... I think you get my point about why the word can be seen as highly problematic(?).
What does the word mean in this post? What is its feminist connotation here?
I am not offended by that billboard. BUT I am offended by the disgusting Hardees burger commercial (see the video link someone posted here on the comments).
I agree, vhs, I don't find this objectionable. I actually find it very clever - minus the spelling issues, I would have given these students high marks.
And I take it back about the bad spelling - these students are in South Korea, so assumed to be non-native-English speakers.
It's no more objectionable than any other underwear/women's fashion ad (and far less objectionable than many). Are we really going to complain every time there's a woman's body shown in underwear?
Bonus points to the ad students for being clever.
I have to agree with you.
I do have problems with this ad - it doesn't show the woman's face, just her disembodied body, and the model is a conventionally skinny White woman.
But I have that problem with a LOT of ads for women's underwear (and that's been a problem for a long time - when my father used to retouch print ads for women's underwear for Macy's and Alexander's in the 1970's, they had disembodied White women's torsos in the ads back then too).
Beyond that, what's so extraordinarily sexist about this ad?
And what's with the general objection to any kind of sexual content in ads?
That's a little too puritanical for my taste (but then again, America is known for it's sex hating puritanism, on all ends of the political spectrum).
whats wrong with the model being white? and the body dismembered. it's simply cropped. besides if this was done by a korean company the 'white' woman may be korena
What's wrong is because most high end underwear ads use White models - even though most of the world's population are people of color.
Basically, it gives the message that only light complexioned people are high class and deserve to wear luxury clothing items.
And not having the model's face in the pic does present her body like it's dismembered.
This ad would be better if you could see the model's face (and if, of course, they used an East Asian model instead of a White woman - because, after all, this billboard was designed for the South Korean market)
they spelled plain wrong.
a bit of an overreaction to a student project. those three 20 year olds should have known (and spelled) better!
They spelled the word rainy wrong in the proposal. They used two n's. Just thought that it was worth noting.
Beat me to it. Thousands of dollars in advertising, and no spellers amongst them. We can see where CK's focus really is...
This is actually a student project.
From a college in South Korea.
Considering the fact that they were writing in a foreign language with a totally different writing system, they did pretty good - I'm sure their English writing skills are about 10,000 times better than my Korean!
Way to spell rainy correctly, CK. ("Rainny.")
It's offensive because it's reminiscent of wet t-shirt contests, featuring white t-shirts like in the ad, aimed at objectifying women en masse. It's a by-product of that cultural movement another poster mentioned where girls think that appearing in videos like Girls Gone Wild is empowering instead of reinforcing misogyny.
Can it be reminiscent of wet t-shirt contests and a by-product of "that cultural movement" of Girls Gone Wild, when it is produced by South Korean advertising students?
Do we look at the advertisement differently knowing that it's not Madison Avenue/corporate America in origin?
I find this ad to be provocative and sexy, two words I like to think of when buying underthings.
I'm also in the provocative-and-sexy camp. My own first reaction is that I imagine taking a romantic walk through a sunny prairie when it starts to rain. A little classier than a wet t-shirt contest, and a heck of a lot sexier.
I mean, I enjoy wearing sexy underwear. I can't really blame the people who sell it for marketing it as such.
Funny to juxtapose this post with the earlier Community post re: owning your femme-ity. I think this ad is spot-on in speaking to women who would actually buy a CK bra. I kind of wish this ad were real, and this billboard/banner were posted here in Seattle, where it rains all the time.
I don't see how it isn't empowering to embrace your sexuality. If a women choses to be in a girls gone wild video and she is comfortable in that position i don's see why she has to be persecuted or why it is called misogynistic. A man didn't force her to be in it, she chose using her own free will. And as a feminist I completely support any women's choice to do what she wants with her own body. And yes I believe that it is empowering to women if a woman has the confidence and is comfortable enough in her own body to show it to the world. I don't want people to be afraid of the female body and sexuality I want them to embrace it.
Besides Calvin Kline adds don't discriminate, people of every gender, race and colour are sexualized.
Ariel Levy talks about Girls Gone Wild and why women participate in it in her book Female Chauvinist Pigs. It's a good book and she brings up some interesting points.
"It's offensive because it's reminiscent of wet t-shirt contests, featuring white t-shirts like in the ad, aimed at objectifying women en masse"
I do agree with that. However, do you think it would be different if they did the same kind of ad for male underwear? Personally, I see no problem with exploiting sex appeal. The problems arise when it is done by disproportionately depicting women (as opposed to both women and men), or has misogynistic connotations. I personally did not see much of that in the ad, and I think there would be none at all if they chose to do one for men's wear as well.
"A man didn't force her to be in it, she chose using her own free will."
And isn't it funny that her own choice just so happens to appeal to the very men who wouldn't force her to do it? The same men who wouldn't look at her if she didn't?
These women who are comfortable with their bodies: how many of them are ugly? How many of them have had mastectomies? Something tells me a woman ripping off her shirt to reveal a scarred breast wouldn't get on a "Girls Gone Wild" video, regardless of how comfortable she felt.
So i don't understand, are you saying that women have no freewill? Are you saying that because it so happens that some men are attracted to women that a women is tricked into taking part in something like a girls gone wild video? Give women more credit than that, we are capable of making our own choices and understanding what those choices entail.
And I am very offended that you would say her choice only appeals to men, when it can and does appeal to individuals of every sexual orientation. I am positive that there is at least one woman somewhere in the world who would find a woman in wet clothes attractive. But I highly doubt you would accuse her of "forcing" the woman to do it. I am also very offended that you would group all men together by saying that the only thing all men care about are women's bodies. That is so disrespectful and ignorant. I am completely aware that there are some people (men and women) in the world who only care about sex appeal, but I would not dare bring everyone else of that gender down with them.
As well, I generally don't like to segregate women based on their looks. It is not up to me to decide what is attractive and what is not. Everyone has a different idea of what is attractive...it is very subjective. Yes, it is unlikely that a woman with a scared breast will end up on a girls gone wild video. But the point isn't if a women ends up on a billboard or a video. The point is that there are many different ways a woman can express her sexuality and many different opportunities that different women will get to express their sexuality. And when a woman gets the chance or reaches a point where she is completely comfortable with their body no matter what, she will express her sexuality however she feels. Whether that be on a billboard or in her bedroom. And no man, or woman, or object forced her to do it. She did it on her own, and there is no reason for her to feel ashamed of it.
As a final note I would like to say that I find it funny that you would say all men care about is sex appeal when the women who you would group in the "ugly" category are likely to be happily married or in a relationship.
“So i don't understand, are you saying that women have no freewill?”
No: I’m saying that what is often touted as “female sexual liberation” has a really nasty habit of aligning with many men’s desires, which suggests that the woman isn’t doing it for herself: she’s doing it for the male gaze around her.
“Are you saying that because it so happens that some men are attracted to women that a women is tricked into taking part in something like a girls gone wild video?”
I don’t think she’s tricked, but I doubt it’s purely her idea. If it were just about the woman and her expression of herself, there would be ugly and scarred women shown. But they’re not shown, because those shows aren’t about the woman: they’re about the viewer. And what the viewer wants is what they’ll continue to get.
“And I am very offended that you would say her choice only appeals to men, when it can and does appeal to individuals of every sexual orientation.”
Where did you find the word “only” in my post?
“I am positive that there is at least one woman somewhere in the world who would find a woman in wet clothes attractive. But I highly doubt you would accuse her of "forcing" the woman to do it.”
There’s a reason why feminists fight against the patriarchy: because that’s what’s in power. Lesbians haven’t nearly the power that heterosexual men do, but if you were to find some place where a woman is unlikely to receive attention from other women unless she displays herself, I’d be objecting to that, too.
I don’t think it’s forcing, but I doubt the woman who decides to flash the camera decides to do it because she is comfortable with her body and she wants to express herself as a sexual being. It seems a heck of a lot more likely that someone behind the camera is egging her on.
“I am also very offended that you would group all men together by saying that the only thing all men care about are women's bodies.”
Where did you find the word “all” in my post?
“That is so disrespectful and ignorant. I am completely aware that there are some people (men and women) in the world who only care about sex appeal, but I would not dare bring everyone else of that gender down with them.”
Neither would I. Read my post: don’t read into it.
“As a final note I would like to say that I find it funny that you would say all men care about is sex appeal when the women who you would group in the "ugly" category are likely to be happily married or in a relationship.”
Again: where did you get the word “all” from? My point is that “female sexual liberation”, when recorded, is rarely going to show even the most comfortable of ugly women, even though they are entirely capable of sexual liberation and desires.
Kim,
I'd like to point out, that in saying "men", you make a rule, a generalization. This amounts to saying ALL men are like this, unless he is an exception. Congratulations on placing all men in the same box unless he is proven to you otherwise.
Not only have you stereotyped men, but you have robbed women of their voice. Women in the modeling/advertising industry have made the conscious choice to be photographed in this manner. It is not your place to tell them they can't. Not only that but you say they don't do it for themselves? Why do they get paid? If they are truly slaves to the patriarchy as your indeed saying, they'd get paid nothing. Are you trying to convince us, that she stands there simply for the enjoyment of others.
I hope I used the word CHOSE enough, because you seem to have the understanding that it wasn't in fact her choice. I'd like to point out that even if she wasn't getting paid and was simply modeling for attention, that was still her choice. Since when is it a feminist domain to take away the choices and freedom's of women. If she is free to do whatever pleases her, whether it be modeling, stripping, being a porn star, or US senator. It is HER choice. Just as easily as she said yes, she could have said no, and I'm the producer would went to find someone else.
Furthermore how do you know the photographer and producer where male, why is it you automatically assumed it was a man's doing? It seems the most patriarchal/sexist thing that has been said was from you...assuming that a MAN was in fact behind the wheel on this (be it the billboard, or girls gone wild). If there is money to be made, gender doesn't matter.
Just as easily as she said yes, she could have said no, and I'm the producer would went to find someone else.
Should read:
Just as easily as she said yes, she could have said no, and I'm sure the producer would easily move on to find someone else.
“I'd like to point out, that in saying "men", you make a rule, a generalization. This amounts to saying ALL men are like this, unless he is an exception. Congratulations on placing all men in the same box unless he is proven to you otherwise. “
Let’s look back at my post:
“The same men who wouldn't look at her if she didn't?”
That is a very specific subset of men. It is not all men.
“Not only have you stereotyped men, but you have robbed women of their voice. Women in the modeling/advertising industry have made the conscious choice to be photographed in this manner. It is not your place to tell them they can't.”
And where are you getting the word “can’t” from? Cautioning women that an appearance on “Girl’s Gone Wild” isn’t likely to be a healthy example of female sexual liberation is not the same as handing down a stone tablet with the words “Thou shalt never remove thy clothing in front of a camera” inscribed on it.
“Not only that but you say they don't do it for themselves? Why do they get paid? If they are truly slaves to the patriarchy as your indeed saying, they'd get paid nothing. Are you trying to convince us, that she stands there simply for the enjoyment of others.”
Where did I say they were slaves? Can you please stop putting words in my mouth?
“I hope I used the word CHOSE enough, because you seem to have the understanding that it wasn't in fact her choice.”
Uh, no, it is her choice. But let me explain what I consider a “bad” choice and what is a “good” choice.
“Well, if I take off my shirt in front of this camera, I’ll get loads of attention, especially male attention, especially from men who probably wouldn’t take notice of me if I remained very modest: off the shirt goes!”
That is a bad choice.
“I am a sexual being who is comfortable with her body and considers expressions of sexuality to be healthy and entirely acceptable. The sexualization of women’s bodies and the subsequent attention attractive, sexual women get is not the reason why I am doing this: this is my expression.”
That sounds like a much better choice. Same action, different attitudes. Given the viewership of the show, I doubt it will be taken that way, though, which is why I am expressing that caution.
“I'd like to point out that even if she wasn't getting paid and was simply modeling for attention, that was still her choice. Since when is it a feminist domain to take away the choices and freedom's of women.”
Objecting to women’s decisions is not taking their freedoms away.
“If she is free to do whatever pleases her, whether it be modeling, stripping, being a porn star, or US senator. It is HER choice. Just as easily as she said yes, she could have said no, and I'm the producer would went to find someone else.”
It is her choice, and I would never wish to take that choice from her. And that’s not what I’m arguing.
“Furthermore how do you know the photographer and producer where male, why is it you automatically assumed it was a man's doing? It seems the most patriarchal/sexist thing that has been said was from you...assuming that a MAN was in fact behind the wheel on this (be it the billboard, or girls gone wild). If there is money to be made, gender doesn't matter.”
Where did you get the idea that I thought the photographers and producers were always male? I said that the viewers were likely to be male, but that’s different.
The point is that the choices we make don't exist in a vacuum. Outside forces can guide our choices, and often not for the better because it DOES take away our real, free CHOICE. If a woman "chooses" to flash a GGW camera because she's drunk, or because someone offers her $20, or because her friends/peers are cheering her on to do it, I don't think it's wrong to say that her choice was perhaps misguided or not her own, even though she "made a choice."
Or if someone said, "Take your top off or I'll kill this puppy," would you say, "Well, she made a choice." It's an extreme and ridiculous scenario, but if you're young and naive and in a situation where you don't have all of your faculties, it's not much different. It's not really your choice.
I highly doubt that for most GGW participants the choice is truly 100% THEIR choice. Whether it's alcohol, the producers, their peers, or a need to please. That's not a real choice. That's being pushed into a choice.
And it's different from serious modeling. Not even worth comparing the two.
The main difference between Girls Gone Wild and "serious modeling" (isn't that an oxymoron?) is the pay check.
Models on major campaigns get paid - in some cases quite well.
But Joe Francis doesn't pay the GGW models - they just get a free hat.
After they sign a model's release, so he can use the images.
And a sex release, in the case of the models that he has sex with.
Yes, Joe Francis is a sleazy sleazy sleazy man - he actually carries sex release forms around with him so he doesn't get charged with rape when he has sex with very young and very drunk women (he checks ID - and takes photocopies - as well)
As for the photo releases - in one of his earlier tapes, he used an old video of a topless woman on a boat in Lake Havasupi, Arizona.
Then a friend of that woman's 8 year old son came upon the video, and showed it to her kid.
She saw it too - and sued Francis.
And won - because he didn't have a signed release from her to show her image on one of his videos - he had to pay her some money and destroy every one of the videos.
One of the sleaziest things about Francis is the fact that he doesn't pay his models any money - just a lame trucker hat - even though he makes millions from selling their images.
Just because a women's actions happen to be what some men want to see doesn't mean she isn't doing it for herself. I admit that it is possible for a woman to show off her body for the viewing of others (and if she is comfortable with that, then I don't see a problem with it, it is her choice), however I also believe that it is possible for a woman to want to do something for herself despite the fact that it aligns with what other people want. That is called a coincidence. And women are capable of an ideas which are purely theirs, no matter what the topic of discussion is.
It upsets me that you are saying woman and lesbians have less power than men. Why would you take that power away from them, and make them lesser beings? Women and lesbians have just as much power as men, they may not hold as much political power as men, but they certainly have as much power. The feminist movements are all about women learning that they have as much power as men and about teaching woman how to use this power. Power is all about not accepting what people stereotype you as, going against the stereotype and formulating a new idea of what a woman is IS in fact power. And there is no doubt in my mind that all women have just as much power as men and I would never take that away form a woman. Read something by bell hooks.
And I think you are missing my point. Female sexual liberation is not about what is recorded or photographed. It is not something physical that you see in front of you, it is a feeling. It is about women having the confidence to express their sexuality in any way they see fit and having the right to do this without being afraid of what people will say or do to her. And I believe I said that many different women come across many different ways to express this. Just because it is seen by millions of people doesn't mean that it is any more valid than something that is seen by one.
Maybe the more "attractive" women will be seen by a lot more people, at this point in time the media has a certain view of what people should look like and they will follow this view no matter what as long as it is still making money. And women have the POWER to end this, women have the POWER to change stereotypical views. Feminism has contributed a lot to our society when it comes to showing people that women come in many different shapes and sizes. But I am not going to put down a women because she happened to be "attractive" and had the chance to be in a movie or billboard and took that chance. The goal is not to take that away the goal should be to broaden peoples idea of what is "attractive".
“Just because a women's actions happen to be what some men want to see doesn't mean she isn't doing it for herself.”
And I agree with that. See my reply to Alexander for more information on that.
“I admit that it is possible for a woman to show off her body for the viewing of others (and if she is comfortable with that, then I don't see a problem with it, it is her choice), however I also believe that it is possible for a woman to want to do something for herself despite the fact that it aligns with what other people want. That is called a coincidence. And women are capable of an ideas which are purely theirs, no matter what the topic of discussion is.”
And where did I say anything to the contrary?
“It upsets me that you are saying woman and lesbians have less power than men. Why would you take that power away from them, and make them lesser beings?”
Do you really think that by stating facts about the current state of affairs in this country that I am actually espousing them? Do you think that if I had said “Black women don’t have as much power as white women do” that I was making a racist remark? Do you think that if I had said “Muslims don’t have as much power as Christians do” that I was being discriminatory against Muslims? The people who, in this society today, have the most power are white, heterosexual men. I don’t want there to be a hierarchy at all, and stating facts that there is a hierarchy is not supporting it. Please understand the difference.
“And I think you are missing my point. Female sexual liberation is not about what is recorded or photographed.”
That’s why I don’t think what IS being recorded and photographed is likely to be female sexual liberation.
“Maybe the more "attractive" women will be seen by a lot more people, at this point in time the media has a certain view of what people should look like and they will follow this view no matter what as long as it is still making money. And women have the POWER to end this, women have the POWER to change stereotypical views. Feminism has contributed a lot to our society when it comes to showing people that women come in many different shapes and sizes.”
So why aren’t these women shown in these shows?
I didn't know that the kind of technology required to change the billboard on rainy days existed.
Lots of place have electronic billboards now. Or you could just book one of those changeover things (the kind that display3-4 different adds) and only only change when its wet.
You could rig it up to something moisture sensitive, or just have a person come change it on bad weather.
Considering billboard worker labor costs in major North American markets, that would be prohibitively expensive.
In New York City, it would be $ 36.80 in wages plus $ 23.59 in benefits PER HOUR, with 3 workers and an 8 hour minimum guarantee, that would add up to $ 1,449.36 in labor costs - and that's not including materials.
Plus there's the practical question of having a boom truck and 3 sign erectors on standby 7 days a week in case of rain - it would really add up.
It would probably be easier to go with your electronic billboard solution.
Or, if you want to be really creative - go with a fabric billboard, with the background made of fabric, the bra made of another layer of fabric, and the camisole top made of a third layer.
The camisole layer would be translucent material, that would become transparent when wet.
This way, the billboard would automatically adjust.
It would be expensive to install - but it would look mad cool!
I didn't mean change the picture lol, that would be crazy expensive. I meant have a billboard made of the rotating panels that can display multiple adds and "change" the ad when it's wet.
WOW! This one takes the cake! Water plus underwear...equals sexy? If that's sexy, then we all might as well just watch our clothes in wash! Calvin Klein FAIL!
Water plus lingere IS sexy if the owner of the underwear is wearing it at the time.
Calvin Klein WIN
Or, to be more accurate, Chosun University School of Advertising students WIN (cause they created this ad, not CK or CK's ad agency)
I think that the title, "Beginning of Seduction", also speaks volumes.
I am assuming that, because this is an outdoor sign, the implication is that it is rain which saturates this woman's clothing (not water from a shower, for example, which at least implies a choice from the woman to saturate herself.)
In most cases of women getting wet from rain, I'm assuming that it's accidental. I believe that this is probably part of the appeal (I could be wrong about this, though, since her position does imply that she is enjoying it, but...).
So who is doing the seducing?
It feels like it's not the woman. She's been caught out in the rain in a now see-through top.
I guess it's the man viewing her (with a little help from the weather?).
How is that any more sexist or pervy than this?
http://www.fashionandrunway.com/fashion/openimage.cfm?articolo_id=10841&tbl_correlata=news&immagine_id=19021
Oh wait, I know, it's sexist because women get smaller billboards than men, right?
I think the difference is that men aren't objectified to the same extent that women are.
Please elaborate.
Personally, I think the technology is pretty cool. It'd be really neat to have tasteful advertisements that changed depending on the condition. Although, whether this is tasteful or not is questionable. For example, underwear stores do have mannequins outside wearing their goods, although they're usually not stories tall.
Also we should remember that this is a student proposal / project and not a real billboard, unlike (linked to from the ad's page) Note: NSFW content: http://adsoftheworld.com/media/ambient/playboy_de
Which if you ask me pushes the bounds on more levels - namely that it takes nudity to a public space (but this is Germany, and their cultural norms are different, still I would like to know what happened over this ad).
Perhaps a better use of this technology would be one for a convertible that put the top on in bad weather, or an umbrella that would unfold in the rain (not that umbrella companies advertise on billboards....).
I actually thought it was really clever that it was weather reactive. I like the umbrella idea above. Now that's fucking awesome.
And that add in Germany? At least she gets to keep her nipples. Outside of a strip club here which has a Miss Nude Australia or something similar, she doesn't get to keep her nipples because (I bet the logic behind it would be) they're too offensive.
Too bad for the students the idea has already been used. I don't remember what the billboard was advertising, but there's a very similar billboard that shows a woman's chest in a white shirt, along with the words "Gentlemen, pray for rain." If the billboard gets wet, then the woman's bra and such is visible.