there's been a ruckus in the mother city this week about the huggies ad. author and columnist lauren beukes took exception to the image and the byline used and got the rest of the media on the bandwagon to lambast what is considered a rather crude depiction of the kid.
enough has been said about it i think but after reading about it again for the umpteenth time, this time in the big issue, I couldn't help but wonder to myself... no matter how kak we think the ad agencies are for putting babies in adult contexts and clothing (highheels etc) how much kakker is it that we can look this picture and the first thing we see is sex.
because why can't it just be a little kid with an angry pout and hand on the hip? why is it that LB sees "a cute parody of adult sexuality".
this is just one of the images she compares the ad to. when i saw the ad for the first time, my first reaction was, seriously, 'denim'?? wtf? it's a bloody NAPPY. now even our NAPPIES need to be designer?? what a bunch of shit.'
that was it. not OH MY GOD THAT BABY LOOKS LIKE A HENTAI WAITRESS WHORE.
but that's just me.
maybe i'm being naive.
but i think it says a lot about us not only that we can create and buy into the need for denim-styled nappies and aloe-scented toilet paper and shove our five-year old's feet into high heels but that we can look at this tot and make wild sexual associations with the image.