Photo from WWD (click to enlarge)

What a way to wake up. I know. 

“Once you see it, you can’t stop thinking about it,” said Wang to WWD.  “It’s not provocative just in terms of sexy, but provocative to provoke conversation. I'm not dictating what that message is exactly. The interesting part is to see how people interpret it, and what they have to say about it. Of course, there are going to be people who disagree with it.” 

You were right on the latter but not the former, Wang. This ad definitely provokes conversation (such as this post or this one on HuffPost) but it is not "provocative in terms of sexy". It does not make me think, "Damn, those jeans are fine. It's so sexy. Anna Ewers makes them look so darned sexy. I need to look and feel that sexy. I need to get those jeans!" Instead, it makes me think, "Where are the jeans?!"

In Communication Studies, we call the strategically placed "Denim X Alexander Wang" an "anchor" which is words put in an ad to give meaning to the photograph because let's face it, without those words, what do viewers get? Tasteful porn, maybe. The advert is supposed to be selling jeans but the first thing that you see is Ewer's cleverly posed body and her "hidden" nipples because everyone knows what's behind those words, Wang. You can't hide them. What it does sell is the sexualisation of women's bodies in a way that is neither tasteful (like lingerie ads) nor elegant not even provocative. Don't even get me started on the shot where Ewers' hand is positioned to look as if she is masturbating. 

Photo from WWD (click to enlarge)

(On Wang's instagram @alexanderwangny, this was a photo teaser that came with the caption "Coming Soon") 

At first when I saw the advert, the first thing that came to my mind was, "Revolutionary. A designer who is not afraid to show that a woman is sexual and that a woman can claim her sexuality without a man." And then, it hit me that this is an advertisement and the object of the advert does not seem to be the jeans but rather a naked Ewers or Ewers' hand between her thighs. It is objectifying the model and thousands of women across the world. It reduces her to a naked body. It reduces her as something to be stared at, to be looked at. It is exploiting a woman's body, her femininity and her sexuality to sell a product that would otherwise be boring.

In fact, the "masturbation" shot disembodies the model, reducing her to just a hand between her thighs. It does not show her face (whether she is in the throes of passion) or anything else to indicate this this is a woman who is confident with her sexuality and is not afraid to show it. 

It does not scream high fashion. It doesn't even scream fashion. It's just a cheap and tired and boring way to grab attention, at the expense of women and feminine sexuality. It is as if you and your company were not confident that your jeans could sell and had to do something over-the-top to do so.

It is as if the jeans are marketed to come off rather than stay on. But, "The Wang 001 is not a “skinny” jean per se, but a “slim” with a high rise to sit at the waist as well as 1 percent stretch for the two indigo washes and 2 percent for the black wash. The Wang 002, or relaxed fit, has zero stretch and is based on a classic men’s fit, but cut for a woman’s body. Then there’s the Wang 003. “We’re not calling them boyfriend jeans,” he said of the boy cut, which rides low and has a wider yet tapered leg. “I hate it when you roll them and your ankle is swimming, so I cut it so you roll it twice and it stays pegged.” (WWD) You has given so much thought into these jeans even citing your inspirations as "female friends and the girls whose style he admires" (WWD) yet it seems no thought has been given to the adverts. 

It is as if you thought, "Sex sells. Let's put a naked girl in jeans. Tons of people will talk about it and buy it." You are an amazing designer, Wang and with all that brimming creativity, I'm sure you could have come up with something better than a naked girl with jeans that are around her ankles. Yes, people will talk about it and because of your reputation, people will buy your jeans but you don't need to objectify a woman to do so. Rely on your reputation, rely on your quality and rely on the fact that your clothes are beautiful. 

In fact, relying on those details in WWD (and if I wasn't so loyal to Guess Jeans), I would buy myself a pair. The jeans sound utterly sexy on their own, Wang. You don't need a naked woman to make them sexy.

(Image curated from Business Insider, curated from Victoria's Secret)

Just today, I read that Victoria's Secret "discreetly" changed the slogan to "A Body for Every Body". 

(Screenshot from Victoria's Secret)

While some people are applauding the move, I still am not happy with this. While you say "A Body for Every Body", I do not see every body type represented in that advertisement or even on the individual shots of the bras on the webpage. Even though the word "perfect" has since been removed, not changing the models still perpetuates the stereotypical image of the "perfect" only achieved by an elite class and stereotype of body. Not all women can have bodies like Victoria's Secret models. It's just not realistic. 

While there are many people who are able to take a step back and think critically about the "every body" statement contrasted with only leggy and slim models, there are impressionable and especially young girls who think that if they want to wear a Victoria's Secret bra and look and feel as good as the models in the advert do, they have to look exactly like them. In fact, such a body type is only achievable for some people, in this case, the models in the advert. But do these impressionable people know that? Are they aware that all women are born with different bodies and that they are just as beautiful as Victoria's Secret models even though they do not have the same body type?

How many girls and women are going to step into the dressing room, try on the bras and look in their reflection, mentally comparing how their bodies look in relation to the advertisement? The "A Body for Every Body" advertisement has models posing to look sexy, their hair is styled and they have on makeup and body makeup while at the same time, looking absolutely confident and happy. But what happens when the woman who puts on a push-up bra has a gut that is not flat nor does she have a thigh-gap realises that she does not look like the model? What happens when she believes that it's for every body but she doesn't look as sexy or as confident as the model? What happens when a woman has large breasts but are conditioned to believe that small, pert breasts are sexy? Perhaps it is just from personal experience but as a large-chested girl, I was severely bullied for having large breasts.

Also, as a plus-sized woman, I had severe body image issues and although I never suffered from eating disorders, I was beating myself up mentally for not looking perfect. I never look like the models. I have a gut poking out obscenely and jelly thighs. I have the world's shortest legs. I am glad that when I did buy my bras, I bought them from department stores where they usually do not have enough floor or wall space to perpetuate body image stereotypes. Hence, I stepped into the dressing room completely comfortable in my skin and loving the way a bra looked on my breasts. 

The point of this, Victoria's Secret, is that although you have "discreetly" changed the slogan of the campaign and many people are satisfied, it still perpetuates and reinforces the body stereotype. "Every Body" is clearly not represented in the ad. All I see are stereotypical models. Where are my apples? Where are my pears? Where are my hourglasses? Where are my Alexa Chungs or Kiera Knightleys? Where are my plus-sized sisters? Where are the real women of the world?