The Jiwani Ad: Hot or Rot?
Controversy has erupted up in Boston over whether it was appropriate for the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly to run this racy advertisement, for Jiwani, a maker of custom-tailored suits:
Advertisements like this are a dime a dozen in Details and GQ. But in the more staid pages of a legal news publication, it drew a slew of negative reader responses. E.g., "Highly insulting," "Puerile, tasteless, and offensive," and "Wrong on so many levels."
What do you think? We're curious. Time for an ATL reader poll:
| Make Free Online Polls |
Update: This poll is now closed; you can view the results here.
Many Fume Over Hot Ad in Lawyers Newspaper [Boston Globe via How Appealing]
Comments
Never before have I been so interested in getting a custom tailored suit
Posted by: Anonymous | November 22, 2006 02:00 PM
We're talking Massachusetts lawyers - maybe they're offended that it's a WOMAN getting all hot and bothered over a sharp-dressed man . . .
Posted by: Anonymous | November 22, 2006 04:16 PM
Skewed sample, much?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 22, 2006 08:31 PM
It's offensive because SHE's undressed and HE is clothed. SHE is disempowered. HE is empowered. This is not an ad about two attorneys getting it on as equals, but about a man dominating a woman, and doing it because he is a man and with his manhood. Women deal with this power dynamic all the time in the context of litigation.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 23, 2006 05:52 AM
Re: above comment, looks like she's the one with the power to me.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 23, 2006 10:03 AM
It is she with the power - she is pulling him in by his tie, as if her sexy outfit, or lack theoreof, is not enough.
Posted by: Wallace | November 23, 2006 04:01 PM
Clearly she has the power. She has managed to get his jacket and check out his line of vision - he is looking at his jacket and, with his hand out the way it is is probably saying, "Um, Maam? Do you think I could have my jacket bact because I'm due in court in 30 minutes and I stil have to note up a case." She could well be a partner trying to seduce a junior associate.
Posted by: Anon. | November 25, 2006 12:30 PM
I am terribly sick of people who always conclude that a woman's employment of her sexuality is a disempowering move. It could be a strategic move on her part. and further we are not pissed off at men for "disempowering" us, deep down we hate the broad who looks like that because it leaves us one step behind her. Now we are forced to only work with our brain power....down with her.
Posted by: say what | November 25, 2006 09:42 PM
If a woman's employment of her sexuality were empowering, he would call us the next day. But he doesn't. In fact, I think that the term for a woman who regularly employs her sexuality is 'sloppy seconds'. How, exactly, is that empowering?
Posted by: Anonymiss | November 25, 2006 11:36 PM
It is clear to anyone with eyes that it is she who is getting what she wants (whether it is a means to an end is a factor outside the scope of the ad). The point of the tag line, other than the obvious one, is that she put on his suit jacket in order to entice him (both from a heterosexual and probably homosexual perspective).
If anything, the man seems to just want his suit back (he's tugging at the sleeve button).
If you're threatened by this I would suggest the sunday funnies.
Posted by: Juan Molinari | November 26, 2006 12:14 AM