From 2012 – how advertising today really is not all that much more “advanced” than it was in the 50s.
Man standing on a woman then? Man with a heavily shod foot on her throat now. The contemporary one is “advanced” in the usual sense that it makes her look as if violence=hawt sex.
Check them out. The Dolce & Gabbana gang rape one is especially…contemporary.
“Ironic” would be a deliberate inversion. This is just second verse, same as the first.
I suppose this sort of advertising must sell the products or companies wouldn’t still be doing it; it doesn’t say much for humanity if it does. OTOH I’m not sure the PR industry is that good at doing research, so it may just be the result of a lot of immature men[1] displaying their infantile fantasies in public. The older ads are less of a surprise because at that time everyone knew that men were for winning wars, winning bread and getting pissed every Friday night whereas women were for scrubbing floors, holding twee little coffee mornings and being obedient sex-kittens the moment the sun set. But today??? Personally I would find it embarrassing to be associated with advertising campaigns like this. For some years I have been in the habit of writing down the name of the product that is advertised in ways that particularly annoy me and resolving not to buy it if I can possibly help it until they clean up their act. Often I get to the supermarket to find I don’t have much choice, but that’s another matter.
Footnotes:
[1] I suppose the authors of these ads must be mainly men.
It is ironic, or knowing anyhow. But surely the more important difference is that the 50s ad is aimed at menand male fantasies while the modern one is aimed at women and some version of female fantasy (although much more complex), it is unlikely to even be seen by men.