you imagine someone with a swastika pendant and tells you: "No, I myself hate the Nazi regime, but is that the cross is very pretty ".
Or maybe you better imaginéis a communist with seagulls on a patch of his jacket: "What fault do I have, is my favorite animal as my name is Pepe ... it gave them to use it Logo to these petty politicians yes, but the design is cool ... " 
A convinced atheist and expressive on the subject, with a tattoo of the Virgin or of Christ crucified "Catholicism is crap, but look how handsome strokes has a tattoo and what textures ...". 
not, right? Well then, why not stop to see girls with the Playboy logo in hanging folders, rings, watches, drawn on clothing, bracelets, earrings or tattoos? ( here lots of examples of Ebay where women go more items by putting Playboy products for men and eroticism, which says a lot of demand).
You may have a large percentage that is not in what I will say that they favor or feel indifference to erotic publications (consume or not to participate or not), in which case there is no problem. To me what surprises me is that I also know many cases of girls who are against such publications, but they like the rabbit and its products have such as pastel colors, as well as lead. Les questions about the issue of girls who go naked in magazines and think that it is used to denigrate women and that "the men are a piggy" or even that such a whore (but remember that only Playboy appear naked, no sex in any way.) And change them all, paying for advertising and lead by defending something that hate. Is not as contradictory as the case of the swastika, the logo of the PP or the tattoo of the Virgin?
(All images are expandable)
I do not mind living in an ideal world which could carry any symbol for the simple appeal of it (hopefully a simple cross with blades did not bring as many pictures and unpleasant situations to mind), but is not the case. It is true that some things can be symbols on and discriminating use of ideology as representative of another person (like taking a shaved head and be a skinhead ). I am not referring to those, but logos or trademarks belong to symbols that are immediately recognizable because of historical ideologies, and in both cases the relationship you have with the symbol is not even indifference, but of rejection. But still, you take your logo clearly visible.
is something I have never seen or at least not as often with other symbols except this. And frankly, I think that being against the deal as sex objects of women by the media, and instead take the maximum exponent and the first major company that was dedicated to use in its publications, is a sad contradiction to the wearer. however, says much of the creative team behind the logo and all marketing back, getting money from the sector that should be less interested in the product, to give it a glamorous and placing it in its most characteristic objects of consumption. And you can not deny that the rabbit is instantly recognizable.
I suppose the only explanation I can think of is that it is more a symbol of "overly attractive women" , so perhaps all they have wanted be as pretty as the bunnies or playmates , and have it more as a sort of label "thoroughbred" female aesthetic any other reason. But even then, when you reject the entire industry after the symbol, it remains a tremendous contradiction.
0 comments:
Post a Comment