My first reaction was shock, when I saw the back page of the January 14th New York Times Style section. After staring at the two girls in Burberry floppy coats over skimpy underpants, I realized the same-ole dictum exists for selling stuff. Sex.
I have no problem with real women dressed in sexy outfits or who are partially nude. But I have a big problem with models that appear to be under age and provide temptation for men who are excited by kiddy porn.
Every advertiser in the country, must be aware of stories that appear almost daily about men trapped in child pornography stings, arrested and shamed for life. The two girls in the Burberry advertisement were dressed to appeal to men who are attracted to the very young. I don’t doubt that they are legally old enough to model such outfits. Burberry would be careful about that, but they look years younger than their probable real ages.
I’m again up in arms with the respected New York Times for allowing a full page, full color ad of two girls in Burberry coats casually draped over their bodies, dressed only in panties. Why would we tempt the pedophile who thinks he’s going to be reading America’s foremost newspaper and there is an advertisement coaxing him to action that can only cause him problems, including arrest and incarceration?
A photograph, such as this one, reminds me of an alcoholic going into a diner, and upon glancing at the menu, doesn’t see sandwiches and chops but wine, mixed drinks and beer screaming up at him. He can leave the restaurant and go elsewhere, but he may find he is unable to resist the allure of his drug of choice – booze. The drug of choice for a pedophile is a scantily clad girl.
Shame on Burberry. Shame on the prestigious New York Times.
hostile-entry 
I think you’re absolutely right to draw attention to this. Maybe you should send it as a letter to the NYT ad department?
I’ve written to the general editor and the Thursday Home editor. I’ll look for the Ad Dept now. Thanks for the good suggestion.
Is it sex? Or is it abuse of women and girls? Money and no value for the commodity used to get it. What does it mean to be a commodity? What does the word sex mean? Such a range of possibilities. Sex and money? Sex and love? Sex and care? Sex and tenderness. Irresponsibility. Meanness Using someone. Selfishness. Girls. Boys. Why do girls bear the pain of the misuse of sex? Why are girls used? Lots of questions I don’t know all the answers. Not even very many. Sad. Especially when you consider what the word sex might bring to two people. At its best. Chris
A deep and wise comment, Chris. Thank you.
Our American society is not helpful to those who have addictions. In our free society, we prefer to let everything hang out, such as in these ads, and we will just lock up and/or scorn those who have developed addictions. Sex sells. Incarceration actually is a big business in this country. These addicted people, already sorely malfunctioning because of the addiction itself, are further destroyed by society’s response of scorn and Incarceration, and the pain reverberates to their families, relatives, friends. Lives crumble.
There’s got to be a better way. We need to develop a better understanding of mental addictions in human behavior and more treatment, education. We’ve got to get it out of the closet of shame, unstigmatize and undemonize it, so we can help those who suffer from these mental problems.
Your work with your blog and in your forthcoming book I’m sure will go along way towards exposing the work that needs to be done.
Thank you,Jane.
Very well written. Right to the point! I’d love for it to make a difference with the NYT – and the choice of ads.
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 4:41 PM, hostile-entry wrote:
> writerladyjane posted: ” My first reaction was shock, when I saw the back > page of the January 14th New York Times Style section. After staring at the > two girls in Burberry floppy coats over skimpy underpants, I realized the > same-ole dictum exists for selling stuff. Sex. I have” >
Jane, I am in complete agreement with you. On an aside. There’s a chance the model on the right may be a male
I know, Rob. I wasn’t sure, but do think it’s a girl dressed androgynously.