To all of you who jumped down my throat about the HIV/AIDS awareness poster, yes. I am now quite aware that it’s part of an ad campaign that includes three images. Thank you very much.
Allow me to respond to your various levels of opinion:
1. Why are you so angry? All caps and exclamation points are not a substitute for a logical argument.
2. There’s a difference between a subliminal message and a subtextual message. I’m just sayin’, if you’re gonna throw big words at me, it’s best you know what they mean.
3. Although they are part of the same ad campaign, the three images exist independently. The fact that there is a hetero and a homosexual male version isn’t evidence that I’m wrong about an independent interpretation of the female version.
4. If you insist that the images don’t exist independently, fine. You’re wrong, but whatever. We can limit the scope of the discussion, and it still wouldn’t alter my central thesis all that much, which is:
5. The implicit message in this ad campaign is that private parts are not private, but rather public. (This is really not all that shocking or that interesting.)
6. If we link all three images and make their interpretation dependent upon one another, suddenly we’re in a discussion on the topic of privacy and ownership of one’s own sexuality. Naturally, these three questions follow:
7. What are the implications for a straight man?
8. What are the implications for a gay man?
9. What are the implications for a woman?
10. I maintain that I’ve already answered that last question. If you want to answer the other two, feel free. I’m done giving a fuck for now. Thanks!