Very strange (sex?)Travel Channel ad on Salon.

[gumby]

Went to read an article on Salon and clicked on the Travel Channel free pass ad.

The first frame looks like a group of men, with backs to the camera, in dark lighting. Two, very apparent, long staffs (sticks, spears) are silhouetted.

The next frame contains three women. They are well lit and facing the camera. They are all laughing and wearing different colored glasses. The woman in the middle 'appears' naked. It 'appears' that her leg is extended outward and upward revealing upside-down male genitalia. There are two balls atop a purple protuberance (penis?).

What the hell? This is the strangest 'main stream' image 'propaganda' I've seen in a long time. It's very bizarre.

Anyone?

[Book Lover]

1. Dude, that's a blurry arm wearing a watch

very close to the camera.

[progdonkey]

3. ha!

Why did we both feel this called for a "dude,..."? :toast:

[gumby]

4. Watch you say?

That's not what it 'looks' like.

That out of focus watch happened accidentally? Why is an out-of-focus anything in a photo ad?

And why are those women so giddy about a blurry watch?

[DRoseDARs]

7. They're giddy because they were paid to be.

Sheesh, you're reading WAY too much into the ad. :rofl:

[gumby]

11. Giddy because they were paid to be.

Bingo!

I'm only writing about what I "saw." A visual thing.

[DRoseDARs]

13. *Sigh* If you really need to see penises, Google them...

...because there are none in that ad. :P

[opiate69]

8. "Why is an out-of-focus anything in a photo ad?"

Um.. just a guess, but I'd say.. to give the impression (real or not) of realism and spontaneity? I've looked at that picture for 10 minutes, and I can't get that watch to look like genitalia.. and if anybody could turn something innocuous into something vulgar, it's definitely me.

[progdonkey]

2. dude, it's a wristwatch (or bracelet)...

for others, here's the link: http://cache.ultramercial.com/d/001-327/tc_html1.html

That's an arm and an out-of-focus watch.

[gumby]

5. Thanks for the link.

An arm is an arm is an arm. Whatever.

[bananas]

9. Thanks for letting us know

how perverted your subconscious is!

[bananas]

10. And there are actually four women sitting together

but the one on the left is mostly off-camera,
you can only see her arm and breast.

[gumby]

14. You interpret that white shape at the left-hand side of the

frame to be a breast?

Maybe it's just a wrist-watch?

[progdonkey]

17. so, you refuse to see breasts, yet a wrist watch MUST be a penis?

it's in the proper position for where a breast would be, it's covered in white fabric, which is a very common color for a summer top.

oh...

and women don't have penises, especially ones with the blue wrist watches wrapped around the shaft and are so huge they go out of focus! :rofl:

I'll write this as clearly as possible for you: the upper right section of the "image" is the shirt sleeve of another person, likely the waiter/waitress. It ends at the part where there's a slightly darker section (the shadow of the sleeve) between two lighter sections. The arm continues down and the person is wearing a wristwatch with a black band and bluish-gray face. And the hand is largely out of the frame.

That's it. No out-of-focus penises emerging from a woman's crotch at a party.

Honestly, we all see weird things in pictures sometimes, but normal people have no problem admitting that it's just something more innocent instead of continuing to argue that IT REALLY DOES LOOK LIKE A PENIS!!!!

Maybe this link will clear some things up for you: http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/c3po.htm

[Warren DeMontague]

6. Why, I'm outraged!

Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN?!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

12. I have an incredibly dirty mind and I have no clue what you're seeing.

That woman is obviously clothed and that is obviously an arm with a watch on it.

[gumby]

15. Never said anything but "strange."

The woman in the middle is not "obviously clothed." Her clothing is the same tone as her skin. Therefore, her clothing is meant to disappear. We can all see that she has clothes on. That's because we 'looked' at it.

The other 2 (or 3) women in the shot have contrasting clothing. See?

Ads are constructed to be seen for a matter of seconds, or even less.

As hard as I try, I just can't see a watch. Just like others can't see what I see.

Maybe it's like viewing an optical illusion.

Different people can see different things. That's what this post is about.

And just what does "be *first*" mean in the context of this graphic?

[The Icon Painter]

20. Illusion

I agree. The blurred arm can be seen as a leg sprawled away from the camera and belonging to the center woman. The interpretation of the 'watch' is up for grabs. I can focus in and out on the picture and see first what the OP saw and then what the rest of you see. But then, I have always enjoyed those old-fashioned optical illusions where the vases become profiles and vice versa.

I do not think the OP is dirty-minded or anything else. This is just an amusing example of an ad not well thought out.

[shain from kane]

16. Nice beaver. n/t

[wakeme2008]

18. What can I say but

[eShirl]

19. Back when I had a freshman class in "Art and Media,"

if I can remember correctly that far back, it was called "subliminal advertising."