Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Quick Update & People Magazine

First of all, despite the "undivided" title of this blog, I've decided it's quite possible that not all my readers are interested in long lists of giveaways. For that reason, I've created another blog for listing giveaways. I'll post links to new giveaway posts here, perhaps, but the whole lists don't necessarily belong here. The giveaway listings can be found here.

And now, to the People magazine story. Today, I went to the dentist (which I HATE) and was flipping through magazines in the waiting room. My choices were an Avon catalogue, Better Homes And Gardens, a copy of Readers Digest that I'd already read at my grandmother's house, and a few copies of People. I picked up a copy of People, and read mindless celebrity gossip (why are people famous for doing nothing? Famous for talent, I get, but, Paris Hilton? Nicole Ritchie? Kim Kardashian? Someone explain, please!) for a few minutes, when I noticed something:

A topless model in an ad for maternity clothes was wearing a wedding ring.

Why did I notice? I wasn't sure at first, but then I flipped through the rest of the magazine and realized that none of the other ads featured models wearing obvious wedding rings. Okay, some of them might have been wearing wedding rings but the crop of the final photo didn't show their left hands--but no ads except the maternity clothes and an ad for cotton featuring Zooey Deschanel (who actually is married, I think, and a celebrity, not a nameless model for the purpose of advertising).

So what does that say? I would assume that marketing firms have done research into this, that it wasn't an arbitrary decision, because few decisions in advertising in marketing are arbitrary. I guess it means that people feel like a pregnant woman needs to be married.

Is that good or bad? Well, I think having two parents is probably good, but marriage isn't necessary. Mostly, I just think it's really interesting that NONE of the other models wore wedding rings, just the pregnant (well, she probably wasn't really pregnant) one. Interesting comment on society, I guess.

I don't have a lot to say about it, really; I just noticed it and wanted to point it out. If you have any further thoughts, I'd love to hear them!


  1. Well, aren't you observant! LOL. I never would have noticed that. I bet that was done on purpose. However, I am surprised with the way I view society I would have thought an unmarried pregnant woman is not so far off the norm. Personally, I believe in marriage...and family..that's me..I would be a complete hypocrite to be a christian and believe otherwise so please understand my is not one of judgement. It's just my belief system. But interesting observation.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. How odd... It makes me want to see some of their other ads...

    Oh, and I just found your blog, and I really like it!

  4. maybe they are trying to stress to younger readers that children are big responsibilities that should not be taken lightly...but then again this is People Magazine, so I don't really think the morals are the best....BTW I have a similar blog now.... -->

  5. I doubt many people will be as observant as you and even notice. I wouldn't have. I do wonder if they thought it through or just ended up that way.

  6. Thanks for following my blog @
    New follower!!!