Timbuk2 Advertising
May 26, 2007
Now I’m no prude. And there are certainly issues with sex education that only promote abstinence (it just doesn’t work) - and I know sex is everywhere in our culture. And even though I love the Timbuk2 bag I have, I found this ad a little…well, interesting.
What does this ad say to you about sexuality and our culture?
Tags: Ads, Advertising, Sex, Sexuality, Timbuk2
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: I am a 28 year old 
May 26th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Not a lot…casual sex…that’s about it.
May 26th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
More interesting to me are the questions:
What does such commericalism do to our sexual relationships? How does a constant diet of advertising that uses sex to sell commodify the relations in a marriage or other sexual relationship?
May 26th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I think it says a lot about the assumptions that are sometimes made in our culture. I had a similar thought as I saw an ad on TV earlier today. It shows a father with his daughter throughout her childhood and whenever she wants anything he caves and gives it to her. Then it shows them in the kitchen and she’s about 16, asking him if he’ll buy alcohol for her and her friends that night. He says, “No, absolutely not.” And she then storms off talking about what an awful father he is and how he never lets her do anything. The father is meanwhile left smiling to himself and is then held up as the model father who won’t buy his kids alcohol. But the question I ask is this- What’s with the assumption that all kids will drink? What’s with the satisfaction the father feels as his daughter storms off? If it were me, I wouldn’t be satisfied simply saying no. I’d want to be able to talk through the issue with my daughter and come to a place of mutual understanding. I’d gladly assert my authority if it came to that, but I would not be satisfied if our conversation ended with her storming off like the girl in that ad. Yet our culture is in a place where we’ve resigned ourselves to very trivial dreams. The goal is not to have a deep, meaningful relationship with your kids where you both feel free to dialog about issues with each other. The goal is simply to not commit the sin of buying alcohol for your under-age child.
I think the same thing happens in other areas, sexuality being a great example. We’ve resigned ourselves to trivial goals and have abandoned the wonderful idea of real, physical, emotional oneness in an intimate relationship with one person.
Perhaps reading too much in the ad, but that’s the thought I had when I saw it…. (It kind of reminds me of Lewis’ words in The Weight of Glory about us being half-hearted creatures fooling about with wine and sex when infinite pleasure is offered to us. Also reminds me of a lot of what Piper has written about the greatest pleasure we can have is found in relationship with God)
May 26th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
If her virginity was “stolen,” that is rape, which is not funny and shouldn’t be used to sell bags. However, I don’t think that they are talking about rape. I think that they are implying that most or all girls are powerless and willing to allow someone to “steal” their virginity. And guys are uncaring and cruel and only motivated by their own selfish desires. And that this scenario is a typical part of growing up and no big deal. Yeah, I don’t like what it implies.
May 26th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Uh…yeah, I’m with Dan: this doesn’t tell us a whole lot. At least it doesn’t tell us much more than we might easily find out by visiting a college party and interviewing party-goers about noon the next day. In other words, it tells us what we already know. Clearly, many advertising reps don’t have qualms about using sexual topics to score attention. Such ambivalence basically reflects, in Dan’s words, an attitude toward sex prevalent today: casual sex.
May 26th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
The most glaring message is the objectification of women. The cultural undertones of disrespect and non-commitment also stand out in the image. Not to mention the “Life is all about you” storyline. Sadly, I think many will shrug off the suggestion that an ad like this directly tells it’s passive readers that it’s OK to treat other people as a commodity if it will lead to the desired result.
May 26th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I’m with Sunday’s child. However, I think that even if Timbuk2 wasn’t intending to imply rape in their advertising, it is still sending the message that “stealing virginity” while jerky is commonplace and as inevitable as buying their merchandise. Pretty disturbing. I’m going to have to disagree with Dan and Kellen that the message is casual sex. That is probably what Timbuk2 was going for, but as a woman looking at the woman in the ad, her face doesn’t portray a woman who has had “casual sex” but one who was violated.
May 26th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Ditto with Sunday’s Child. I’m really shocked that Timbuk2 would portray women as so powerless. I’m also rather surprised the people keep suggesting this doesn’t say much about our culture. Maybe it’s the cultural critic in me, but . . . Honestly, saying an ad like this says nothing sounds a little defensive to me.
May 26th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
I’m also intrigued by the mixed metaphor, on second glance. Obviously we’re supposed to like the bag, which aligns with the “jerk . . .” Hmmm. Can’t wait to hear what you have to say, Adam.
May 27th, 2007 at 12:26 am
There were a lot of things I was thinking until I realized, “Is this anything new?”
May 27th, 2007 at 7:14 am
I think it is telling our young women to live impulse to impulse regardless the outcome, “don’t miss your chance regardless of what tomorrow brings”
May 27th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I don’t know. Except for the fact that it uses the scary word “virginity” I don’t see that it has all that much to do with sex.
What I see when I look at it is that the young woman has a poor track record of judging what is going to last forever and what is not.
What I see is that the ‘Jerk” managed to convince her that he would be there for her, and then when he got what he wanted he dumped her and left her heartbroken. Which does indeed make him a jerk and an asshole and any number of other things. But it also to some extent speaks to her judgment.
It’s maybe a little harsh for Timbuk2 to point out her past poor judgments, but I don’t see it as their selling things based on sex. They are not trying to associate their product with sex, or to say that you will be more likely to have sex if you buy their product.
As far as I can tell, they are saying, “look, you have made some bad choices in the past (like thinking that jerk would stay around after you slept with him) don’t make the same mistake about our new bag.”
May 28th, 2007 at 4:33 am
Meghan, I completely disagree with your final conclusion. That may be what YOU got from the message, but that’s not what Timbuk2 was communicating. Reread the advert and it’s plain that they are equating themselves and their product line with the “jerk,” NOT contrasting them. So after portraying the woman as naive, powerless and violated–reproducing the social construction of a “stolen virginity” and all it implies–they ask that the customer (another woman) repeat the storyline all over again with their bag.
“It’ll be different with me this time, I promise. And hurry up or else I’ll go find someone else.” (ya, right..different this time…coercion, anyone?)
and what’s she supposed to say?
“Oh…ok!”
this is part of a common narrative of disempowerment…the broken person with no self-esteem who jumps from one exploitative relationship to the next. I don’t like the role that Timbuk2 is playing in this ad, and that they are expecting any woman who looks at the ad to identify with the position of disempowerment. I think it is patronizing, insulting and ultimately degrading to women and their position in society and interpersonal relationships with men.
Maybe the original intent of the ad was successful after all…because I feel like the marketing and executive depts. of Timbuk2 are filled with a bunch of jerks (of any sort).
May 28th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Most disturbing of all for me–the implication in the OP that abstinence-only sex ed doesn’t work. Bull crap.
May 28th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I’ve seen numerous studies showing that abstinence only education doesn’t work and none that say that it does.
Do you have any evidence to show it works other than your faith in it?
May 28th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Here is the citation for that quote: Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact
May 28th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Jess: I would never claim that casual sex isn’t violent….
May 30th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
There’s interesting discussion of this on portland.indymedia - and abstinence only curriculum often doesn’t give the students information on their own body interactions which is vital to understanding the consequences of sex. If we let pop-media sell our kids the how-to’s of sex, while our institutions for developing people to live for the common good keep our students in the dark - that’s a bit ridiculous.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/05/359914.shtml?discuss
ps: write to timbuk2 and let them know you do not appreciate commodifying consensual sex for marketing purposes and especially abhor date-rape-advertising.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Here’s the relevant email addresses
pr@timbuk2.com
CustomerService@timbuk2.com
June 24th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Wow, apparently no one has a sense of humor? Or maybe just not about their teen years, looking back?
It’s very simple: the ad cleverly targets women who look back and laugh at themselves for those men/relationships they thought constituted “true love forever” — a mistake many if not to say every adolsecent makes. Many people, looking back, are not as sentimental about their virginity as Christians would like them to be.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
It’s amazing to me that in this country, the attitude toward teenage sex is one of the following: A. kids are going to do it anyway, so we might as well teach them how to avoid getting pregnant/STDs B. we must try to get kids to avoid sex. Both of these attitudes, in addition to being tremendously condescending attitudes toward teenage sexuality, are actually harmful in the long run (if the goal is a healthy adult sexuality).
Dr. Libby wrote an excellent guide for teenagers called “The Naked Truth about Sex.” The book focused on important relational aspects of sex: how to talk about sex with partners, how to choose partners, how to have a healthy and respectful sex life. Teens and young people need more than “put on a condom first” or “don’t have sex!” Their sexuality needs to be approached holistically, the same way it is for adults.
It is interesting to note that both the secularists and the religious ignored this book, which indicates that in this country, while there are people willing to tolerate teen sexuality as inevitable, people just aren’t ready to normalize it and help it to become a positive learning/growing experience for young people – one in which they can grow in maturation in their relationships. (Also please note that teenage sexuality does not inevitably involve “intercourse” – the obsessive preoccupation with “intercourse” as the defining aspect of sex is another problem with American/religious approach to sexuality.)
I fear that until we are ready to respect teenage sexuality and fully educate young people not just about anatomy and contraceptives, but also about human relating, then we are going to continue to have problems with the repercussions of immature, uniformed teenage sexuality. Advocating abstinence absolutely (rather than as merely a valid option and a personal choice) solves nothing and introduces an unhealthy pathological attitude toward sex, which again, is harmful if the goal is building toward a healthy adult sexuality.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:26 am
I fear that until we are ready to respect teenage sexuality and fully educate young people not just about anatomy and contraceptives, but also about human relating, then we are going to continue to have problems with the repercussions of immature, uniformed teenage sexuality.
I agree with S.L….it’s one of the reasons that I am so torn on “Right To Life” Sundays…
I guess there’s a difference in my head between “Right to Life” and “Right to Have Sex” and “Right to Sire Children.” Just because I’ve figured out that the whole “tab-A-meets-slot-B” thing is pleasurable, does not mean I have enough sense to engage in a meaningful relationship, let alone care for another living thing (like a parrot, let alone a child). There certainly is the who-cares, it-feels-good attitude that comes from “You n me babe ain’t nuthin’ but mammals/ so let’s do it like they do it on Discovery Channel” understanding of sex. If there is nothing more to life than living, eating, screwing and dying, then the sex-as-rutting image will be prevalent.
It is the rare voice (especially in the church) who is willing to say, “This sexual nature you have is a GIFT! Not something to just use and abuse! This is so much more than just masturbating into someone else’s body!” With all blessings to Nancy Reagan and Michael W. Smith, “just say no” and “True Love Waits” hasn’t cut it for a long, long time.
All that said, the ad annoys me because it objectifies women, assumed that jerky men are always the predators, and commodifies virginity as a “thing” that gets stolen. (Plus there is something sad in the image of a girl that pretty sleeping with someone looking like that…but that’s just me channeling my inner 18-year-old…)