...] I’m Afraid of the Five-Blade Razor – Book Review and Commentary [...

“The glossy overheated thumping of sexuality in our culture is less about connection than consumption. Hotness has become our cultural currency, and a lot of people spend a lot of time and a lot of regular, green currency trying to acquire it. Hotness is not the same thing as beauty, which has been valued throughout history. Hot can mean popular. Hot can mean talked about. But when it pertains to women, hot means two things in particular: fuckable and salable.(Levy, 2005)

But whilst we are used to consuming the everyday sexualized identity of the fabricated and socially constructed, ideal male or female sexual body, there is, as will be discussed, a further emerging addition to the sexualization of commodities; ambiguity…
We are able to transform ourselves physically through plastic surgery and choose our personal identities by buying products, the advertising of which shows us the person who we want to be, or feel pressured into being. Identity is now as much about who we choose to be as the expression of natural and inherited characteristics.
The clear differences between products according to gender are so engrained in our everyday lives from the moment we are born to the point where we don’t even think twice about why we are imposing these rules upon ourselves; the electric shaver or razor for example, has the same purpose and function for both men and women (although used on different parts of the body), but angular, black designs signify the male body whilst the pink, organic curves of the Gillette ‘Venus’ for example, have blatant vaginal connotations.

Most female shavers are clearly gendered through colour (white for purity; or colour for fashionability) and form (less monolithic, more curved, and more ‘elegant’). So whereas male electric or battery shavers signify technology and powerfulness (and so masculinity), female shavers connote hygiene, prettiness and fashionability (and thus femininity). The norm is, needless to say, the male shaver: the female shaver, in departing from the norm, reinforces women as ‘different’. (Whiteley, 1993)

The fairly recent addition of the Venus Vibrance, a vibrating, hot pink, beautifully curved, soft and sensual sex toy in the form of a razor, with possibly the most obvious sexual undertones ever used in marketing a product that isn’t an actual sex toy without calling it the Penus Vibrance, would suggest that the sexualization of commodities towards the new post-feminist woman is a branding and advertising goldmine. In the world of design we are often reinforcing women as ‘different’ through the constant production of material products that adhere to socially constructed notions of gender i.e. what is masculine and dominant and what is feminine and passive. Of course the Gillette vibrating razor for men surfaced prior to the Venus Vibrance but the vibrating feature was marketed as purely functional for producing a better shave. There was nothing to insinuate that men might use it for masturbation. It certainly wasn’t styled to look like genitalia!

Oh yes, men have a vibrating Gillette razor too. It’s called the Mach3 Power Nitro (because men are just that stupid) and it’s black and neon green and full of ridges and cheesy ultramodern design cues, and it’s clearly designed to look like some futuristic race-car gearshift or something, and of course it’s the exact same goddamn razor as the Venus, except the men don’t talk up the gentle sensual Soothing Vibrations™ factor one bit. Oh my no. (Morford, 2004)

The Venus Vibrance has, as well as utilized itself as a sexual commodity, introduced ambiguity in its function. Is it a functional razor? Is it a sex toy? It would appear to be both, although it has never been clarified that the intended use of the razor is for masturbation. Many of us may be stupid enough to buy this Gillette marketing ploy but we’re not blind! It is certainly not ambiguous in its intended user however. Its styling, branding and advertising are a hugely exaggerated idea of what is feminine.
However, such binary identities of sexual branding are beginning to date, along with the generic colours of pink and blue to materially identify feminine and masculine. The colour pink has essentially been reclaimed by the ‘metrosexual’ male, and obviously the gay community, but in both instances the colour still denotes what is feminine and ultimately inferior. A ‘metrosexual’ man is essentially a man in touch with his ‘feminine’ side that, as a result, has the appearance, to some, of a gay man.
In other ways though, it is becoming more difficult to ‘read.’ A man walking down the street in a pink t-shirt, these days, is probably more likely to be straight and borrow his girlfriend’s hair straighteners than be a gay man making a social or political statement and we tend not to look twice at it anymore. The call for unisex beauty products (such as hair straighteners) is loud and clear and would suggest that men want a piece of the beautification action also. However, as with almost every personal electrical item on this planet, there is still always a pink version for the ladies. Of course men can buy pink clothes, but buy a pair of pink hair straighteners? Maybe not…”

The topic of consumerism is such a HUGE one, and as a design student can get pretty depressing sometimes… I find myself constantly thinking “Do I really want to add to the tremendous amount of crap in the world??” but luckily design… well good design… is going in a far more ethical direction (which has it’s own problems, such as wankers who make being “green” about being “in fashion”.)
Anyway, I could go on and on about this stuff but I won’t! I think this comment is probably long enough!

Roszak’s quote is spot on to my point there, but I’ll just point out, that wasn’t in reply to Robert’s post but Ms/Mr Anonymous.

Thnaks again!

I want to add a comment to this section of your reply to Robert;

“I don’t doubt that the people who design iPods and Operating Systems are creatively talented. But is designing a ‘product’ for consumption really the same as a Brett Whitely painting, or a James Joyce novel? Craig has hit upon a word there that didn’t even occur to me, but I think it is a question of ethics. Isn’t it an empty thing to idolize a product. And can you really say the designer of a razor is an ‘artist’?”

To perhaps amplify your point and squarely bring the focus back to a question of ethics I feel compelled to quote Theodore Roszak from his 1978 book ‘Person/Planet’.

‘Work that produces unnecessary consumer junk or weapons of war is wrong and wasteful. Work that is built upon false needs of unbecoming appetites is wrong and wasteful. Work that deceives or manipulates, that exploits or degrades is wrong and wasteful. Work that wounds the environment or makes the world ugly is wrong and wasteful. There is no way to redeem such work by enriching it or restructuring it, by specializing it or nationalizing it, by making it ’small’ or decentralized or democratic.’

Roszak’s key phrase here is: “false needs of unbecoming appetites”

I noticed you touched on the topic of ‘brands’ in your comment;

“… I’m inspired by the extent of mass information in today’s world, and I do believe people have begun waking up. There is good reason to imagine rightfully that humanity’s compass will reset itself.

When that happens, over time (as I believe it is already starting), “brands” and corporate power can crumble awfully quickly.”

Your combined use of that loaded word Robert, and that evocative image of ‘humanity resetting’ got me thinking. Kalle Lasn’s book Culture Jam drifted into my thoughts, but otherwise your comment seemed to beg an up-to-the-minute example.

Building on your idea, may I draw your attention to the phenomenon (not) taking place in the online Social Networking space (facebook, MySpace, Bebo etc). I hope you find this is in some way illustrative of your point.

Whilst not seeing ‘brands’ crumble in when it comes to social networks, we can see evidence of them not gaining traction. Business is naturally dumbfounded. Particularly when their smart and expensive ‘desireable brands’ are patently not penetrating Social Networks that are otherwise ostensibly open and transparent.

Tellingly, even the few brands that do appear to get a toe hold, are generally surprised to find that they are soon hounded out of the social network space, particularly once they start exercising their ‘brand personalities’ (ie sales scripts).

Should you wish to momentarily tiptoe away form LM’s blog, here’s one of my opinion articles that not only touches on this observation, but attempts to counsel the digital “Brand Masters” to back off and carefully and respectfully reconsider their engagement thinking with Social Networks for the good of all concerned;

http://www.digitalministry.com.au/component/option,com_myblog/Itemid,41/show,The-Future-of-Social-Network-Applications-.html/

Cheers – Craig