There have been some public service ads in the New York subway system recently for safe sex. One ad has a photo of an Asian chick smiling and wearing a graduation uniform. The headline says something about her wanting to get a good start on her career, and not wanting to allow an accidental pregnancy get in the way of it. The ad was advocating, reasonably enough, that a woman should have her baby when she's sure she's ready for it.
Now, in my opinion, it's doubtful that some non-profit company or government agency paid for an original photo. There's no need to retake a photo that could easily be purchased cheaply from a third party. So, here's what I'm wondering. Do you think, when the chick signed the contract with the stock photo company, that she knew she would be a poster child for safe sex?
There she was, taking a photo in a graduation uniform probably thinking, if she's lucky, her image might be used in an ad for some community college or college admissions test-prep company. Now, there she is on the subway, prompting who knows how many guys like me to picture her gownless, on all fours, with her graduation cap tossed into the corner of some dark room, ecstatically happy over the fact that the penis inside her is properly adorned in the latest in rubberwear.
This smiling college graduate most likely made a few hundred bucks for a few minutes of innocuous time in front of a camera. Now, she's the spokeswoman for promiscuity. She's got to feel like she's been seriously violated. I don't care if the violating was done by a non-profit condom distribution center, it's still a bait and switch, don't you think? Who knew there were such risks in the modeling world.
These models better be careful, otherwise they might end up appearing in ads like these...
