Model Says She Was “Face Raped” By Burger King’s ‘Seven Incher’ Blowjob Ad

burger king blowjob ad

“Is this an ad for blow jobs or fast food?”

That’s a question posed by “Jane Doe,” the young model who appeared in that infamous, beej-inspired Burger King ‘super seven incher’ ad. The print ad, which ran in Singapore, features a pretty blonde woman with red lipstick opening her mouth as a big Burger King sandwich heads straight towards her. It’s one of the more explicit allusions to hummers in advertising history (which is saying something).

Well, now “Jane Doe” is speaking out.

On Wednesday, the advertising blog Copyranter reported that it heard from “Jane Doe” last year. She had just become aware of her image being used in the Burger King ad and was looking for legal advice on what to do. The blogger behind Copyranter couldn’t help, he said, but mentioned “Jane Doe” just released a video responding to how she was depicted in the ad:

Under the account RV Wonderspunk on YouTube, she explains that Burger King — or more specifically, Burger King Singapore’s advertising agency — used her image in this gratuitously sexual way without informing her. It bought that image from a third party (such as a photographer or a photo agency) with whom she had done a photo series of her making facial expressions. Likely, “Jane Doe” had signed a release at some point saying the images belonged to that third party. However, she understandably would have appreciated knowing how the images would be used. She writes:

Burger King found my photo online from a series I did of various facial expressions and contortion poses, and with no due regard to me as a person, profited off reducing me to an orifice for their penis sludge; publicly humiliating me in the process. It was shown online as well as on bus stops and the walls and place mats of their restaurant.

When asked for comment from the press Burger King claimed the campaign went down well, however after some research I discovered The Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (where it was released) received several complaints and the campaign had to be prematurely removed.

This is a top International food chain the world is watching that has a code of ethics they’re required to adhere to for that reason by law but did not in how they went about using my image.
Now due to the coverage its received (Time Magazine’s Top Ten Tasteless Ads, Business Insider, Buzzfeed, Gawker, Psychology Today to name a few) it’s part of the public domain. Just recently it was the topic of discussion in a media studies class of 500 students at the University of Toronto – where I live… and posted to the class Facebook discussion page.

Friends, family, coworkers, prospective employers who saw it assume I was a willing player. Those offended by it don’t know the extent of what’s wrong with the ad; that I didn’t know about this being done to my image, let alone agree to or pose for the scenario.

Why not hire a model to pose with the sandwich?

There is something VERY wrong with the fact that they felt entitled to do that to my face without signing a contract with me.

I believe in sexual expression in art and the media; it’s beautiful and necessary for a healthy society but IT MUST BE CONSENSUAL otherwise it’s RAPE.

Nice family restaurant you’re running there Burger King.
#boycottbk #facerape

#SuckOnYourOwnSlimySevenIncher

It’s hard not to feel for “Jane Doe” and the humiliation she suffered. It’s important that she is speaking out. As we’ve seen time and again, regular working models tend to be pretty voiceless. Miranda Kerr or Gisele Bundchen wouldn’t have this done to her image because they have too much clout in the, but a not-famous young woman was unaware about it for years.

That being said, I have a problem with the description of this incident as “rape” or “face rape.”  What happened to her was shitty and not consensual, but it was not rape. It’s possible to make a point about the objectification and sexualization of women in advertising without co-opting the experience of a violent crime.

I also don’t necessarily think that we can agree that all images which are digitally manipulated to be more sexualized must be consensual; photo editors use stock images for whatever it is they need it for — which they are legally allowed to do under their contract with the agencies that sell the photos — and whatever manipulations they make are not always with icky intentions. (I am thinking, for example, of various stock images that The Frisky may have edited to appear more sexual than they actually are alone.) This puerile, gross Burger King example just happens to be a very icky example of how that system fails.

What do you think about “Jane Doe”‘s video?

[CopyRanter via Cosmopolitan]
[YouTube]

Email me at [email protected] Follow me on Twitter.