1. Refereeing to highland rape, rape is a horrific act, why are magazines allowed to romanticize it and put it in advertisements?
Magazines don’t romanticize rape, they romanticize carnal sex. McQueen’s collection had to do with the rape of Scotland and though it was a disturbing and scandalous collection, his intentions were not to romanticize rape. Magazine bank off their views by giving them ads that allow consumers to picture themselves in the ad, and fantasize about steamy love/sex scenarios.
2. Is it possible for clothing to provide the type of protection McQueen try’s to creative by making women look “so powerful no one would dare lay hands on them?
Yes. McQueen created a type of armor for his woman. For the most part I think McQueen created a look that would repel men. His designs were strong yet they had a vulnerability to them. I don’t know if fashion could provide “protection” but it can convey strength, fear, curiosity, etc.
3. Are the opinions of the viewer or designer a more correct interpretation fashion?
The designer knows what he/she is creating, why they are creating something, and the meaning behind it. The viewer may not know the meaning or inspiration and their reaction might be something completely different from intended. McQueen’s Highland Rape collection was about the rape of Scotland but critics took it as the rape of women being eroticized and it was seen as vile and disturbing. Correct interpretation is almost always unachievable everyone’s views are different and stems from different upbringings, culture, regions…
4. Why is it appealing to sexualize or eroticise fashion?
Same as the first question, it ultimately comes down to sex selling. People are able to fantasize about these unrealistic scenarios and romanticize a life they will probably never lead. It’s an escape from their realities and allows them to idealize alter egos.