What's modern about sex tourism in Denmark?
The video is a story of a single mother looking for the father of her child, who ran off after a one-night-stand. It's supposed to serve as an attractive representation of Denmark. Critics say it conveys a wrong message, people behind the video say that the story "shows that Denmark is a broad-minded country where you can do what you want. The film is a good example of independent, dignified, Danish women who dare to make their own choices", says VisitDenmark CEO Dorte Kiilerich, also quoted in youtube next to the video.
In what way are the single mother in the video and the country she represents 'modern'? For one thing, the single mother says she doesn't want anything from the father. Which means that Denmark is a well-functioning welfare state where a single mother can be independent both financially and emotionally. Why would it ever serve as a tourist attraction though?
In what ways is the mother and the story Taliban-backward? Firstly, the mother says with that modest smile of hers that she doesn't want anything from the father, only to let him know his child exists. Which implies that raising children is a sole responsibility of a woman. There's no way of acknowledging that the child is equally the man's, and the man should share the responsibility for this young individual of mixed heritage. Neither does the man have other responsibilities, such as to use a condom or any other means of protection. The woman humbly accepts whatever life brings her, without considering, for example, taking a 'morning after' pill so common in Scandinavia, or at least sharing the child-rearing duties with the father. With her modest smile and unpretentious speech she looks like a Madonna with the Infant - it's possible that the advertising agency consciously exploits this archetype. The tourist is almost like (no offense to anybody) the Holy Spirit: he descends from wherever he comes from, changes the life of the woman, while she humbly accepts what life brings her. What happens to her is simply IT - almost undefinable, the woman has no memory of the happening. She's not promiscuous, as critics claim, because she stresses that she wasn't physically involved with anybody else after IT happened (again, I have a suspicion that Christian imagery is consciously exploited, maybe it's not).
The woman chosen to represent Denmark is stereotypical in every aspect. Classically blond (potentially exotic), heterosexual, modestly dressed (not a Goth, punk, any other subculture) - 'normal' in everything about her. That's what a sex tourist would look for. Modernity and independence are not marketable and not 'intercourse-friendly'. The tourist is most necessarily male, and he is enveloped in this godly welcoming: he is permitted to descend upon this woman without acquiring a definite personhood (nameless and traceless, he comes and goes unidentified, only leaving the results of his presence in the woman's body). It's a very typical marketing strategy for sex tourism - implicit reference to the status of a god. Which I find insulting actually. The woman does make choices, but her choices are what she is prescribed to do as a woman. More precisely, a woman chosen to represent the country, and she performs her role with a humble smile - like the country, she accepts the god-tourist into her body, without questioning, just giving him full rights and no responsibilities.
Therefore the video is not about choice and independence, it's about 'normalcy' and archetypical femininity.
Share 
Louis-Georges Tin, the man behind 'international day against homophobia and transphobia'
Ars Homo Erotica: 'bring the toilet to Warsaw national museum'
Swedish women, the ideal woman?
Spain vs EU: gender violence clash
Go, women architects
40% for Norway’s ‘golden skirt’ board members: do companies need quotas for women?
Daiva
Comments
There is a mistake people often make in matters such as this one: colective identities are not harmed by individual actions. It may be the case that generally, people believe it is, only they really should not. If there is someone or something whose reputation is most hurt in this case is that of VisitDenmark.
Much could be said about colective identities, though. Even the analogy in the post refering the christian concept of the Holy Spirit was politely followed by a declaration of respect, although the simple action of stating one's feelings on a particular subject should not be a reason for despite from any other person - that is, if we live in a civilized society.
In fact, how can a tourism agency harm the whole of Denmark? Danish people who feel insulted by this ephemeral stunt should ask themselves: is Denmark's identity, whatever it may be, so fragile as to be damaged by the eventually not so wise choice of a single agent?
The same could be said in respect to women's identity, I believe.
But the fact remains that if this kind of publicity still works for the benefit of sex tourism, we all have reasons to be sad. It means that this sexist stereotype still dwells in the collective imaginary... Revolting, perhaps. Insulting? I hope not.
well! Afraid one has to live in Scandinavia to comprehend subtleties of this. Just like summer 2008 "Danske Bank" advertisement posters depicting a single mother with a daughter were understood strangely in Lithuania (i.e. what was supposed to be representation of green/eco-mothering and welfare society values were taken as "this family must be very poor" by fellow Lithuanians). There is this other side to (urban) Scandinavians: family is considered to be outdated concept, young people may "want children" (but "family" word is not used in that context), and fathers do not feel any threat to their individual freedoms whatever the fate of their (nonfamily-) unit is over time: the state will take care of that. So whom the OUTSIDER should choose to admire in those societies? The non-families,as defined by their fragile, casual nature? Which is more painful to think of? More dishonest? I made my choice, and it is with this woman. For a conscious tourist, she represents much more of today's Scandinavian reality than the archetypical red wooden house and a boat on a rocky seashore.
a very sharp analysis, yet, let me try to make a couple of counterpoints:
first, the fact that the woman does not want anything from the father does not imply raising a child is solely the responsibility of her. the message, imo, only is, i can take care about the child myself without a _need_ to adress the father in order to cope with the challenge. this need is a well-rooted stereotype that is hit here, and that to a large extent is the power of the message.
it definitely is suggestive for a conclusion you blame it for and surely a lot of people will take the message that way, but rather by wishful thinking, not by implication.
the reasoning concluding that the woman humbly accepts whatev life brings nowhere eliminates the interpretation that she chose it be that way no less than the father, and in that respect i tend to see it as a declaration of freedom to do so, though by wishful thinking we can extend it to your conclusion.
the video is definitely structured on some "mythological reality" of the day, but that i think is more of a setting than of the message
As far as I understand, it was not a conscious decision of two people to have a child while not settling to live together. The child was not planned, it simply was the decision of the woman to have him when it happened.
In any case, the message that "we as the government will make sure you don't need to take responsibility for your spontaneous actions" is what I criticise.
And of course it does nothing to Danish identity, but don't forget that the video targets people who know little, if anything, about Denmark and should be tempted to visit it. Not the Danes.