Sex Sells? You Tell Me
If you were in the market for a motorcycle, would this ad make you more likely to go to a Suzuki dealer than if they just showed the motorcycle sans the woman making love to it?
Image credit: instereo007
What about this outrageous ad (”Passion is a hunger only a big one can satisfy”)? Would you be more likely to look for this particular brand of burgers next time you’re in the mood?
Image credit: Giant Ideas
Does this ad (from Brazil) convince you to give this beer a try?
Image credit: betta design
Does the image of an oily, naked, extra-virgin woman on a store front make you more likely to enter the store?
Image credit: rockie
Would you choose Lucky Strike over another cigarette brand if you saw this ad?
Image credit: rchappo2002
Your answer will likely be influenced by your gender and your sexual preference. These ads are targeting heterosexual males and ignoring other market segments. This makes sense for motorcycles, burgers and beers, but The Body Shop is completely off base and is likely turning potential straight, female customers off.
Research shows that while straight men respond to sex in ads, women remain indifferent, and the more exposed the model is, the more bored and uninterested they become. This is not surprising, considering that when an ad uses sex to sell, it almost always uses a woman’s body.
It makes sense that a straight woman would be indifferent to the image of another woman, especially since in most cases she can’t even relate to the extremely young, dangerously thin yet magically large-breasted, very made-up, artificially perfect, airbrushed image.
Are you influenced by sex in advertising? How do these ads make you feel?
Hire Me as a Blogger
Subscribe to this Blog Via Email or Reader
Filed under Women & Feminism —
Email This Post,
Subscribe To Comments, Trackback,
Sara at On Simplicity responds:
Posted: February 8th, 2009 at 9:55 pm →
I think “indifferent” absolutely nails it. There’s no connection, since the woman doesn’t seem to be speaking to me, or have any kind of place in my world. I have a feeling that a woman with a genuine smile, regardless of how much (or how little) clothing she has on would be more likely to generate a positive reaction from me. Of all of the photos here, The Body Shop one gets my attention most–I can’t help but wonder how she fell into a vat of olives!
MomGrind responds:
Posted: February 8th, 2009 at 10:03 pm →
@ Sara: “Of all of the photos here, The Body Shop one gets my attention most–I can’t help but wonder how she fell into a vat of olives!”
My first reaction to the Body Shop image was “ewww, oily, gross!” It certainly didn’t make me want to buy their stuff.
Nurit responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 12:11 am →
No, I’m not “indifferent”. It actually makes me a bit angry. Enough of this already.
What if instead of the women it was a man, or a child, or an animal? Would that still be OK? and sexy? and selling? and legal????
Mike Goad responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 12:30 am →
It’s gratuitous… That doesn’t mean I’m not going to look. I’d be lying if I said otherwise.
I don’t think I let ads like that influence my purchases. In fact, more often for me, some ads actually induce me NOT to buy their products. I won’t buy Geico insurance because of that stupid little gecko and I stay clear of Sonic hamburger joints because of their juvenile pitchmen.
However, the Madison Avenue ad men and their counterparts around the world don’t care for the individual. They care about mass appeal — and they find other just as unscrupulous ways to influence women, which you’ve shown in previous posts.
Ian Peatey responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 3:27 am →
Vered
How do these ads make me feel? Well, I find these examples quite extreme, by which I mean the images have really nothing to do with the product (except perhaps the Body Shop). So mainly I’m left confused and disturbed.
Am I influenced by sex in advertising? This is hard to answer. I would like to believe that I am influenced and would avoid buying things that use de-humanising imagery to sell product. The problem is that the advertising industry can be very clever and very subtle in its use of sex (well … not THESE adverts, obviously!) and I imagine they do have an effect on me that I’m not always aware of. And that’s worrying.
Ian
Kelvin Kao responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 3:31 am →
I think the point of the images are not to convince you to buy the product, but rather, to draw your attention to the ad. After all, the first step to convince you to buy a product is to catch your attention. But those heavily airbrushed perfect bodies don’t really interest me that much. They all start to look the same to me. (Which means, if I’ve seen one, I’ve seen them all. No need to spend my time paying attention.)
Mark responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 7:13 am →
Sex is meant to be an attention grabber in hopes that we look long enough to see the actual product. Unfortunately it has been proven to work. I personally try to go against the grain.
Suzie responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 8:03 am →
I am a bisexual woman I am still not impressed by the adds. They don’t turn me on and It doesn’t make me want to buy anything. Rather it makes me think about my body in comparision to them and makes me feel lacking. I think a burger can sell itself just by looking like it would taste good. A burger that is used to f* a woman (as implied in the add) would not be tasty afterwards. And yuck the whole idea is pretty gross.
Writer Dad responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 8:05 am →
I agree with Kelvin – you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. The burger picture is just beyond obnoxious.
zoe responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 8:06 am →
Well, I’d like to say that I’m not influenced by those kinds of ads, but perhaps I could be. At least on a subconscious level. Honestly, and perhaps I’ll lose my lesbian card for this, but I’m pretty indifferent to those particular ads. To me, nearly naked isn’t sexy. I don’t know, I think there are much more subtle and intelligent ways to sell sexy than to throw a nearly naked woman in the ad with the product. Unless of course, it’s Victoria’s Secret using Heide Klume in their ads, and then it’s A OK with me.
MommyNamedApril responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 8:15 am →
I don’t think it’s the sex that sells, so much as the sex that gets you to look in their direction. Look it’s someone half naked!!!! (oh, and maybe you’ll notice that there’s also a bike/car/burger/etc. in the picture). It’s not my favorite form of advertising, but I’m very anti-censorship, so if you can find someone who will let you display it in their space/medium, I think it’s ok. I would love for us as a society to move away from sex as a form of advertising, but I’d rather see sex than violence, so maybe it’s a lesser of evils? I don’t know – I think there’s a fine line between what we shouldn’t do and what we shouldn’t be allowed to do.
I hope that was coherent
Pam aka Dixienpixie responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 8:16 am →
The Body Shop ad is unfortunate actually. It does the product a huge disservice. Their olive oil body butter is a wonderful, mild-scented moisturizer, almost as good as their grapeseed body butter. The ad doesn’t make me angry, but I am so wary of advertising that it hardly ever affects which products I buy or stores I shop.
tom responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 8:20 am →
Mark is right, these ads are just attention grabbers. Personally I would not buy any of the above items but wouldn’t definitely take a few moments to just check out the scenery. But the body shop ad is a bit weird, i mean mostly women shop there so it makes no sense to post that ad.
I mean thats like posting a half naked guy when we go into a clothing or perfume shop.
I think a lot of these ads are ignored because they are there for the sake of filling space.
Memarie Lane responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 8:37 am →
You’d think they’d use a nun for Extra Virgin.
veena responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 9:18 am →
i think it’s cheap and shows a clear lack of creativity and ingenuity…..
Dot responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 10:14 am →
I agree with Nutrit. When I see things like these ads, I will go out of my way not to buy the products.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 10:16 am →
@ Nurit: I guess women who are not feminists are indifferent. Women who identify more with feminism would indeed be enraged by these.
@ Mike Goad: “some ads actually induce me NOT to buy their products” – same here. Stupid ads are a huge turnoff.
@ Ian Peatey: “I imagine they do have an effect on me that I’m not always aware of. And that’s worrying.” I agree. I’m sure I’m influenced too, by different types of ads, although I try very hard not to be.
@ Kelvin Kao: “I think the point of the images are not to convince you to buy the product, but rather, to draw your attention to the ad.” – I agree.
@ Mark: “I personally try to go against the grain.” – I think many of us do. I just wonder how successful we really are.
@ Suzie: Good to hear your perspective. I completely agree about the burger ad – it’s simply gross.
@ Writer Dad: “The burger picture is just beyond obnoxious.” I agree!
@ zoe: (teasing) You’re in love with Heidi Klum.
I don’t know. I look at this image of her and I find the way she’s presented here – as a juicy piece of MEAT – quite revolting. But when I see her clothed and smiling and energetically talking with her cute accent, I always smile and think to myself how gorgeous, smart and accomplished she is. I LOVE this photo of her which shows her classic beauty and lets her personality shine through.
@ MommyNamedApril: “I’m very anti-censorship” – interesting. Generally I feel the same, but when it comes to women’s issues, I would actually be happy to see more protections by the law from that all-powerful “free speech” when it’s used to dehumanzie people. However, I am well aware it could lead to a slippery slope – and who’s to define what’s dehumanizing and what’s legitimate? There have been several fashion ads in recent years that featured scenes that very much resembled rape – I would probaby draw the line there.
@ Pam aka Dixienpixie: The ad is so disgusuting, I don’t see myself ever shopping there again. So yes, ads can totally backfire.
@ tom: I completely agree about the Body Shop ad. The ad execs who came up with it are idiots.
@ Memarie Lane: Haha you’d think.
@ veena: I agree!
@ Dot: same here. But that’s because we have a strong feminist identity. Not all women feel the same. I do believe many are simply “bored and uninterested” as the study said.
FFB responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 10:30 am →
It might get the guy to look at an ad but really how many are looking at the product? There are times sex is used well but I think we’re getting to a saturation point where it’s not out of the ordinary in it’s use for us to remember it anymore.
Ruth responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 10:34 am →
I think that using sex in almost all ads doesn’t make me remember the product. I’ll look at the ad, but it’s hard to keep them all straight in my head. The olives one was actually…relevant? (there were lots of olives anyway) but I’d have to see it a LOT to have the type of olive oil stick in my head.
zoe responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 11:17 am →
Yes, I do have thing for Heidi Klume. She is gorgeous, and that accent drives me wild. Do you really think I watch Project Runway for the fashion? I agree with you on the photo examples you chose of her too. In my opinion, a little skin shown in the right places is a heck of a lot more sexy than swim suit calendar shots.
It does seem interesting to me that more products are marketed to women in the way they are marketed to men. Wasn’t the Marlboro man a pretty successful ad campaign? I don’t know too many women, gay or straight who didn’t find him sexy. I don’t know if it sold more cigarettes or not, but everyone remember the Marlboro man.
Charlie responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 11:32 am →
As others have said before, it’s not that the sex is selling the product. It’s sex that’s grabbing the attention. Marketers know that straight, young guys respond to breasts – so they use that to grab their attention. I’m not sure who should get more blame on that one.
What’s always confused me, though, is when marketers use tactics that work on guys on a female audience. Why all the pictures in women’s magazines that seem like males are the intended target?
RC Rambling... responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 11:57 am →
I’ve ordered from The Body Shop in the past, and this ad completely leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Granted, I’m not their target market for this ad, but since the majority of their sales come from my demographic, maybe they should rethink their target.
As another example, I’m always surprised that Victoria’s Secret does well, as their ads have bordered on offensive for a long time. (And I’m guilty of buying from them in the past, so maybe a quality product will sell more than the correct advertising?)
For the most part, I feel inadequate and offended when I see some of these ads.
Karl Staib - Work Happy Now responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 12:34 pm →
I’m a straight man and I must say that they do catch my attention. My guess is you’ve sold this post to a few men out there too. We see the word sex and a chance to see a half naked woman and we bite.
Jannie Funster responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 1:10 pm →
Unfortunately sex has always sold and probably always will. When I was younger I used to feel irritated by those scantily clothed ads, I think because I was insecure with my own looks. Now that I’m so old and mature I think “well, that’s just life,” and don’t give them a second thought. I am not influenced by them.
I can’t imagine that gross Body Shop ad lasted long?
Loved Memarie’s comment on the nun! That would’ve been a far superior ad.
Dr. J responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 1:57 pm →
I’d really like to leave a comment on this post, but after reading it, I have this uncontrollable urge to go buy a few things
Well, yeah, SEX sells! You want to know why? Because with the development of human intelligence, if sex wasn’t such a powerful drive, we wouldn’t do it! Think about that.
WMO responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 2:28 pm →
if the beer is really that large I’d definitely buy! ( unless, of course, it’s really the girl that is short…)
Patricia responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 2:44 pm →
I used to go the other way when I saw these ads. I think my honey and I would go the other way for sure over the burger ad after sharing life with 3 daughters…
Instead I think I had to work at debriefing ads for my kids so we used them as paper topics and discussion starters in hopes of teaching my youngest how awful they were. She was very influenced when her friends and sisters said they were disgusting or made them feel badly.
When the economy goes bad women get sexier in ads and guys get more durable clothing which will last and not go out of fashion so quickly….woman’s fashions also tend to change faster in a bad economy because they just have to catch those men to survive!
My youngest thinks I am just making that up!
MomGrind responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pm →
@ FFB: “we’re getting to a saturation point” – I think you’re right and I also agree that the more advertisers use it, the less effective it is.
@ Ruth: “The olives one was actually…relevant?” Ruth, your comment made me laugh out loud.
I guess it was relevant in a way, still not sure the shiny nakedness and the play on the words “extra virgin” was such a good idea. To me, it was a turn-off.
@ zoe: “It does seem interesting to me that more products are marketed to women in the way they are marketed to men.” – I agree. I think the genius behind the Marlboro Man was that women found him sexy while men saw him as a role model.
@ Charlie: “What’s always confused me, though, is when marketers use tactics that work on guys on a female audience. Why all the pictures in women’s magazines that seem like males are the intended target?” EXACTLY. It’s even more baffling because the vast majority of women’s magazines editors are female, as far as I know. They should know better. Also, ad agencies should give these accounts to women. Unless women were trained to think like men??
@ RC Rambling: Victoria’s Secret is a great example. I don’t but their stuff anymore, by the way.
@ Karl Staib: “My guess is you’ve sold this post to a few men out there too.” Haha I guess you’re right.
@ Jannie Funster: “I can’t imagine that gross Body Shop ad lasted long?” I would hope not. It’s indeed gross.
@ Dr. J: Sex is an important part of humanity’s survival, but using women’s bodies to sell stuff? Not so much.
@ WMO:
@ Patricia: “Instead I think I had to work at debriefing ads for my kids so we used them as paper topics and discussion starters in hopes of teaching my youngest how awful they were.” Sounds like a great approach.
serija responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 3:31 pm →
first, these ads have no effect on me; yet, I keep wondering, what was the point of your article? are you mad about them? the way I see it, companies are trying to make as much money as they can – unless they are directly hurting me, I don’t really care how they do it; if you think they are throwing monmey away by using ineffective advertisement – why exactly this is my/yours problem? i guess my problem is why would someone draw my attention to semething so irrelevant?
Natural responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 4:47 pm →
nope. not influenced at all by celebrities who endorse a product or models who take their clothes off to sell one. i make my purchases based on what i can afford. yeah i may remember an ad if LL Cool J is in it, but I’m not more likely to buy it.
the ads are distracting and while you’re looking at a half naked picture, there’s somebody with their hand in your wallet or purse robbing you.
lizriz responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 6:08 pm →
These type of ads turn me off, but it is nice that the BodyShop woman looks healthy.
Patrick responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 6:27 pm →
I don’t mean to rock the boat too much here, but the idea that women are “indifferent” to seeing scantily clad women (and thus, the entire basis of this article) was completely refuted by a widely publicized piece in the New York Times from about three weeks ago:
What Do Women Want?
In a nutshell, women will say they’re indifferent to these images, but their genitals tell a different story. Advertising firms do extensive research to find out which types of advertising move the most product. If sex didn’t sell to women, it wouldn’t be used to advertise to women.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 6:53 pm →
@ serija: “the way I see it, companies are trying to make as much money as they can – unless they are directly hurting me, I don’t really care how they do it” – They are directly hurting women by dehumanizing them.
@ Natural: “the ads are distracting and while you’re looking at a half naked picture, there’s somebody with their hand in your wallet or purse robbing you.” Haha a candidate for comment of the day.
@ lizriz: I agree that she isn’t underweight. I noticed that too.
@ Patrick:
1. Refuted? I read that article. It’s another research, another point of view, different data. What makes you think it is the ultimate authority over every other research?
2. The research presented in the NYT article says that women react to both men and women. Assuming this is true, I’m still curious to know why advertisers almost always use a woman’s body to sell stuff. They could use a man’s body to sell stuff to women, right? I would venture a wild guess here and say that in our culture it’s more acceptable to dehumanize women and use them as objects than it is to use men.
Patrick responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 8:03 pm →
The NY Times study is much more thorough and revealing than the MSNBC one. In the MSNBC study, people are only asked for their opinions about the images. In the NY Times study, people are asked for their opinions and then their responses are compared to their actual physical response to the images.
The NY Times article shows pretty clearly that women tend to be, well, duplicitous when it comes to these questions. For complex reasons, the conscious mind says one thing, and the body says another (please nobody accuse me of trying to justify rape). It casts a lot of doubt on the value of the findings in the MSNBC article. In my opinion it renders the findings in the MSNBC article completely worthless, but you apparently have a different take on it.
Why are women used in advertising more than men? Since women are attracted to both genders, and since heterosexual men are attracted only to women, it’s possible that advertisers use more women in the hopes of casting a broader net. Also, the study showed that among straight women, the reaction to footage of an “ambling, strapping man” was less than the reaction to images of lesbian sex and even images of bonobo monkey sex. (snicker snicker). Images of men are nowhere near as effective as images of women.
The point is, advertisers aren’t purposefully trying to degrade women. They’re only trying to make money, and they’ve understood for a very long time now that sexualized images of women sell products better than pretty much anything else. That’s all there is to it – it’s very basic human nature. If you want to see fewer of these types of ads, you’ll have to convince advertisers (and the clients for whom they all vigorously compete) to want to make less money.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 8:52 pm →
@ Patrick: I’m sure there are compelling biological reasons for using women as objects and I tend to agree this is about making money. Women are not being hurt intentionally – it’s just an unfortunate byproduct of doing what works.
But people are more than their biological urges. Society places limits on what people can do to make money. I believe that if we lived in a more balanced society, where women had equal power to men, we wouldn’t be surrounded by these awful images.
I want you and anyone who reads this blog to know how difficult it is for me, and for many other women, to see women used this way. I wrote about it in the past and people basically told me the same thing – get over it, sex sells, it’s nothing personal against women.
But I can’t get over it. I’m a person, not an object. It really hurts to see other women portrayed as objects, used and dehumanized by the media. And I am going to continue writing about it even if I can’t convince the media to stop using women, because I have to do SOMETHING about it and I don’t know what else to do.
Happiness Is Better responds:
Posted: February 9th, 2009 at 10:22 pm →
Well, none of these photos did much for me. I think when I see an advertisement I tend to NOT want to buy. That’s what I’ve always done with peer pressure and I would place advertising and peer pressure in the same category.
Great post!
Barbara Swafford responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 1:23 am →
Hi Vered – So the guys who see these ads will think they’ll get “the girl”, too? I’d like to think guys aren’t that gullible, but for some reason “sex sells” continues to be a key marketing tool. It must be working. Go figure.
Wesley responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 2:52 am →
The ads for meat really don’t surprise me, because many people equate eating meat with rape in their subconscious; both are things that supposedly (for some people) bring pleasure to you but hurt others in the process (although I for one am not a sadist and would not get pleasure from either activity). Did you know that a rapist is more than 40 times as likely to be a meat eater than an average person? That’s a scary thought.
Here’s a relevant book:
The Sexual Politics Of Meat
MizFit responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 4:57 am →
I swear Im getting old and curmudgeonly.
I saw a new zappos ad (LOVE ZAPPOS) and grew irritated that they had a woman in her underwear…really irritated
Patrick responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 5:54 am →
I hear you. Thanks for the dialogue!
Patrick
Jelveh responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 8:11 am →
Hi, I do believe that to a certain degree women of any sexual orientation are effected by some of these ads, not for the same reason as men. Let me explain, many years ago I learned that many women dress for other women, other women will see them and approve of them, and then there is the completion part of it too, being as good or better as the other women around…I have seen this in office environments, between best friends, sisters, mothers and daughters and many other social circles…to this end, the advertiser for example of the skin products is reaching for a women who may not have the same skin but is some how made to believe she can by seeing the naked oily virgin ad…the oily and the virgin part is directed at the men, the glowing healthy skin, you can look as good as me part is directed towards women…
It took me a long time to learn and see this clearly, with my mother mostly at first then we my sister, some friends and even in recent years with my mom in-law, I was the better or the worse of the 2 in these situations, mostly about make-up, clothing & weight issues, and although many a women would not tell you that they see the ad and it effects them, they are one of the target audiences of such ads and they do are influenced by them…
in the case of the burger or the bike, it could still work to a certain degree for women. the burger could hit the I can not eat that burger, it will all go to my bum part of a women’s mind, where the ad could be saying to her, go on, eat the burger, you could look as good as me, after all I am eating it…or with the bike, specially with the young women of today, where they seen to have lost so much of themselves with respect to their relationship to men, they could think if I looked as good as this women I could be with a man with this bike for example or car, perhaps women of today learn habits and behaviors not so much to their benefit from such ads…
Ultimately I think that women are just as influenced by these ads, but just in a different way, a way that they are not even aware of consciously, which makes these ads even the more damaging & insidious, never mind the obvious way women are exploited and held as objects to posses and not to respected and know in these kind of ads….
Jelveh
Peace
MomGrind responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 9:24 am →
I gave Patrick’s argument (“no one is intentionally hurting women, it’s just a byproduct of doing what works”) some more thought. While I accept that the damage to women isn’t done intentionally, I don’t accept we need to just learn to live with it.
Women are psychologically hurt by these media images. There’s plenty of research to back that up. There’s also an argument that they’re physically hurt because these images encourage sexual aggression, but I won’t go into that right now.
If something makes someone money while hurting someone else, our society generally doesn’t accept it. There are plenty of examples where an activity became illegal because it hurts people. I’m sure child porn criminals don’t WANT to hurt children – they just found a great way to make money and hurting children is an unfortunate byproduct. But child porn is illegal. Same goes for identity thieves. When they steal your identity, it’s nothing personal against you. They’re just making money.
Perhaps a better example is cigarettes, because that’s an example of profiting from something that hurts people and is still legal, however there are more and more restrictions on it including advertising cigarettes in segments of the media – so the all-powerful freedom of speech is limited here to protect people from being hurt by other people’s money-making.
Granted, with cigarettes the damage is physical while with degrading media images it’s psychological, but my point is that we as a society shouldn’t accept something that makes money while hurting people.
Contrary to popular belief, women are people.
tom responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 9:37 am →
Vered,
“I don’t accept we need to just learn to live with it.”
If people did not accept it then we would be seeing these businesses going down, but people buy it.
“we as a society shouldn’t accept something that makes money while hurting people.”
Dont try to change society, it won’t happen but if you start with yourself, it can go a long way. You don’t need a lot of people to stand up and say for others to notice, especially businesses, they will feel threatened.
Patrick responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 10:13 am →
I just think that from a practical standpoint, if you were going to try to limit these kinds of ads, you’d run into a storm of First Amendment issues. When is it okay to use a beautiful woman in an advertisement? And who decides when it’s not okay? Right now, the standard says that naked butts, genitals and female nipples are inappropriate. Beyond that, how do you draw the line between appropriate and inappropriate? How do you define a “sexually suggestive” pose? I suppose you can say you “know it when you see it,” but if you want to implement an actual legal change there is no way anyone would accept that standard.
Unless there’s a clearly defined standard, you’d be putting advertisers and businesses at the arbitrary whim of some sort of “decency in advertising” board. There’s no way that would fly. So if you actually want to push for a change, a good first step would be to start thinking about a clear definition of what separates images that objectify women from images that contain them. Images that “hurt people” vs. images that don’t.
How do you define this?
MomGrind responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 10:15 am →
@ Happiness is Better: However, advertising is supposed to work on your subconscious.
@ Barbara Swafford: I’m sure it’s working. The question is what can be done to protect women from the damage this is causing them.
@ Wesley: I’m not sure I am comfortable with the rape argument, because rape isn’t at all about pleasure – it’s about controlling a woman and degrading her.
@ MizFit: I can relate!
@ Patrick: It irritates me that my response yesterday was somewhat weak and mellow (it was right after dinner and I was indeed in a mellow mood) and you think I gave in to your argument – kind of like a George Costanza “I should have come with a better response.”
But although the dialogue between you and me is over, I assure you the dialogue in general is in no way over. I – we – will continue to talk about this and fight it and maybe eventually, some day, restrictions will be placed on how women can be treated in the media, much like there are restrictions on cigarette advertising.
The NYT article asks, “what do women want?” well that’s easy. We want equality and respect. Think we got those? Look around you. No we don’t. But we will. If not my generation, if not my daughters’, then their daughters. But we will get there.
@ Jelveh: “Ultimately I think that women are just as influenced by these ads, but just in a different way, a way that they are not even aware of consciously, which makes these ads even the more damaging & insidious, never mind the obvious way women are exploited and held as objects to posses and not to respected” – EXACTLY.
@ tom: “Dont try to change society, it won’t happen” – of course it will happen. Women can vote and own property; Black people have equal rights. How do you think these were achieved? By fighting and kicking and screaming and insisting on changing society.
tom responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 10:21 am →
When i say don’t try to change society, I mean by going around and saying people need to change this because it is wrong.
Instead be the one person who is making a difference and people will notice this. One person at a time can change things.
That is what i meant.make sense now?
MomGrind responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 10:36 am →
@ tom: Yup, makes sense – “Instead be the one person who is making a difference and people will notice this” – this is exactly what I’m trying to do here.
tom responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 10:39 am →
Awesome, then i say get in peoples faces and tell them how it is. No more sugar coating.
Patrick responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 11:07 am →
Sorry to irritate you. I actually tried posting a reply, but it didn’t show up. Now, when I try to paste it, your site says “duplicate comment detected” and it won’t let me. So the site thinks my reply is there, but it clearly isn’t.
Anyway, I was just pointing out that you’d have to deal with some serious First Amendment issues if you wanted to limit this kind of thing in advertising. Since you say the data shows that these images do harm (I haven’t checked it out myself, I’m taking your word for it), a good place to start would be to come up with a definition to differentiate between images that “hurt people” and images that don’t. I assume you aren’t against ALL images of women in advertising. That would be pretty tyrannical. So you need to create a clear standard if you’re going to do anything about it, like push for legislation, or be seen as a credible authority on the topic.
Anyway, you say you are irritated that you didn’t come up with a more forceful response to my post. So am I. You never engaged in the NY Times findings other than to dismiss them as “different data.” Well no kidding it’s different data. That’s the whole idea. My only point really is that you can’t use this claim that “women don’t respond to sex in advertising” as a basis for saying advertisers shouldn’t use women in advertising, because it’s a demonstrably false claim. So use another rationale, because this particular blog entry is bogus. If you keep ignoring the facts that don’t suit your agenda, people will not respect your agenda.
tom responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 12:27 pm →
Interesting comment Patrick.
Just because people say it hurts them, it may simply mean they are just naive.
I mean it all goes back to basics, we are programmed to think a certain way, and the moment we see something different, we condemn it.
But really, is sexuality such a bad thing?
I bet if we were all more engaged in our sexuality, we would be more happy, confident. I mean love is love but doesn’t sex complete the package?
MomGrind responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 1:38 pm →
@ Patrick: “a good first step would be to start thinking about a clear definition of what separates images that objectify women from images that contain them. Images that “hurt people” vs. images that don’t. How do you define this?”
That’s a very good question. My immediate reaction is, you can’t present women in any sexual way – apply the same standards to women (and men) that you would apply to children. That would be a great way to get rid of porn too haha. But I know this won’t fly.
Another option is to make a first step by censoring images who depict rape. This should be done for both sexes of course:
Date Rape Drug Ad
Dolce and Gabbana Rape Ad: Female
Dolce and Gabbana Rape Ad: Male
Target Ad
There are subtler issues such as cutting off women’s faces from ads and presenting just parts of their bodies – this is very rarely if ever done with men:
Dehumanization
It’s a huge issue, Patrick, and – I agree – highly complicated. I can actually see limitations on showing rape scenes in ads, but I can’t see a limitation on “showing just body parts and not the entire person.”
By the way, I’m assuming you’re young and single? Try to imagine having little daughters, smart and funny and full of promise and hope for the future. Is this the culture you’d want them to grow up in? Are these the images you’d want them to be surrounded with?
Re the NYT article, I am not a scientist. I don’t have the tools to check that research and find out if it’s scientifically valid. So I can’t blindly accept its findings as superior to other research. Assuming the research is valid, you’re correct that I would need to change the basis of my objection to objectifying women in ads from “it doesn’t work” to “it works, but at what price to 50% of the world’s population?”
@ tom: Sexuality is a very good thing. But presenting a human being as a sexual object while ignoring other aspects such as personality and intelligence, especially since it’s done almost exclusively to women, is dehumanizing.
tom responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 1:49 pm →
Good point Vered, but really who is stopping you from doing so? Sure there are man made rules but in the end if someone has the will, they will pull off anything, all we can do is say NO. So essentially it comes down to us monitoring each other.
Dehumanizing, yes i think it is too but what if you look at it differently. Mind and body are two separate entities, if we are suppose to be spiritual beings, then our physical bodies don;t stay with us forever.
Hunter Nuttall responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 2:37 pm →
BTW Vered, what do you think about sex being used to sell products relevant to sex?
Tom Volkar / Delightful Work responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 2:38 pm →
No I am not more likely to buy because of sexual content. I am entertained by some well done video ads using sex. I may have been influenced by these ads more as a young man.
Marelisa responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 3:23 pm →
I guess these marketers are trying to sell a “lifestyle” instead of a product per se: “If you drink this beer you’ll be really macho and attract ‘hot’ women.” Here in Panama they used to have these scantily dressed young women who would stand at the traffic light and when the light turned red they would hand out fliers to people in their cars (yes, mostly to men). I haven’t seen them in a while though, so I guess the strategy didn’t work. But yes, sex does tend to sell.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 6:51 pm →
@ tom: “if someone has the will, they will pull off anything” – I agree.
@ Hunter Nuttall: That would be fine as long as there’s no implication of violence or rape and as long as the woman is shown as an active person rather than as a submissive receptacle for the man’s pleasure or – worse – as body parts.
Look at this ad: I’m not familiar with the product and I doubt it works, but I really like the ad. And when llooking at the man, I don’t think he’s being dehumanized either.
Excellent question, by the way. Really made me think.
@ Tom Volkar: “I may have been influenced by these ads more as a young man” – interesting observation.
@ Marelisa: Selling a lifestyle is fine, as long as it shows human beings and not “hot” body parts.
Ribbon responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 7:38 pm →
I like your blog! Well done
Best wishes
Bamboo Forest - PunIntended responds:
Posted: February 10th, 2009 at 9:32 pm →
I’m not sure if I’m influenced or not. Well… if I see an ad with a beautiful woman – I am probably more likely to check the ad out. It certainly grabs my attention.
On balance though – I don’t like the whole use of sex to sell. It works, definitely. But in a perfect world – I think it would be discarded as an advertising method. It’s demeaning.
Tabitha (From Single to Married) responds:
Posted: February 11th, 2009 at 8:20 am →
I have to admit that while I don’t like it because I think these ads objectify women, I don’t notice it much anymore unless it is completely over the top. I think I’ve become desensitized to it which is unfortunate.
Wesley responds:
Posted: February 11th, 2009 at 12:15 pm →
I’m not denying that, but if controlling and degrading a woman did not bring a rapist pleasure, he would probably not do it.
Rita responds:
Posted: February 11th, 2009 at 1:24 pm →
Using one video segment from 3 years ago does not an argument make. Sex DOES sell. It always has, it always will – no matter how inappropriate the ad for the product, or the market being targeted. Advertising is a smart – though often despicable – business. If sex DIDN’T sell, advertisers would have moved away from the trend eons ago, rather than increased it to its now-unavoidable presence.
If you had titled your blog “Do these ads sell?” would the type of comments you got – and the people who wrote them – had been totally varied? I would have to believe that it would have. Sex sells everything – including blog readership.
One more point to show that sex sells. Just mentioning the “s” word in a blog title is, if you’ll forgive the pun, “titillating.”
Emsxiety responds:
Posted: February 11th, 2009 at 8:07 pm →
If they’d at least go with the product it would be different. Yes, only half naked women drive motorcycles. Think of of the road burn!!
Mia responds:
Posted: February 11th, 2009 at 8:56 pm →
For me, it makes me NOT want the item to see them stoop so low. I think it’s disgusting, repulsive, disrespectful, juvenile and pathetic. Enough said.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: February 11th, 2009 at 9:42 pm →
@ Ribbon: Thank you.
@ Bamboo Forest: “It’s demeaning.” – I agree.
@ Tabitha: These ads do objectify women.
@ Wesley: I think this requires a separate discussion. I might post about it at some point.
@ Rita: “Advertising is a smart – though often despicable – business.” I couldn’t agree more.
@ Emsxiety: “Think of of the road burn!!” Haha I’d rather not.
@ Mia: “I think it’s disgusting, repulsive, disrespectful, juvenile and pathetic.” Amen.
Kim Woodbridge responds:
Posted: February 12th, 2009 at 5:46 am →
Advertising in general bothers me – everything has a corporate sponsor now. I tend to remember ads and products that use humor more than ones that use sex.
I am just as bothered by the men’s underwear ad with David Beckham as the one’s using women. But in this instance at least the product is underwear. If the studies are accurate that women respond to ads with men and women then I guess women buy men’s underwear more than men do …?
David Beckham Armani Ad Campaign
Scarlet responds:
Posted: February 12th, 2009 at 8:19 am →
Unfortunately sex does sell. Todays media is a product of todays consumer…and visa versa….its a catch 22!! The media use sex to advertise….it sells…..so they use more…..it sells again…..but as long as we buy they will continue to use the successful marketing tool. But that doesn’t make it right!
To be honest I get utterly sick of seeing this sort of thing. Our brains our in gutter!! It makes me ashamed of the human race sometimes! Im big on projecting positive self image to both young and old….everyone should respect themselves……and this type of imagery and sales tactic does the complete opposite!
MomGrind responds:
Posted: February 12th, 2009 at 8:24 pm →
@ Kim: Yeah, I’m not crazy about this either. Although as you say, at least he’s advertising the underwear he’s wearing and not beer or burgers. In addition, he is standing tall, looking strong and powerful while women are often lying down, passive and submissive (see the burger ad) or worse, just parts of their body are showing which is the most dehumanizing of all.
I don’t see the solution to objectifying women in objectifying men too. How about not objectifying people at all? I do respond when I look at the photo, hey I’m human, but will it make me subconsciously prefer this brand? I like to think it won’t but perhaps I’m naive. I guess you’re correct that they assume wives buy underwear for their husbands.
@ Scarlet: I agree that these images are demeaning and hurtful. I’m sick of these images too so I know what you mean!
Andrew responds:
Posted: February 13th, 2009 at 12:24 am →
Personally, as a single (and definitely straight) male, I am forced to admit that I am more likely to be drawn in to promotional campaigns in which attractive women are featured.
That said, I do not, in any way, appreciate nudity or any form of desecration of the human body. It is quite possible, in my view, to achieve the desired effect whilst keeping advertisements reasonably clean and I wish that all advertisements would feature actors/actresses who are properly dressed.
Marc and Angel Hack Life responds:
Posted: February 13th, 2009 at 1:23 pm →
Yeeeah… sex sells. Unfortunate at times, but true.
MomGrind responds:
Posted: February 26th, 2009 at 10:14 am →
@ Andrew: “I wish that all advertisements would feature actors/actresses who are properly dressed.” Me too.
@ Marc and Angel Hack Life: I guess it is…
Women And Body Image: Ten Disturbing Facts | responds:
Posted: March 1st, 2009 at 10:47 pm →
[...] Reading: Sex Sells? You Tell Me Plastic Surgery Pressure Breaking: Cosmo Magazine To Change Its Name I Read A Vogue Article And Now [...]
International Women’s Day: We Still Have A Long Way To Go | responds:
Posted: March 8th, 2009 at 1:01 am →
[...] Sex sells, and in ads, women are almost always the ones to provide the sexual pleasure. They are shown ready and willing regardless of the circumstances. Their body position is often passive, sometimes even date-rape-passive: [...]
Female Athletes: “Our Skimpy Outfits Are Not Sexist” | responds:
Posted: March 9th, 2009 at 8:45 am →
[...] Articles: Sex Sells? Women’s Magazines Media Portrayal Of Women Subscribe: Email Or Feed [...]
The Psychology of Advertising | responds:
Posted: March 11th, 2009 at 1:00 am →
[...] catch our attention by appealing to our emotions. Health advertisements, such as this one, often utilize fear to get the audience’s attention. [...]
If You Want To Sell Something To Women, You’d Better Make It Pink | responds:
Posted: May 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm →
[...] posts: Sex Sells? Cosmo Magazine Women Around The World: Ten Disturbing Trends Hire Me As A [...]
10 Ways To Love Yourself As A Woman | responds:
Posted: May 31st, 2009 at 12:01 am →
[...] Educate yourself about advertising, the motives behind it and why advertisers use women’s bodies to sell. Being aware of the messages advertisers in particular, and the media in general, send will help [...]
Abdurrazak Koki responds:
Posted: September 7th, 2009 at 6:11 am →
To me frankly, there is no way to use woman as key point to advertise your product, sincere speaking is a way of abusing women entirely.