women are depicted, frequently, as receptive objects. Women are draped naked or nearly naked over cars, to sell cars, over beaches, to sell vacations, over men with drinks, to sell drinks- what is the message? Buy this and you'll get the chick included. IMO subliminally this creates the message that men are somehow entitled to women. Interestingly this has probably always been somewhat of a problem for women, but I think this sort of advertising increases the problem that already exists. Now you can argue that there is nothing wrong with using women as objects to sell things, but the objectification of people for profit bothers me- especially when women are often stripped to expose breasts and buttocks. IF women were visually stimulated I wouldn't think it was any more healthy for men to be draped over cars in tight speedos- but since women generally aren't visually stimulated we don't see a lot of that- except in print ads aimed at gay men.
Well, the definitive commercialization of women in advertising is, I would say, in Victoria Secret ads. Nice looking women wearing only underwear, which happens to be Victoria Secret underwear. The message is that the underwear is not only comfortable, it is sexy. Women, buy our stuff, and you may look as appealing as this model. Men, this ad is hot!
Does that bother you? Is the Victoria Secret model depicted as a "receptive object" in their ads? I don't think so. I think she just looks good and sexy.
As far as ads creating the idea that men are entitled to women, that's YOUR interpretation and far from what the common man understands. Ads are designed to sell things, not give them away. You're entitled to welfare if you lose your job or a diploma if you pass your exams, but who thinks they are entitled to a woman because she is in an ad for a $70,000 Lexus? Nobody I know thinks that way - why do you?
the objectification of people for profit bothers me- especially when women are often stripped to expose breasts and buttocks.
What media are you watching that exposes women's breasts and buttocks? Must be pay per view, because that's not on CNN or Fox or Time Magazine. Those ads certainly aren't in the Economist....
Face it, sex in the media, for most of us, is just the fact that the women (and men) in the media are generally attractive. Since most media is visual, that's fine with me. I'd have a problem if sex were commercialized in academia or commercialized in the medical industry, and female professors got tenure based on their figures and female doctors got promotions if they had large breasts, but that's not the case. In general brain power triumphs in academia and skill and stability triumphs in medicine. In the media industry where the players only want to be watched by others, of course they should be appealing to look at.
What's your eventual conclusion about opposing the commercialization of sex in advertising? Do you think we'd be better off if rather than having a beautiful woman draped over a car we had a ninja in a black full body robe draped over a car that perhaps is a woman, but who knows since the robe effectively covers her face and figure? |
