There are many degrading advertisements in newspapers and magazines these days. I belive that degrading and insulting women to gain a product buyer is not a good way to do buisness.

I feel that adverts like these:

http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2005/nocomment.asp

Should not be allowed in print because of nature of their content. The idea that have half clothed women with a bottle of beer, to sell a product, is idiotic. By no means is that the only way to sell a certain product, and by no means does that have to be a big factor in advertising

Now that you have (grudingly) heard my views, I was wondering what you thought of this.

Personally, I think that all this haberdash about advertisements having nothing to do with the products they are selling is exactly that- haberdash. The advertising executives who think this is a good idea should get fired.

i have always hated this kinda of stuff, along with porn. this stuff is one notch down from porn. except that it is publicized and there is no naked women.i think they should stop this kinda of stuff, along with pornography and, well, uhh, well the public, media, and the government should stop sitting on there damn asses and do something about it.

But the goverment doesnt want to be hated for something so petty. The truth is, that stuff makes sales. It gets peoples attention. Alot of men will stop and stare, and alot of women will stop and stare and then curse all the people who had something to do with the commercial.

I really dont agree with exploiting women like that. But its how things go. They've done it in the past, though it might have just been showing ankles (which, not too too long ago was erotic) its still been done. I guess things will always be done this way, its most likely imprinted in our animal nature to use the opposite sex this way.

So long as it continues to work, it will continue to be done. Until people boycott these advertisements, nothing will change.

lighten up, those ads were just funny
specially the first one!

As K!77y says, the simple fact is: IT SELLS PRODUCT. Can you really fault the advertising executive for doing his job? No, not really. You could maybe fault him for his choice of career, but that's another matter entirely.

No, really whats at fault here (in your eyes) is the entirety of humanity. Because, as noted above, morally bankrupt advertising leads to higher sales of that product. If it didn't, we wouldn't continue to see adverts like that.

What would solve this entire problem (I reckon) would be if the western world (and I'm thinking UK and US mainly here) would get over their ludicrous Victorian ideals of propriety. If naked bodies weren't such a taboo, we wouldn't have this inbuilt reflex to do a double-take every time we see more than an inch of skin. Fat chance of that happening though.

ok, i am very dissapointed. this is a very serious matter. poelpe, not just women, should not be potrayed like that. it fausle advertises the products. if you put a carrot next to the beer, im sure not very many people would by it. but you put a hal naked person by product, it works. even if it works, it shouldnt be done. there are lot of things out in the world that shouldnt be done, and im sure you care.
communism shouldnt be done, terrism sholdnt be done. even small things like litter pisses of people alot.

In undergraduate business school, I had a class on communication. The entire first half of the semester was focused on advertising, and more specifically, on the sexual content (both overt and covert) in print adverts. You'd be surprised how much subliminal messaging goes on, how the layouts encourage the symbolism of the male and female bodies and sexual parts.

Perhaps some may find sex dirty or degrading, but let's face it - the sexual drive is one of the most common human desires. A universal appeal, really. If you want to speak to someone without words, a picture is the way to do it. A graphic, specific image that will relate to all who see it. That is good advertising.

I'm sorry to those who don't feel sex is an appropriate method for selling products, but ethical issues aside, it makes perfect sense.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with those adverts.

As bel. said they're amusing and so long as you don't take them too seriously they are something you can have a giggle over.

Also if it works then obviously not that many people can find them offensive. Do you not buy a product specifically because they use sex to advertise? I think that it would be a pretty difficult shopping trip if you did...

I really do despair when people get into a hissy fit over a picture of an woman in a flattering outfit.

Whooo
Ok a few things, and to start with, please learn about spelling and capitalisation.

How can you compare a non-pornographic, mildly titalating advert for beer, that featured in a mens magazine with serious stuff like terrorism!
That is being silly and over reacting.

When I saw those ad's the first thing I did was laugh. To me they are not offensive at all, you see worse walking down the street as far as girls wearing not a lot of clothing is concerned. Should they be told to cover up because they are degrading themselves? Of course not!

Oh, and you must realise, sex sells. Remember the ads for levi jeans where the fit guy stripped of in the laundrette? Was that discriminating to men, should it have been banned?
Or adverts for products like Hugo Boss? Or for soft drinks where attractive people on the beach in swimsuits enjoy the product?
Get real, its harmless.

A hissy fit?

I'm sorry, but since when is someone expressing their opinions having a "hissy fit"
or so YOU call it.

Many of you are fine with this, i get that, but I believe that there are more to ads then women showing of their bodies and prancing around.

Ads such as these are taking back many of the things women have fought for over the years. I don't exactly see these ads as empowering. It's more like women have been turned into sex objects that can be used to get people to buy diffrent products.

This is only what I think, you can agree with me or not, but i mean come on. a HISSY FIT??

You must also realize, women walk around scantilly dressed by their CHOICE. People apply for modeling jobs by CHOICE. Explain to me how its degrading if one woman chooses to show off her body while another doesnt?

What I see as more degrading, is, if you would look at the site I first gave again please. The ad that says "the longer you wait, the better it gets" That's the most degrading ad and the one that I am most apalled with.

The idea that women have to be dressed/look like the girl in the ad
(ie. skinny, dressed slutty) to get attention is what I hate most about ads like those.

i understand that.
but as i said before, people chose to be nazis.
does that make it ok.
sure damn well doesnt!

You seem to be blowing his a bit out of proportion really. By your statements, one would assume that models are going to launch a campain to take over the world.

Peraonally, I'd have to say that none of them were really that bad. The first two adverts were quite amusing and the last two were tastefully done.

As said before, sex sells. You may be protesting ads such as these, but by paying them any sort of mind (whether good or bad) you're doing what the advertisers wanted because you're giving their ads attention.

[/quote]

models are going to launch a campain to take over the world.

[/quote]
in a way they have.
my olders tell me that the miss usa used to be a family thing, not any more, sex sex sex sex , and more sex.
this is very disturbing.
modeling is the way to sell and basicaly be in bissuness. so in a way, models have taken over the world.

Ah, see, I'd hazard to guess that your elders came from a much more conservative decade (something akin to the 50s in the US). From about then on, the envelope has been pushed and sexuality has been integrated into present day. I'd also have to agree with Jonman that it's the entire western way of thinking that sexuality and sexual desires are wrong which is truly the problem.

no, more like the 70s and 80s.

Ah, my mistake, but even coming from then, sexuality has become more prominant in every aspect of daily life.

i under stand, but there is a limit to it.
movies are pointed to children are swaering more and more.
its only a matter of time before winny the poo starts swearing.'
same goes with these advertisements, soon, there will be actaul sex and nudity if it continues.

Are we just talking about Magizine adverts or TV advertisments, too?

Personaly, None of them really botherd me except for the secound one.

As stated above, sex sells. Death also sells. Look closely at just about any ad for alcohol, and you'll see tiny skulls airbrushed into the bubbles. Do the skulls sell more beer? Who knows, but advertisers think it does, so there will always be those who use them...

All advertising is smoke and mirrors. No substance. They attach a product to a mood, rather than discuss the merits of the product. Or, they will say that a product is better than it's competitors, and do some hocus pokus and tapdancing around to convince us that they're speaking truth. In the end, they've said nothing.

cleaning products, for example, will show us two stained items, then demonstrate how easily one product works. We are suppossed to trust them not to tamper with the conditions of their test, without giving us any kind of guarentees.

Then there was the 'low tar' cigarette. They put airholes in the filter, so that more air would mix with the smoke. Would it work? We'll never know, because the airholes were placed where the smoker's fingers would cover them. Testing machines registered lower tar, because they didn't cover the holes, and the extra air 'watered down' the tar content on each puff...

See? Smoke and mirrors. Always look at advertising with a jaundiced eye...

Yeah, my chemistry teacher last year showed us how to do that. He made some liquid, I don't remember the exact formula. When he put it on something, it looked like a regular stain, but it washed off in water just like in the commercial with the cleaning product. Apparently that's exactly what they do. Just goes to show you that advertisements have little to do with reality.

Why not? And why is it so serious? Has anybody been hurt by it? Has it really made people think "hmmm, you know - that advertisment makes me realize that women only exist to be attractive, and have sex with me"




I don't think a carrot would work, so, we need to find a way to sell it that works. Attractive women sell products, it works, and I don't think that it's hurt women.



First off, women were more like sex objects a long ago, when they were the property of their husbands, couldn't own anything, or even more recently, when they couldn't vote, or get a job, when there it was frowned upon for women to actually enjoy sex, or for them to try to assert their independence. Secondly, these women are used to get people to buy different products. What is wrong with that? Is all advertising of any kind wrong?



They got your attention, didn't they? Would you have noticed if they were normally dressed?



What is wrong with that? I will agree that people who are too immature to handle it should be shielded from it, but what is wrong with sex and nudity being shown to a mature audience?

Whoa, chill dude.

It's just an add.

Besides, I've found that it's true. Women general do become more sexeh as they age; growing from teenagers into full blown women. I'm certainly starting to notice them a lot more anyway. ¬_¬

Plus, you'll never get rid of these adds. They're what I like to call 'saucy', or 'risqué'; not pornographic enough to deserve a ban, but still pretty edgy. Advertising companies simply have too much power and wealth for them to be challenged.



Arf! Dude, shut up. Just listen to yourself. The Nazis were all about repressing this stuff, not encouraging it.

Must. Not. Use. Rolly. Eyes. Emoticons ... Nggh!!



Grah! Too late!

I was actually referring to tv with legs telling us that they were very disappointed in us for not realising that women need to be forced to cover themselves up in public, not to you.

Well, that's a matter of personal taste. Given the choice, I'd go for the lass on the left, personally - something weird seems to have happened to the face of the woman on the right, plus her skin has been airbrushed or something - but I don't begrudge other people their preferences.

The problem here, as I see it, is the perception of "women" as a category, where an offence to one member of that category is an offence to the entire category. This lets you go from one woman who has chosen of her own free will to be portrayed in a fashion that may possibly be construed as offensive, all the way to advertisers hate anything with a double-X chromosome. It's an unjustified logical leap.

And I'm not even going to start on comparing women wearing revealing clothes in public to Nazism.

Everyone posted a lot over night and I don't know how to quote more then one person at a time; so bear with me.




Exactly. After everything that women have worked for and gotten in soiciety, most don't even know anything about whats going on in the world. I know children (like 9 year olds) who want to be models when they grow up. Now is that really what you want to hear from a 9 year old?


After everything women have worked for, what is the point of turning around and making themselves more ignorant then ever before?

The advertsing that shows women as objects and not people is the kind of advertising that I am against.

My computer is beating me over the head right now, but i have a lot more stuff to say. Don't disagree with me just yet.

I'll be back

I told you I'd be back!!





It doesnt rightly matter who you were reffering to. Saying that someone is having a hissy fit when they are expressing their views on a certain subject, is not a good argument.

What if everytime you stated your opinion, it was called having a "hissy fit".

Let someone have their opinions and state what they want; then decide what it means.

This is a two dimensional image we're talking about. With the best will in the world, there's only so much 'person' that can be portrayed, because in all cases what is transfered from a model to a picture is only skin deep.

In real life, someone does not suddenly become more of a person and less of an object because they are wearing more clothes.

Yet these woman chose to do this. In fact, in my opinion, these woman are exerting the power they actually DO have. With all due respect, men are pretty base beings - visual aids work better then anything else if you want to encourage them to do something.

So a woman is gorgeous and sexual. Why should she not use this to her own means? That's what's she's doing. So she happens to be selling something? Bet she got paid more in one shoot then most men get paid a month.

I don't think women having to show all that skin just to sell something has a point. There are better ways to sell them without all the woopdy-doo of the sexual nature of most adverts.

I do believe the point would be that Sex Sells

Rock on, sister.

These women are choosing to do what they do. Maybe it's for the money or adoration or attention... who cares? The fact is, they're selling product. When I see those ads you linked, I didn't say, "Oh, I need to look like that... it's the ONLY way people will find me attractive and will want to be around me. If only I were long-legged, blond and 34 pounds *sigh*" No, I laughed. I laughed because it's true... men like sexy, scantily clad women, and they want to see them. If anyone's being exploited it's the men; these sexy women are exploiting mens' one-track minds, and making big money from doing it. In reality, like Snuggle said, it's more empowering that women are using mans' weakness for sex to make googobs of dough than it is exploitation.

I forget who said it, but yeah, we need to stop being so uptight about nudity too. The human body is beautiful man, embrace it.

But can you say that its the ONLY WAY??

there ARE better ways to sell products. Yes, it's not been tried MOSTLY. But if it was tried out then there would be other ways to sell stuff, rather then using sex.

As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Unless sex stops working to sell things, it'll continue to be used. Simple as that.

First off, what flabbergasts me is that the: 1. only one person agrees with me. and 2. The person is male.

For some reason, i expected some women to see what I meant when I started this topic, but guess not.

I feel as if I am fighting a losing battle here, but I'm gonna keep pushing until I keel over.




Yes, ok. I got that the women do it in their own free will. But there are better ways then sex to sell something or get your point across.

Can you really not see how the first advert in the link was NOT degrading? It was on SO many diffrent levels.

Yet many people seem not to care that men have gotten the upper hand here. When women do this, they are more or less selling themselves. It's like prostitiution without the actual sex involved. Men dont HAVE to see scantily clad women next to a beer bottle to buy the product. But for some reason, thats what the socieity has become. Women are more then sexual objects, just good for the eye. But some people seem to forget that when the adverts such as that appear. That's what women are becoming. 2 dimensional objects that are no longer human, only good to see.

Women aren't seen as they were used to. Maybe some people don't care that women are now just something to look at, but if these advertisemts were not used, then people would wake up and realize that there is more to a person then how they look.

Umm..thanks for that but can you be any more on an a**hole??

You continue to mention that there are better ways to sell products than by using sex, yet you've yet to provide examples. If there are better ways, then would you care to enlighten myself as to what they are?



Actually, taken from a strictlt visual basis, it seems that the woman is almost 'ruling over' the man because she is the dominant figure in the ad, since she's standing above him.



Since when do advertisements completely make up a society's thoughts on how women are treated? Just because sex sells a product (realize I'm talking about both women AND men here) that doesn't make the person less of a person. Think about it. You're an advertising agent making an ad that people will look at (at most) 30 seconds, sometimes not even near that. Honestly, are people's personalities going to grab the attention of the person seeing it? No. So sex is used to grab their attention and to focus it on what's being sold.

Sorry about that. Just pratting about.

An advert can be as wholesome as you like, but it's still just a 2 dimensional object.



But any kind of sexual content aside, a this kind of advertising can only deal with how they look. It's a visual medium. You can have advertisements with women showing less skin, but it would still be dealing with how a person looks; thus not any the less superficial.

There's more to people than how they look. Call me naive but I'd like to think that's something people learn by going through the whole 'interacting with fellow human beings' routine, rather than through avoiding risqué advertising.

well, not exactly one of your more mature statments..

but you have a lot of good things to say most of the time so this I'll overlook it.

ok, so im a moron, but im a moron with more sense that yall.
this is really sickening. women can choose to do what they want to do but that doesnt meen that its right. is it right if i chose to be a nazi? no, its not.
if women continue to do this, they are just degrading them selves more and more.


yes, a 2 dimensional object of a women that people will stare at.

is that all your going to say, sex sells? that is a horrible thing. you know what, flowers sell, computers sell, animals sell, land sells, just the product by it self sells.
it sells to, USE IT.

i bet most men are smart enough not to degrade them selvs to get piad money.
if you potray women like that, they look like whores to me.


this is a very sad arguement, all the people here except 2 think its ok and say forget about, all i know is that im not quitting cause i know im right.

I'm of two minds to this. One hand, I see the point of not taking every sexual image, story and so on too seriously. It gives it more power than it ought to have and it has people running about like chicken with their heads cut off. That isn't very productive. Neither extreme be it puritanism or sexualization is healthy.

On the other hand, I do think that portraying certain things has an effect. For healthy men, the portrayal of stereotypical masculine ideals vs 'classic' female ones won't turn them bad of course. They can seperate fantasy from reality and have some idea of how you treat people. However, that also feeds fantasies of people who cannot seperate it. People who become stuck at power and control. A greater percentage of them do seem to focus it on women, sometimes extremely abusively. This is the other result of our freedom and I think people need to realize that its the price of the choices our culture makes. You can do what you want, but people will be affected. Some people will be affected in ways that may hurt your or others.

We have ample evidence that media has far more power than it should. The rising rates of anorexia when TV is beamed into a country like fiji. The way a handbag or a shirt sells out when a star wears it. The way urban people turn to burberry or whatnot because some rapper wears it and adopt images they see in vidoes. The list goes on and on. I'm not sure why people believe that because an image is sexy that people don't respond to that, but everything else. Sex sells, but we're also portraying a certain type of sexy and encouraging that too. If that type is submissive or women as a sex object, well, thats whats being shown as 'cool'. Its silly, but then people buying these products based on their 'kewl' factor is silly too and it happens.

As to how to fix that.. I realize its not as simple as banning all these images. It would require a change of how we think on a deeper level than just advertising. Women would have to care how they're portrayed more than they do now, men would have to not encourage the more harmful forms of advertising/portrayal ect. Oh and mandatory therapy for abusive or dysfunctional families wouldn't hurt either. ;P

I'm sorry if I hit a point someone has covered already, I'm still trying to catch up. >.>

So, I'm looking at these specific advertisments, and I'm trying to find out how women were degraded by them. I mean, if it is so obvious to others, then it should be obvious to me.

First advertisment:

It involves a man looking up a woman's skirt (might it be a mannequin?) This is rude, but does it really degrade women as a gender, as a group? If taken at face value, it may mean that men want to look up women's skirts...but...we do. We don't want to invade people's privacy, but men are interested in what is up women's skirts, to put it lightly.

Second advertisement:

It shows a beautiful, sexy woman and a picture of her from high school, where she looked much more common, and plain. Are we supposed to be angry at the idea that a common, plain girl isn't as beautiful as a beautiful girl? I mean, of course they can both be good people, or intelligent, but one is more attractive than the other. All other things being equal, the more attractive one is more desirable. Would you rather a great person who was attractive or the same great person who was unattractive?

Third advertisement:

A woman in a form fitting top, kind of sexy, but not really degrading. The caption reads, "Check Out Our Overflowing Collection Of Alluring Styles." Well, she is 'overflowing' to a degree, but is that degrading? How does it limit her? Do you think less of a person because they are attractive? Remember, no matter what the advertisement, we aren't going to know someone's IQ, only how they look. Is it wrong that the advertisers use attractive women, and make them as attractive as possible?

Fourth advertisement:

This one made me laugh. It is a man and woman, embracing, with the camera at the woman's back. The man is pulling gum out of her back pocket and the caption reads, "Everyone wants a piece", which of course is meant to imply that the man is more interested in the gum than the woman. Of course, it is only funny because we assume that men should always be most captivated by the woman in front of him, and never interested in other, more mundane things, like gum. Taken that way, it can actually be slightly degrading towards men, but, of course, it really is funny. Mostly because men are usually most captivated by the women in front of them, and less interested in more mundane things, like gum.

OTA, you keep talking about how these advertisements portray women as "two-dimensional objects", but I'm struggling to see how else a picture could possibly portray somebody. Should there be a text box next to each picture saying "This is Jennifer. She's 24 and lives in a flat in Lewisham with her boyfriend, Rick. She got a second-class degree in political science but isn't quite sure where to go from there, and is worried she made the wrong decision. She'd quite like children one day, she thinks..."?

I'm also worried about this dichotomy I'm seeing, where Less Clothes Equals Bad, More Clothes Equals Good. Women are not allowed to wear Less Clothes (men, one presumes, can wear as few clothes as they like). This is the old Victorian repression of sexuality, just put into different terms.

Let's look at this word, degrade:
1. To reduce in grade, rank, or status; demote.
2. To lower in dignity; dishonor or disgrace: a scandal that degraded the participants.
3. To lower in moral or intellectual character; debase.
4. To reduce in worth or value.

You, OTA, see a woman wearing revealing clothes as being reduced, being less than you in terms of status and worth, being dishonoured and disgraced. So would a Victorian aristocrat; she would have called the girl a slut and a whore, where you've danced around being quite so blunt, but the sentiment is there.

Ker-Wrong! Did you not read Snugglebum's post? I thought not.

Men are essentially weak ; We're suckers for sex. As such, there has been a realisation that women can very easily manipulate men through the use of their bodies. And, to be quite frank, if a woman so wishes to empower herself in such a way, who is anyone to stop her?