Sex Object Test

[oldbadger]

Mayhaps since a sling could hurl any kind of missile, it shouldn't be limited to
stones, & thus the delivery means itself was included in fortune's hardships, eh?
Are you channelling LegionOompaLoompa?

Clearly you have not read any scholarship or taken notice of any consensus of academic opinion about or around the use of slings or atl-atls throughout the course of history. Now Arthur Conan Doyle in his celebrated work 'The White Company', whilst being written as a novel was in fact............

:biglaugh:

 

[oldbadger]

He only looks big because he's so short.

....yeah....... isn't that a mini tyre? Town and country mini tyre.

 

[oldbadger]

I have not ignored your answers to the earlier paras, I simply want to acknowledge them and move to this:-

Paragraph 4 and beyond: I don't attribute the prevalence of men and the retarded depiction of women in advertising to male ruthlessness or ambition. IMO, the culprits are culture, stupidity, a lack of self criticism and a lack of imagination.

There are different 'types' of advertising, and they are so firmly glued in place that they are unlikely to be removed as the gender balance in ad-control stabilises.
Humour Ads: No change
Solve problem ads: No change
Get it cheaper ads: No change
New Product ads: No change
THE DREAM ADS: NO CHANGE!
Buy this, (a chocolate bar! A bloody yoghurt!) and you could be (or feel like) here: A big yacht anchored in a silent, quiet, remote lagoon at sunset....... with her, in nickers'n'bra!

Buy this, (a small car) and you could have ................. her! (a half-naked woman stretched over the bonnet who wouldn't fit her 34" inside leg in the front foot-well). ..

BUT..... The 'Dream-ad' can be sandwiched which the other ad themes and be used to sell to females just as well as males. How many cleaning product or kitchen utensil ads feature a 'dream' kitchen with 'dream' units etc?
YES! This does matter!, because I am reducing the % of sex-obj ads within the dream-ad themes.!

Now..... take that % and gender balance it out... within, say..... ten years?

The men of this culture believe that sexualizing women is win-win. They think men want to possess the model and women want to BE the model.

Yes! Yes! And when the gender-balance kicks in...... women ad bosses will carry-on! Why? Because they are selling to men (and a few women) in that particular product range and if they b-gger about with the DREAM then they will lose the contract eventually thru failure! So what will rough tough win-win female ad execs do? They will continue to win-win......

...so the only way that folks could reduce these kinds of ads is by:-
Legislation...... which is already happening in many countries.
A massive campaign :-............to change the hearts and minds of younger people, so that folks don't respond to such ads .... are even turned off by them, and folks don't want to damage their careers by taking part in such ads...... Famous Freddie Fitzroy...... Sex-Obj ad discovered from the early years! etc.

So whilst I recognise the presence of this kind of poo in advertising, it can only be impinged upon from outside the ad trade.... is my point.

By the way....... your motorcycle pic? That's a Ducati....... Italians !!
I would love to see what Hay thinks about it.

 

[Alceste]

I have not ignored your answers to the earlier paras, I simply want to acknowledge them and move to this:-


There are different 'types' of advertising, and they are so firmly glued in place that they are unlikely to be removed as the gender balance in ad-control stabilises.
Humour Ads: No change
Solve problem ads: No change
Get it cheaper ads: No change
New Product ads: No change
THE DREAM ADS: NO CHANGE!
Buy this, (a chocolate bar! A bloody yoghurt!) and you could be (or feel like) here: A big yacht anchored in a silent, quiet, remote lagoon at sunset....... with her, in nickers'n'bra!

Buy this, (a small car) and you could have ................. her! (a half-naked woman stretched over the bonnet who wouldn't fit her 34" inside leg in the front foot-well). ..

BUT..... The 'Dream-ad' can be sandwiched which the other ad themes and be used to sell to females just as well as males. How many cleaning product or kitchen utensil ads feature a 'dream' kitchen with 'dream' units etc?
YES! This does matter!, because I am reducing the % of sex-obj ads within the dream-ad themes.!

Now..... take that % and gender balance it out... within, say..... ten years?


Yes! Yes! And when the gender-balance kicks in...... women ad bosses will carry-on! Why? Because they are selling to men (and a few women) in that particular product range and if they b-gger about with the DREAM then they will lose the contract eventually thru failure! So what will rough tough win-win female ad execs do? They will continue to win-win......

...so the only way that folks could reduce these kinds of ads is by:-
Legislation...... which is already happening in many countries.
A massive campaign :-............to change the hearts and minds of younger people, so that folks don't respond to such ads .... are even turned off by them, and folks don't want to damage their careers by taking part in such ads...... Famous Freddie Fitzroy...... Sex-Obj ad discovered from the early years! etc.

So whilst I recognise the presence of this kind of poo in advertising, it can only be impinged upon from outside the ad trade.... is my point.

By the way....... your motorcycle pic? That's a Ducati....... Italians !!
I would love to see what Hay thinks about it.

You are assuming the trope men in advertising believe - that men want to possess the sex object and women want to BE the sex object, is true. It isn't. There are much more effective ways to market to women, and marketing is about results. Female creative directors would not be personally invested in the belief that women are primarily driven by a need to feel sexually attractive to men, and it will therefore be easier for them to break free from the clichés and innovate with regard to depictions of gender.

That's not to say that ONLY women can do this, or that ALL women will do this. It's the law of averages. More female creative directors will introduce more authentically female perspectives in advertising, which will balance out the prevalence of male sexual fantasy in the industry.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I have not ignored your answers to the earlier paras, I simply want to acknowledge them and move to this:-


There are different 'types' of advertising, and they are so firmly glued in place that they are unlikely to be removed as the gender balance in ad-control stabilises.
Humour Ads: No change
Solve problem ads: No change
Get it cheaper ads: No change
New Product ads: No change
THE DREAM ADS: NO CHANGE!
Buy this, (a chocolate bar! A bloody yoghurt!) and you could be (or feel like) here: A big yacht anchored in a silent, quiet, remote lagoon at sunset....... with her, in nickers'n'bra!

Buy this, (a small car) and you could have ................. her! (a half-naked woman stretched over the bonnet who wouldn't fit her 34" inside leg in the front foot-well). ..

BUT..... The 'Dream-ad' can be sandwiched which the other ad themes and be used to sell to females just as well as males. How many cleaning product or kitchen utensil ads feature a 'dream' kitchen with 'dream' units etc?
YES! This does matter!, because I am reducing the % of sex-obj ads within the dream-ad themes.!

Now..... take that % and gender balance it out... within, say..... ten years?


Yes! Yes! And when the gender-balance kicks in...... women ad bosses will carry-on! Why? Because they are selling to men (and a few women) in that particular product range and if they b-gger about with the DREAM then they will lose the contract eventually thru failure! So what will rough tough win-win female ad execs do? They will continue to win-win......

...so the only way that folks could reduce these kinds of ads is by:-
Legislation...... which is already happening in many countries.
A massive campaign :-............to change the hearts and minds of younger people, so that folks don't respond to such ads .... are even turned off by them, and folks don't want to damage their careers by taking part in such ads...... Famous Freddie Fitzroy...... Sex-Obj ad discovered from the early years! etc.

So whilst I recognise the presence of this kind of poo in advertising, it can only be impinged upon from outside the ad trade.... is my point.

By the way....... your motorcycle pic? That's a Ducati....... Italians !!
I would love to see what Hay thinks about it.

Two words. Male Gaze. Look it up and see why it doesn't define the world. Only part of it.

 

[oldbadger]

You are assuming the trope men in advertising believe - that men want to possess the sex object and women want to BE the sex object, is true. It isn't.

No.... it isn't. But sometimes it is.
I did say that advertising can be Humour, gap-filling, New product, Problem solving, New idea, etc and 'Dreams'. Dreams can offer to fulfill all kinds of dreams. It's not all 'buy this and you can have her.' But some is, and women execs will work it, just like men do.

Which means that legislation is the most sure way to reduce sexual objectification, if the voters think that it is an important enough goal.

There are much more effective ways to market to women, and marketing is about results. Female creative directors would not be personally invested in the belief that women are primarily driven by a need to feel sexually attractive to men, and it will therefore be easier for them to break free from the clichés and innovate with regard to depictions of gender.

Well male execs will use those techniques now....
Women execs would be totally targeting success, just like men. If you think that women execs are going to enter the ad world on a mission to end sexual objectification of adults, then you will lose.

That's not to say that ONLY women can do this, or that ALL women will do this. It's the law of averages. More female creative directors will introduce more authentically female perspectives in advertising, which will balance out the prevalence of male sexual fantasy in the industry.

No they won't! Not if they are selling to men!
Pro ad execs, regardless od gender, target a customer base....... and if that base is (mainly) men then they'll go all out to win........ or be redundant.
It's all about big biz in the big wide wicked world. And the female execs will be committed to career success before some Don Quixote style of mission to end SO in Ads. :yes:

And so..... Either legislation, if the people care enough to drive it, or gradual diversion from the present culture.... which is slowly happening anyway.

If you ran a street survey showing two ads for the same product, using the same model, one of her in a typical S/O role and one of her out of the S/O role and asked passing blokes how they thought they might react if they saw either in a mag you would get a significantly different reaction to, say, 20 years ago...... young men are changing.

 

[Alceste]

No.... it isn't. But sometimes it is.
I did say that advertising can be Humour, gap-filling, New product, Problem solving, New idea, etc and 'Dreams'. Dreams can offer to fulfill all kinds of dreams. It's not all 'buy this and you can have her.' But some is, and women execs will work it, just like men do.

Which means that legislation is the most sure way to reduce sexual objectification, if the voters think that it is an important enough goal.


Well male execs will use those techniques now....
Women execs would be totally targeting success, just like men. If you think that women execs are going to enter the ad world on a mission to end sexual objectification of adults, then you will lose.


No they won't! Not if they are selling to men!
Pro ad execs, regardless od gender, target a customer base....... and if that base is (mainly) men then they'll go all out to win........ or be redundant.
It's all about big biz in the big wide wicked world. And the female execs will be committed to career success before some Don Quixote style of mission to end SO in Ads. :yes:

And so..... Either legislation, if the people care enough to drive it, or gradual diversion from the present culture.... which is slowly happening anyway.

If you ran a street survey showing two ads for the same product, using the same model, one of her in a typical S/O role and one of her out of the S/O role and asked passing blokes how they thought they might react if they saw either in a mag you would get a significantly different reaction to, say, 20 years ago...... young men are changing.

That's the thing. They are not selling to men. Women overwhelmingly dominate consumer spending, and yet their business is pursued by a culture of men who mistakenly believe we see ourselves as - or wish we were - sweaty, pouting, simpering tarts who are ready for action at any moment. Either that or super-moms who live to gleefully wipe up spills from that time dad tried to make spaghetti.

 

[Alceste]

Two words. Male Gaze. Look it up and see why it doesn't define the world. Only part of it.

Yeah, that's what is so odd about this whole discussion. It seems some men here are so cushioned from female perspectives in their lives that they confuse male perspectives with objective truth. I'm doing my best to communicate one to them, but it's hard to get through the wall of mansplaining.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yeah, that's what is so odd about this whole discussion. It seems some men here are so cushioned from female perspectives in their lives that they confuse male perspectives with objective truth. I'm doing my best to communicate one to them, but it's hard to get through the wall of mansplaining.

LOL I hear you. You're doing a phenomenal job. Remember there are lurkers who read this thread and will pick up what you're explaining.

The #notallmen meme was popular for a reason, and then outnumbered by a long shot by the #yesallwomen campaign for a reason.

I think what is noteworthy, too, is that some of us ruthless executive women are currently involved in marketing and advertising at this very moment. Yet, interesting how we ruthless executive women aren't even asked what we focus on with our marketing for our own businesses, or when we ruthless female executives were working with other V.P.'s on copy-write and various seasonal ad campaigns when we ruthless female executives were working at our corporate jobs.

The assumptions are strong in this thread. Aren't they?

 

[Alceste]

LOL I hear you. You're doing a phenomenal job. Remember there are lurkers who read this thread and will pick up what you're explaining.

The #notallmen meme was popular for a reason, and then outnumbered by a long shot by the #yesallwomen campaign for a reason.

I think what is noteworthy, too, is that some of us ruthless executive women are currently involved in marketing and advertising at this very moment. Yet, interesting how we ruthless executive women aren't even asked what we focus on with our marketing for our own businesses, or when we ruthless female executives were working with other V.P.'s on copy-write and various seasonal ad campaigns when we ruthless female executives were working at our corporate jobs.

The assumptions are strong in this thread. Aren't they?

They sure are. Come to think of it, I did quite a bit of freelance marketing too, working for a woman. Not once did she advise me to find soft porn images of sexy women to help promote her client's products. At one point she did say that when choosing stock photos, women's happy or peaceful faces were preferable to the weird stuff I was picking out, but that's because the client base was female, so women were more relatable. We also intentionally sought to reflect some ethnic diversity, which is a bit of a challenge since white people are hugely overrepresented in stock photo collections . When you don't make the effort, people complain. When people complain, the client complains. When the client complains, we jump up and listen.That's why I have such confidence that criticism is the best way to effect change.

 

[oldbadger]

That's the thing. They are not selling to men. Women overwhelmingly dominate consumer spending, and yet their business is pursued by a culture of men who mistakenly believe we see ourselves as - or wish we were - sweaty, pouting, simpering tarts who are ready for action at any moment. Either that or super-moms who live to gleefully wipe up spills from that time dad tried to make spaghetti.

They are selling to market niches......

Earlier you wrote:-

Quote:
There are much more effective ways to market to women, and marketing is about results. Female creative directors would not be personally invested in the belief that women are primarily driven by a need to feel sexually attractive to men, and it will therefore be easier for them to break free from the clichés and innovate with regard to depictions of gender.

Really? So Female Editors of Magazines at the 16-60 Female market are not going to push interest in bigger tits, bums, sexier features..... totally sexually driven....? Is that what you are saying?

I picked 4 web site covers. Read em and learn about what pro females in a tough world need to do to attract female attention. And then accept that women in advertising will be just as prepared to use 'sex' and 'sex promise' as male pros.

 

[Revoltingest]

Really? So Female Editors of Magazines at the 16-60 Female market are not going to push interest in bigger tits, bums, sexier features..... totally sexually driven....? Is that what you are saying?

I picked 4 web site covers. Read em and learn about what pro females in a tough world need to do to attract female attention. And then accept that women in advertising will be just as prepared to use 'sex' and 'sex promise' as male pros.

Perhaps the problem with blaming the "male gaze" is their craving it, eh?


I found an interesting example of objectification.
Here's what happens when Tractors Supply hawks racy women's wear....

But look at their ad with a man...with his face cropped out, dehumanizing him.

 

[Alceste]

They are selling to market niches......

Earlier you wrote:-


Really? So Female Editors of Magazines at the 16-60 Female market are not going to push interest in bigger tits, bums, sexier features..... totally sexually driven....? Is that what you are saying?

I picked 4 web site covers. Read em and learn about what pro females in a tough world need to do to attract female attention. And then accept that women in advertising will be just as prepared to use 'sex' and 'sex promise' as male pros.

Er, those are just pictures of women. What are you attempting to convey here? Maybe review the sexual objectification test in the OP and let me know which of the points discussed applies to these magazine covers.

GQ would meet at least one of them I suppose, but it's a men's magazine. So, there's that. Maybe comparing the women on the covers of a few more men's magazines to the ones you posted from women's mags would be a useful exercise for you.

It's cute how you think you're teaching me something about women in marketing with this post. Makes me want to pinch your little cheeks.

 

[dawny0826]

I've watched this same video three times now.

The first time, I disagreed that two of the provided examples necessarily depicted sexual objectification:

• Ad depicting women in the vending machine, available for purchase - patron depicted as a male
• Naked female backside utilized as an artistic backdrop in an ad

My argument before was that intention matters and shouold be considered. I still think that this is true when evaluating actions or projections that may or may not be sexually objectifying.

I am open to the possibility that the first example was intended to be humorous moreso than sexually objectifying. I construed the naked backside to be presented in more of an artistic way and not as a mere back drop.

I agree with her provided action items.

She says something: Women should stop using their bodies for attention.

For the most part I agree with this and I find myself clinging to this argument when other feminists deny that women contribute to their own inequality through their own actions at times.

On the flipside, I also accept that women can be empowered enough to use their own bodies for profit, be it through art, advertising or otherwise. Sometimes, this translsates to objectifying oneself, particularly when your body or image becomes a product to sell.

So, where should lines be drawn? How do we make this work in free societies where women wear what they want to wear, express themsleves as they want to, accept the roles of prostitute, model, actress, dancer, etc.? How much is the responsibility of everyone else and how much is the responsibility of women? Mindset doesn't change over night and we have to be the agents for our change, do we not?

 

[oldbadger]

Perhaps the problem with blaming the "male gaze" is their craving it, eh?

I found an interesting example of objectification.
Here's what happens when Tractors Supply hawks racy women's wear....

But look at their ad with a man...with his face cropped out, dehumanizing him.

I don't yet know what 'male gaze' is. Honest.
I'm more interested in what women want. And looking at UK women's mags, female editors are concentrating a fair % of the content on looking sexually attractive, etc..... and those front covers are advertising content which is all about being sexier!

Alceste posted a picture of a woman lying down in jeans, and mentioned that it was posture that signalled the sexual message. Nearly all the fashion pics in our women's mags are using exactly that sexual message in a % of their pics.

Obviously blokes like to see women, and to hang a bird on a bike in a motorcycle mag will attract more attention, which may then divert to product and increase sales = more ad contracts = more jobs + better share returns blah blah.... But I think that I have shown that female execs will also use sexual objectivity (interest!) to sell..... or they will be out of a job!

 

[oldbadger]

Er, those are just pictures of women. What are you attempting to convey here? Maybe review the sexual objectification test in the OP and let me know which of the points discussed applies to these magazine covers.

GQ would meet at least one of them I suppose, but it's a men's magazine. So, there's that. Maybe comparing the women on the covers of a few more men's magazines to the ones you posted from women's mags would be a useful exercise for you.

It's cute how you think you're teaching me something about women in marketing with this post. Makes me want to pinch your little cheeks.

8 THINGS THAT GUYS NOTICE INSTANTLY!
Did you read that?
BOOB JOBS WITHOUT SURGERY
Did you see that?

It's not just the postures in the pics..... it's the words.
And in the UK it supports the idea that women are interested in looking sexually attractive and good......
It shows that Pro Women will find out what women want, and will give it to them, or within a few editions their magazine will be in the dustbin.
It shows that Pro Women in advertising will use sexual INTEREST to attract prospective buyer's attention.

Having said all that I watched the ads on telly last night (before the watershed at 2100) and did not see a single example of sexual interest being used, so we may have some rules here which you don't.

So to change advertising techniques you will first have to change WHAT WOMEN WANT. I'm not trying to teach you anything...... women can attempt that.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I've watched this same video three times now.

The first time, I disagreed that two of the provided examples necessarily depicted sexual objectification:

• Ad depicting women in the vending machine, available for purchase - patron depicted as a male
• Naked female backside utilized as an artistic backdrop in an ad

My argument before was that intention matters and shouold be considered. I still think that this is true when evaluating actions or projections that may or may not be sexually objectifying.

I am open to the possibility that the first example was intended to be humorous moreso than sexually objectifying. I construed the naked backside to be presented in more of an artistic way and not as a mere back drop.

I agree with her provided action items.

She says something: Women should stop using their bodies for attention.

For the most part I agree with this and I find myself clinging to this argument when other feminists deny that women contribute to their own inequality through their own actions at times.

On the flipside, I also accept that women can be empowered enough to use their own bodies for profit, be it through art, advertising or otherwise. Sometimes, this translsates to objectifying oneself, particularly when your body or image becomes a product to sell.

So, where should lines be drawn? How do we make this work in free societies where women wear what they want to wear, express themsleves as they want to, accept the roles of prostitute, model, actress, dancer, etc.? How much is the responsibility of everyone else and how much is the responsibility of women? Mindset doesn't change over night and we have to be the agents for our change, do we not?

For me, since I often joke about sleeping my way to the top, it isn't so much about whether or not to flaunt what our mama's gave us. It's recognizing the world we live in and how we play a part in it as agents for change, as revolutionary acts, as working the system as it is (and understanding limits imposed), or eating the **** sandwich until we're ticked off enough to walk away for a little bit.

One thing I've learned about how others perceive feminist rhetoric about sexual objectification is that we're whining about dudes thinking we're hot, whining about dudes who don't think we're hot, and then whining that life isn't fair. That's the perception folks get when listening to feminist criticism of the current mindset of advertising and sexual objectification. The message gets scrambled from social commentary to just one big ice-cream-binge-fest from crying about why don't boys like us that much.

It's that scrambling of the message that I'm most interested in digging into. There are a few folks here and there think that women are supposed to offer up to men their bodies for sale because the assumption is present that that's just how men are. That women are here for men's pleasure. Period. And it's that kind of acceptance of what "is" that scrambles the intent of advertising into assumptions of the purpose of women's bodies.

It's a radical notion to say that I'm not here for a man's viewing pleasure. I'm not telling men NOT to like what they see. But I AM saying that my existence as a human being doesn't serve that purpose.

So, yes. I dance. I support women who go into sex work. I identify myself as a sex-positive feminist. And I think sexual objectification in advertising is detrimental to the push toward gender equality.

The Male Gaze being assumed as the default reality is what's at play here.

 

[Alceste]

8 THINGS THAT GUYS NOTICE INSTANTLY!
Did you read that?
BOOB JOBS WITHOUT SURGERY
Did you see that?

It's not just the postures in the pics..... it's the words.
And in the UK it supports the idea that women are interested in looking sexually attractive and good......
It shows that Pro Women will find out what women want, and will give it to them, or within a few editions their magazine will be in the dustbin.
It shows that Pro Women in advertising will use sexual INTEREST to attract prospective buyer's attention.

Having said all that I watched the ads on telly last night (before the watershed at 2100) and did not see a single example of sexual interest being used, so we may have some rules here which you don't.

So to change advertising techniques you will first have to change WHAT WOMEN WANT. I'm not trying to teach you anything...... women can attempt that.

I've never denied that many women have internalized the message that their personal value is contingent upon being sexually attractive to men. In fact, that's my own argument that many of the blokes debating me have denied.

That's who is buying those rags - women who have accepted that the Male Gaze defines who they are and what they're worth. I don't buy them. I'm sure Mrs. Badger doesn't - she sounds too sensible.

Generally speaking, women with a sense of personal value beyond being sexually attractive to men have hobbies and interests other than learning how to make your boobs more perky without surgery. Likewise, men who are not overly concerned about tips and tricks for pulling women aren't buying Maxim. My own magazine subscription is to Harper's, not Cosmo.

I think where you've gone wrong is thinking that there is something "women want". There isn't. You really can't generalize that way. Is there a marketing niche of women who have allowed themselves to be persuaded there is nothing more to them than sex appeal? Sure, and another for men of the same cut. Is it more profitable than niches that cater to the rest of us? I seriously doubt it. Harper's has been in print for a century, and even my grandma - like nearly everyone - has stacks of National Geographics in the basement.

 

[Alceste]

I was curious to see whether my hypothesis that the "you're too fat and terrible in bed" magazines are less profitable than mags catering more psychologically healthy women. I found this:

Ahem, number 3. I will deny that we are naturally inclined to objectify ourselves until the end of time, but I would never say we don't tend to nest.

 

[oldbadger]

I've never denied that many women have internalized the message that their personal value is contingent upon being sexually attractive to men. In fact, that's my own argument that many of the blokes debating me have denied.

Personal value? My God.... personal value encompasses many facets! But surely it is reasonable to accept that most women (and men!) do take an interest in trying to be attractive in some ways? I would never deny it. The 'snatched' mags (one of which, as you said, was a blokes' mag) showed that interest in real terms.

But that wasn't the point! My point was that Pro Female Execs drive those mags, and if they drove adverts then they would be prepared to use sexual attraction (either gender) to sell, market and promote. Ergo, let's balance this out.....

That's who is buying those rags - women who have accepted that the Male Gaze defines who they are and what they're worth.

No! Male Gaze faint is not female reader's tenet...... sexual attraction is their INTEREST!

I don't buy them. I'm sure Mrs. Badger doesn't - she sounds too sensible.

Do you buy mags?
Mrs B: No
Why not?
Mrs B: They're a waste of money.
But when Mrs B was younger she did. I remember. It's not bad, or wrong, or silly..... it's what a massive % of men and women want to do, and young men are taking a MASSIVE interest in their appearance, personal hygiene, physical appearance.... but we're not attacking women for that.... they just take an interest in their sexual attractiveness as well.

Generally speaking, women with a sense of personal value beyond being sexually attractive to men have hobbies and interests other than learning how to make your boobs more perky without surgery.

Of course they..... just like men.

Likewise, men who are not overly concerned about tips and tricks for pulling women aren't buying Maxim. My own magazine subscription is to Harper's, not Cosmo.

As above.... agreed. How does this all point to objectification of one sex? It's simply about (sometimes) using sexual INTEREST in adverts..... where is the evil in that?

I think where you've gone wrong is thinking that there is something "women want". There isn't. You really can't generalize that way.

Yes...... I can. Absolutely. Women (and men) want ..... security.... warmth..... food..... see? And they mostly like and take INTEREST in being sexually attractive.......

Is there a marketing niche of women who have allowed themselves to be persuaded there is nothing more to them than sex appeal? Sure, and another for men of the same cut.

Not a very big one, but most men and women are INTERESTED in it, which is why advert execs take notice of it.

Is it more profitable than niches that cater to the rest of us? I seriously doubt it. Harper's has been in print for a century, and even my grandma - like nearly everyone - has stacks of National Geographics in the basement.

You're off subject imo. The subject is sexual objectification, which is rapidly being washed out by simple proof that both men and women (lots of them) take interest in sexual attractiveness, which is why Female Editors run mags just like the few I snatched as examples. And which shows that female execs would also be prepared to (actually do) use sexual INTEREST in some ads.

I have suggested from the beginning that the use of sexual INTEREST in ads is not as dreadful as proposed, and that female execs would use it where best suited. I have shown that already.

This has been demonstrated, surely?