Sex Object Test

[oldbadger]

Random thought:
I dislike seeing scantily clad women on motorcycles.
Even though I know they're not going to ride in such a state, it's worse than looking ridiculous.....it makes me think of skin grafts & broken bones. I'd rather not do that.

What, like this?
....just women? You think that a woman would go out and ride a bike in shorts, but a man would know better? Change women for 'people' and your post is perfect.
I seen the aftermath of such accidents as well......

 

[oldbadger]

Here's the thing you're not getting. There is a difference between what men find sexually attractive in a woman, and what genuinely makes women feel sexy. As in, confident, capable, and beautiful, not "intellectually aware that men might want to sleep with them because they've got their baps out".

...... so sexual enhancement and beauty clinics, surgeons, etc in Canada don't survive long.....

There's a similar disparity between what women find sexy in a man and what makes them feel sexy. For example, when a man creates a mental image of a sexually attractive man, he thinks of Conan the Barbarian, whereas a woman thinks of Johnny Depp in Chocolat.

...that's OK....... see how successful female ad execs are at this kind of thing? They're going to use the 'right male model' in the 'right setting' in their dream-ads.

So, in women's magazines we see pictures of women as they see themselves, as per your example. In men's magazines, we see pictures of women as men see them, also as per your example. I'm sure you can see that there is a difference between the GQ cover (male editors) you posted and all the other examples in your post (female editors).

So...... what?
If you're producing an ad for a mainly female market you'd be daft to use male psychy, and vice versa.
How does this help you?

You have either missed or forgotten my point, which is that when women hit the exec positions 'big-time', not much will change because they ain't going to be working for the thought-police on changing the world ........ simply being successful at what they were hired to do........ or they will have career-deaths.

THEREFORE YOU WOULD NEED LEGISLATION OR A MASSIVE CULTURE CAMPAIGN TO CHANGE ALL. Remember?

 

[oldbadger]

Every time I go to the store, 9 out of 10 magazines with people on the cover that I see feature sexualized women.

........ are they just men's mags, or women's mags as well?

 

[oldbadger]

Of course, when we buy things, we're often not actually buying the product; we're buying the commercial. Far too often, these things are in conflict.

...... which is why most western countries have advertising standards rules and Trade descriptions legislation.

When the people agree that sexual enhancement, sexual interest, sexual postures and sexy clothing is bad, then (and only then) will legislation ban it all...... and then we'll be right where we started, back in the dark ages..... worse, dark ages with 'sex-policing'.

You might fair better in a middle-eastern country. You won't find many S/O mags on the shelves there. You won't see much of the women, either.

 

[oldbadger]

Dang, that's harsh.
Oh, well....worthless suggestions beat the incessant complaining & sloganeering which dominate this thread.

..... and don't you go buying any more 'Lady Ga-Ga' records, Revolting. :no:
She is sexually-objectified, demeaned, no self-worth...... umm.... hang on.... don't girls buy Lady Ga-Ga? Isn't she rich, famous, free, high status and successful?
.... you just wait there....... when I've sorted this out I'll come back at you.....

 

[oldbadger]

At least the incessant complaining is something that needs to be complained about incessantly.

..... well get complaining then. Incessantly....

But in the UK you're right..... our girls, boys, women and men will be fighting back if folks try to take control of, or take away... their beauty products, enhancements, sexy clothing or sex-media. They're already fed up with being told how to think, what to watch, how to live and how to look.....

Big Brother and Big Sister can go ......... oh no.... not that, again!

 

[Alceste]

...... so sexual enhancement and beauty clinics, surgeons, etc in Canada don't survive long.....


...that's OK....... see how successful female ad execs are at this kind of thing? They're going to use the 'right male model' in the 'right setting' in their dream-ads.


So...... what?
If you're producing an ad for a mainly female market you'd be daft to use male psychy, and vice versa.
How does this help you?

You have either missed or forgotten my point, which is that when women hit the exec positions 'big-time', not much will change because they ain't going to be working for the thought-police on changing the world ........ simply being successful at what they were hired to do........ or they will have career-deaths.

THEREFORE YOU WOULD NEED LEGISLATION OR A MASSIVE CULTURE CAMPAIGN TO CHANGE ALL. Remember?

Sure, ad directors will try to come up with messaging that moves their target market. But what we have now is a culture of men marketing to women using depictions of women as seen by men. So, it would be like women trying to sell power tools or beer using almost nothing but soft focus images of Johnny Depp playing the guitar and smirking knowingly.

Many of these 97% male ad directors are operating under the erroneous assumption that what men and women respond to is the same. It isn't. Women aren't buying shampoo because they think it will make them have orgasms. They're buying it to wash their hair.

 

[oldbadger]

Sure, ad directors will try to come up with messaging that moves their target market. But what we have now is a culture of men marketing to women using depictions of women as seen by men. So, it would be like women trying to sell power tools or beer using almost nothing but soft focus images of Johnny Depp playing the guitar and smirking knowingly.

Many of these 97% male ad directors are operating under the erroneous assumption that what men and women respond to is the same. It isn't. Women aren't buying shampoo because they think it will make them have orgasms. They're buying it to wash their hair.

All wrong.
You would be amazed at how many mag directors are WOMEN. True!
If they didn't like an ad as produced by an ad firm then they would tell the client, 'No! We can't insert this!' So Women control more than you suggest.

And your analogies are absurd.
Shampoo? SHAMPOOS!!!????? How out of touch that comment was.
How far from the average female mind that was.
If ads execs only got paid on sales, and you was (Not were, Revolting.... WAS) ... sorry Alceste.... you was an ad exec, you would die of starvation....
Women buy shampoos to clean their hair, make it smell nice, make it look good, make themselves feel clean and confident. Many shampoos have ingredients included so that women don't need conditioners = hair shines and moves differently.
Women buy shampoos because that particular bottle is easier to use, doesn't fall over, has a nice shape.
The ads can show a woman with lovely long flowing hair in a breeze...... puts her somewhere...
I won't continue this to the bottom of the page, but if you could not write about female (and male) perceptions, needs, wants and the features and benefits of a particular brand of shampoo TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE then you don't know what marketing, advertising and selling is all about.

And it pays shareholders' returns, it gives thousands of employees jobs, and fulfills the needs of countless clients and customers. So let's not mess with it too much. Your claims of sexual objectification, in many cases, are simply sexual interest attractors, and the S/O cases that remain could only be dealt with by very careful legislation.

 

[dawny0826]

Sure I did. Social criticism is how we can influence other women, as well as men, and everyone else in between. It doesn't have to be dry and academic either. Literature, film, music and art can be even more effective. (And dance, right Heather?)That song "you don't have to try" is by a woman, for women. Nothing like a catchy melody for getting people thinking about your counter-culture message.

[youtube]GXoZLPSw8U8[/youtube]
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GXoZLPSw8U8

So, social citicism is the answer? Women refraining from using their bodies FOR attention and TO sell an idea or product wouldn't help either?

This is what the speaker suggests in the video in the OP.

 

[dawny0826]

It's not either / or. We don't have to decide whether men or women are to blame for a detrimental status quo, or whose job it is to fix the problem. We can simply acknowledge the fact that there is a problem and work together to fix it. Or work alone to at least fix whatever damage the ubiquitous objectification of women in our culture has done to our own minds, male and female.

And it just so happens that social criticism is a reasonably effective strategy for reaching out to people of any and every gender and planting a seed.

This may yield an effective "balance" if indiviudals are doing their part to refrain from being a part of the problem. I can't claim that I'm not fueling problems with sexual objectification when I use my own body in such a way that encourages it.

 

[Alceste]

All wrong.
You would be amazed at how many mag directors are WOMEN. True!
If they didn't like an ad as produced by an ad firm then they would tell the client, 'No! We can't insert this!' So Women control more than you suggest.

And your analogies are absurd.
Shampoo? SHAMPOOS!!!????? How out of touch that comment was.
How far from the average female mind that was.
If ads execs only got paid on sales, and you was (Not were, Revolting.... WAS) ... sorry Alceste.... you was an ad exec, you would die of starvation....
Women buy shampoos to clean their hair, make it smell nice, make it look good, make themselves feel clean and confident. Many shampoos have ingredients included so that women don't need conditioners = hair shines and moves differently.
Women buy shampoos because that particular bottle is easier to use, doesn't fall over, has a nice shape.
The ads can show a woman with lovely long flowing hair in a breeze...... puts her somewhere...
I won't continue this to the bottom of the page, but if you could not write about female (and male) perceptions, needs, wants and the features and benefits of a particular brand of shampoo TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE then you don't know what marketing, advertising and selling is all about.

And it pays shareholders' returns, it gives thousands of employees jobs, and fulfills the needs of countless clients and customers. So let's not mess with it too much. Your claims of sexual objectification, in many cases, are simply sexual interest attractors, and the S/O cases that remain could only be dealt with by very careful legislation.

I guess you never saw the ad I'm referring to, which attempted to market shampoo by having women make loud sex noises while washing their hair. I'm guessing that ad was created by a man. (A guess with a 97% chance of being correct, regardless of the ad).

It sounds like you're getting worked up, but I honestly don't know why. Gin, maybe?

I guarantee you I wouldn't starve if I went into advertising, though I don't know what that has to do with anything. It sounds like you are assuming ALL ad agencies MUST be willing to objectify women in their adverts to get clients. And that ALL clients see sales go up when women are objectified. If those are the assumptions you're working from, I'd like to see some evidence. If not, I don't know why you are insisting female creative directors at ad firms would inevitably choose to create ads filtered through the male gaze, sexually objectifying women in ways that don't appeal to women. Why would they?

 

[oldbadger]

I guess you never saw the ad I'm referring to, which attempted to market shampoo by having women make loud sex noises while washing their hair. I'm guessing that ad was created by a man. (A guess with a 97% chance of being correct, regardless of the ad).

It sounds like you're getting worked up, but I honestly don't know why. Gin, maybe?

Ain't a nice drop o' gin good, eh? But not at 10.48am..... not for me any way. Marketing and selling does animate me, because it helps to keep folks employed, shareholders rewarded and the wheel turning.... sure it does.

I would like to see your ad with women making loud sex noises. That would be interesting.

I guarantee you I wouldn't starve if I went into advertising, though I don't know what that has to do with anything. It sounds like you are assuming ALL ad agencies MUST be willing to objectify women in their adverts to get clients.

No..... but they sure do want to INTEREST women (and men) in their ads.
Don't keep on about objectifying women...... because where objectification does occur it most likely happens to people, and legislation to empower advertising watchdogs would be the best way out of that. Wouldn't that please you?

And that ALL clients see sales go up when women are objectified. If those are the assumptions you're working from, I'd like to see some evidence. If not, I don't know why you are insisting female creative directors at ad firms would inevitably choose to create ads filtered through the male gaze, sexually objectifying women in ways that don't appeal to women. Why would they?

That's where you go wrong...... Ad execs need to connect with human interest, needs, wants, urges and loves. Legislation can remove unfair, irresponsible, deceitful and misleading messages sent in advertising...... but there does need to be a proper watchdog, because humans can be tempted to break rules.

It's time for me to look more deeply into what legislation is around already, because some countries may already have sorted this. Your standard repitition of 'Objectified women' has already declined somewhat here, in the Uk, by showing the kinds of mags that women like to read, and our top 10 mags show how many of these mags they buy!

 

[oldbadger]

OK folks, here they are, six of the top ten Brit Mags, showing women how to look more sexually attractive, full of make-up, low cleavages, plenty of thigh displays, nice postures and lots more ideas about how to 'get them guys'. Of course the editors all happen to be female. So here we go:-
Woman's Weekly. ED: Diane Kenwood

Glamour. ED: Natasha McNamara

Closer Mag EnG ED Jane Johnson

New! Mag ED: Lebby Eyres.

Slimming World: ED: Elise Wells.

Take a Break ED: Rebecca Fleming.

Sexual..... What? Nah..... :no:

 

[Revoltingest]

Jezus, Badger....seeing those pix makes me feel like I'm in line at a grocery store.
Who on Earth buys those mags? I only see people peruse'm & put'm back without
buying any. (Yeah, I'm one of'm.)

 

[oldbadger]

Jezus, Badger....seeing those pix makes me feel like I'm in line at a grocery store.
Who on Earth buys those mags? I only see people peruse'm & put'm back without buying any. (Yeah, I'm one of'm.)

Hi....
Who buys 'em?
Gawd... I don't know, but they're in the top ten Brit mags, which proves that over here we're all morons, I suppose.
But our birds like looking sexually attractive, so the femmies out there really ought to start on our female folks. But they'd better watch out, 'cos our girls don't like getting told what to do..... :no:

Hey.... You've got some motorbikes, trucks and 'all. How about you get your Missus to take a pic of you hanging over a lump of engineering excellence in your undies?

I don't mind having my pic taken.... stretched over the company carpet-cleaning machine .... in Y fronts of course, and if you or anybody knows how to stick 'em on a post we could email them over.....

RF's sexual objectification contest. ?? I'd win of course..... perfect example of masculine excellence..... but you could take part, you see, and it's the taking part that counts.....

 

[Revoltingest]

Me pix will never ruin anyone's lunch here.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The Slim World magazine cover is not a sex object by a strict interpretation of the Sex Object Test, though it is in a gray area by tests #5 and #6.

 

[Alceste]

The Slim World magazine cover is not a sex object by a strict interpretation of the Sex Object Test, though it is in a gray area by tests #5 and #6.

I don't think any of them are, to be honest. Once again, they're just ordinary pictures of women. I'm starting to wonder if our Badger actually watched the video.

 

[oldbadger]

Me pix will never ruin anyone's lunch here.

One word........ CHICKEN!

 

[oldbadger]

The Slim World magazine cover is not a sex object by a strict interpretation of the Sex Object Test, though it is in a gray area by tests #5 and #6.

True..... true. But it was in the top ten so I slung it in, 'cos some women were talking about a more 'beautiful shape than a healthy one, kind on thing.