"The Sexy Lie"

[Alceste]

I'd not presume to reduce the complexity of the topic to such an oversimplified position.

I suppose (not trying to oversimplify too much) my argument is more along of the lines of the position that advertising and marketing are much stronger at influencing peoples' choices then they are in changing or influencing fundamental attitudes and behaviors - i.e., that as far as attitudes and behaviors are concerned, people are more likely to respond to marketing which already reflects, and appeals to, their existing personality and attitudes.

Another way to put it may be that peoples' identities may be reinforced by the marketing they're exposed to, but their personalities are not created or defined by the advertising they're exposed to.

And all this is separate from the related issue that the purpose of marketing is primarily to sell products. It's success is marked by how well it performs this function. The purpose of the marketing industry is to make money, not to promote shady agendas, patriarchal or otherwise.

Thanks for elaborating. I'm not suggesting that entire personalities are being spun from the ether by pictures of naked ladies, though.

My own opinion is that most people seem to use their conscious mind only to rationalize behaviors they are already engaged in - not to decide how to behave.

All the processing that causes this or that behavior in the first place is bubbling away under the surface of our awareness.

It goes without saying that big PR firms study this topic to death. It's their bread and butter. And they know that the way to reach that subconscious soup of wants and needs is not to say "Hey, do you need a shirt? Cuz we sell shirts." It's to associate the shirt with a far more compelling subconscious behavior motivator, like sex.

Associating your product with enhanced sex appeal or sexual opportunity is gonna work just fine on both men and women, but the majority of ad agency creative directors (97%) are men. When they think "Imma make a really sexy ad!" They're thinking of sexy naked ladies (or bits and pieces thereof) because they have their own soup of subconscious motivators they have to deal with. No shady agenda required.

So the question is, given that this messaging is specifically designed to go straight into the tangled mess of our subconscious to influence our behavior, what consequences might it have on our attitudes and behavior beyond making us want to buy expensive shirts we don't need?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Thanks for elaborating. I'm not suggesting that entire personalities are being spun from the ether by pictures of naked ladies, though.

My own opinion is that most people seem to use their conscious mind only to rationalize behaviors they are already engaged in - not to decide how to behave.

All the processing that causes this or that behavior in the first place is bubbling away under the surface of our awareness.

It goes without saying that big PR firms study this topic to death. It's their bread and butter. And they know that the way to reach that subconscious soup of wants and needs is not to say "Hey, do you need a shirt? Cuz we sell shirts." It's to associate the shirt with a far more compelling subconscious behavior motivator, like sex.

Associating your product with enhanced sex appeal or sexual opportunity is gonna work just fine on both men and women, but the majority of ad agency creative directors (97%) are men. When they think "Imma make a really sexy ad!" They're thinking of sexy naked ladies (or bits and pieces thereof) because they have their own soup of subconscious motivators they have to deal with. No shady agenda required.

So the question is, given that this messaging is specifically designed to go straight into the tangled mess of our subconscious to influence our behavior, what consequences might it have on our attitudes and behavior beyond making us want to buy expensive shirts we don't need?

All good stuff. I suppose regarding your last question, i suppose I would tend to look at it as marketing's influence works on us by appealing to what is already contained in the subconcious, rather than actually influencing the subconscious or inserting something into it. Now as to what mix of effects, thoughts, and emotions (positive, negative, and otherwise) that this may or may not have on various people is likely exceedingly complex and variable.

Do I think repeated exposure to specific messages can have the tendency to bring out attitudes and behaviors in people who are susceptible to those messages? Absolutely. Do I think that excessive exposure to marketing and advertising is healthy for the psyche? No, of course not. Do I think that advertising and marketing is a particularly significant variable on how the average person fundamentally defines themselves and the world? I think it has varying amounts of influence on different people, but I think its specific and identifiable impact is generally overestimated when compared with other variables and factors.

 

[Alceste]

All good stuff. I suppose regarding your last question, i suppose I would tend to look at it as marketing's influence works on us by appealing to what is already contained in the subconcious, rather than actually influencing the subconscious or inserting something into it. Now as to what mix of effects, thoughts, and emotions (positive, negative, and otherwise) that this may or may not have on various people is likely exceedingly complex and variable.

Do I think repeated exposure to specific messages can have the tendency to bring out attitudes and behaviors in people who are susceptible to those messages? Absolutely. Do I think that excessive exposure to marketing and advertising is healthy for the psyche? No, of course not. Do I think that advertising and marketing is a particularly significant variable on how the average person fundamentally defines themselves and the world? I think it has varying amounts of influence on different people, but I think its specific and identifiable impact is generally overestimated when compared with other variables and factors.

That's all very reasonable. I feel like we should have a drink to celebrate or something.

What do you make of the fact that 97% of advertising creative directors are men? Do you think that, to whatever extent we are influenced by advertising, the disproportionate amount of male POV we are exposed to might be somewhat destructive?

Me, I think those wankers I work with would still be wanking even if they weren't surrounded by pictures of sexually objectified women all the time, but I think perhaps they would not have developed the impression that it's socially acceptable to leer at a woman in her own apartment and comment extensively about how wank-worthy her various body parts are in front of your female coworker.

Although, come to think of it, they probably also watch a lot of porn, which I'm sure is a big part of the picture. Plus I don't discount the fact that they are also *** holes either.

I'm coming down on the side of yes, there is a destructive effect (I described how media viewing women through a male sexualized filter affected me, personally). But advertising is a symptom of a much greater illness in our culture, not an illness in and of itself.

I don't expect much. We're just monkeys after all. But I do think letting more women into the ad exec boardroom would help to mitigate whatever destructive effects the male filter in advertising creates, whatever they are.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Finding implied sexual violence or domination in a handful of examples of advertising over time doesn't indicate to me that it's either a trend, nor that it's representative of advertising in general. You can find examples of just about anything when you search a large enough sample size, and like any other industry, you have individuals who bring in their own personal perspective, as well as a drive to stand out from the crowd or make some kind of impact. And like any other job, sometimes a tactic works, sometimes it doesn't, but any group of outliers aren't generally representative of a field as a whole.

Of course, but this certainly has been studied and studied and studied to death about the nature of advertising and media's treatment of women. The violent images are part and parcel to the overall problem of women being objectified...meaning, they are presented as being passive and unable - or unwilling - to make their own sexual choices. They are presented as body parts or placed in positions and looks that focus on immediate accessibility. And these types of ads are overwhelmingly strewn throughout the industry.

What did you think of the video from the OP?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Agreed. But it seemed that you attributed this to patriarchy. Why?
(Don't worry...I ain't spoil'n fer an argument.)

The example that freethinker offered as offensive still maintained a picture of men in the drivers seat. Therefore I disagree with the notion that men in those advertisements are sexually objectified. They are pictured in stereotypes, but stereotyping is not objectification. The men are active and making sexual decisions for themselves, while many of the women being described are shown as being helpless, assaulted, kidnapped, and vulnerable.

In a patriarchal culture, the alpha males rule over power and asset acquisition through their means and maintenance. Women fall short unless they score points with the top males, and men fall short unless they find a way to oust the top males. In any case, the males in these societies remain in the drivers seat.

The downside to all this is the assumption from culture that a woman must be sexually available when an established man wishes for it. And there is also the assumption that men are driven by a lust for possession of a woman or just merely a part of her. It damns everybody, but in different ways.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Of course, but this certainly has been studied and studied and studied to death about the nature of advertising and media's treatment of women. The violent images are part and parcel to the overall problem of women being objectified...meaning, they are presented as being passive and unable - or unwilling - to make their own sexual choices. They are presented as body parts or placed in positions and looks that focus on immediate accessibility. And these types of ads are overwhelmingly strewn throughout the industry.

I think that any message or perception that is too narrow and overrepresented can have negative psychological and sociological effects, and skew perspectives. I also think that such an analysis as you presented is too oversimplistic in its conclusions. I think it ignores the factor of women's sexuality conveying a sense of power, influence, and even control over men.

Absorbing and analyzing the presentation of sexual images, as a man, I can tell you the greatest impact on me is the visceral response of feeling the strong influence that women's sexuality exerts over me, and has little impact in terms of me reducing women to nothing but body parts.

As an evolutionarily evolved, sexually reproducing, social species, the power of women's sexuality is one of the most pervasive and impactful attributes which we respond to on a physical, emotional, and psychological level. And I think I recall reading studies which indicated this applied to females as well as males. Reducing the prevalent presentation of this key influencing factor to the simplistic "objectification" of women serves to ignore the importance, complexity, and inherent power exerted by it. And tragically, in my opinion, can also result inrejecting the empowerment of sexuality and replacing it with a sense of victimization.

As a further extension of this topic, I think that most social and cultural behaviors and attitudes stem from our evolutionary biology. The primary way in which males and females of our species differ is in the physiology and biology of their sexuality. I think that the move to promote equality between men and women has, misguidedly, been confused with the move to promote men and women as the same. And, being that sexuality is one of the most impactful attributes of human beings, I think that much confusion and conflict has been caused by the impossibility of reconciling the idea of the "sameness" of men and women with their evolutionarily programmed differences regarding sexuality. But that's another huge, complex topic. I digress.

 

[Revoltingest]

The example that freethinker offered as offensive still maintained a picture of men in the drivers seat. Therefore I disagree with the notion that men in those advertisements are sexually objectified. They are pictured in stereotypes, but stereotyping is not objectification. The men are active and making sexual decisions for themselves, while many of the women being described are shown as being helpless, assaulted, kidnapped, and vulnerable.
In a patriarchal culture, the alpha males rule over power and asset acquisition through their means and maintenance. Women fall short unless they score points with the top males, and men fall short unless they find a way to oust the top males. In any case, the males in these societies remain in the drivers seat.
The downside to all this is the assumption from culture that a woman must be sexually available when an established man wishes for it. And there is also the assumption that men are driven by a lust for possession of a woman or just merely a part of her. It damns everybody, but in different ways.

I see....tis a different use of the word from mine.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't expect much. We're just monkeys after all. But I do think letting more women into the ad exec boardroom would help to mitigate whatever destructive effects the male filter in advertising creates, whatever they are.

I'm all for equal opportunities and diversity of input. I don't know the percentage of advertising people who work on the creative end who are female, but I suspect it's less than half (although not as low as 3%). I'm sure that the work and influence of female advertising people accounts for more than 3% of the material presented. Although, you have to assume a filtering influence if 97% of the directors are men. Regardless, since the average audience for most products overall is about 51%, they would be well-served to include the input of that audience to a representive level. It would be interesting to see the actual changes of increased input of females in advertising. I suspect many people would probably be surprised one way or the other.

 

[yoda89]

A TEDx talk by Dr. Caroline Heldman revisits the debate over media sexually objectifying women, a litmus test to determine if an ad or movie or game objectifies someone, and the societal and psychological impact sexually objectifying women does.

She also points to an interesting statistic that is provocative: when a woman's issue is presented, and the "what about the menz" arguments begin to be in response, or when people say that it happens to men too....Dr. Heldman suggests in the video that 96% of what passes as sexually objectifying ads are objectifying women specifically.

It also explains why men are not objectified nearly as much because objectification of women in ads are presented in both popular men's magazines AND in women's magazines.

I found her talk compelling. What do you think?

I've never really bought into the woman being objectified. Not because it doesn't happen but because it is merely a symptom of the society in which we live in. Now one may wish to treat a symptom however unless the root caused is cured than there will continue to be symptoms. She understands that part. A large majority of insecurities are presented to the public on what they should and should not be to sell items and services. We as humans are often times insecure and unsure by nature. The majority of us will overcome this and try to define ourselves through available resources. When more insecurity and fear is placed upon an individual through advertising they must consume more resources to deal with these fears and insecurities.

In this situation you are given evidence of why men objectify women. The root cause of societies problems with self image runs very deep. Yet, let us analyze the top of the surface. We have someone who is telling others that they are objectified. Maybe they have felt this before. Maybe they have not felt this. Perhaps they are being objectified. Perhaps they are not being objectified. Depending on the individual they may agree or disagree.

Yet, you have a charismatic spokes person selling you the concept that you have a problem. That this problem is caused by other people. That it is caused by men who control the mainstream media who are anti-women. That you must act a different way now then other people were telling you to act and that they have the solutions. Creating a new market to sell more things

Advertising is not a female problem it is a society problem. Advertising is a way to control everyone not just women. The mentality of women versus men is creating another barrier to actually getting rid of this advertising. Therefore I find her speech harmful. While it does display the problem it creates another one. Simply just shifts blame. Now suddenly it is Female versus Male. Instead of we are all humans.

My point is this. Your and everybody else's thoughts are initially neutral. You either make them into positive thoughts or negative thoughts. This is a case of paying even more attention to advertising. So its better to ignore advertisement and be yourself. If you do think that women are not equal see Madam C. J. Walker

 

[Alceste]

I'm all for equal opportunities and diversity of input. I don't know the percentage of advertising people who work on the creative end who are female, but I suspect it's less than half (although not as low as 3%). I'm sure that the work and influence of female advertising people accounts for more than 3% of the material presented. Although, you have to assume a filtering influence if 97% of the directors are men. Regardless, since the average audience for most products overall is about 51%, they would be well-served to include the input of that audience to a representive level. It would be interesting to see the actual changes of increased input of females in advertising. I suspect many people would probably be surprised one way or the other.

I got the figure from looking it up, just for the purpose of expressing my thoughts to you dahling. :flirt: Here's where I got it:

Mad Women? Why women walk away from advertising - The Globe and Mail

I was particularly tickled by this paragraph:

At an event in Toronto in 2005, the worldwide creative director for the giant advertising holding company WPP, Neil French, said that the paucity of female creative directors could be explained by the fact that they are “crap” at the job, according to reports at the time. Mr. French referred to the time women spend nursing their newborns, and claimed that “women don’t make it to the top because they don’t deserve to.”

I do agree - it's obviously in the best interests of ad agencies and their clients to have greater representation of a female perspective. Not only are we 51% of the population, we also do the lion's share of the household spending.

 

[Alceste]

Oh yeah, and Kilgore, I believe those new Dove commercials and the "you're more beautiful than you think" crapola that made such a splash were created by women. They're still retarded because they're still ads, but that's the sort of thing you're likely to get more of with greater representation of the female perspective in the advertising board room, and now EVEN I now believe Dove is "better" than other soap companies because they're not trying to give teenage girls bulimia and ruin their sex lives.

 

[Alceste]

The example that freethinker offered as offensive still maintained a picture of men in the drivers seat. Therefore I disagree with the notion that men in those advertisements are sexually objectified. They are pictured in stereotypes, but stereotyping is not objectification. The men are active and making sexual decisions for themselves, while many of the women being described are shown as being helpless, assaulted, kidnapped, and vulnerable.

In a patriarchal culture, the alpha males rule over power and asset acquisition through their means and maintenance. Women fall short unless they score points with the top males, and men fall short unless they find a way to oust the top males. In any case, the males in these societies remain in the drivers seat.

The downside to all this is the assumption from culture that a woman must be sexually available when an established man wishes for it. And there is also the assumption that men are driven by a lust for possession of a woman or just merely a part of her. It damns everybody, but in different ways.

Stereotypes are not objectification. I was totally gonna write that myself. It's so nice that we can divvy up the household chores around here so effortlessly. That's the key to a successful internet marriage!

I've got to work tomorrow again in that same apartment, probably with those same creepy dudes. I kind of want to shave my head just to make them feel really awkward and uncomfortable - without exactly understanding why. (I love that effect - what a hubbub you can cause by intentionally violating the norms of female sexiness! I've shaved myself bald twice before, and madder things besides). At the moment, I kind of have porn hair because my husband likes it.

 

[dawny0826]

A TEDx talk by Dr. Caroline Heldman revisits the debate over media sexually objectifying women, a litmus test to determine if an ad or movie or game objectifies someone, and the societal and psychological impact sexually objectifying women does.

She also points to an interesting statistic that is provocative: when a woman's issue is presented, and the "what about the menz" arguments begin to be in response, or when people say that it happens to men too....Dr. Heldman suggests in the video that 96% of what passes as sexually objectifying ads are objectifying women specifically.

It also explains why men are not objectified nearly as much because objectification of women in ads are presented in both popular men's magazines AND in women's magazines.

I found her talk compelling. What do you think?

I don't agree with the premise that sexy can't be empowering. It sure as hell can be for the individual who is comfortable in their own skin and is satisifed projecting that type of energy and associated characteristics in a healthy manner.

And, there's nothing shameful about desiring to feel or look "sexy", however, one defines that, nor is it shameful for another to respond to that projection. Unless personal boundaries are infringed or impinged upon, reaction to stimuli is typically, natural.

She provided examples of sexual objectification through Questions 1-7 at the onset of the video. Questions #6 and #7, in my opinion, depicted imagery that was quite subjective.

Yes, in question number 6, marketers were utilizing women as something to be "selected", but, I didn't necessarily view the depiction as anything sexual or negative. I construed such ad to be conveyed in tongue and cheek manner. And I do think that intention should be considered, particularly, when she intended for this to serve as an example of sexual objectification.

Very different photograph from number 5, where the woman was being compared to a used car and depicted suggestively.

I viewed #7 in a more artistic vein, vs. a sexual vein. I find it plausible that advertiser may not have utilized the woman in the ad to depict sexuality but to literally, depict the naked body as an art form. I don't understand why this has to translate negatively. I didn't construe it such a way and am confident that others wouldn't construe it such a way...just because she's a nude woman. This differing perspective, I think, is important to consider, even if it differs from Dr. Heldman's.

She mentions the connection between objectification and lower self esteem, which is of great importance.

We shouldn't have to remove "sexy" from our vocabulary. I think people can be guilty at times of victimizing themselves. Companies couldn't advertise in this way if people weren't willing participants in their ads. People sign up to be objectified in ads. It's not like you've got a gun to your head to strip down to your bikini and seduce a hamburger for a commercial.

When you reduce yourself to a scantily clad person in a literal photograph, you rather become a literal object...an image in a photo, a clip on a commercial...

You can't control the psyche of other people. You can't prevent another from finding you beautiful or thinking nasty thoughts about you.

We tend to blame the advertising company and the person who thinks the nasty thoughts. But, what about the person in the picture? What about the choices that we make as women, too?

 

[Alceste]

I don't agree with the premise that sexy can't be empowering. It sure as hell can be for the individual who is comfortable in their own skin and is satisifed projecting that type of energy and associated characteristics in a healthy manner.

And, there's nothing shameful about desiring to feel or look "sexy", however, one defines that, nor is it shameful for another to respond to that projection. Unless personal boundaries are infringed or impinged upon, reaction to stimuli is typically, natural.

She provided examples of sexual objectification through Questions 1-7 at the onset of the video. Questions #6 and #7, in my opinion, depicted imagery that was quite subjective.

Yes, in question number 6, marketers were utilizing women as something to be "selected", but, I didn't necessarily view the depiction as anything sexual or negative. I construed such ad to be conveyed in tongue and cheek manner. And I do think that intention should be considered, particularly, when she intended for this to serve as an example of sexual objectification.

Very different photograph from number 5, where the woman was being compared to a used car and depicted suggestively.

I viewed #7 in a more artistic vein, vs. a sexual vein. I find it plausible that advertiser may not have utilized the woman in the ad to depict sexuality but to literally, depict the naked body as an art form. I don't understand why this has to translate negatively. I didn't construe it such a way and am confident that others wouldn't construe it such a way...just because she's a nude woman. This differing perspective, I think, is important to consider, even if it differs from Dr. Heldman's.

She mentions the connection between objectification and lower self esteem, which is of great importance.

We shouldn't have to remove "sexy" from our vocabulary. I think people can be guilty at times of victimizing themselves. Companies couldn't advertise in this way if people weren't willing participants in their ads. People sign up to be objectified in ads. It's not like you've got a gun to your head to strip down to your bikini and seduce a hamburger for a commercial.

When you reduce yourself to a scantily clad person in a literal photograph, you rather become a literal object...an image in a photo, a clip on a commercial...

You can't control the psyche of other people. You can't prevent another from finding you beautiful or thinking nasty thoughts about you.

We tend to blame the advertising company and the person who thinks the nasty thoughts. But, what about the person in the picture? What about the choices that we make as women, too?

I agree - I can only assume the models in the photos have come to terms with being sexually objectified for a living. Given what models get paid, that's not surprising.

I think the issue is more the psychological effect that a multi-billion dollar industry of almost entirely male creative directors depicting nothing but sexually objectified women has on the rest of us.

Low self esteem is a big one - I agree. Ironically, nobody I've ever met has lower self esteem than the models I've met - including my mother. It's partly being treated like a piece of meat all the time and partly the fact that, however much you weigh, you're basically too fat, and the men in charge of your livelihood are more than happy to say so to your face. If that's what it's doing to them, just imagine what it's doing to the rest of us - and we're not even being paid for it!

 

[dawny0826]

I agree - I can only assume the models in the photos have come to terms with being sexually objectified for a living. Given what models get paid, that's not surprising.

I agree that many probably have.

But, I also find it just as plausible that others would welcome the sort of attention that others would label as a sort of objectification. This is afterall, a matter of perception - perception of self and perception of how others may be perceiving action, art, projection, etc.

I think the issue is more the psychological effect that a multi-billion dollar industry of almost entirely male creative directors depicting nothing but sexually objectified women has on the rest of us.

I've said it before, I'd like to see more diversity within the pages of my beauty magazines. But, I'm strong enough in myself to forego purchasing from a company whose advertising is bull.

If a company ****** me off in any capacity, they don't get my business.

Again, who is giving these men all of this creative power and fuel? We are, obviously. The people who work for them, participate in the marketing and ads and buy the damn hamburgers.

Low self esteem is a big one - I agree. Ironically, nobody I've ever met has lower self esteem than the models I've met - including my mother. It's partly being treated like a piece of meat all the time and partly the fact that, however much you weigh, you're basically too fat, and the men in charge of your livelihood are more than happy to say so to your face. If that's what it's doing to them, just imagine what it's doing to the rest of us - and we're not even being paid for it!

We're responsible for our own choices. I am sad for your mother's situation, but, as I've told my own mother who has opted to stay in a marriage that has not always been happy - it's of her own choosing, ultimately. We can't find our self worth in anyone else.

Not all women are the same. As there are very different personality types - not every woman is impacted by social media in the same manner.

 

[Alceste]

I agree that many probably have.

But, I also find it just as plausible that others would welcome the sort of attention that others would label as a sort of objectification. This is afterall, a matter of perception - perception of self and perception of how others may be perceiving action, art, projection, etc.



I've said it before, I'd like to see more diversity within the pages of my beauty magazines. But, I'm strong enough in myself to forego purchasing from a company whose advertising is bull.

If a company ****** me off in any capacity, they don't get my business.

Again, who is giving these men all of this creative power and fuel? We are, obviously. The people who work for them, participate in the marketing and ads and buy the damn hamburgers.



We're responsible for our own choices. I am sad for your mother's situation, but, as I've told my own mother who has opted to stay in a marriage that has not always been happy - it's of her own choosing, ultimately. We can't find our self worth in anyone else.

Not all women are the same. As there are very different personality types - not every woman is impacted by social media in the same manner.

I hear you - but the way I see it, "personal responsibility" and "systemic social problem" are not an either / or deal. Pretty much every sucky thing boils down to a little of both. Also, we can make our own individual choices while at the same time pressuring for change at the systemic level.

For example, I basically don't buy anything I don't need, so advertising is not making me buy stuff. On the other hand, I'm annoyed by seeing sexually objectified women everywhere and concerned about the psychological effect that has, particularly on young women. So while I'm busy not buying whatever they're selling, I might also be inspired to let them know my opinion once in a while.

In this case, my opinion basically boils down to this: the ad industry should have way more female creative directors. Problem solved, IMO. Let's start using sex as perceived through the female gaze to sell our over-priced shirts too!