That´s way more than one thing
You´ll have to tell me what you mean by stereotypical an homogenous. If by "stereotypical and homogenous" you mean they use the image of beauty in most people´s head, then you have a problem with it being functional.
Meaning that they all use basically the same kind of sexuality, that of a woman desperately lusting after and throwing herself at any decent looking guy willing to do her regardless of whether or not she knows him and always putting the woman in the submissive role. And the fact that this is stereotypical shows that it is NOT the image of beauty or sex in most people's heads. It may be assumed to be but that does not make it so. The only way to know the image in most people's heads is to ask most people what the image in their heads is. By and large advertising uses stereotypes to try and sell it's products which in turn only serves to reinforce those stereotypes in people's minds.
About fake/manufactured, I am sorry to tell you no person on an ad truly has the emotion the ad tells you, they are just being paid for displaying it
I am well aware of that and it's not about the emotion being portrayed. What I'm talking about is how advertisers will use computers to drastically alter the models' appearances in the final product, to the point where you wonder why they bother taking a picture of a real woman at all. As such nearly every woman shown in ads, or at least sexually driven ads, is a woman who doesn't actually exist. Fake women are used to advertise products to us through stereotypical portrayals of sexuality that show always show the woman as desperate, submissive or both. The fact that so many ads do this serves only to reinforce stereotypes.
It´s slowly starting to happen, men´s sexuality is also being used for ads. It is going to take it´s time but I´d say in 20 years at least, it should be a lot more equitative.
I hope so but at the same time I hope it doesn't go down the same roads of portrayal that it has for women as that will just cause a whole new set of problems.
Interesting last phrase. A woman dancing in a pole is prone to pretty much look sexual and that´s it, primary emotion will be lust. I don´t see pole dancing as wrong.
Neither do I
I don´t know, most of the "objectification" thing seems like garbage to me. They just dont like women using their sex to further brands and cant accept sexuality as a legitimate emotion of the human female so if it only has that they say they are being "objectified". Which makes sense when coming from the same group of people who are against porn.
Not all feminists are against porn and I also agree that a simple portrayal of sexuality does not automatically equal objectification. These things are often very difficult to judge and require that one take into account the context of not just the specific ad, but other ads, societal views, how the ad will most likely be interpreted vs. what the advertiser is trying to say, the views of the target audience, etc. it's a very complex subject and I think one of the primary reasons why you and I have such differing views is because of our own societal and cultural background and upbringing.
In the end, at it's most basic level, objectification is dependent on the person viewing the woman in question and is about whether or not the person looking at her is viewing her as "a sexy woman who is expressing her sexuality" or if that person views the woman as nothing more than someTHING sexy to look at. In most cases objectification is dependent on how the person looking at the woman views her and not on the woman herself.
