Its wrong to use SEX in Advertizing

[Naughty Nurse]

Is anyone really that shallow? Erection = "Let's go buy something?"

No, but Erection = "let's go shag something" works for me.

 

[vergiss]

I don't think it portrays women accurately, and I think it creates a negative image of women. It is not a negative quality to be a sexual being though I would say that these advertisements go beyond that actively strive to paint a picture of all women as promiscuous.

So, one woman looking promiscous = all women are promiscious? Sounds like misogyny to me.

 

[mixedmedia]

When a woman looks at a man in a manner that these girls are looking at the camera, guys think she wants sex, not a relationship, and that he probably isn't the first guy to do this with her.

So you think it is inappropriate for a woman to look like she wants sex? When a woman looks sexy does she automatically lose her status as "keepable"? She becomes trampy and promiscuous? I think you have some very prudish and lopsided ideas about women's sexuality.

Is anyone really that shallow? Erection = "Let's go buy something?"

No, I don't think they are that shallow, which is why I expressed my own confusion at how it is supposed to work. That is an issue quite apart from whether I think sex in advertising is wrong. I find it much more wrong for a diamond company to purport that a diamond means I love you. I find that downright revolting. Guess I'm alone in that respect, though.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Well, as someone who is also fairly artistic and who has studied journalism and print media, I object to your notion that the portrayal of sex in an advertisement cannot be artistic.

I did not intend to make such an assertion.

Furthermore, just because a woman has revealing clothing on doesn't mean she is, "slutty".

The first ad I posted: Look at the spread of her legs, the arch in her back, the look in her eye. If you're in the room, what is it that you think she is saying to you?

There are plenty of ugly women dressed like 1940's housewives that are plenty promiscious.

I don't doubt it.

Why does sex have to be something that has to be kept completely behind closed doors?

Uhh... Why does it have to be in toilet paper ads?

Sex is a private act between (normally) two people. It's not something that should be on the side of a bus or on a bill board. I'm not saying we should pretend like it doesn't exist, I just think we should have a little bit more respect for ourselves, and maybe hold ourselves to a certain level of decency.

I think two people embracing cannot only be artistic but can also be very spiritual and can reflect the essence of humanity.

I agree.

Furthermore, if a woman has a gorgeous and sexy figure, I don't see why she shouldn't be able to show it off by modeling clothes.

I don't think she shouldn't be able to. I just don't understand this whole lay down, spread your legs, say cheese.

I think women who object to this and say it portrays women as sluts, it's because they're just jealous because they don't have as shapely figures.

Or maybe it's because they feel it's portraying women as sluts. I know a girl that feels the same way and I'm pretty sure even Ray Charles would make a run at her.

Well yeah, when I see certain types of underwear, it might make me want to buy them, depending on the brand.

It's underwear. Wtf does brand matter when it comes to underwear? Even more romantic oriented underoos are all about visual rather than brand. Monday through friday briefs... you don't need Calvin Klien for that crap.

They're not irrelevant. I just meant that if I already don't like the product, seeing a sexy ad isn't going to make me go out and buy it.

Unless of course it's a hunky guy in CK briefs and a jean jacket he found at a New Kids on the Block concert...

I think it is irrelevant. If an ad with sex in it no more inclines you to buy a product than one without, what's the point?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

So you think it is inappropriate for a woman to look like she wants sex?

No. I think it's inappropriate for that to be the most common concept of mass media and advertising.

When a woman looks sexy does she automatically lose her status as "keepable"?

For myself, when she looks like she needs physical appreciation and has little to no modesty or decency, yeah it loses something. It seems to me that the advertisement I have in mind (the first one I posted) has the feel of a one time kind of thing. That's probably because that is the one and only time I will ever see that girl or her panties. To be so free with something that seems so intimate and personal is a turn off for me. Maybe it's just that when it comes to relationships, I would want to feel special. Ideally, sex is not without an emotional, perhaps even spiritual, commitment, possibly even connection.

She becomes trampy and promiscuous?

From the advertisement I'm talking about, yeah that's kind of how she comes off to me. Again, I don't know the girl. I'm just trying to convey what's going through my mind when I see such a picture.

I think you have some very prudish and lopsided ideas about women's sexuality.

I don't think I do, but that's from my perspective too. You certainly could be right.

No, I don't think they are that shallow, which is why I expressed my own confusion at how it is supposed to work. That is an issue quite apart from whether I think sex in advertising is wrong. I find it much more wrong for a diamond company to purport that a diamond means I love you. I find that downright revolting. Guess I'm alone in that respect, though.

I guess with words, it's easier for me to see through the bullshit, whereas with images it seems like the sexually suggestiveness of it all is more sublimenal? That's not the right word, but it's late and I've had a full day.

 

[Thorgasm]

I wouldn't go so far as saying evil is just a social construct. I would definitely say someone who commits crimes like murder is evil.

Yes, 99.99% of people agree on that social construct. Yet, what is murder? Ah, another social construct.

 

[Thorgasm]

I am really surprised that no one has brought up the biggest reason there is so much sex in advertising. Because it is the most effective advertising. If you think someone in an ad is sexy, you may be inclined to view that ad again instead of ignoring it. There is also the water-cooler effect. This is free advertising. People are talking about your ad and your product name. There is also the controversy. Just look at this discussion right here. Every person that is against sex in advertising remembers an ad with sex in it and knows what the product was. They love to talk about these ads. Publicity is never a bad thing. Publicity is free. The only bad publicity is an obituary.

I would also add that sex is what people think about most during an average day. It is on our minds. It is something that reaches everyone. Everyone likes sex. And those that don't I feel sorry for.

 

[mixedmedia]

No. I think it's inappropriate for that to be the most common concept of mass media and advertising.

I don't like advertising period. Whether sex is used in advertising is inconsequential to me.

For myself, when she looks like she needs physical appreciation and has little to no modesty or decency, yeah it loses something. It seems to me that the advertisement I have in mind (the first one I posted) has the feel of a one time kind of thing. That's probably because that is the one and only time I will ever see that girl or her panties. To be so free with something that seems so intimate and personal is a turn off for me. Maybe it's just that when it comes to relationships, I would want to feel special. Ideally, sex is not without an emotional, perhaps even spiritual, commitment, possibly even connection.

But when looking at the photo you can't tell whether she is looking at someone she is in a committed relationship with. Do you think women don't look like that at the people they love? You know, I'm a full-grown women who has been in long-lasting relationships. I know for a fact I have looked like that at a man before. Never had one who found it distasteful or lost respect for me, lol. I understand your concern that images like that are exploitative of women, and perhaps they are....a little. But, and I hate to keep harping on it, when a company says that a diamond means I Love You, then they are exploiting the concept of love. Personally, I find that much more distasteful and a more potentially harmful display of advertising seduction.

From the advertisement I'm talking about, yeah that's kind of how she comes off to me. Again, I don't know the girl. I'm just trying to convey what's going through my mind when I see such a picture.

Well I think you're suffering from a double whammy of concern for the exploitation of women and condemnation of them for being overtly sexual.

I don't think I do, but that's from my perspective too. You certainly could be right.

I think you've got a little uptightness about sex. Nothing wrong with that.

I guess with words, it's easier for me to see through the bullshit, whereas with images it seems like the sexually suggestiveness of it all is more sublimenal? That's not the right word, but it's late and I've had a full day.

LOL, it's ALL bullshit to me. Which, I guess, is why is doesn't bother me too much.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I don't like advertising period. Whether sex is used in advertising is inconsequential to me.

I agree.

But when looking at the photo you can't tell whether she is looking at someone she is in a committed relationship with.

Sure I can. She's looking at me. She's looking at you. She's looking at the consumer, which I doubt very seriously that she is in a committed relationship with. She's not looking at one person she possibly cares very deeply for, she's looking at an indeterminable amount of people.

Do you think women don't look like that at the people they love? You know, I'm a full-grown women who has been in long-lasting relationships. I know for a fact I have looked like that at a man before. Never had one who found it distasteful or lost respect for me, lol.

I don't doubt it at all. I don't think that there's nothing wrong with sex or sexuality. I just don't like how it is protrayed in the mainstream media.

Well I think you're suffering from a double whammy of concern for the exploitation of women and condemnation of them for being overtly sexual.

I don't have a problem with a woman or anyone else having sexual desires or acting on them. I think it's kind of depressing when I see a person that is incapable of not acting on them. Personally, I do find modesty more attractive than I find miniskirts or tank tops. It just seems more.... classy?

I think you've got a little uptightness about sex. Nothing wrong with that.

Maybe.

LOL, it's ALL bullshit to me. Which, I guess, is why is doesn't bother me too much.

Fair enough.

 

[Datamonkee]

BECAUSE WE ARE FLESH AND SPIRIT!

it is wrong to use the flesh to gain.

This coming from someone who has Clintons face attached to the signature?! The man cheated on his wife in the Oval Office, and became such a sexual icon and laughing stock that China named a state condom after him?! I think the question is a bit ridiculous.

Aside from this, this country has become so sexually driven, that things will not sell unless sex is attached to them. From beer, to sleep aids to cereal, we have become sex addicts.

 

[Robodoon]

So your argument seems to be based on the presumption that sex is thusly evil.

Sex without love is, we are not dogs and cats.

But we are claiming to be today

We can either live for the flesh or live for the spirit.

Many are choosing flesh today, not understanding the difference.

 

[Datamonkee]

Which of the following, if any, do you find excessive or inappropriate?

(Calvin Klein)

In case you can't read that one, it's a toilet paper ad.

I don't know about Naughty Nurse, but I would DEFINETLY buy that toilet paper. Good lord. The next question is, how many of those are actual American Ad campaigns? I'm pretty sure the Gucci ad is not. I've seen that before, and I had to get it from an Italian page.

 

[Thorgasm]

Sex without love is, we are not dogs and cats.

But we are claiming to be today

We can either live for the flesh or live for the spirit.

Many are choosing flesh today, not understanding the difference.

I am calling bullchit. Dogs and cats don't have sex with each other, lol. So if a husband and wife no longer love each other, is it evil if they have sex?

 

[mixedmedia]

Sure I can. She's looking at me. She's looking at you. She's looking at the consumer, which I doubt very seriously that she is in a committed relationship with. She's not looking at one person she possibly cares very deeply for, she's looking at an indeterminable amount of people.

This is true. But still, I don't translate her look as being promiscuous, trampy or even necessarily exploited. I don't fear that men looking at images like that will be more likely to see women as sex objects. That sort of reaction to a photograph, I believe, would already be pre-existing. I mean, when you look at her, do you feel you might be more likely to exploit women? Somehow I think not.

I don't doubt it at all. I don't think that there's nothing wrong with sex or sexuality. I just don't like how it is protrayed in the mainstream media.

I don't like the way many things are portrayed in the mainstream media and sex probably wouldn't be in my top five.

I don't have a problem with a woman or anyone else having sexual desires or acting on them. I think it's kind of depressing when I see a person that is incapable of not acting on them. Personally, I do find modesty more attractive than I find miniskirts or tank tops. It just seems more.... classy?

I feel the same way, too. But it is just my personal preference.

 

[Pacridge]

This is true. But still, I don't translate her look as being promiscuous, trampy or even necessarily exploited. I don't fear that men looking at images like that will be more likely to see women as sex objects. That sort of reaction to a photograph, I believe, would already be pre-existing. I mean, when you look at her, do you feel you might be more likely to exploit women? Somehow I think not.



I don't like the way many things are portrayed in the mainstream media and sex probably wouldn't be in my top five.



I feel the same way, too. But it is just my personal preference.

Well of course you'd feel that way, who wants to see a guy in a miniskirt?

 

[cnredd]

Well of course you'd feel that way, who wants to see a guy in a miniskirt?

Put your hand down, galen!....

 

[mixedmedia]

Well of course you'd feel that way, who wants to see a guy in a miniskirt?

Some people do.
But I was agreeing that I think women look more attractive in less revealing clothing and that is a personal preference of mine. I look at beautiful women, too. You guys don't have super secret babe-o-vision, ya know?

 

[George_Washington]

Or maybe it's because they feel it's portraying women as sluts. I know a girl that feels the same way and I'm pretty sure even Ray Charles would make a run at her.

LOL, G>B yeah you know what people in show business are thinking, right. It is not portraying them as sluts. I highly doubt if the majority of people in the entertainment industry would agree with you, considering how heavily they support the modeling and fashion industries. I am of the opinion of the late Gianni Versace that women can both look sexy, feminine, and yet still be respectable.

It's underwear. Wtf does brand matter when it comes to underwear? Even more romantic oriented underoos are all about visual rather than brand. Monday through friday briefs... you don't need Calvin Klien for that crap.

Well, G>B you might not care what kind of underwear you buy but maybe some people do. Is there anything wrong with that?

Unless of course it's a hunky guy in CK briefs and a jean jacket he found at a New Kids on the Block concert...

I think it is irrelevant. If an ad with sex in it no more inclines you to buy a product than one without, what's the point?

Ok, look. Here is my take on this issue. Sex itself doesn't incline me to buy the item more, no, but I like seeing sex portrayed in ads, as long as it is done with sophistication and creativity. I think it ads flare to the brand and a sort of, "passion" for it that kind of elevates it to a new level of being, if that makes any sense.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Put your hand down, galen!....

Put his hand down where?

 

[cnredd]

Put his hand down where?

I shoulda seen that coming...

Crap!...I didn't say that!!!!!!....:doh

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

I think the woman is giving particular expressions to make the consumer wonder if they can get their other to look at them that way. Side note is, not only the sexuality of the commercials, but the order in which they are shown. That can be hilarious.
First commercial showed two guys walking along spraying a mans cologne on the walls, then dousing their buddy with it, when he opened the door. The song Happy Birthday is playing.
The two friends step aside, and two lines of women, supposedly following the scent and overcome by desire, simply stream into the mans house. So much for fidelity and long lasting love.
The next commercial? Gonnorhea. However in the hell you spell it. Perfect timing!!!

 

[Thorgasm]

Hmmmmmmm, no one responded to why sex is so effective in advertising.

 

[mixedmedia]

Hmmmmmmm, no one responded to why sex is so effective in advertising.

Because it reminds us of some of our happiest moments? :mrgreen:

 

[Thorgasm]

Because it reminds us of some of our happiest moments? :mrgreen:

You rule! Will you be my sex object? :kissy:

 

[mixedmedia]

You rule! Will you be my sex object? :kissy:

Why yes, when you use Old Spice Power Stick Deodorant/Anti-Perspirant I will find you absolutely irresistable.