Do you ever get tired of being bombarded by sexual advertisement as a man?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Advertising as a concept is pretty offensive.
I figure that if adults are dumb enough to be persuaded by adverts, persuade them however the hell you like, pick at insecurities, appeal to their sexuality, whatever.

It's advertising to children that I think is morally abhorrent.

I don't really care as I don't watch TV anymore. I've really given up on it.
I don't even watch my primary news anymore, "Die Tagesschau", I read on their website instead.

I do find it pretty tiresome, actually, yes. Not distracting, but tiresome, and often bordering on awkward when I'm with family.

Mind you, the misogyny of the whole thing is quite possibly the worst part, and that's not at all relegated only to sexual advertising. I've lost count of the number of adverts that play off the 'battle of the sexes' and the tired stereotypes involved in that. Men are useless porn-addicts, women are whining appliances. And it's okay, because it's all done 'in jest'! Uh-huh.

I think sexist and sexual ads are very annoying. Switch deodorants because of the utterly stupid and sexist Axe campaign for example. Especially if the sex has nothing to do with the service offered. For example a phone number that you can call for information and telephone numbers, sort of a telephone-based google.
Their idea of an ad was to get a bunch of bimbos, undress them as much as legally possible and have them clean the car of a stereotypical gasping drooling man in his 40's, while pretending to almost orgasm. What the fuck does that have to do with a telehpone number that searches for information? The implication that men are supposed to want to use that service when scantily clad bimbos hang around is utterly sexist and insulting. I'll never ever use their service as a result.
By contrast, their rival ran ads that had the stereotypical 'board of directors' type of people ruining billboards and other sources of telephone numbers (forcing you to use their service to find out what the numbers are). When you see a bunch of 60 year olds in expensive suits rolling a roman catapult in front of a building, it has you wondering what on earth it's about, just before they lob a paint balloon on the telephone number on the billboard in front and lose their heads with happyness.

Especially for the few series I still watch. It's much better to get them using methods that leave you without being forced to have it interupted by ads.

Definitely. Escpecially Lynx adverts; every single one of them is tailored to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Now I'm no prude, hell I'd wager that I'm more of a perv than most guys, but in an age where I have access to literally thousands of archives of pronographic material I'm utterly baffled as to why modern ad executives think I'm going to rush out and buy their product just because they've stapled a pair of tits onto it. A lot of people seem to push this notion that sex sells, but is that actually true in this day and age? Are there any statistics to corroborate this assertion or is it just the mark of desperation and outmoded thinking? I don't really buy into this 'but your subconscious blah blah blah' bullshit either, it just sounds like conjecture to me. Or at the very least, I'd be quick to point out that just because something sticks out in your memory, doesn't mean that I want to buy it. I mean I still remember those 'This is Living' adverts for the PS3 but not in a way the bears any positive connotations; it's just because they were so surreal and utterly irrelevant to the actual product and it's qualities that it just seemed like a way of masking the fact that they couldn't think of any unique selling point. And that's how adverts that use sex appeal as an incentive appear to me; as nothing more than a diaphanous attempt to distract you from the fact that they were incapable of selling their product on the virtue of its own merits by shouting 'LOOK! LOOK AT THE TITS! PlZ BUY OUR SHIT NAO!' because clearly they think that I'm just that fucking stupid. Yeah, I'm not fond of being talked down to.

meh mostly it doesnt bother me..ill be sat there waiting for my movie/show to resume and occasionally the fog of bland crappy commercial gets lifted for a oo nice car/nice ass before going right back to bland and forgetting all about whateveri just saw.

exception being the minute long or longer perfume commercials.. with the mandatory husky voice and implied nudity.. those annoy the hell out of me... it was boring the first time...fucksake stop it... find a new way to tittilize me.. ugh..

(apologies for probable poor spelling...)

I get tired of the Post-E-Vac ads. Eww, just...EWWWWWWWWWW. Some things really shouldn't be advertised on TV at any time and a device that inflates your schlong definitely falls in that category.

To be honest, I'm more fed up of the perfume adverts that seem more like softcore porn than anything, that are selling sex to women just as much as they do to men. What has a woman walking down a hallway like it's a fucking catwalk, with her dress literally falling off her as she walks until she's wearing nothing but a pair of panties, got to do with perfume? You'll smell nice; that's it. You won't turn into bleedin' Madonna.

Hard as it may be to believe for the alpha males and condescending women out there, but sometimes I just want to sit down and watch TV without boning up every ten seconds. You want to masturbate? Buy a lads' mag, or look at some internet porn.

In a nutshell, these adverts are insulting to both men and women, because it portrays men as drooling sex addicts who will buy anything if there's a pair of tits smacked onto it, and it portrays women as nothing more than narcissistic wank material.

Lilani:

lisadagz:
I think the thing about the Old Spice guy is that he was funny. There's that whole women-get-turned-on-by-humour-and-personality-over-physical-attractiveness stereotype which, while I don't know how true it is, could be why the Old Spice guy wasn't just made as a pair of abs to drool over.

Even with not that much sexual advertisement aimed at me, in fact I can't think of examples right now but I know there have been, (as a lady I appreciate sexy ladies but I know that I'm not the demographic of those adverts so I don't feel that they are talking to me,) I get uncomfortable with sexy men pouting on adverts as if I'm going to buy their product just because they have a model with a chiselled jaw and pretty eyes.

Yeah, I think you're definitely right about that. He was breathtakingly sexy, but the humor gave that sexiness just a bit of substance. I can find plenty of sexy men online, but the Old Spice guy had something a hot bod doesn't have on its own. And that's probably why guys like him too.

I thought he was seen as a tongue-in-cheek joke by guys. Or is it just me? >.>

Yes. If I wanted to look at tits, I'd look them up. It's called the internet.

It tends to insult my intelligence. I'm entirely aware that they're just trying to exploit my cock to get some attention for their product. It lowers my esteeming of all involved. It's bad enough that I have to watch ads. It's worse that they're not even good ads.

No you don't get tired, you get desensitized.

Sure, most advertisements are still retarded, but then there's plenty of stupid people. Don't be offended by it, the content of the ad as it doesn't have to be aimed at you. This is mass media afteral.

Yup. It's one of the reasons I stopped ordering cable.

Skeleon:
I don't really care as I don't watch TV anymore. I've really given up on it.
I don't even watch my primary news anymore, "Die Tagesschau", I read on their website instead.

Its not just on the tv though. Its in magazines and websites and every other thing.

Friendly Lich:

Its not just on the tv though. Its in magazines and websites and every other thing.

Could you give some examples? This isn't a dig at you, but whenever this subject comes up people arguing for the case tend to just state "sexualised advertisement is everywhere. Everywhere." and leave it at that with no further analysis or discussion apparently needed nor desired.

I'd like to argue the opposite. Sexualised advertisement is a small, and steadily decreasing, subset of advertisement as a whole.

Batou667:

Friendly Lich:

Its not just on the tv though. Its in magazines and websites and every other thing.

Could you give some examples? This isn't a dig at you, but whenever this subject comes up people arguing for the case tend to just state "sexualised advertisement is everywhere. Everywhere." and leave it at that with no further analysis or discussion apparently needed nor desired.

I'd like to argue the opposite. Sexualised advertisement is a small, and steadily decreasing, subset of advertisement as a whole.

I'll assume that your claim is true: Just because its decreasing as you claim or because its a small amount of overall total advertising doesn't mean its not very prevalent. To be honest part of the reason I made this post was because I was on Facebook a few days ago and there was a ad for "fuck Asian women now!!!!" then I went to a site that teaches Spanish for college and the same ad was there with "FUCK ASIAN WOMEN NOW!!!!!" actually flying all over the side of the screen with a picture of a half naked Asian women with enormous breasts when I am trying to study. Surely you can understand how this would get on someones nerves.

Friendly Lich:

I'll assume that your claim is true: Just because its decreasing as you claim or because its a small amount of overall total advertising doesn't mean its not very prevalent. To be honest part of the reason I made this post was because I was on Facebook a few days ago and there was a ad for "fuck Asian women now!!!!" then I went to a site that teaches Spanish for college and the same ad was there with "FUCK ASIAN WOMEN NOW!!!!!" actually flying all over the side of the screen with a picture of a half naked Asian women with enormous breasts when I am trying to study. Surely you can understand how this would get on someones nerves.

Heheh. You've heard of personalised/targeted advertising, right? I once made the mistake of googling some furniture on the whimsical grounds that I might need some in a few years time. Google duly noted this "browsing preference" and I was bombarded with highly irrelevant Ikea ads for the next couple of weeks.

So if you're being given naked Asian women... I think I can guess what you've been Googling for recently ;)

Batou667:

Friendly Lich:

Its not just on the tv though. Its in magazines and websites and every other thing.

Could you give some examples? This isn't a dig at you, but whenever this subject comes up people arguing for the case tend to just state "sexualised advertisement is everywhere. Everywhere." and leave it at that with no further analysis or discussion apparently needed nor desired.

I'd like to argue the opposite. Sexualised advertisement is a small, and steadily decreasing, subset of advertisement as a whole.

You're welcome to argue, but i think you'd be hard-pressed to make that case.

To be honest part of the reason I made this post was because I was on Facebook a few days ago and there was a ad for "fuck Asian women now!!!!" then I went to a site that teaches Spanish for college and the same ad was there with "FUCK ASIAN WOMEN NOW!!!!!" actually flying all over the side of the screen with a picture of a half naked Asian women with enormous breasts when I am trying to study.

This is probably really politically incorrect, but since you mention Spanish and Asian women...
Am I the only one who sometimes finds it hard to distinguish Spanish from Asian girls? And I do mean sometimes. It's something about the eyes, I'd wager, that rarely ends up looking similar.
Or maybe I'm just incredibly bad at analyzing faces.

cobra_ky:

You're welcome to argue, but i think you'd be hard-pressed to make that case.

Thanks for the link but I'm not convinced. For a start, that study only focused on magazine ads, and of the six publications they looked at (Cosmopolitan, Redbook, Esquire, Playboy, Newsweek and Time), three of them are well-known for their risque or even overtly pornographic content.

Secondly, the study didn't explain what constituted "sexy" beyond

About half of the advertisements included models. Researchers analyzed these ads based on how sexily the models were dressed and whether they were engaging in physical contact, such as kissing or simulated sex, with another model

which is still wide open to interpretation. Is a woman wearing a skirt "sexy"? Is a couple holding hands "sexy"? There's a world of difference between a car being advertised by having some bimbo in a bikini draped across it, and depicting a happy, attractive woman behind the wheel. According to this study's flexible interpretation, both could be said to be "sexy", regardless of tone or context.

So, we have a study that firstly restricts its focus to a selection of magazines (omitting the huge field of TV advertising, which has probably changed the most over the 20-year span of the study, and also neglects posters, Internet ads, etc). Further bias is introduced by these all being magazines for an adult readership, and fully half of the publications having a sexual slant to them. (Nobody was ever claiming that sex isn't used to sell "adult" products, lifestyle products and so on. The issue is whether sex is used inappropriately to sell products unrelated to sex/romance/relationships).

My rebuttal is that society has evolved since the 60s, 70s and 80s. The influence of feminism and women as a growing market has proven to be an incentive for advertisers to "clean their act up", and at any rate social norms have progressed to a point where people can generally sense, and take objection to, overt sexism or objectification when its inappropriate. We're experiencing a social shift away from the entrenched sexism of the 60s and the macho culture of the 80s (certainly Frank Frazetta and Boris Vallejo aren't getting many mainstream advertising jobs recently), and we're now at the point where mainstream advertising is directed partially, and in many cases I'd say PRIMARILY, at women.

The few places where you genuinely could say sexist and sexualised advertising is still alive and well include sports media, comics, videogames, and male health/beauty products. The sectors whose target audiences are adolescent boys and younger adult males, basically (suprise surprise). I think videogames have a way to go before they catch up with mainstream culture, and comic books moreso, and that's to their detriment.

In summary, sexualised advertising isn't everywhere. I turn on my TV and I see an advert for car insurance. Talking meerkats; not sexy. Children's breakfast cereal; not sexy. A DIY shop sale using the "dopey Dad" trope; not sexy. A female celebrity chef talking about how to roast vegetables; not sexy (unless you're 15 and have a very fertile imagination). I keep hearing about this "deluge of smut being flung across our screens day and night", what I'm not doing is seeing it.

Batou667:

cobra_ky:

You're welcome to argue, but i think you'd be hard-pressed to make that case.

Thanks for the link but I'm not convinced. For a start, that study only focused on magazine ads, and of the six publications they looked at (Cosmopolitan, Redbook, Esquire, Playboy, Newsweek and Time), three of them are well-known for their risque or even overtly pornographic content.

Secondly, the study didn't explain what constituted "sexy" beyond

About half of the advertisements included models. Researchers analyzed these ads based on how sexily the models were dressed and whether they were engaging in physical contact, such as kissing or simulated sex, with another model

which is still wide open to interpretation. Is a woman wearing a skirt "sexy"? Is a couple holding hands "sexy"? There's a world of difference between a car being advertised by having some bimbo in a bikini draped across it, and depicting a happy, attractive woman behind the wheel. According to this study's flexible interpretation, both could be said to be "sexy", regardless of tone or context.

So, we have a study that firstly restricts its focus to a selection of magazines (omitting the huge field of TV advertising, which has probably changed the most over the 20-year span of the study, and also neglects posters, Internet ads, etc). Further bias is introduced by these all being magazines for an adult readership, and fully half of the publications having a sexual slant to them. (Nobody was ever claiming that sex isn't used to sell "adult" products, lifestyle products and so on. The issue is whether sex is used inappropriately to sell products unrelated to sex/romance/relationships).

I never claimed that that one study was proof of increasingly sexualized ads in every form of media, ever. Friendly Lich's claim was that sexualized ads appeared on websites and in magazines in addition to television, and i provided evidence supporting one half of that claim. That this particular study doesn't address TV or the internet does not weaken the conclusion it reaches about magazines.

I don't have access to the paper itself, so i can't vouch for their methodology. However I will point out that their conclusion was that the amount of sexy ads has increased, so as long as their definition of "sexy" was consistent, that result would still hold. If they considered a woman in a skirt "sexy", then there are more ads with women in skirts than there were in 1983. Playboy maybe a magazine loaded with sexual content, but the amount of sexy ads it runs has increased since 1983.

Friendly Lich's OP was about "the relentless tide of sexual advertisement", full stop. THe issue isn't whether sex is used "inappropriately" in advertising (whatever that means), the issue is whether or not there's too much of it.

Batou667:
My rebuttal is that society has evolved since the 60s, 70s and 80s. The influence of feminism and women as a growing market has proven to be an incentive for advertisers to "clean their act up", and at any rate social norms have progressed to a point where people can generally sense, and take objection to, overt sexism or objectification when its inappropriate. We're experiencing a social shift away from the entrenched sexism of the 60s and the macho culture of the 80s (certainly Frank Frazetta and Boris Vallejo aren't getting many mainstream advertising jobs recently), and we're now at the point where mainstream advertising is directed partially, and in many cases I'd say PRIMARILY, at women.

The few places where you genuinely could say sexist and sexualised advertising is still alive and well include sports media, comics, videogames, and male health/beauty products. The sectors whose target audiences are adolescent boys and younger adult males, basically (suprise surprise). I think videogames have a way to go before they catch up with mainstream culture, and comic books moreso, and that's to their detriment.

In summary, sexualised advertising isn't everywhere. I turn on my TV and I see an advert for car insurance. Talking meerkats; not sexy. Children's breakfast cereal; not sexy. A DIY shop sale using the "dopey Dad" trope; not sexy. A female celebrity chef talking about how to roast vegetables; not sexy (unless you're 15 and have a very fertile imagination). I keep hearing about this "deluge of smut being flung across our screens day and night", what I'm not doing is seeing it.[/quote]

I disagree. Sexism may not be as overt as it was in the past, but it's still around and extremely prevalent, especially in the form of objectification.

The Super Bowl was on the other night and there was an ad centered around model Bar Refeali making out with a stereotypical "nerd". The kiss lasted 10 seconds and featured a close-up of their mouths as they went at it. This was a commercial for a web domain registrar. A car commercial featured a boy driving to the Prom alone, walking up to a random girl, and kissing her without so much as a hello. Apparently the idea was that driving an Audi gives you the confidence to make sexual advances on casual acquaintances uninvited.

Boris Vallejo did an ad for Old Spice in last year's Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. Frank Frazetta hasn't gotten any work at all lately since he's dead. And really you're just talking about a particular genre of fantasy art. If anything there's been a movement away from traditional media towards photography and digital editing.

Dr. Pepper 10 is a low-calorie soft drink sold with the marketing tagline "It's not for women". Obviously the makers of Dr. Pepper thought they would net more sales by deliberately alienating women and appealing to men fearful of losing their masculinity.

cobra_ky:

I never claimed that that one study was proof of increasingly sexualized ads in every form of media, ever. Friendly Lich's claim was that sexualized ads appeared on websites and in magazines in addition to television, and i provided evidence supporting one half of that claim. That this particular study doesn't address TV or the internet does not weaken the conclusion it reaches about magazines.

I don't have access to the paper itself, so i can't vouch for their methodology. However I will point out that their conclusion was that the amount of sexy ads has increased, so as long as their definition of "sexy" was consistent, that result would still hold. If they considered a woman in a skirt "sexy", then there are more ads with women in skirts than there were in 1983. Playboy maybe a magazine loaded with sexual content, but the amount of sexy ads it runs has increased since 1983.

Friendly Lich's OP was about "the relentless tide of sexual advertisement", full stop. THe issue isn't whether sex is used "inappropriately" in advertising (whatever that means), the issue is whether or not there's too much of it.

I dunno, maybe we're arguing two subtly different points here.

Has the use of females in advertising increased over the past 20 years? I'd say that's almost a given.

Have attractive females been featured in these adverts? Again, almost certainly. Men and women alike identify better with attractive people of either sex.

What I think are the crucial points here (and apologies if this is me moving the goalposts) are: is advertising using sexualised content (as opposed to "an attractive lady wearing contemporary clothes"), and if so is this inappropriate to the product or service being sold, and/or does this depiction objectify women.

Sexism may not be as overt as it was in the past, but it's still around and extremely prevalent, especially in the form of objectification.

The Super Bowl was on the other night and there was an ad centered around model Bar Refeali making out with a stereotypical "nerd". The kiss lasted 10 seconds and featured a close-up of their mouths as they went at it. This was a commercial for a web domain registrar. A car commercial featured a boy driving to the Prom alone, walking up to a random girl, and kissing her without so much as a hello. Apparently the idea was that driving an Audi gives you the confidence to make sexual advances on casual acquaintances uninvited.

I haven't seen either advert. The first one sounds completely gratuitous. The second one - meh, I'll have to withhold judgement, but lifestyle/prestige products have been sold with the implication that you'll become attractive to the opposite sex since year dot (Diet Coke makes frumpy office girls irresistible to male models whose second job is a window cleaner, apparently) and this Audi ad sounds like a fairly conscious and deliberate parody of that trope. But hey, the important thing is, if you find these distasteful, then let the companies know. Twitter is your friend. And if it's any consolation, I'll be boycotting all Audi vehicles for the foreseeable future[1]

Boris Vallejo did an ad for Old Spice in last year's Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. Frank Frazetta hasn't gotten any work at all lately since he's dead. And really you're just talking about a particular genre of fantasy art. If anything there's been a movement away from traditional media towards photography and digital editing.

That's kind of what I was talking about. An Old Spice ad in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue is legitimately one of the last places you'd expect to see his kitschy brand of machismo these days. Not mainstream advertising by any stretch of the imagination.

Dr. Pepper 10 is a low-calorie soft drink sold with the marketing tagline "It's not for women". Obviously the makers of Dr. Pepper thought they would net more sales by deliberately alienating women and appealing to men fearful of losing their masculinity.

In the UK we have a chocolate bar called Yorkie, which for a while was sold with the tagline "It's not for girls". Exclusion? Pfft, blatent reverse psychology, more like. They later brought out a "girls only" special edition in a pink wrapper. Advertisers don't have some kind of agenda to hold back gender equality, they have an agenda to make money, and if that means playing to or playing off existing tropes or stereotypes you can bet they'll grab the opportunity with both hands.

[1] Primarily because I'm poor as shit and won't be buying ANY make of car for the next couple of years.

Friendly Lich:
Its not just on the tv though. Its in magazines and websites and every other thing.

Feh. I don't mind some semi-nudity here and there. I don't see it as being "bombarded". Hell, you'd think that attitudes towards sexuality might soften a bit if you were exposed to it more rather than the more puritanical approach. So while it's certainly cynical marketing, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

There is sexual advertising?

I just tune out advertising in general.

Judging from this thread, I really need to move to a country with better advertisement. Where's this endless torrent of hot women doing sexy things to sell me crap, instead of it primarily being annoyingly upbeat people trying to sell me crap?

Friendly Lich:
...
To be honest part of the reason I made this post was because I was on Facebook a few days ago and there was a ad for "fuck Asian women now!!!!" then I went to a site that teaches Spanish for college and the same ad was there with "FUCK ASIAN WOMEN NOW!!!!!" actually flying all over the side of the screen with a picture of a half naked Asian women with enormous breasts when I am trying to study. Surely you can understand how this would get on someones nerves.

There. No more Asian women for you.

Imperator_DK:
There. No more Asian women for you.

That won't solve annoying ads though, just prevent the annoying ads from being tuned to your browsing history.

Mentioning the solution to annoying and intrusive ads however would incur mod wrath.

Blablahb:

Imperator_DK:
There. No more Asian women for you.

That won't solve annoying ads though, just prevent the annoying ads from being tuned to your browsing history.

Mentioning the solution to annoying and intrusive ads however would incur mod wrath.

I've no idea what you're talking about, but I've got a white list for something, with two URLs on it: "http://www.shamusyoung.com/" "escapistmagazine.com".

That I do it deliberately makes me feel like I'm paying them. And that makes me happy.

Blablahb:
That won't solve annoying ads though, just prevent the annoying ads from being tuned to your browsing history.
...

Which should get rid of all the Asian women.

Not that I know why one would one would wish to do so, except of course to make way for more voluptuous women still.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked