Hidden Messages - Women's butts in TV commercials

[roxics]

Make if it what you will but putting attractive women in advertisements works even more on women than on men.

Isn't that fascinating? I've heard reasons given before, like social programming. Like if you tried the same ads in a different era (hundreds of years ago pershaps) that the responses from women might be different since they haven't been inundated with this type of advertising all their lives. But I do wonder if there is something deeper going on in the human psyche in general and maybe not social programming.

I think you kind of nailed it here:

If you do it with taste, a large number of women will respond in equal manner: guys will want to conquer the girl and women will want to be the desired one.

It does seem to be that the default state is that men are the observers and women the observed. Or at least those are the roles they tend toward. So if that holds true, that when women are observing other women, they are learning how to be better observed themselves.
I think that maybe you could even expand that out into men who crossdress, that maybe there is psychologically a desire to be the observed one rather than just the oberver and using the tools (clothng) they know will get them to that point.

Maybe I went a little off topic, but at the same time I think it applies because in many ways our goal is to figure out what people respond to.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Yeah I'm not trying to make a statement for or against...

You should be. We all should be making a statement about how wrong this is. It's sexism, plain and simple. It uses women as sex objects. It's degrading for women and for men. We must not condone this. And we sure as heck shouldn't do it ourselves.

About your not making a statement about this egregious practice: If not you, who? If not now, when?

 

[Gillvane]

You should be. We all should be making a statement about how wrong this is. It's sexism, plain and simple. It uses women as sex objects. It's degrading for women and for men. We must not condone this. And we sure as heck shouldn't do it ourselves.

About your not making a statement about this egregious practice: If not you, who? If not now, when?

you are just buying the false idea that men and women are the same when in fact they are different. Different doesn't equate with inequality.

 

[roxics]

You should be. We all should be making a statement about how wrong this is. It's sexism, plain and simple. It uses women as sex objects. It's degrading for women and for men. We must not condone this. And we sure as heck shouldn't do it ourselves.

About your not making a statement about this egregious practice: If not you, who? If not now, when?

Only because political issues are not allowed here. To some degree that may seem political or at least a hot topic issue that can lean that way.
But I will say, you have a point. On the other hand, we are all objects when it comes down to it. The harm is making someone feel objectified when they don't want to be.
I think if an actor (male/female/otherwise) willingly signs on and knows how they will be portrayed, that's a different story.
Which is one of the reasons I asked if these scenes were consciously blocked this way and if the female extras were aware they would be used for this hidden messaging.

 

[Paul F]

It's ridiculous to ignore the fact that men and women are attracted to attractive women (duh, that's what attractive means) and behave in a positive way when they see attractive women. Mythbusters proved this.

Test - A women is the counter person at a coffee shop. Her top is a short sleeved, with chest fully covered and 'average' breasts. The tips for the day are totaled. The next day, they flatten her breasts and again total the tips. On the third test, they enhance her breasts. The results:

Flat chest - tips are the same as average breasts
Enhanced chest - men tip 30% higher than average or flat chest
Enhanced chest - women tip 40% higher than average or flat chest

Unfortunately, Mythbusters did not run a similar test with men to see if the behavior works with men as well.

 

[rsbush]

Wait, what? Sex is a bad thing?

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

You should be. We all should be making a statement about how wrong this is. It's sexism, plain and simple. It uses women as sex objects. It's degrading for women and for men. We must not condone this. And we sure as heck shouldn't do it ourselves.

About your not making a statement about this egregious practice: If not you, who? If not now, when?

Yeah... sure... snore...

Which do think will sell more Wheaties...

This...

Or this one...

 

[Batutta]

Wait, what? Sex is a bad thing?

I don't think anyone is saying that. Sex is great, one of the best things about being human. This is going to venture dangerously close to political waters but I'll proceed carefully. This kind of objectifying is something that does need to be discussed. We live in an age where women want to and should be treated equally in the workplace, and in society, and one of the obstacles is that men are hardwired to view women as sexual objects. It's not something that can be changed really, but adding fuel to the fire by exploiting that for the purposes of making a profit needs to be considered carefully. Do women also see men as sexual objects? Sure, but let's be real, it's mostly a male problem because the power dynamic between men and women has been tilted in favour of men for 99 percent of recorded history. If women are going to achieve parity in terms of how they are respected, stuff like this isn't a great help. It's not the only cause or problem, but catering to our basest instincts is a contributing factor.

 

[rsbush]

Well how do you feel about women entertainers using sex to sell their acts: Madonna, Beyonce, Amy Shumer, Nikki Glaser. Is that empowerment and liberation or explotation and sexism?

 

[Batutta]

Well how do you feel about women entertainers using sex to sell their acts: Madonna, Beyonce, Amy Shumer, Nikki Glaser. Is that empowerment and liberation or explotation and sexism?

A little bit of all that. It's not either/or...Look, I'm not saying this is the worst thing ever and should never be looked upon by human eyes. But it is something that people in entertainment and advertising should be mindful of. Because if it doesn't matter at all, and there is no line, then why not just go full on into pornography?

 

[paulears]

There are two UK soaps that often feature the pretty girl type shots, but equally find excuses for the male characters to remove their tops and expose six packs. I don;t think it's just women, it's fellas too, but perhaps other males don't notice - but equally the gay community are kept happy too. Just a sign of the times.

 

[rsbush]

I think the real problems of unequal power lie in the workplace, not in films or advertising where sex can and is used in a myriad of ways. Some good, some bad, some indifferent. It's not that sex is used, it's how it's used, which makes blanket statements about it's use, well, useless.

 

[roxics]

Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I view objectifying as how that person who is being objectified feels about it. Not how the audience as a whole feels, because the audience is large and varied. You will find people who are for, against and indifferent in the audience. Lots of opinions. What really matters is how the performer feels.

There is a difference between openly objectifying a random woman walking down the street in such a way that you make her feel uncomfortable, versus hiring an actress who knows she is going to have a close-up of her nude bottom on screen. One is giving permission and the other is not.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

It's not the only cause or problem, but catering to our basest instincts is a contributing factor.

Anything with 'food' in the shot could be construed to be appealing to 'our basest instincts'... The comforts of 'home' is a 'base instinct'... etc...

While not exactly a 'physical' attribute, although there is a correlation between 'success' and 'attractive', 'wealth' or 'success' are attributes of 'men' which are almost always uncommented upon or heck... praised as worth of emulation...

There of course is the 'woody allen' anti hero, or the anti-hero male of "Knocked Up"(2007), but in general those types of 'men' are not considered worthy of emulation for the most part.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Well how do you feel about women entertainers using sex to sell their acts: Madonna, Beyonce, Amy Shumer, Nikki Glaser. Is that empowerment and liberation or explotation and sexism?

The most significant difference between modern women performers using 'sex' far more explicitly as part of their acts, is that their acts are in large presentations and not in some seedy 'otherside of the tracks' places where one take one's life into one's hands by going to see a performance.

In that sense it is an empowerment. Further, the women for the most part are not ostracized from general society, again empowerment.

You can take it that I'm a radical libertarian when it comes to 'morals'...

 

[Batutta]

I think the real problems of unequal power lie in the workplace, not in films or advertising where sex can and is used in a myriad of ways. Some good, some bad, some indifferent. It's not that sex is used, it's how it's used, which makes blanket statements about it's use, well, useless.

Yeah, but my point is that the films and advertisements contribute to the environment in the workplace. It's disingenuous to say filmmakers and advertisers don't bear any responsibility, when I don't think anyone would be an entertainer, or any kind of artist, if they didn't think they could influence peoples hearts and minds. And what we do does influence hearts and minds. Doesn't mean I'm advocating for censorship, as free expression is one of our most sacrosanct human rights, but people really should think more carefully about what they're doing and why. I gather most don't, and only care about making money, so they'll keep doing what works the easiest, which is flashing boobs and butts into the camera.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I view objectifying as how that person who is being objectified feels about it. Not how the audience as a whole feels, because the audience is large and varied. You will find people who are for, against and indifferent in the audience. Lots of opinions. What really matters is how the performer feels.

There is a difference between openly objectifying a random woman walking down the street in such a way that you make her feel uncomfortable, versus hiring an actress who knows she is going to have a close-up of her nude bottom on screen. One is giving permission and the other is not.

"objectify", and attendant variations, is a crappy word, and almost vacuous in meaning. It is a word used most often to cut off discussion rather than illuminate or expand knowledge.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Well, who's more qualified to be an authority on how a bare-bottomed, attractive actress might feel than a bunch of middle-aged guys typing away on a message board? : )

In the interest of Equality... I will take it that any 'bare bottomed attractive actress' is an adult (otherwise it's probably a crime...) and has consented, given a list of optional employments, either in acting or in some completely different job category, and has chosen to sign the contract based on a mental process of weighing the options.

To believe otherwise is to disempower a woman and her choices, in otherwords infantilize her and behave in a paternalistic way or even a maternalistic way depending...

These days some women do have it in their contract that no bare bottoms will be attributed to them, with their bottom, or a stunt butt...

 

[roxics]

Well, who's more qualified to be an authority on how a bare-bottomed, attractive actress might feel than a bunch of middle-aged guys typing away on a message board? : )

I just mean that it's her choice. She's the one that has to feel comfortable with it.

 

[Batutta]

Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting thread, but our opinions on the subject don't amount to much!

That's not true. Most people here are in the business of creating images. Our opinions here shape how we and maybe others decide to go about our work.