It wasn't until I consciously looked through magazine adds that I realized how true the "sex sells" motto actually is. Products that no one would ever associate with sex are being sold in a way that degrades the human emotion of love to a psychologically controlling device that is lust. Woman in nothing but underwear are being used to sell everything from cleaning supplies to shoes. Even worse, these woman are often the product of extensive digital alteration. Not only are thighs being trimmed down and eyes being widened through these procedures, woman that don't physically exist are being created out of a collage of body parts. Such pictures of these unrealistic woman brainwashes viewers, especially adolescence, into believing that this unnaturalness is beautiful and is supposed to be desired by everyone. Young girls begin to compare themselves to these standards, resulting in depression. So why, then, do producers continue to allow such images to control the media? The answer lies back in the fact that "sex sells." Companies, despite how successful they are, are too concerned with profits to challenge the system. This
Now, I may be crazy in this thought, but I don't know very many woman that would go out and buy this purse because a woman's vagina is hanging out. Her whole upper torso is erased, leaving only her....uh, goods? Whoever the creative director was of this ad definitely needs to reevaluate who their audience is.
Dear Burger King, as appealing as this ad is, I will never give your "Seven Incher" a b-job.
Here we see a woman, eyes wide and mouth opened, looking as if she is about to give oral sex to...a sandwich. While seven inches is impressive, this ad is not.
The "S" in S-Class obviously stands for "slutty," just saying.
Once again we see woman degraded mean body parts to advertise something that has nothing to do with breasts.
And, it gets worse. Not only are children affected by these images, they are even the subject of them...
If this little girl was a grown woman, men would be sexually stimulated by such an image. But this girl doesn't seem to be any older than 10. How can the media draw the line between images such as this one and child pornography? Some may argue that she is not exposing any inappropriate body parts, but that's not the point. The point lies in the purpose behind why the photo was taken. I find it hard that anyone could argue that the purpose behind this photo isn't sexually driven.
How far will advertisers go to make a dollar? Exploiting women and children is no ethical way of selling a product. Media that depends on advertiser support should be more conscious of the material they are selling their audience. There definitely needs to be a rebellion against such explicitly degrading advertisements.
