So this year’s round of Super Bowl advertising was not NEARLY as bad as in years past (the absolute low point was 2010, when we collectively blew our feminist gaskets over the super-abundance of misogynist advertising). Sure, there was a dumbass Teleflora ad starring model Adriana Lima, who seductively purrs:”Guys, Valentine’s Day’s not that complicated: give and you’ll receive.” Yep, straight from the “sex is a transaction” playbook—chauvinist, stupid and insulting to both men and women.
But the real eye-opener was H&M’s underwear ad with David Beckham, who used to play the other type of football but these days hawks $14 tighty-whities by letting the camera play lasciviously over his incredibly toned, tattooed body:
HOT DAMN. Yes, I realize it’s possibly the most objectifying TV ad in history, and while I generally dislike objectification of all kinds, I confess that I could not tear my eyes away from the screen. Neither could any of the women I was with. One of my male friends reported via Twitter that the sports bar he was at practically erupted in hoots and cheers from the ladies present. Another friend, watching from a gay bar in DC, reported a similarly rapturous response.
If this were a women’s underwear-clad body, would I have hated it? Yes, probably. However, having already seen a gazillion such ads in my lifetime—and hated them—I found it hard to get too worked up about this one, which is, frankly, the first of its kind that I can remember. Clearly, advertisers have figured out what pollsters already know: 64% of women in America watch the Super Bowl (compared with 68% of men). After forcing women to sit through a lot of sexist ads, Big Advertising finally decided to run one they thought would please the ladies, even though its m.o. was the same objectification that Big Advertising has been using for decades to please men.
Dear GOD that wicked little smile……and ass…..his ass is almost exactly like my husband’s ass…..
*wipes drool, clears throat* Uhhhh….objectifying is bad, y’all……
wow.. that certainly is something..
I’ll just close my mouth, and wikpe off the drool on my chin..
So… I’m confused by this post, and the comments above mine. Are you saying objectifying the human body to sell a product is somehow okay is the body in question happens to be that of a heteronormative male?
Another take might be that this is an illustration of why sexual, objectifying ads are so incredibly difficult to get rid of. This is a blog where everyone knows all about the problems caused by treating a human being as an object to satisfy sexual desire, glorifying a body-type that is simply unattainable for much of the population, and playing off people’s insecurities about their physical appearance to sell them products. And yet, do all those things with a body that you find sexually attractive, and the comments before mine all contain the word “drool.” It is little wonder advertisers use and will continue to use scantily clad bodies to sell products.
I remember reading something a while back, interview with Victoria Beckham, she said Becks beat her in a game of Scrabble and it made her SO MAD to lose to him.
Heh.
@Joseph:
Are you saying objectifying the human body to sell a product is somehow okay is the body in question happens to be that of a heteronormative male?
No. I’m saying that as heteronormative woman who’s been forced to sit through thousands of hours of advertising that objectifies women in this way I’m a little surprised when Big Advertising finally turned the tables and did one that subjected a man’s body to the leering, objectifying gaze I’ve been forced to tolerate my whole life.
And surprise surprise, straight women like to gaze at men as much as they like to gaze at us. If Big Advertising wants to exploit that, I expect we’ll see a lot more of this kind of ad.
This is a blog where everyone knows all about the problems caused by treating a human being as an object to satisfy sexual desire, glorifying a body-type that is simply unattainable for much of the population, and playing off people’s insecurities about their physical appearance to sell them products
Yeah, except because we live in a Patriarchy, women have been targeted by this in a way that men have not. The day your male body is objectified and commodified and subject to exploitation exactly the same as my female one is the day you can start worrying that women are subjecting you to a double standard.
I’m tempted to argue that it’s not objectification per se that’s the issue, rather it’s how that objectification is completely skewed in favour of pleasing the male audience by playing off the social tropes that get critiqued on here.
The fact that men are allowed to have personalities and careers outside of their looks means that women ‘objectifying’ men like Beckham or Jonny Depp know they have lives that don’t solely rely on their being handsome. Becks’s looks do have a lot to do with how successful he is now but he was famous first because of his footballing career with Manchester Utd.
Men on the other hand, when faced with constant imagery of beautiful women who are famous or used in advertising solely for their looks, are taught to assume that those women have no ‘real’ substance by manly man standards. Actresses with great careers often have much to attribute to their looks and there are some decidedly poor actresses who still do very well for themselves _because_ they embody the current beauty standard.
There’s also the argument that men don’t find women objectifying them threatening or demeaning the same way women would, because the man in question is usually starting from a position of perceived power (being white, male, heterosexual, able-bodied etc). Being admired like that gives them kudos because, clearly, they are going to get laid. Which, as we all know, is all men really want in this life. *sarcasm*.
In that sense, then, this ad is still maintaining the status quo, even if it’s giving women the chance to watch something they find interesting/attractive for a change. And it will do for the company exactly what they want it to, which is to raise interest and sales. They may even get the feminist women going ‘oh, they can’t be that bad, they put out pretty men for us’. le sigh.
@Becky
Just to clarify, I’m not worrying about being subjected to a double standard (I’m gay, any sexual objectifying I do is of men not women), and I’m certainly not trying to say that because women do it too it is somehow okay when men do it. I’m just saying it is not okay in either case, and a hard problem to solve.
@Joseph: I would much rather neither gender was into the lurid objectification game. But if it’s going to exist, I prefer that it not be entirely one-sided.
And to your point about being gay, just because you personally don’t objectify women, as a man in our society it is still your privilege to NOT be leered at by the opposite gender in the way that women are. And hopefully what prevents you from treating women that way is not just your sexual orientation but that you realize it’s wrong—i.e. you wouldn’t do it even if you were sexually attracted to women.
That commercial drew appreciation from the women at the party I attended, and actually sparked body building/tatoo conversations from some guys, so nobody was offended and everybody won. And it was good to see the female rappers with Madonna, who didn’t attempt to be ‘the material girl’ but exuded confidence and power. They really need to retire those polar bears however.
I usually scoff at this kind of crap and I have always purposely ignored conventionally attractive men(except for my boyfriend) to avoid further pumping their egos …but I can’t deny that I thought Beckham looked super hot. I felt very confused and manipulated. Haha.
What’s also interesting is that Beck’s is very much in control of his brand and the image ye projects. Even though the ad plays off the idea of female gaze, Beckham still retains relatively more control than the unknown (or less well known) female models who appear in similar ads aimed at the male gaze. There are female celebrities who have fronted ad campaigns based on their ‘star power’ but it’s difficult to think of any.
*I don’t know much about superbowl ads or US advertising so the above comment is only based on Beckham’s ad and my own experience of UK tv and bilboard ads.
Advertising is always tricky.. especially given the role of women as the usual body of objectification..
I do admit that I find it strange to be in two minds about watching and appreciating this ad, especially when if a similar ad was made for womens underwear, I know that a well known female athlete would not be used. Or even another woman who has had success in another field of endeavour that is not modelling.
however what I did notice about the ad, is that it still plays Becks being in control. Whether he be in his football uniform, or in his briefs.
I see your points, but the truth is I’m still firmly in the “two wrongs don’t make a right” camp. (And yes, I know that you weren’t arguing that they make a right, only that the second wrong makes everything sting a little less for the original wrongee, but still.)
I still believe that a world where women aren’t objectified is possible. And starting to objectify men doesn’t bring us any closer to that world. It brings us farther away. It’s like how I hate that there are now starting to be difficult beauty standards men have to attain. Sure, part of me is reeeeeaaaally tempted to say “nyah nyah now you know what it feels like!” but the truth of the matter is that it just makes women’s impossible beauty standards even more deeply ingrained. Digging the hole deeper. Which sucks for all of us.
I’ll second what Melissa said.
And I’d also like to add that I’m tired of people saying or expecting that a guy like that is what women want. (I’m not saying it’s necessarily happening here, on this blog, but just in general.) I’m a queer, pansexual, genderqueer person who was female-assigned-at-birth, so, to most people, I’m a “woman,” and I don’t want that. I’m definitely attracted to guys; most of my partners have been male, but Beckham is not at all what I find attractive. Not only is the objectification not something I want to support, but I’m tired of the erasure, too.
I don’t think there has been the “nya nya nya, now you know what it feels it to be objectified” sentiment expressed.. or saying 2 wrongs make a right or similar..
I think this discussion has been more about the representation of male objectification in advertising, and how it is confronting, especially in thinking through the genders switching aspects of it was a non-male person depicted.
At a personal level I don’t find Becks attractive either, nor would I like to be with someone who is physically similar to him.. but I am able to appreciate the aesthetics of him in the ad.