"It'll Blow Your Mind Away"

In this ad Burger King over steps many boundaries by objectifying their female model. By subjecting the woman to a publicly inappropriate pose the ad pushes the boundaries regarding how sexual ads should be able to be. This advertisement demeans women in that they are portrayed as nothing more than an object to please the male race, not an equal. Bunny Crumpacker, author of The Sex Life of Food declares "Shape's the thing" which makes a food either masculine or feminine. The positioning of the masculine shaped sandwich directly in front of the women’s mouth leaves little need for the mind to wander because it is very clear what Burger King is promoting. Crumpacker argues that red meat is obviously masculine, which means the sandwich's target audience is men. Clearly, by including the women -- mouth wide open in front of the sandwich -- they are trying to get at more than just eating the masculine food. By specifically targeting a male audience, this ad further widens the gap between the inequality of men and women. While most men look at this ad and laugh, women would typically react in the opposite way with feelings of shock and disbelief that something this forward is being commercialized. Their promotion of such act enforces the widely stereotypical thoughts of women as sex objects. The commonly known sexually related phrase "size matters" also comes into play in this commercial because Burger King announces that its sandwich is a "Super Seven Incher" even though food ads normally present size in pounds, not inches. Furthermore, the tag line “It’ll blow your mind away” solidifies the sexual innuendo that has been presented because it is commonly accepted that a certain few things are truly mind blowing -- but apparently this sandwich has been added to that list. In this instance, the portrayal of women as a sex object causes the audience to believe that it is okay to objectify women if it is done in a humorous way. Upon viewing this ad, my first response was a slight snicker, however once I looked at it further it becomes apparent that ads such as this one are not okay. Although females may initially see this ad as slightly comical it is highly offensive because it tries to make the objectification okay by mocking it. In many cases humor allows for a ease of tension for delicate subjects. This Burger King ad on the other hand attempts to make the sexualization of women okay by turning sexism into a joke, but this "joke" fails to be seen as funny by many because sexism is still widely displayed today in both serious forms and attempts at a humorous approach. 

http://adage.com/article/adages/burger-king-ad-latest-smutty-sandwich-peddling/137541/

Hooters: Food vs. Woman

Advertisements such as this one created by the Hooters restaurant chain subject women to being treated as pieces of meat. This woman makes it seem as though if it is okay to put herself in what most women would consider an uncomfortable situation by using specifically chosen words that can easily be put into a sexual context. The effect of wind blowing in the woman’s hair and she slowly moves her hand down her neck causes the men in the commercial to blatantly stare at her as well as make the viewers realize that food is no longer the focus of this commercial. This advertisement is a true and literal example of the saying “sex sells.” Although the woman is listing the items the men could possibly eat for dinner it is very clear that the men are more interested in staring at her than any food she could bring them. For example, she introduces the chicken meal by saying ”plump juicy breasts of chicken” as she moves her hand towards her own breasts that are bursting out of her scanty top. Similarly to the Burger King advertisement, this one attempts to place a humorous twist on the sexualization of women. The over the top effects, such as the wind blowing in the models hair and the over the top music, allow the viewers to understand that it is supposed to be funny, but the men in the commercial still gawk at the "waitress." The humorous twist fails to work for this commercial because Hooters is known for its stereotypical larger breasted waitresses. The action of making fun of sexualizing women is even more demeaning than other commercials and visuals the portray women as sex objects because the comical aspect makes it seem as if it is okay to poke fun at the growing problem. Adding a mocking nature to the sexualization of a woman not only demeans women further, but also serves to inform all of society that this is supposedly okay because it is "funny." 

Juicy Lucy

The depiction of the naked woman at the bottom of the page — whose given name is Juicy Lucy — blatantly demeans women in that she is literally portrayed as a piece of meat. Also, “Juicy Lucy” has been placed in a seductive pose where she is looking back at and luring a male audience. Glancing back over her shoulder makes "Juicy Lucy" seem as if she is okay with the position she has been placed in and is purposely trying to pull men in. While this may attract male customers, the depiction of the naked divided up woman objectifies women by portraying her just as the cow below is shown. Juicy Lucy seems to be the invention of a perfect female figure by someone with a very sexist imagination. Her pose and body being divided up only go to further support the sexism that is presented in her name. Susan Bordo, author of Hunger as Ideology, discusses the unhealthy pressure that is put on women by ads which sexualize the female body. Advertisements such as this draw attention to the female body; not only do they give society an image of what a woman should look like but also cause women to feel the need to fit these stereotypical views. Unlike the previous advertisements this one does not attempt to take a humorous stance, instead it is blatantly disrespectful to women because it essentially portrays them as nothing more than meat. Equating a woman's body to meat is degrading in numerous ways, however the most degrading in my view is the idea that if a woman is meat she is nothing else. A woman's body divided into pieces reinforces that she is something to enjoy just as food, she is not equal to men, nor does she have the capacity to ever be. Even if this ad were produced "all in fun," this portrayal of the female body allows children and others to believe this is okay without completely understanding the hidden meanings behind it. 

http://unlvrebelyell.com/2009/10/08/editorial-the-rebel-yell-responds/

Haagen Dazs

Haagen Dazs Ice cream developed  a series of print ads which depict women in solely food. By sexualizing their product they can attract the attention of the male audience. However, this portrayal of women makes it seem as if a woman’s sole purpose is to be physically admired. The female model is basically put on a stick just like an ice cream bar, as if she is a treat to be enjoyed by all. Also, Bordo argues that advertisements such as this one, which depict women in a sexualized way, put pressure on women to look and act a certain way. The women is surrounded my delicious chocolate, but she cannot eat any -- the chocolate is for show just as she is. Similarly to the "Juicy Lucy" ad, the woman is placed in a sexualized position with no clothes. However, this Haagen Dazs commercial presents the woman enjoying herself seemingly unaware she is being watched. This ad presents a strong sense of voyeurism, which goes to make the ad further demeaning because she is being spied on. This ad does not try to incorporate humor or any other aspects to lighten the mood, instead it focuses on the pure sexualization of the female body. The picture of a topless woman covered in chocolate would not be nearly as demeaning if she was not placed on a stick, as a treat to enjoy. However, the stick being added to the picture causes the ad to cross a line in my opinion of what is acceptable for public view. 


http://www.coloribus.com/adsarchive/prints/haagen-dazs-ice-cream-caramel-2461405/ 

Keep Australia Beautiful?

This ad for a low carb protein bar basically tells women they should look a certain way in order to be considered beautiful. However, the ad solely depicts the woman’s body, not her face which objectifies women because it shows only what the ad considers to be the important parts of a “beautiful” woman. This ad makes it seem that the only way to be beautiful is to be thin and tan — as well as eat their product. The low carb bar claims that it can make a “beautiful body,” but by doing this it is also promoting a certain diet, than has the potential to be unhealthy. Essentially every woman wants to be called beautiful and look as the model does, which sets pressurized restrictions on what women who see this ad will think is acceptable to look like and eat. Susan Bordo, comments on the way advertisements -- such as this one -- pressure women to feel the need to look a certain way. However, this pressure generally results in unhealthy eating habits which can eventually lead to eating disorders. The presentation of only the woman's body and not her face solidifies Bordo's argument that women's bodies are the center of attention for most of society. This advertisement blatantly disrespects women by cutting of the models head from the ad. By doing this she is no longer an equal human being, she is simply a body to admire. Also, diet bar have little to do with a woman's breasts, instead they target problem areas such as the stomach or thighs -- neither of which are depicted in this ad.
http://melindatankardreist.com/tag/objectification/

Godiva Chocolate... in bed?

This Godiva Chocolate add portrays the woman as a sex object. In a sense she is more desirable than the chocolate itself. The model is put on display in a provocative pose and placed in a bed as if she is waiting for someone or something to happen. Also, she seems to be in a private moment of her own, which causes the camera so seem intrusive on this “Golden Moment,” as the ad describes it. Being alone in her bedroom and focussing on the chocolate -- not the camera -- further demeans the woman, similar to the Haagen Dazs ad. Both models are enjoying their own time, but the strong suggestion of voyeurism places a distinct separation between the model and the audience. Because she is in her bed, which is allegedly private, it can be concluded that the model is not looking for attention in this ad she is simply enjoying herself, despite the intrusion of the camera. Advertisements like this one along with the Haagen Dazs ad separate women (particularly models) from the rest of society and set them up as something to look at not someone to get to know or care about. This is wherein the problem lies and a simple advertisement can become extremely demeaning towards women. 


On a different note Susan Bordo explains how women are not supposed to indulge in large meals; society does not accept women scarfing food down like a man is allowed to. Instead, Bordo tells of how ads -- this one being a prime example -- show women eating a single piece of chocolate, as if that would fulfill her cravings. Advertisements such as this Godiva Chocolate ad support Bordo's believe that women are supposed to be satisfied with less food, which falls hand in hand with women needing to eat less to be thin. In other words, all women should look like the model if they are doing what is expected of them by society. 


http://www.namedevelopment.com/blog/archives/2009/11/godiva_sweetens.html

Last Thoughts

Women are sexualized in numerous ads, in almost all of these ads there is a specific stereotype that the model must fit: thin, but voluptuous. Advertisements continue to put unhealthy pressure on women, and with growing expectations to fit the “perfect” image, come an increase in unhealthy eating habits. The sexualization of women also continues to objectify women, which not only causes bad images for younger children, but also allows males to think it is okay to portray women in a demeaning image. 
While working on this blog I showed a friend some of the ads I was dealing with in order to see what her response would be -- her open jaw said it all. She went on to simply state they were all "degrading" towards women. While everyone may not have the same negative view on these ads, I believe it's safe to assume many women who see these find them less than flattering in presentation, and offensive in at least the slightest degree. 


The most shocking part of the above advertisements may very well be their variety. Some of the ads use a humorous twist in order to get their point across, the following portrayed a nude woman chopped up as if she were meat and the next focused solely on the breasts of one, and still others depict women in what seems to be a private moment. All of these different techniques are used to sell their product, but in doing so they take away a woman's credibility as well as her dignity. The similarities and differences between the ads further depict just how easy it is to show women in a light that causes them to feel uncomfortable.