Here is the male version of the "Ice Cold" commercials:

Quite a difference.

Whoops, it didn't let me post the video. Here is the link to Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJD6F7g3d4U&feature=related

Couldn't even see the video because of the Circuit City ads popping up in front of it. I'm wondering if there's any way you can control these ads. They're making it increasingly difficult to read the posts.

Maddy, if you use Firefox, download the AdBlock extension. It's amazing.

I dunno, I guess this ad is lame but my usually very sensitive pissed-off-at-sexism radar didn't go off.

Maybe it's because the girls look like they're having fun? Maybe its because if I go to a a happening bar and have a few drinks I get turned on and love that feeling? Maybe its because they don't seem that embarrassed by their nipples (good for them!) or maybe its because the bar tender is so skeezy he doesn't have a shot with any of them? LOL

Thanks AJ :)

Here is the male version of the "Ice Cold" commercials:

Quite a difference.

Yeah, on the one hand it's different because it's not focusing on prominent sex attributes like breasts/nipples, but it does make the guys look like complete dorks. I s'pose the anatomically correct ad would show shrinkage in their man packages or something.

I guess my gut instinct is to call it sexist, but intellectually it doesn't seem all that bad. Are nipples bad? Is it bad to say that this stuff is so cold it makes your body react in a certain fashion? Dunno...

On the Pigometer this is only middlin' at worst, if only because the ad with the guys does indeed make them look like morons.

They should have had the guys grab their crotches and look down in dismay; anyone who has ever done any diving in deep cold water can tell many tales of temperature-induced shrinkage....

Main reason to drink Jaegermeister ice cold is so you avoid tasting it.

Even for a foreign commercial, and I love foreign advertising for their different views, that is extremely offensive, and I am glad some organization saw fit to act against it. As in the Italian clothes dye ad, it is too bad some actors and actresses are in need of such work.

I don't ever understand most advertising. Why would i want to drink something that made me uncomfortable?

Yeah, I saw the "male" version. If one has perspiration on one's fingers or has wet lips, that is a much more realistic reaction to direct physical contact with something ice cold, yet dry on its outer surface. I've had that happen with ice cubes.

The first two times I watched it, I wondered why the women were grabbing their breasts. After reading the comments, I figured it out and, after watching it a third time, saw the woman's nipples sticking out.

Maybe I'm just clueless or blind, but if it takes someone 3 attempts and being told what the problem is, maybe it isn't that big of a problem.

KATE21: "I dunno, I guess this ad is lame but my usually very sensitive pissed-off-at-sexism radar didn't go off."

In the narrow sense, I don't think it is sexist at all - women go to the bar, have an ice cold drink, and potentially have some embarrassing nipple erection. I'm sure there are commercials where some guy experiences embarrassing erections in front of a class, etc.

In the broader sense, however, it is part of a culture that treats women's bodies as objects existing for male enjoyment and pleasure. In this case, for the viewing pleasure of the barkeeper (and commercial viewer).

Individual images of that aren't so bad. Take billions of images and ram them down people's eyes 24/7, however, makes each one seem like a representative of larger damaging picture.

Do you believe this ad would fly in the US, even during the Super Bowl, UCLA?

Silly to me in the abstract, but fairly benign.

As part of the mosaic of advertising objectification, however, it pisses me off.

I use AdBlock too, it works great. About the ad, I always make a point whenever I see any sort of sexual objectification especially in ads, not to buy the advertisers products or patronize their stores. I'll ad this to my long long list, in general I find beer, cigarette and car commercials to be the worse, (and many many products aimed at women actually too) in this case it seems that the advertisers could care less about what women think because they are obviously targeting men, grrr. Sometimes seems like no amount of screaming with make a difference because as long as men continue to buy these products and respond to these ads than these advertisers will continue to use women as objects to sell more stuff. On the other hand, to me it seems that some men would be pissed off by these ads too because they are essentially saying - hey men "your brain is in your dick and we can get you to buy anything as long at we put some T&A next to it, 'cause you guys are just so easily duped" I'm sure women are still 100 times more pissed off by this, in general, than men are. I wonder now, on the other hand if there's gonna be some idiot guys who think that giving this alcohol to his girlfriend will make her nipples suddenly enlarge by a factor of 10, I wouldn't be surprised. I hate ads and their stupidity.

A male -- http://feministing.com/archives/004625.html

I wouldn't click the link in that post, though, unless you're feeling bored. It seems to be a bit out of date.

Then we should recognize a problem here as well, right?

"Do you believe this ad would fly in the US, even during the Super Bowl, UCLA?"

Oh, absolutely - Think of Paris Hilton's Carl's Junior commercial

While in Sweden, I sometimes watch commercials. Though I don't know Swedish so I can only judge based on images. So far I haven't seen a lot of "sexy women" in advertisements. Perhaps, Swedes are less used to seeing women portrayed sexually in ads.

But I've gotta ask, what is the big difference between this commercial and that Target ad from before? It seemed a vast majority found the target ad to be sexist although many didn't notice why it would be sexist at first. But for this ad it's more like well, it could be sexist...

It seems like portraying women as sex objects for men's enjoyment is the issue. Would this be a problem if there were as many advertisement that show good looking men for women's enjoyment? Are there studies that show objectification is associated with other problems with other problems such as harassment or discrimination? Or do we just not want to see women portrayed that way? The thing with commercials is they are trying to sell a product and have 30 seconds to catch our attention. I can see why they rely on stereotypes rather than just trying to show everyday people. I imagine there must be research that justifies their choices for how to make a commercial.

I'm going to agree with UCLA about the commercial playing over here. When I first saw it I didn't really see any difference between that and beer commercials from a few years ago with women wrestling in a fountain and then in mud. I think over here the woman's nipple wouldn't be SO pronounced, but because it was through the shirt I think it'd be fine, maybe seen by some as tasteless but seen nonetheless.

OK, I've seen a lot of sexist advertising in my life, and I've built up the necesary thick skin, but this pisses me off. I mean, it's women ordering the drink, so I would expect that the commercial was targeting women. But no, it ends up targeting men, since the result of women drinking jager is something that men presumably love but that I would find embarassing and uncomfortable. It's bad enough when women are used to sell everything under the sun, but now this ad has us paying for the privilege of being objectified? lovely.

"It seems like portraying women as sex objects for men's enjoyment is the issue."

Exactly. And the portrayal of the leering bartender made it explicit.

"Would this be a problem if there were as many advertisement that show good looking men for women's enjoyment? "

I would like to believe that sexual imagery of men that I can see in women's fashion magazines does not appeal to women in the same way, or that women do not view men in the same way men view women. Also, most of the male body can safely be displayed in public, as the male chest is not considered sexual.

Any women feel a particularly strong urge to buy some tube socks?

http://razorapple.com/2006/10/23/colossal-hand-painted-signs/

http://brainwash.robertundhorst.de/uncategorized/trend-scouting-buzz-marketing-upcoming-brand-wesc/

No, socks! Can't you see them right in front of h . . . you?

This differing standard of the sexualization of bared male and female upper bodies, I have seen, is an issue in itself. Beachgoers in certain regions where women wear minimal clothing, have apparently learned to deal with it.

the sexualization of bared male and female upper bodies has been quite the conundrum for some time.

beachgoers in some locales, a male, have indeed learned to live with it but its still an issue in public parks or any other place a man can remove his shirt but a woman cannot. seems to all revolve around context and that makes it difficult.

this ad just seemed stupid to me, perhaps i've just gotten so used to them i no longer have much of a response but there are a lot of commercials out there that use sex appeal, whether its the male construction worker drinking a coke, or a well made commercial showing a beautiful woman that work really well.

at the end of the day though, the only reason this ad or any other ad is shown is because they work. amazing how specifically ad companies can target a demographic. guess i'm lucky im not part of the group these admakers were shooting for.

A MALE "I would like to believe that sexual imagery of men that I can see in women's fashion magazines does not appeal to women in the same way, or that women do not view men in the same way men view women. Also, most of the male body can safely be displayed in public, as the male chest is not considered sexual."

I disagree with some of what you said. I think that male shoulders, chests, and stomach are highly sexualized and portrayed in objectifying manners in advertisement.

Instead of progressing in terms of cutting back the number of objectified women, we're now starting to objectify men, which has negative consequences for men.

I do agree with you that it isn't as prevalent. Certainly women's magazine feature women more than men. But Cosmo's monthly "hunk of the month without a shirt" feature isn't exactly rare, either.

The consequences of objectifying women and men are different (increased risk of sexual assault for women but not men as a result of objectification) and many of the negative effects are different (concern with thinness vs. muscularity). But both are concerning.

That woman's nipples scare me.

"I disagree with some of what you said. I think that male shoulders, chests, and stomach are highly sexualized and portrayed in objectifying manners in advertisement."

I see how men like myself without that sort of muscular development might feel insecure looking at idealized men's bodies (the Bowflex commercials for instance, where the actors claim they no longer feel self-conscious going without a shirt on, while women in the hot tub stare and whisper), but I don't see how men are objects. For one, men are allowed a lot more leeway than women in how they look, while still remaining "desirable."

What would be necessary for me to believe men are being objectified for their looks, is if a substantial number of women made a practice of seeing and using men in their lives (as opposed to the fantasy of media and advertising) as if they were nameless, faceless, interchangeable objects of desire like in an "AXE effect" commercial.*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5s_XTLlXao

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjrnN2PqCyE

Fortunately for men, desirable men are expected to be more than manly good looks, or not even need that. Lucky for me. I would prefer having financial security to looks or manliness, myself.

* I note that in every AXE ad I have seen, the men are actually not impressive, and it is the multitude of slim young women with their unleashed animal passions who are the real objects. In Japan, the slogan of AXE VICE is, "It makes serious girls horny." Also "The scent that make girls yours."

Apparently, women do not need Ladies' AXE to be sexually assaulted and used for personal gratification by random men. So again, not at all funny with roles reversed, because it would be too close to reality.

The real measure (from the sponsor's point of view) of whether a particular ad is good or bad is whether it helps or hinders sales of the advertised product or service. If an ad is offensive, don't buy the product, and tell the sponsor your reason for not doing so.

The linked article does not indicate what Sweden's Trade Ethical Council against Sexism in Advertising is--e.g., whether it is an advertising industry trade group, a governmental entity, or what. I should hope that it is not an arm of government--for a governmental agency to single out a particular message for official disapproval of its content, even short of official censorship, can be problematic.

The slope toward official censorship in Sweden is indeed slippery. See, http://www.thelocal.se/9656/ ("Sweden . . . should ban all advertising that could be considered sexist, according to a government-commissioned report published on Tuesday. . . . . In the report, special government rapporteur Eva-Maria Svensson suggested the creation of a law 'banning advertising containing sexist content.' Sexist advertising is defined in the report as any message distributed 'with a commercial aim' that can be 'construed as offensive to women or men.'")

Smells like a "heckler's veto" to me.

Is it such a bad thing to ban sexist ads? I mean of course my questions there are who decides what is sexist and what is the penalty?

A male, I can see your arguments for males are not objectified. Perhaps a better word is sexualized? I know as a teenager I had friends who loved to look at magazines with movie stars, and obsess over them and how good looking they are. But of course it didn't seem to have effect other than enjoying their looks and I would guess this happens less once teens start getting into relationships. Just a guess though.

Like I said, I'd like to believe females do not view males, the way males view females (or at least the way feminists say males view males), particularly when it involves entitlement, or excusing harassment or assault, as in the two AXE commercials I linked. That would be just sad, not equality or empowerment for women.

If women simply like looking at desirable men (even in porn), or take a greater initiative in relationships and sex, that sounds just fine. I, for one, do not like to believe I am imposing upon a woman by approaching her, and her tolerating my company, because I believe if she "really" liked me, she would be able to make the first move. I have believed this ever since high school and university dances, where the unattached boys had to walk alone all the way across the dance floor to ask girls to dance, and face public shame if she said no. As a percentage, guess how many girls did the same with a few hundred of their peers watching?

Twenty years later, it still appears to be true: Why is it necessary to have "girls' choice" or "backwards dances"? Take a risk, "like a man." From just a couple weeks ago:

http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf16012372.tip.html

"Unless you're really sure he's going to say yes to your request, you risk embarrassing him if you ask him in front of all your friends."

"I also agree - you need to be 100% sure he would say yes before you ask him in front of everyone."

Oh, duh. And this is about asking one's BOYFRIEND, when girls are specifically SUPPOSED to ask the guys to go!

"Please give me some cute original ideas on how to ask my boyfriend to my girls choice dance!"

That request is three frickin' years old, and no one has responded to this poor girl yet, on how to "ask" her BOYFRIEND to a dance! AAAAARGH.

http://www.wikihow.com/Ask-a-Guy-to-Dance-if-You-Think-You're-a-Geek

What? Six STEPS on "how to", plus two tips and one warning? How about this radical approach? "Hey, [insert boy's name]," (Grunt) "So there's this school dance next Saturday." (Yeah.) "Well, I was wondering if you'd like to go with me?"

Not offended.

Both versions show the people being somewhat embarrassed, but still enjoying themselves. Everyone's having fun.

If the girls had been completely mortified and somehow unable to cover up their nipples, then yeah, I could see how it would be offensive. As is, it really doesn't bother me.

As a rule, I don't have a problem with sexual ads. I just wish there were more half-naked men around.

"I s'pose the anatomically correct ad would show shrinkage in their man packages or something."

That's exactly what I was expecting. When they drank it I wanted to see them all look down at their man bits and cover them and look embarrassed or something.

I didn't think this was too too bad...maybe because I know that every time I take a shot my nipples pop out. I don't know why.

"Is it such a bad thing to ban sexist ads?"

IMHO, that depends on who is doing the banning. It is a good thing for advertisers themselves not to exploit sexism and to refrain from creating sexist ads. As for a governmental agency banning sexist ads, what other messages are we content with suppression based on content? For example, would anyone want the current Bush administration vetting Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's campaign spots for sexism?

To a certain extent, I like to see how advertising influences/reflects social mores, and if they cross the line, they can cost the companies millions when they get pulled for being irresponsible.

I would prefer the public be the judge than the government, though I believe in anti hate laws which could be enforced if pursued. Blanket laws, even when well intentioned, can restrict expression, as seen in Germany. I do not remember the details, but decades ago during one concert by a foreign act, when the crowd was asked to raise their fists and shout "Boom, boom" they were reluctant to do so, despite it having nothing to do with a pro Nazi sentiment, and not being the outlawed Nazi salute.

"For example, would anyone want the current Bush administration vetting Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's campaign spots for sexism?"

I...just can't imagine Bush talking about sexism.

I don't think Sweden actually has much of a problem with sexist ads, as the article pointed out. So I don't know how much it would change.
And I'm not sure how the public would be the judge of ads.