More offensive advertising for Burger King
I would LOVE to have been a fly on the wall in the ad meeting that choose this beauty of a campaign. Disgusting.
Unfortunately this isn't the first offensive ad campaign for BK--check out Ann's post about a previous incident in 2008, over the "Whopper Virgin" campaign.
You can contact Burger King's corporate offices here.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: More offensive advertising for Burger King.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14561
have you seen this ad as well?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXcbGoMYaOg
um. ewww. if I wasn't already not eating there I would stop eating there.
The "kingons" commercial just lays it on the line as far as objectification goes.
Women. Cheap promotional items. They are interchangeable in the minds of the Burger King marketing division.
See also: box office receipts for Transformers II this weekend.
See also also: Bill Hicks (in the early 90s) on the perfect commercial.
*throws up in mouth a little*
I just lost my appetite. For everything. Ew. Like you I'd be curious to see just what exactly the decision-making process on this one was.
I wish I ate fast food just so i could boycott.
Whoops, just proved their point; I am not their target audience.
Have they considered what they might to do gain audience instead of alienating us even more?
I guess Big King pretty much accepted the fact that McD won women over and focuses its products and ads on the male target audience.
Who wants to bet that
it really measures only
five and three quarters?
here's my question: does the happy meal come with lube? because something hard, hot, and 7 inches long is definitely going to need a little help 'blowing my mind away' and 'filling my desire.'
where does this ad appear? maxim?
You can see the lube
squishing out from underneath
the bun. Ew, that's gross.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28824
wow, that link needs to come with a warning label. i feel seriously ill after reading that. ick.
The Happy Meal is the McDonald's kids meal......duh
;]
Why would this be an effective ad for men in the first place? It uses sex to sell the food, but this creates a problem. If I want to eat it, then I have to identify with the woman. If I want a blowjob, then I have to deal with a girl EATING MY PENIS, CRUNCHING, AND DIGESTING IT. Do not want!
Men don't think like that. It's just the visual.
You can't say 'men don't think like that'.
I think they're just appealing to their mostly male customers. Not sure if it's to bash women.
So? Maybe BK should get people who have the creativity and the smarts to advertise their product effectively WITHOUT resorting to portraying women in this way. I don't care if they're consciously doing it or not. I'm sure they haven't thought about the negative implications, but, since it's pretty obvious, I'm going to say that the fact that they don't see it is because they don't care enough to think much about the implications. Acknowledging it might take away their cheap and effective way of making money ... so why think about it and risk coming to the conclusion that they need to put more effort into developing ad campaigns that don't use these cheap and mindless methods?
They are OK with
bashing women to appeal
to male customers.
I am really amused that your comments are haiku. Points for creativity!
Glad you like it but
what is this thing called "haiku"?
Never heard of it.
They're not really "bashing" women; they're just positioning one as a blow-up doll with a giant phallus heading towards her. The woman in the ad is just another thing to be consumed (like a disgusting sandwich). They are appealing to their male customers by debasing women.
You must have X Ray vision 'cuz I didn't see none of that...The "woman is just something else to be consumed"? Really?
It doesn't matter what the graphic is really saying or to whom it's being said, somehow they seem to think that "sexual imagery" equals "really good marketing."
is there anyway to confirm whether this is a real ad? I couldn't find it anywhere other than on blogs.
Copyranter has a post on it, and he's usually pretty trustworthy about this sort of thing:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13993376&postID=7467052160415865241
lets remembember that BK isn't only sexist, it was only a couple months back they pissed off Mexico for also advertising their racism:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/burger-kings-wrestler-upsets-mexicans-1668865.html
these campaigns potentially represent millions of dollars.
What happened to being sex positive? If there is nothing wrong with oral sex, then there is nothing wrong will using it as a subject for advertising.
I agree to an extent...ads that reference sex aren't inherently problematic, but, curiously, women are almost always the ones being sexualized and objectified. It's heteronormative, for one thing. There simply isn't a male counterpart to these type of ads. But, you know, some men give blow jobs too.
This turns an otherwise playful, innocuous ad into another example of pervasive sexism.
Of course male counterparts to these types of ads are extremely rare, but there are a few. I saw a quiznos commercial where a toaster oven with a deep, male voice was ordering the male quiznos worker to 'stick it in me.' It was definitely the first homoerotic/kinky commercial I had ever seen. Apparently eroticizing sub sandwiches is the new trend.
I think if we could get to a place where it was acceptable to have ads like these featuring both men and women and they were actually done in a witty, fun manner then I might be ok with it. But the fact is that the quiznos ad stuck in my mind specifically because it was one of the few examples I had ever seen of a man being in the position that women are so often placed in.
That is true. You are very correct. Men are rarely displayed as the "giver of sexual pleasure" or the object of sexual gratification.
HOWEVER
You can't solve a problem by only looking at its one side. The thing we ALWAYS miss is how society does its gender thing (hint:its not one-sided)
========
The way society oppresses and keeps its population docile is by dividing them into groups that it keeps antagonized (in conflict). One of these divisions is gender.
**It first installs an oppressive goal in them**
To men: ""You're only a real man if you have sex with as many hot women as possible, and we will define what a -hot woman- is through the media""
To women: ""You're only a real woman if you can hook a man to you and get him to love you, you're only worth your man-attracting power""
**Then it creates a conflict between them**
To men it says: ""Women are these really weird confusing creatures, so don't even try to understand them, all they're interested in is your earning power, not your feelings so go and screw 'em all""
To women it says: ""All men are jerks, and all they care about is your body, and you need to look like the women we present in the media""
----This creates worker bees----
This whole gender-division causes the genders to both grow frustrated and angry with each-other... They've both been fed lies about the other, and the spend an entire lifetime in a hate/love relationship.
To society, this is useful, because frustrated people do the dirty jobs. "We work jobs we hate, in order to buy stuff we don't need, to impress people we don't even like, to feel better about our crappy lives"
That's friggin hilarious!!! I love it.
Seriously, why are we always so serious? Half the time we bash the media for cloistering sexuality, the other half of the time we bash the media for depicting it. Make up your mind, or go into the advertising industry. Is Feministing the only one who can make sexually oriented jokes? I for one may have to give BK another try.
Where is the ad that equates eating a sandwich with mind blowing cunilingus? Oh that's right...nowhere!
Women are always the sex objects in these advertisements (see how I used the word "object" there? how it's like we're not even human? yup, that was on purpose. notice how the woman in the ad above doesn't even look real? more like she's made out of plastic...like a blow-up doll? *coughcough* see sarahmc's comment above *coughcough*).
It's always women giving head, women being fucked, women looking sexy for the male gaze...not the women being pleasured. We only exist in these ads to appeal to men. Heteronomative and sexist. Once this changes from the norm you let me know and then maybe you can say we're being too "serious" but last I checked there is no equal representation of this shit in the media as of now. Not even close.
Fast food ad muff dive?
There's an Arby's joke in there.
I'm not touching it.
See. I see "equating eating a sandwich to mind-blowing cunnilingus" in every ad where some woman eats something. Ads tend to depict it in such a manner that implies that "eating for women is equivalent in pleasure to sexual intercourse".
On a lighter note, has anyone seen these allergy medicine commercials where the woman talks to her bicycle? You can hear her saying such inane things as, "Bicycle. I've missed you.", or "Dear cat. Gentle Cat." It seems to me she needs some psych meds, not allergy meds.
That's what THEY want you to believe. But you're comparing apples & oranges.
The way that society oppresses its members is by creating divisions. The clever part it does, is to create antagonism by oppressing each side in a different way, so you can only see your oppression and assume the other side isn't oppressed.
The way men are oppressed is by always being portrayed as a success object that is only as valuable as the amount of things he acquires (and he's given sex as the ultimate thing he needs to "acquire")
Both being the chaser and the prize to be won are disempowering. They're both running in circles, in order to get something they don't even want, in a way that's not true to the other.
Except, no. Being the "chaser" comes with privileges and power that the ones who are only the objects of pursuit don't get. It's not equal.
""Except, no. Being the "chaser" comes with privileges and power that the ones who are only the objects of pursuit don't get. It's not equal."""
Again, this is the clever way in which THEY control us. They make 2 sets of advantages and disadvantages so different that you can only see the disadvantages in yours, and the advantages in theirs. You'd need to have studied both, to see both sets.
This keeps us angry at each other, and not them.
- If you actually go and interview men, most of them feel powerless and feel like women have it easy
- If you actually go and interview women, most of them feel powerless and feel like men have it easy
While, the truth is they're both powerless and its the elites who are controlling them that have it easy by keeping them in conflict.
You don't have to repeat it. I read it the first time. And I still disagree.
We live in a patriarchal society. That's all there is to it. For sure men have gender roles to the same extent that women do, but the male roles (being dominant, etc) come with power in relation to women, even if they also work to limit the choices men can make about how to present themselves. See? No one is saying that men's lives are easy. No one's is. But they have power in relation to women.
Sorry, I'm not going to pretend it's not a patriarchal society just because SOME (not all) men complain that it's really the women who have power. They're wrong, and I can see that not just from my own personal experience (which, yes, is limited) but from looking at society as a whole, for example in the way that this site examines society. I find this kind of analysis to make much more sense than the kind of theorizing that you offer.
I don't know whether I completely agree. It's a new theory to chew on though -- thumbs up for thinking outside the box.
Well then it sounds like your complaint isn't, then, with the ad, but with the lack of a female equivalent. In that case rather than get all up in arms about the ad, we should really hear a sustained argument decrying the lack of female options.
And, oh, btw, I'm not sure I agree. A few months back we had a female razor ad targeted to women that was considered "hate speech" by some because it tried to have fun with the subject. And yet we have on the blog today another review of a woman's sex shop (which will certainly find no objection from me). So, again, it boils down to only Feministing can have fun with sex, the rest of America should join a convent...Logical consistency that's all I ask. Not only do we take ourselves too seriously, but we're not even seriously consistent.
Yeah but you can't post a picture of ads that sexualize men when they don't exist. So we have to put ads up of women being sexualized to point out the inconsistencies. Maybe we should put the few ads up of men being sexualized and praise them??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdrE1VMxzoE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brz8jjXuKyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmx6v5BjvP8
Oh, there was the ad that compared scented shampoo to an orgasm, but I'm sure someone will find fault with that ad too...
No that's still a woman being sexualized. Again, not a bad thing in itself, just bad in that there is no male equivalent. The male equivalent would be a male shampoo commercial with a male actor orgasming with pleasure as he washes his hair. You would never see that, because men watching the commercial would get -- uh-oh -- uncomfortable. I guess men aren't supposed to like seeing other men sexualized because they don't want to feel gay (?). At least that's how I've heard it explained by a male friend when I asked him why he thought more women than men are sexualized in commercials. To that I say, then how the heck are heterosexual women supposed to feel? You don't think we've ever been slightly uncomfortable watching women strip, shimmy and shake in every other TV show? (Yes, I'll admit it I have been insecure with my sexuality at times.) But damnit we grin and bear it. Over time though I've realized that it's not a discomfort in seeing a sexy woman when I'm supposed to be attracted to men, it's the shame you feel for the woman. The feeling of wanting to change the channel or the wanting to be able to tell her to cover up because you fear that in some way, some how, a man watching that commercial/advert./movie is going to have misogynist feelings toward that woman and that they will be reflected on to you, even though you have nothing to do with the woman in that commercial/advert./movie, etc.
The woman looks like she's mimicking a blow-up doll. If you're a guy and you're eating huge ass burgers like that, you better enjoy your blowjobs while you can because cardiac arrest is most probably not too far into the future for you.
What's with the ableism and phatphobia?
Since when are blow jobs or blow-up dolls demeaning? I guess I didn't get that memo. It seems to me that blow-up dolls are more demeaning to the men who use them. Are oral sex and vibrators demeaning, too? Granted, this is a stupid advertisement, but not for so many of the reasons that are being pointed out here.
I stopped buying their shitty food after the Spongebob commercials...
See. I see "equating eating a sandwich to mind-blowing cunnilingus" in every ad where some woman eats something. Ads tend to depict it in such a manner that implies that "eating for women is equivalent in pleasure to sexual intercourse".
On a lighter note, has anyone seen these allergy medicine commercials where the woman talks to her bicycle? You can hear her saying such inane things as, "Bicycle. I've missed you.", or "Dear cat. Gentle Cat." It seems to me she needs some psych meds, not allergy meds.
"she needs some psych meds." Oh, hi, Ableism!
Slow down there, Sally. If I'm so ableist, why is it that I have to take psych meds?
Or should I have everyone boohooing my situation because of their ableism. And should I never make light of my situation? Come on now.
This also brings to mind what I was saying about special interest groups and the feministing-community's incessant need to enter itself in the advertising business.
I said: It would be a boring world if the feministing community were in the advertisement business. Ha! Can you imagine it? Every meeting would end up unresolved because of the stumbling blocks associated with not offending special-interest groups, and the end product would be so bland, it would be impossible to sell it to the company who'd be buying it.
This reminds me of when our community tries to insert itself into what the entertainment industry should be producing and selling. Can you imagine how bland and unprofitable our products would be? Feministing-approved rap music consists of MC Lyte and Roxanne Shanté. The height of great feminist music apparently is CocoRosie. Please. What a laugh.
So, is BK trying to market to women, gay men, or bi men with this ad? Or are they assuming a het man will identify with the woman in this ad?
My friend just showed this ad to me as a print-out at lunch today (NOT at BK), and I said "I can't wait to read about it on my favorite feminist blogs!" And here it is.
Oh, and I think it's interesting that there's lots of mayo on the sub.
Another note: The woman is not grabbing the sub; she seems to me to be submissively opening her mouth to await the stuffing, with no agency of her own. If that were me, I'd have both hands around that thing.
Hm, I might be dense.
=====
Pictured:
Person getting ready to eat---> Sandwich
Pricing information
=====
I say its an outrage, especially with billions of people starving. I say we burn down BK, because someone might get some wrong ideas. Its a priority over all other world issues, by far.
I'm actually not terribly offended by this ad, but I really hate the "bigger issues" argument. There are always bigger issues. I suppose we shouldn't fight for gay rights because there are countries where gay people are murdered by the government. We shouldn't fight for adequate health care because there are people dying of easily treatable diseases around the world. We shouldn't worry about labor regulations because sweatshops exist.
There are a lot of injustices going on in the world but that doesn't mean that people don't have a right to fight for change in their own society. And fighting big issues like world hunger and "first world issues" like sexist advertising are not mutually exclusive.
Its all about what your beliefs are about how problems are borne.
I used to believe in solving individual issues in the past, but after studying some really clever people, they changed my mind.
Trying to cure (for example) sexism by systematically removing all of its manifestations is like trying to cure a disease by removing its symptoms.
Don't get me wrong - its much, much better than nothing... However, if you cut the problem at its root, you solve all its branches.
If we want to solve sexism, why not find out why society even creates it and change it at the core?
My theory: If you trace all of the current world problems down to their roots, i'm talking the core of the core roots, they all stem from the same few sources. These sources cause both world hunger and sexism and lack of rights.
""fighting big issues like world hunger and "first world issues" like sexist advertising are not mutually exclusive.""
In an ideal world, yes. In our world energy/time/money and resources are limited. So yes, any time you give to one is time you didn't give the other.
I think the main reason we make such painstakingly slow progress in all these societal issues is dilution. We're at 100 places at once.
Like there is no list of priorities, no structure of which problem affects which problem. Like we're attacking 200 issues at the same time.
If we sat down to study which issue affects which issue we'd take 10 years to solve everything instead of 100-150 years.
Like... There's always a case where you find there 's a problem that if you solve, it automatically solves 4-5 other related problems. So instead of attacking all 5, attack that problem.
Currently I see discussing this ad in this world... is given as much energy, focus and "news-time" as for example female organ mutilation. Sorry to be so blunt.
I'm not saying any of this small-stuff is "non-important", but that its just a dilution of efforts... It adds up. If you solve the problems from the top up (invest all effort into top 10), usually by the time you get to the bottom, they've all disappeared on their own.
Ok, on a serious note. In order to find it offensive, you need to insert your own assumptions and projections on top of it, to see what it means... You actually have to imagine what it means, and imagine something (that you) find offensive. Its like a cloud and finding shapes in it. There are hundreds of interpretations.
--
As it relates to sex and marketing. Someone once said *all* marketing is about selling sex in a product. And regardless of the gender targeted to.
I fail to see the "sexist" component? If you mean "sexual" yes.
- It has a woman (and only if you project that interpretation) about to perform a sexual act.
- I don't understand? How is portraying a woman performing a sexual act "sexist"?
"""Sexism refers to the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other."""
How does performing a sexual act make one "inferior". Are you saying that when I perform oral sex on my girlfriend that I become less competent, or less valuable?
Nobody is saying that oral sex is bad when it's something that people choose to do for pleasure. Oral sex is something that a woman does, not something that a woman is, or something that determines what a woman is worth.
Women are represented in this advertisements only as sexual objects. Period. This avertisement says, "Look at this hot chick, she's about to perform fellatio on this sandwich and that's hot, she looks shocked by the sheer size of it and that's hot, and I'll be you wish it was your penis that you were about to stick into her mouth." I don't even understand why I should have to explain why this is degrading. Suffice it to say that this advertisement could not have existed if it were putting a man in the same position.
To say that sexism is simply the belief that women are inferior is stupid. It's much more pervasive. It's subscribing to ways of thinking borne from a sexist society. It's almost purposefully misunderstanding the point of this advertisement. It's thinking, "Well, this doesn't offend me, and if I apply the situation to myself as a male it's no longer sexist (...duh,) therefore it must not be true." It's telling a group of women that their own experiences and thoughts as females cannot be trusted.
Thanks for putting words into my mouth and writing out exactly what my "male mind" was thinking- that's very respectful and kind to do to your conversational partner - no not really, but I'm not offended, I'm sure you meant no harm.
You did the same thing to me you did with the ad: Insert your own projection, link that projection to an intepretation, then link that intepretation to a theory, and then use another theory as to why which does what, and then say that's what the ad says (the thing that's 7 layers removed).
I've been studying gender studies, anthropology, sociology and social psychology for over a decade now. So I am at least somewhat "not ignorant", at least I hope so.
NOW ---> After all I said above you'd assume I disagree with you? No I actually **agree** with what you said!
However, my gripe is the way over-simplification. This a very complex multi-sided issue, and we're making it worse by over-simplifying it... in fact, ironically, we're causing more of the problem that we think we're solving.
======Some examples how over-simplification makes the problems we think we're solving worse======
Let's discuss this, I'd love to hear your thoughts karenoh...
""Women are represented in this advertisements only as sexual objects.""
Let's start with what we agree on. Society represents women as sex object (agree). This is the main way society creates gender division, yes. ""A man is only worth the sexual conquests he gets, and a woman is only worth the sexual conquest she is""
Now... as relates to this ad... the ad **on its own** does not have this message. You need to have studied sociology or gender issues (like you and me have) in order to even see it, because we can put the ad in its larger (societal) context.
The ad on its own, can be interpreted any way. If gender oppressions didn't exist at ALL (we can only imagine), and this was the only ad of its kind, you would not see it as problematic, correct?
It would just be "a woman experiencing orgasm over the fact she's about to have a sandwich." A common mechanism in photography marketing (still of good emotion, linked to witnessing product)
"a boy is about to scream for joy because he's about to be handed a coke", "a girl in ecstasy because she's holding the latest issue of -whatever".
In order to see a "sex object" in that picture, you actually have to link it to the overall context. Any time we identify individual problems as a manifestation as a problem, we've officially affirmed them. We've given that intepretation strength and viability. Its much more productive (I believe) to focus on the CORE issue, instead of the end markers/symptoms. If the core issue is handled, these end-symptoms wouldn't even exist.
We can find and point out markers of oppression at
a rate of 100 a day, each and every one of us here, and we'd still never index them all. Guess what, how much closer will be to solving the core issue? My guess, not much.
Your thoughts?
Yes, I agree that the "core issue" is what should be done away with...the core issue being sexism. I don't even understand what you're suggesting here. What are we supposed to do to fight the core issue if not recognize its effects, try to remedy them and speak out against them so that other people will begin to see these patterns all throughout society?
So I've lived my entire life as a female experiencing objectification and degradation. I've taken two seconds to reflect upon these experiences and noticed that they are borne from the same attitudes. I've noticed the effects of these attitudes, and they offend me. When I see them, I speak out. I'm sorry that I don't have the luxury of sitting around pensively philosophizing about the inherent qualities of human conflict when I can connect the attitude that led corporate execs to create these ads to the attitude that says I should be afraid when I walk down the street by myself.
"When I see them, I speak out."
Of course, and you should keep doing that.
Again, I think I suck at communicating what I want to communicate... but my attempt is not to remove from the current approach, but add to it. I'll try to communicate better what I mean.
I'm not saying we shouldn't speak out against symptoms, but I think that sometimes we can get become addicted to identifying symptoms? If you know what I mean?
Sometimes it becomes all talk, no action.
Obviously i'm not suggesting "not talking", but upping the level.
"" What are we supposed to do to fight the core issue if not recognize its effects, try to remedy them and speak out against them so that other people will begin to see these patterns all throughout society?""
That's a great summary of how problems need to solved in a society. That's just step 1 of solving a problem. First we point it out, find out its patterns, so we can then trace back its patterns to wherever the core is and take action on it directly.
Trying to cure sexism by remedying its effects is like trying to cure a disease by removing the symptoms. It actually does work if you keep doing it long enough... but it involves killing one symptom, and the disease then produces another symptom to replace, then you kill off that symptom etc... etc...
Ideal approach is treat core + remedy symptoms at the same time.
So I'm curious, what do you think lies at the core of sexism? As in the root-root core of it. Why does it even happen? What is it that causes for sexism to even appear on this planet?
Oh please spare us your psychological, emotionally-distancing mumbo jumbo. So basically if there is any emotion accompanying any given perception (i.e. getting offended by a sexist ad) that means the perception must be incorrect? Or do you just think that everyone needs to earn a psychology Masters from Harvard before they can decide whether something is offensive and sexist or not? Come on. No one cares how many years you've been "studying anthropology". I've been a female on this planet for 21 years. I know a thing or two about what's offensive or not. Don't talk down to us with intellectual snobbery when most of us on this website have had hardcore, tangible experiences with sexism all our lives.
Hi alma. Thanks for the comment, I appreciate it. However it seems you must have written it to someone else :)
As you're saying things I never said (i.e. assuming what I must have meant and attributing it to me). But again, I'm not offended, as I do realize you are in fact used to dealing with sexism a lot, so over time...
It gets to the point where we don't want to even deal with... so the moment we see something going that direction, we can think "oh, another one of those" and just assume the rest...
Again, its perfectly understandable. I'd just ask that you read my text again, as that was not my message at all, or even close to it. And if you feel you don't want to give me a second chance, I can understand that too.
Thanks again.
You know, aleknovy#8d577, it seems to me that maybe you've had some sort of feminist epiphany recently:
"Sexism is more than unpleasant advertisements, don't you see? It's a larger problem than that! Everything affects everything! Cure the disease, not the just symptoms! If only you could see what I can see!"
Which is good, even great. But don't think for a moment that you're the first person ever to have arrived to that conclusion.
Amen!
"You did the same thing to me you did with the ad: Insert your own projection, link that projection to an intepretation, then link that intepretation to a theory, and then use another theory as to why which does what, and then say that's what the ad says"
"I've been studying gender studies, anthropology, sociology and social psychology for over a decade now..."
Hey,
I didn't read all your responses, as they were pretty lengthy. I was referring to this part, which was written by you early in the thread, and which I was solely referring to.
All I know is when I have to divert my 11 year old daughter's attention away from certain advertisements, they have probably gone too far.
Oh, no, the children!
We must protect them from this
hamburger blowjob!
I think the fact that there are people saying that this is just funny is the biggest example of all showing that sexism is still incredibly embedded within our society.
When you can't see that something is wrong, it means you have been so desensitized to it that you can't recognize it even when it slaps you in the face.
It may not comfort you that this: "homophobic, bigot, misogynist, wingnut, Christianist, transphobic, right wing....and whatever I have been called" actually agree with you on this one. My family will no longer eat there.
I really hate these types of advertising is that it isn't funny and never has been, it's sleazy and appeals to the lowest common denominator. It's just the same old boring sexual imagery being forced down our throats, " tee hee get it she's gonna give it a blowjob". Is it any wonder why young boys are acting like women are disposable sex objects more and more?
How is giving head bad ?
Sex is not bad.
head is not bad.
women giving head is not bad.
so how is this ad bad ?
hmmm "proud feminist", are you like a troll but in disguise? Just wondering...
Why am I feeling that I can say my opinion here, as long as it is everybodies lese opinion ?
Seriously, sometimes I get the feeling the likes like you have a calling to act as thought police.
I am a feminist, just no an AMERICAN feminist, I do not share the victorian puritan views that made their way to America and have never been quite shaken off in the sexual revolution.
I just want to know what is bad about sex, or giving head.
And if neither is bad, how is it bad to use a picture that suggests either in an ad ?
Hey, no one's tryin to be the thought police here. I'm just saying that these sort of ads abound and 99% of the time they exploit WOMEN. That's kind of what this whole site is about, you know. Like yeah, I could look at that ad and say "tee hee, she's giving head, that's so cute and sexually playful/not victorian", but the fact of the matter is that these types of ads have a context, and that's a patriarchal one that loves to exploit women's sexuality, where women are chiefly the givers, never the receivers, of pleasure. As soon as the bigwigs come out with a Quizno's ad likening a sandwich to a woman's ***** which a man is licking with fervor, I'm afraid I can't really take it so lightly.
Exploit women ? Those women chosed to use their looks to make a living and be popular and they are payed handsomely. Personally I would not repsond to an ad that decipts giving oral to a woman any more than I respond to the above one.
How about we focus on the women who made the choice to use their brains for a living, like myself, instead of painting some bimbo a victim, when she isnt.
Those women get handed down everything to them and on top of it feminism comes along and is all like, OooO you poor victim, while the real help should get women who try to make it in a male dominated field.
Not to mention she probably does not give a hoot about feminism. Above average looking girls actually look down on us, how we have to do actual work to make a living. Everytime when I read how those blonde bimbos are victims I just want to puke.
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I never really said, or intended to say, that they're victims though. They're just playing into the patriarchal machine. That's not victimhood, it's compliance. But just because these women will willingly play along with it and pose for these ads doesn't make the root problem disappear. There IS a patriarchal system and it DOES exploit women's sexuality in the most general sense. And yes, some women willingly play into that and yes, make profit from it. And it certainly doesn't make those particular women victims, but it does victimize all the rest of us who, as you said, want to be considered full human beings, and I'd say we're the majority.
I think your comment highlights the complexity of the issue. I.E. that fact that there is an oppressive system in place, but that some women willingly play into it...thus potentially placing blame on those who create and perpetuate the system as well as those who comply to it unquestioningly.
You know, as women, we have a responsibility to each other. Sometimes I wish more women, or these bimbos as you call them, would see that. But then whenever I say that I feel like I'd get accused of being "unsisterly" or something. Because apparently we're supposed to accept all the stupid bowing-to-patriarchy shit that women do, in the name of sisterhood.
Anyway, sorry, I know this is a long post, but thanks for your reply, I appreciate it.
I think you have a persecution complex or something. There is no "patriarchal system", the ad uses sex to sell. It is not about patriarchy, but about exploiting the fact that anything sexual is likely to generate attention in men.
There is no "system", just people who exploit triggers to get attention. Talking and complaining about those acts and saying what one things of them and the companies who use these methods, I am all for it, however I am against censorship.
I admit to being jealous to some degree of women who have it easy due to their looks. However they have every right to make a living off their looks and it is probably the most profitable path for them, lacking talent in other areas. However referring as poor victims when they make a good living takes the cake imo.
Not to mention that the public outrage/discussion and repdouction of those ads in any form, including sites like these, is a bonus to them.
These people believe in there is no negative publicity.
"I think you have a persecution complex or something."
Um, gee, thanks?
"the ad uses sex to sell."
Yup, women's sex. (but i'm repeating myself here).
"There is no "patriarchal system""
So I guess there's no such thing as feminism either? It's just a fairytale bedtime story in a land far far away?
Feminism isnt about fighting zhe system and zhe patriarchal army. There is no supreme commander who ordered to public suggestive ads to annoy women, but it is rather about an ad company who uses suggestive ads because it knows it will get mens attention and a certain degree of public discussion and outrage as a bonus.