Talk:Sex in advertising/Archives/2012

Criticism needs development
This pair of sentences leaves something to be desired for me: "Some feminists and masculists claim it reinforces sexism by objectifying the individual. Increasingly, this argument has been complicated by growing use of androgynous and homoerotic themes in marketing." How does the growing use of androgynous and homoerotic themes in marketing complicate the argument that SiA reinforces sexism by objectifying the individual? Which feminists and which masculists make the claims SiA reinforces sexism? Could we use a quote here instead? The claim that use of androgynous and homoerotic themes is growing should be made specific to a time and place when/where some ads demonstrating this trend appeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.0.154 (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nudity in Advertising Redirect
The fact that Nudity in Advertising redirects to "Sex in Advertising" is VERY telling of cultural bias. Any naturist or nudist would find it very offensive that nudity is being equated to sexuality in here. There are so many cultures, and advertisements even in Western culture (naked women in Wicca, for example) that use nudity in a non-sexual way. I suggest that nudity in advertising get it's own seperate article, or atleast the point of view that not all nudity in advertising is sexual advertising should be expressed in this article. 168.156.89.113 (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Budweiser ad

 * Early example of the use of sex in advertising: homoerotic Budweiser poster

How is this homoerotic? There's a bird, and a boy, draped in a cloth, styling reminiscent of a Renaissance painting. It seems the ad campaign is merely playing off of a famous painting, not really injecting sex into the equation. The idea that Budweiser was trying to appeal to the homosexual pedophiles of the early 1900s seems silly. -- Beland 03:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You are right, there is a Renaissance flavor to the painting. And the ad IS playing off not one but many paintings. But the "bird and the boy" have been a homoerotic topos for over two thousand five hundred years. The notion that the ad was targeted at pedophiles IS silly, but that it was targeted at a more generalized homoerotic impulse is not (anyway, the boy appears to be a teen, taking him out of pedophile territory). Haiduc 11:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, ephebophiles, pedophiles, or otherwise, I doubt that the Budweiser of the early 1900s thought that many of its patrons had homoerotic impulses, and those that did it would surely have not wanted to be associated with. Given social attitudes about sex, gender, and drinking at the time, its target audience should have been mainly, if not entirely, heterosexual men.  While it may be worth mentioning the link in this article, since androphile.org apparently thinks it's an example of homoerotic advertising, I don't think that interpretation (which I don't think most people would agree with) should be reported as undisputed fact.  I'm sure there are plenty of other links to more clear-cut illustrations of how sex appeal can be used in advertising. -- Beland 03:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Beland, I do not agree in the least with your edit of the link. It is sophistry at its best, as you try to reduce a two thousand year old symbol of male love to its component parts, appearing to court accuracy while in actually subverting its meaning. It is not up to you or up to me to provide revisionist interpretations of art, religion, or symbology. And it does not matter a jot what the Bud people thought. What IS significant here is that they took a trope (that has today been exhaustively analyzed and understood) and made use of it for commercial purposes. Period. Haiduc 14:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have not edited the text of this link, other than the initial move here to start the discussion. Perhaps you are referring to the Sam Spade which added the phrase "An image claimed by androphile.org to be..."? I agree it seems silly to justify that link on the claim of a random web site.

Your comment that the painting was a "two thousand year old symbol of male love" prompted me to read Ganymede (mythology). The information that I was missing was that in some versions of the story, Ganymede was abducted by Zeus to become his lover. Other versions term this "rape", and still other versions have Eos (a goddess) abducting Ganymede, and so on. The destination at androphile.org doesn't seem to explain the background. I think if this link is to be included, the connection should be explained so readers don't have the same "Huh?" reaction that I did.

I think the intention of the ad's creators and the response of the contemporary audience actually is important. If it was not intended to have sex appeal, and if its audience did not find it sexy (either explicitly or implicitly by reference to certain versions of the Ganymede story), then it might belong in "Greek myths in advertising" but not "Sex in advertising". With this limited information, you might argue that the intent in creating the ad was to "reveal" that Ganymede being abducted not for his sexy thighs, but for his beer. That seems to be at best a tenuous connection to "sex in advertising".

It actually seems more plausible to me that the male love connection had been completely forgotten by Budwieser and the intended audience, but that modern same-sex historians find this campaign interesting because they themselves make that connection, even if contemporaries did not. I note for instance, that this art page explains that Ganymede was abducted to become a "cup-bearer" to the gods (a detail also mentioned in other summaries of many versions of the myth) and says nothing about sex whatsoever. That would actually explain the beer connection a lot better - what better cup-bearer to abduct than one in the possession of Budwieser? If that was the creators and contemporary audience got out of this campaign, then it really has nothing to do with "sex in advertising", but could be added to Ganymede (mythology) instead. -- Beland 03:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I mightilly second the above, and am 99.99% certain this ad intended a cupbearer reference. I also assume that from the time the story was first told in greece until now, that some people dwelt on the "cup bearer" aspect of the abduction, and others on the potentially homoerotic "rape" (which originally didn't require sex) aspect. I am likewise quite certain that some 19th century pedophiles found the image arousing at one time or another, at least vaguely. Does that make this "sex in advertising"? Certainly not, altho it is a sexy image to some people. Some people find images of the chip n dales rescue rangers heroine Gadget Hackwrench erotic as well, but would we discuss advertisements for the program containing her here? (se furry fandom for more horrific details ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

here

 * Having come to a bit of an impasse - since it is apparent to me that this is a case of SiA but you two dispute it (more on that later) I thought I would examine the basic premise to see if I missed anything. I came across an interesting resource: (blacklisted url removed -mattbuck (Talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)). The author, Mark Levit, is managing partner of Partners & Levit Advertising and a professor of marketing at New York University, so for once we have an authoritative voice weighing in on this issue, albeit indirectly. I find Levit’s formulation interesting. He claims that “Sex appeal can increase the effectiveness of an ad or commercial because it attracts the customer’s attention. It’s human nature to be curious about sex.” It is a much more encompassing view than my original take, that SiA is intended to “turn people on.” No, says Levit, it is an attention-getting device. And he points out that it is effective even with people who are not attracted to that particular sex object.  At which I imagine you both crying out, “But it is not appealing to us!” So be it. But you are not the target audience. The target audience was your great-great-grandfather in his youth (or, in my case, my great-grandfather). For whatever reason, Adolphus Busch felt that this would be an “attention-getting” device. And he used it.  The fact remains that the Zeus and Ganymede myth was the principal symbol of male love from antiquity until quite recently. [There are volumes to be discussed - and read - on this, Beland, your summary of it is off the mark.] I should not have to reiterate here the endless instances, but they do start with Homer and “end” with Ginsberg and pass through Shakespeare and a million others in between. [Mythic language is symbolic. Beware ad literam readings.] And here this sexual trope is taken to be used to sell beer. The contention that “[I] am 99.99% certain this ad intended a cupbearer reference,” is humorous, really. If the Bud boys had wanted *that* they could easily have used any of a number of other artistic representations. See here:    They did not. They chose what really is an outrageous and provocative representation. I will not speculate on why they did that. I do not need to. The onus is really upon the two of you to show that this is NOT an instance of SiA. So far you have not done that. All I have from you is, from Beland, that it elicited a “Huh?” reaction and that  “[It] seems more plausible to me that the male love connection had been completely forgotten by Budweiser,” which is a hyperbolic contention launched without a single shred of evidence. From Sam we have that it is a cup-bearer reference, which I think I have disproven. (Sam also brandishes the red cape of pedophilia, which is anachronistic as well as ethnocentric. It is also off-topic since the Ganymede image is usually taken to be an adolescent, not a little child.)  PS You were not the one to deconstruct the Ganymede myth in the link, but Sam? Apologies, Beland. Say it ain’t so, Sam.

Heh. I stand by the above, but to be honest I don't care much. You seem to feel strongly that this is SiA, and while I think there are billions of better examples (think dallas cheerleaders), I don't care enough to wrangle about it. Just be carefully vague in describing it, or cite someone expressing your position. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 00:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The other depictions of Ganymede as a cupbearer don't incorporate the joke that he was abducted to bring Budweiser to the gods, so the choice of this particular one does not to me seem like evidence that they intended to emphasis the homosexual love angle. I certainly don't dispute that this particular scene has been used in reference to homosexual love both in ancient times and in recent years, and it's certainly true that nudity can be an attention-getter, whether or not it inspires lust.

It seems entirely implausible to me that the Budweiser company intended to associate their product with homoeroticism in anyway. Thus, we are left with an ad that makes use of a symbol which in other social contexts was a reference to a same-sex relationship, but, which in the context in which it was created and originally seen, was not intended to evoke erotic feelings. Thus, I think it's misleading to describe it as the use of a "homoerotic symbol". I feel it's a poor example of sex in advertising in general and actually think the link should be removed from the article entirely. I'll ask for some additional opinions. -- Beland 03:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Beland, this seems to be an inadvertent use of the straw man technique. Obviously Budweiser would not have wanted the beer associated with sodomy. The issue here is simply that they made use of what you have agreed is a homoerotic trope, which remains so even when not intended to arouse, just like the American flag remains the symbol of the country even when sawn onto someone's pants bottom. And your "The other depictions of Ganymede as a cupbearer don't incorporate the joke" is a case of "post hoc ergo propter hoc." The original Kirchbach lithography did not include the joke either. It was placed there by the advertisers, as they could have done with any other of the artistic depictions of Ganymede that did focus on his function as wine server, rather than on the moment of his rape. I am sorry, Beland, but for someone as well intentioned as I believe you are, this level of discussion is disappointing. Haiduc 13:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Zora here -- inveterate reader of old novels, proofreader for old magazines on Distributed Proofreaders -- I know the period. I'd agree that there's no real homoerotic reference there. The nakedness of the youth may have been intended to grab attention; skin usually does. But that skin was allowable, by the standards of the time, ONLY if the picture were a depiction of something classical (Greek and Roman myth and history) or something religious (martyrdom of St. Sebastian). It was a neat advertising hack, actually, to work together an apotheosis -- a human carried up to the realm of the gods, as a reward, implying the excellence of the beer -- the classical reference to the cupbearer and a hint that this was classy beer -- and eye-catching skin. The reason it's a young boy? Because I don't think a naked female would have worked in the context. That would have been read as licentious. How we read the ad here and now doesn't say anything about how people would have read the ad then.


 * For this to be an example of SiA, your comment that The nakedness of the youth may have been intended to grab attention; skin usually does, is sufficient, and confirms my own sense of it. Thank you. And while I agree with you that Budweiser was not fishing for an association between the beer and homoeroticism, their intent does not alter the symbolism of the image - though that is irrelevant since no one claims the ad is homoerotic, merely that it uses an image that has been associated in the past with homoeroticism, which at this point seems to have been accepted here. Haiduc 13:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article name change
Hello Patrick, I am sorry but the impromptu change in name for this article seems to me uncalled for and harmful. First of all, the old title is a _technical term_ in the advertising business, describing precisely the argument of the article. Your new title takes the topical title and adds a subset to it, since nudity is certainly NOT mandatory in sex in advertising - it is simply one of the tools of the trade. Thus it confuses and reduces the reach of the old title. If you want an analogy, it is like taking an article titled "British Navy" and renaming it "Battleships and the British Navy." Furthermore, Yahoo returned 15600 hits for the old title and three hits for the new one. The net effect of this change is to make the article less accessible to users. Please undo it, because I do not know how. (PS I am posting this in the article discussion page as well.) Haiduc 12:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Since Beland argues about a nude picture that it is not sexual, I thought I make the title more general, and add a more objective criterion. But if others agree with you I will change it back.--Patrick 12:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Patrick, quite aside from the fact that Beland and I had only begun to discuss the various aspects of that picture - making any changes by anyone untimely - you seem to be under the impression that the picture is in the article. It is not. It is on another website. So since there really is no imaginable justification for your otherwise well-intentioned action, and since there are a number of very valid arguments for its inappropriateness, please undo your name change, and then if there is a consensus for change I am sure it will be implemented. But please do not arbitrarily create a fait accompli and then set preconditions for restoring the status quo. It is still not clear to me how you can come into an article and arbitrarily change the title without according the other editors the elementary consideration of previous discussion and debate. I look forward to a long and interesting collaboration here with you, but I hope that it will be based on some sense of collegial give-and-take. Haiduc 18:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) (copied to your page since I do not want you to miss my response)


 * Okay, I changed it back.--Patrick 00:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, dear...yes, certainly this article needs to be about "Sex in advertising"... -- Beland 03:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "Sex in advertising" is the best title. I don't agree w the homoerotic interpretations of certain advertisements, which I will address below. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yves Saint Laurent ad
See Image talk:Photo of magazine page.jpg. -- Beland 02:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the image, but only until the caption and discussion of the image can be resolved to mutual satisfaction. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(The image has been restored with revised caption. -- Beland 02:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC))

For haiduc
(image deleted)

You seemed to be looking for a same sex "sex in advertising image", and I think this is it. Sam Spade 16:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advertising samples
Some samples later than 1921 but earlier than 2000 might be nice. tregoweth 21:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nudity in advertising
It's interesting that while there is an article on nudity in sports there is not currently one on nudity in advertising, although the link does redirect to this article (sex in advertising). The two (nudity and sex) are not one in the same and should be looked at separately. During my travels in Europe, I've noticed that it is fairly common to see nudity in advertising media. Of particular note, I saw store ads in both Spain and the Czech Republic which features bare breasts and buttocks in non-sexualized advertisements. It would be interesting to cover this in a little more depth showing the contrasts between countries and cultures within this medium. --StuffOfInterest 13:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Propose renaming to "Sexuality in advertising"
I propose this article be renamed "Sexuality in advertising" since that is often what is represented, not sex per se. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  18:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we need to follow popular parlance rather than appear to correct the vernacular. Haiduc 01:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (a) Why must we follow popular parlance, and (b) who has decided what the "popular parlance" is? -- Zim Zala Bim talk  01:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 58,000 to 6,000 says that the current article title is better. Sex does not necessarily mean intercourse, that is just one of many uses. Why follow? So as to better communicate. It is not an absolute but in this case the title is simple and effective and correct and in current parlance. There is enough work to be done here without changing things ad lib. Stare decisis. Show that it is wrong or let it be. Haiduc 10:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad article
"Sex sells" is presented in that article as a fact even though actual facts are missing. The "citation needed" in this line "Sexuality is considered one of the most powerful tools of marketing and particularly advertising[citation needed]." is very telling about the problems with this article. Where is the proof that showed that "use of the erotic to be a significantly above-average technique in communicating with the marketplace" leads to more sales. Do cars really sell better if advertised with naked women than cars without? The whole article reads like a "everyone knows ..." statement.

There's actually at least two studies which found exactly the opposite; that sex isn't useful at all to sell products (http://www.emergencemarketing.com/2005/10/25/sex-in-ads-does-not-sell/ and http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/aca-3-4-200.pdf). This article needs some serious re-writing to get rid of the bias.


 * I removed parts of the Effectiveness section that didn't have a citation and were too general to find a citation ("Sexuality is considered one of the most powerful tools of marketing and particularly advertising[citation needed]."), added Citation needed to many of the assertions made in that section. I also tried to add those two articles, although I don't know how good the first link is. But at least, is one more citation from original sources other than news sites. Lomegor (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)