[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference turris::womannotes-v1

Title:ARCHIVE-- Topics of Interest to Women, Volume 1 --ARCHIVE
Notice:V1 is closed. TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 is open.
Moderator:REGENT::BROOMHEAD
Created:Thu Jan 30 1986
Last Modified:Fri Jun 30 1995
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:873
Total number of notes:22329

868.0. "Magazine article on sex in advertising" by DINER::SHUBIN (`Much depends on dinner') Mon Jun 06 1988 18:47

    There are two articles in the current issue of "Communication Arts"
    (May/June 88 issue) discussing the use of sex, sexuality and sexism in
    ads. CA isn't a very common magazine (I read it in the ZKO library),
    but it certainly is pretty -- it's for the graphic arts/advertizing
    community, and shows off their work. The first article was actually a
    reprint of an article from "The New Republic".

    I'd expected the article to say that it was ok to use sex in
    advertising because of the orientation of the journal itself, but
    instead it was against it. Some of the examples, with photos, were
    amazing. They didn't go into a lot of analysis (for example how we
    might subconsciously interpret poses of models in the ads, in much the
    same way that animals signal each other with poses), but it was nice to
    see that someone is thinking about it.

    One of the points of the first article is that there's more romance
    and fantasy than sex and nudity in ads today. The reason isn't that
    advertisers are having their consciousness raised, but because people
    are becoming more prudish.

					-- hs
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
868.1Romance in ads ? Fantastic !KISMIF::THOMPSONtryin' real hard to adjust ...Mon Jun 06 1988 19:2012
.0> there's more romance and fantasy than sex and nudity in today's ads.

    That seems entirely appropriate for the advertizing community
    to use a little romance and fantasy to generate interest in
    a product.  It promises nothing but should begin the pattern
    of finding out more about the "facts" now that there exists
    an emotional bias in favor of the product's "image" from that
    critical "first impression".  Here we aren't talking "sex" in
    advertizing as much as fantasy fulfillment.  Is it "sexist"
    to have fantasies in the '80's ???
    
    ~--e--~  Eagles_See_No_Evil_In_a_Bit_of_Romance_or_Fantasy...
868.2AKOV11::BOYAJIANMonsters from the IdTue Jun 07 1988 04:357
    re:.1
    
    �Is it "sexist" to have fantasies in the '80's ???�
    
    It depends on what the fantasies are, doesn't it?
    
    --- jerry
868.3For more on Women & Sex in advertising...CIVIC::JOHNSTONI _earned_ that touch of grey!Tue Jun 07 1988 08:5713
    There are two videotapes, "Killing Us Softly" & "Still Killing Us
    Softly" by Jean Kilbourne, in the MKO Library.  The second is, as
    the title suggests, an update on the first and hence has several
    bits of the first included.  The second is, by far, the more powerful.
                                                   
    Some of the images are subtle, some aren't; but none of them are
    by accident -- advertising is a costly enterprise.
    
    [unfortunately, the format is 3/4" so you'd have to either view
    the tape(s) there or have access to a 3/4" VCR]
    
    
      Ann
868.4DINER::SHUBIN`Much depends on dinner'Tue Jun 07 1988 15:4814
    As was pointed out, no one's saying that fantasy is sexist. What's
    sexist is the *explicit* (as opposed to fantastic) portrayals which
    show women in subservient roles, or as victims. 
    
    There were ads which showed a woman in obviously inferior situations. I
    don't remember the details of this one exactly, but one ad series was
    described as having a man and a woman together, where he's obviously
    physically or sexually abusing her. One of these had her sitting on the
    floor before him with her face in, or right in front of his crotch.
    Guess what's happening. That's someone's fantasy, but it's clearly
    wrong. (Yes, but is it clear to everyone?)

    					-- hs