ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: remo14 on June 23, 2012, 11:02:47 pm
-
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/sexism-dovetails-with-hypocrisy-20120620-20ocf.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srilt-2UPPQ
-
LOOK AT ME I MADE A DOUBLE ENTENDRE I'M SO FUNNY
Now you're aware that a group of grown adults sat around, scripted and screenplayed this ad.
OT: Lynx's usual objectification of women and depiction of men as mouthbreathing troglodytes isn't as rampant in this ad. Though it says a lot about its target audience
-
I honestly don't think it's sexist, people generally complain about everything, and these days even the littlest things can generate controversy, I reckon people should just get over it, the ad was witty, but it doesn't really do anything to suggest sexism.
-
It's just eerie how this company holds two opposing views. They use sexual advertising for the male products and 'like who you are' mentality for females. Is this smart advertising or does it have ulterior motives?
-
unilever isn't exactly known for possessing moral integrity
-
How is it eerie?
The point of advertising is to sell a product, and they will push the limits of what they are allowed to do to sell a product, I find that understandable. Thus, it is understandable that they would target specific audiences by the way they advertise. On that note, I don't think this advertising is sexual, it's witty, but it's not outright sexual. What makes you say that?
What ulterior motives may you be thinking of?
JellyDonut, how does this have anything to do with moral integrity? Are you saying that this ad is immoral?
-
They'll peddle any sort of bullshit to sell their products. Probably ethical is a better word
-
Idk about sexism, but I thought the advertisement was shit.
The ganga isn't even hot.
BAD LYNX, BAD.
-
They'll peddle any sort of bullshit to sell their products. Probably ethical is a better word
Could you elaborate? I think the advertisment was reasonable, I found it quite funny and my few friends and I had a bit of a laugh about it, and yes, they were girls.
The ganga isn't even hot.
Hahahahah, LOOOOOL! :D trueeee ;P
-
There technically not advertising the product but use 'humour' to induce readers into purchasing. Nowadays its about drawing viewers in even if this does not involve the product itself.
-
There technically not advertising the product but use 'humour' to induce readers into purchasing. Nowadays its about drawing viewers in even if this does not involve the product itself.
Of course - it's about selling the product. It's an ad, not an information show, its only purpose is to tell you to buy the product. If you want to find out more about the product, you should research it on the internet or via other sources. Inducing viewers into purchasing is exactly what they want to do.
-
The article already did a good job at pointing out their shifting positions on various products. They'll take up any position if it gathers more sales. I'm sure Unilever bought into the mayo industry because they believed in the importance of good quality mayo.
-
Thanks everyone for today's discussion I was attempting to see if I would have been a good lawyer or not. Sticking with med.
Final Onslaught
These ads are simply aimed at emotion and if viewed by children could induce a very simplistic attitude towards life. They are not only selling a product but implicitly bringing in sexual matters with anything they can. Simply they are following the sex sells mentality. Do we want these ads to continue to smudge television? People should have a choice if they want to witness a sexual joke or not. They should not be forced into the awkward position through their child questioning "mummy what are balls?".
-
We must separate the facts from the fancy and cannot let outside matters delude people from the real product
-
The article already did a good job at pointing out their shifting positions on various products. They'll take up any position if it gathers more sales. I'm sure Unilever bought into the mayo industry because they believed in the importance of good quality mayo.
They're a business, they buy into the mayo industry because they saw that it was a good opportunity to make money. And exactly, businesses are about sales, it's about profit and it's about the money, otherwise people won't be drawn into enterpreneurship and other business ventures. It's a capitalist world.
These ads are simply aimed at emotion and if viewed by children could induce a very simplistic attitude towards life. They are not only selling a product but implicitly bringing in sexual matters with anything they can. Simply they are following the sex sells mentality. Do we want these ads to continue to smudge television? People should have a choice if they want to witness a sexual joke or not. They should not be forced into the awkward position through their child questioning "mummy what are balls?".
I disagree, I think it was just a funny joke - you're taking a serious view towards something which wasn't designed to be taken seriously. What is this sex cells mentality you speak of? And no, if you're looking at smudging television, there are many other things which smudge television just as much if not more, so by your slippery slope, we should ban all violence from television, all graphic scenes, all mentions of rape, all mentions of crime...etc? No, that's not the right thing to do.
We must separate the facts from the fancy and cannot let outside matters delude people from the real product
I've said it time and time again, they're a business, ads are not mean to provide you with facts, they are meant to entice you into buying a particular product.
-
Ethically contentious, but a funny advertisement... not seeing where the sexism lies?
-
The point of advertising is to sell a product, and they will push the limits of what they are allowed to do to sell a product, I find that understandable. Thus, it is understandable that they would target specific audiences by the way they advertise. On that note, I don't think this advertising is sexual, it's witty, but it's not outright sexual. What makes you say that?
In what world is this advert not sexually charged and filled with (bad) sexual metaphors. The lack of nudity doesn't mean it's not 'sexual'
I disagree, I think it was just a funny joke - you're taking a serious view towards something which wasn't designed to be taken seriously. What is this sex cells mentality you speak of? And no, if you're looking at smudging television, there are many other things which smudge television just as much if not more, so by your slippery slope, we should ban all violence from television, all graphic scenes, all mentions of rape, all mentions of crime...etc? No, that's not the right thing to do.
Rubbish. We can show sex on TV without objectifying women. We can discuss murder without glorifying it. The only reason this ad exists is because Lynx/Unilever know that men will buy a product based on outdated representations of women and self aggrandizing imagery, which is the whole "sex sells" thing. I'm happy enough to laugh at it, but it's a terrible ad and shouldn't be marketed by a multinational
Although I do agree with JellyDonut that this is actually relatively better than what they've put out before
-
In what world is this advert not sexually charged and filled with (bad) sexual metaphors. The lack of nudity doesn't mean it's not 'sexual'
Rubbish. We can show sex on TV without objectifying women. We can discuss murder without glorifying it. The only reason this ad exists is because Lynx/Unilever know that men will buy a product based on outdated representations of women and self aggrandizing imagery, which is the whole "sex sells" thing. I'm happy enough to laugh at it, but it's a terrible ad and shouldn't be marketed by a multinational
Although I do agree with JellyDonut that this is actually relatively better than what they've put out before
It's sexually charged, and yeah, the metaphors, you're right on that one.
I don't think it objectifies women though, that's a pretty big call. You're right, sex sells, but I don't see how this ad objectifies women. Whether it's a terrible ad or not, sigh, well, the fact that a multinational puts it out, they would have done research and expect it to sell their product.
-
Playing Devil's Advocate here - it's the effect on people that is important. Does the ad entice men to believe that women are sex objects, or does the ad pay out the stereotype itself to incite humour? I'd say it depends on what men's attitudes are towards women prior to the ad. Do men sincerely or subconsciously see women as sex objects and actually believe the stereotype? If that's the case, then the ad will have the effect of further cementing and perpetuating the stereotype, and that's the negative effect people are worried about. What if men already know that the notion of women's supposed role as sex objects is simply a stereotype and is not true? Then they will see the humour in it, laugh, but they will be aware that the stereotype is not true - they will be laughing at the stereotype, not at the women.
Your thoughts?
-
I agree with thushan, I don't think the ad is enticing men to believe that women are sex objects at all, it's just inciting humour.
But yeah, well said, especially with the relation to what men's attitudes to women were prior to the ad.
When I saw the ad, the knee-jerk reaction was "Oh shit, I gotta get Lynx or else I won't get in with the chicks! :O"- jokingly of course ;D
-
Nothing wrong with it. People are just good at making a big deal out of nothing these days... :D
-
Now the lynx "rules of the game" ad is definitely objectifying women XD
LOL hell yeah they are :D
-
I reckon it was obviousl that the ad was intended for men!
And perhaps lynx marketing group thought that this extended metaphor would be a funny and humorous approach for targeting its audience!
just my 2 cents!