Sex Sells, But Should We Let It?

Jake Zuckerman
jz673213@ohio.edu
@jake_zuckerman

Since its inception, albeit more so in the past decade, advertisers have been pushing their messages with reckless abandon for their implications on society.
 
There is an old saying in advertising: sex sells. This expression appears to have outweighed a less pithy expression in the minds of advertising companies: use good judgment. Advertisers are using some questionable, and some downright inappropriate methods of getting a message to stick. They are embedding sex into their ads by way of phallic and suggestive imagery, regardless of who the viewers are.

Source: Perez Hilton

Just look at this ad from Suit Supply. No, the ad contains no explicit sexual imagery, but what reasonable person could look at this ad and not notice its sexual implications. The ad is a tasteless, shameless way to sell suits, however it seems to be effective. It’s no secret in branding a product that if you can associate it with sex, you are associating a product with a near-universal human desire. But there is a line that the ad may be crossing. What about children who may see this ad? What are they supposed to take from it.
 
It isn’t just clothing companies weaving their products with lust. Take a look at this ad from Burger King.

Source: Pop Crunch

The prurient nature of the ad’s imagery is overwhelming. Copy aside, the sandwich appears phallic in nature, and the woman’s mouth is a blatant reference toward the act of fellatio. And it doesn’t stop with imagery, just look at the text. “It’ll blow your mind away,” or, “BK Super Seven Incher.” It is absurd to imagine that the words ‘blow,’ or ‘super seven incher,’ were accidentally placed on top of an ad reminiscent of oral sex. Any viewer of the ad will – to some degree – think of sex and a Burger King sandwich.
 
There are countless more examples. Just check out Business Insider’s coverage on the topic.
The ads raise questions. Are the ads crossing a line, or is there any line to be crossed in the first place? The ads can certainly have chilling effects on viewers. They perpetuate subordinate stereotypes for women and objectify them into men’s sexual objects.
 
According to the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, children are exposed to more than 40,000 television ads. How many sexual ads will it take until the message sticks?
It isn’t just children to whom the ad should warrant some skepticism. Today in America, women’s rights are a hot button issue. Movements like the It’s On Us campaign or the F*ck Rape Culture movement are making demands for more equitable treatment of women – both legally and culturally. A time may come when networks, websites or other platforms running these ads will have to draw a line in the sand. An ethical choice will be made: should the ad be ran? After all, the constitution does protect free speech.
 
On the other hand, the ads are questionable in taste and there is evidence supporting harmful psychological effects on their viewers. Should companies run the ads or take a stance for better treatment and depiction of women?

These are questions that can’t be answered just yet, but the can will only be kicked down the road so many times until some one demands, if not a change, a fair standard.