nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Examples of media from the last 5 years where women are objectified

professore

This was brought up in a thread earlier of the rampant objectification of women in the media and it got me thinking that I couldn't think of a single example - outside music artists who objectify themselves deliberately, or women who do it to appear sexy to other women, e.g. The fashion industry.

Then got to thinking maybe it's me and can't see it. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

professore

_Dara_ wrote: »

Hey! You scut! I replied, maaaan, I repliiiied.

To be honest though, it kinda seems like no example will be good enough for you. Just read Wibbs’ post upthread there, I’m far too lazy to restate it in a different way.

Sorry I didn't see it

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just think it's not acceptable in 2018, and it's women who are fixated on displaying themselves a certain way.

There are clear issues still like that charity party in London recently, but in the mainstream it doesn't happen unless it's a woman doing it herself.

Dank Janniels

strandroad wrote: »

These goosebumped bikini girls promoting anything and everything in the morning Metro! Usually photographed in St Stephen's Green or Grand Canal Dock for some reason. Metro is now dead, not sure if it's still a thing in the dailies?

In general, magazine ads with writhing, panting women; you don't see ads with men sporting their orgasm face, do you...

That mag in the Sindo used to be desperate for this, think there was some promo for half price lamb in Dunnes or sumthing and there was a photo of Georgia Salpa in her knickers bside Nevin Maguire with a rack of lamb on a serving plate down Grafton steet!

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

*Not just by men either. IMHO the most pernicious of that sh1te shows up in media aimed at and usually produced by women.

This is the part I don't quite get though. I look at Instagram, for example. The whole thing is filled with people posing in all manner of dress/undress for applause or money. They're doing it to themselves. Sure, men are looking at the pictures, and thinking they're sexy, but so too are the women. However, it's somehow different when a woman sees another woman as being sexy. Her sexual preference isn't important in terms of objectification (straight women finding it sexy or attractive isn't important either), it's just that somehow there are cultural differences that don't cross the gender divide.

It's the same with the advertising examples given in the other thread. The poster who provided them said that men were barely objectified (unless we referred to the old coke ad), but most of the photos provided which objectified women, had men in them too, either partially undressed with muscular bodies or in a rather stylish suit (but still fitting a certain image of attractiveness).

Now, I do get that women are on the receiving end of far more attention than men, but in many cases, it's attention either encouraged by themselves or by other women. Do men encourage that attention? Sure, we do. It's been known for a rather long time that men respond to that kind of imagery. But it's hardly something particularly driven by men, especially now, after decades of women's rights or womens objections.

And TBH Men are likely discussing what a woman wears or what she looks like, far less than women. It also probably matters far more to the women than it does to the man. I appreciate a beautiful woman or a beautiful image, but I'm hardly drooling all over them with sexual desire.

professore

Dank Janniels wrote: »

That mag in the Sindo used to be desperate for this, think there was some promo for half price lamb in Dunnes or sumthing and there was a photo of Georgia Salpa in her knickers bside Nevin Maguire with a rack of lamb on a serving plate down Grafton steet!

Fair point. Georgia Salpa is just a sexy woman no matter what she wears. Is that objectification? Probably. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so.

strandroad

professore wrote: »

No I don't actually, I just want to see what people consider objectification of women that is apparently so widespread, but yet I can't see it, and I'm a man so it should be obvious to me.

Seriously you never see women treated as accessories? Like one can't present a car at a trade show unless there is a "hostess" draped over it, or a phone without cute girls playing with them? One can't sell Magnum ice cream unless there's a woman giving oral to the ice cream and making I'm coming faces? Never see models undressing to pose with raffle tickets, tuna noodles or a set of tools?
I find it hard to believe!

strandroad

professore wrote: »

Fair point. Georgia Salpa is just a sexy woman no matter what she wears. Is that objectification? Probably. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so.

If it was so normal we'd be seeing goosebumped ripped lads in Speedos promoting new muesli flavours with Darina Allen down Grafton St too and yet somehow we don't :pac:

suicide_circus

I'm a terrible man for checking out women. Is there a cure?

Dank Janniels

Whoops always thought it had sumthing to do with lamb! My bad!!

And now Im hungry!!

Triceratops Ballet

professore wrote:

Fair point. Georgia Salpa is just a sexy woman no matter what she wears. Is that objectification? Probably. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so.

It's about relevance If Georgia Salpa (or any woman) is in a bikini to promote bikinis, or fake tan or waxing then it's not objectification because it's relevant. If it's to sell scratch cards, promote a bar or sell chocolate, then she's being used as a prop, because her being in a bikini is irrelevant to the item.

Also have you ever seen a lynx ad? Bounties of beautiful women there to be acquired by the bloke who douses himself in way too much cheap deodorant

professore

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

It's about relevance If Georgia Salpa (or any woman) is in a bikini to promote bikinis, or fake tan or waxing then it's not objectification because it's relevant. If it's to sell scratch cards, promote a bar or sell chocolate, then she's being used as a prop, because her being in a bikini is irrelevant to the item.

Also have you ever seen a lynx ad? Bounties of beautiful women there to be acquired by the bloke who douses himself in way too much cheap deodorant

The magnum ad, isn't that aimed at women? Men don't get the same almost orgasmic effect from chocolate that I've heard several women say they get.

Selling something? Sure, a pretty woman is going to attract men, but isn't a handsome man going to have the same effect on women? Look at the TUI ad - groups of scantily clad men worshipping a single woman. Why exactly is it different? And why is it an issue? Men and women are generally sexually attracted to each other - Tinder has buried the myth forever of women being more interested in a guys personality.

The Lynx ads are clearly a joke - deliberately over the top satire.

suicide_circus

Men happen to be encased in a strong shell. This quality is utilised by society to carry out certain tasks.

Women happen to be encased in beautiful shells.

professore

suicide_circus wrote: »

Men happen to be encased in a strong shell. This quality is utilised by society to carry out certain tasks.

Women happen to be encased in beautiful shells.

Both men and women both say women are more esthetically pleasing to look at.

professore

I guess my point is that there is a whole narrative around women being objectified and why it happens and that it's somehow different if women do it to men and I think most of it is just plain wrong. It's much more just human nature, and of we all accepted that and got on with our lives we would all be a lot happier, and not lose our minds when a woman displays herself in a sexual way.

professore

Dank Janniels wrote: »

Whoops always thought it had sumthing to do with lamb! My bad!!

And now Im hungry!!

That is blatant use of sex to sell something. No idea what though.

suicide_circus

Should we take down all the pictures of naked ladies in the national gallery?

professore

strandroad wrote: »

If it was so normal we'd be seeing goosebumped ripped lads in Speedos promoting new muesli flavours with Darina Allen down Grafton St too and yet somehow we don't :pac:

You mean something like this

https://youtu.be/4B50Rs4gvNY

Triceratops Ballet

professore wrote:

The magnum ad, isn't that aimed at women? Men don't get the same almost orgasmic effect from chocolate that I've heard several women say they get.

The woman in a magnum ad isn't what's being sold as sexy and desirable its the ice cream. It's not about her looks they want women to want to have the same pleasurable experience as this woman has when she has a magnum.

professore wrote:

Selling something? Sure, a pretty woman is going to attract men, but isn't a handsome man going to have the same effect on women? Look at the TUI ad - groups of scantily clad men worshipping a single woman. Why exactly is it different?

It's not different. I never said it was. You asked for examples of women being objectified in the media, you have been provided with them.
The lynx ad uses sexy women to sell mens smelly stuff, like it or not, the women are actually irrelevant to the product, it's a brand decision to advertise it as "wear this and get girls" it's not satire (what is it even satire of?)

If you want to talk about the objectification of men v women thats a different conversation.

professore

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

The lynx ad uses sexy women to sell mens smelly stuff, like it or not, the women are actually irrelevant to the product, it's a brand decision to advertise it as "wear this and get girls" it's not satire (what is it even satire of?)

It's satire of the idea that using deodorant will cause women to flock to you. Even if you are a skinny geek. This was a trope of 1960s and early 1970s advertising. How they "flock" to the guy is patently ridiculous. Its only superstar celebrities get that sort of attention from women. Everyone knows that.

If he was some ripped Greek god then we would be expected to take it at face value.

To me thus is blatantly obvious as satire, I guess women are meant to take all these ads at face value, that if you wear the right dress or lipstick the world will worship you? Men generally don't think like that.

Outlaw Pete

I think the objectification of men largely goes under the radar for most people as they have been brought up with no real sustained complaints about it but when I was a teen (in the late 80's to early 90's) I certainly felt pressured to meet an ideal and I think most young lads my age did. Not that it's something guys will really talk about as well, to talk about feeling inadequate is not considered manly, and that would just add to the any feels of inadequacy that you guys already feel when it comes to their appearance.

For guys I guess it's always been the tall, dark and handsome stereotype that is there as the ideal and it's not just commercials and movies where this is presented to young men but real life makes it pretty clear also that this is how real men should look. Vast majority of guys that are used in adverts or to attract more female viewers generally adhere to that ideal also......................

main-qimg-8bff7734f7b0aa689a304d6f0620f247-c

59d4aff11400001f00492fbb.jpeg?cache=inPR0fRRnC&ops=scalefit_630_noupscale

Personally I think it is stupid to try and make some kind of competition out of which gender is more objectified than the other as I feel both genders have always been objectified, just in somewhat different ways, and if anything the only thing that is changing is that those ways are now becoming more similar now that traditional gender roles are changing and so advertisers can now target women in the ways they used to target men.

What really bugs me though is how rather than some people having an issue with objectification as a whole, they only seem bothered by it when it affects their gender and see no problem at all even actively engaging in it themselves when it goes the other way. That to me shows that these people aren't really bothered about objectification at all, but are using it in and sanctimonious and sly way of attempting to control men. As that is what the end result is if these people get their way. There goal, of course, is for there to be less and less female objectification, but yet they themselves are more than happy to continue to engage it. Hypocrites and I hope people see them as such and of course what their real motives are.

https://twitter.com/cosmopolitan/status/502964688544862208?lang=en
https://twitter.com/cosmopolitan/status/761762687940370432?lang=en

professore

That first fella never worked a scythe in his life.

Yer Da sells Avon

From a male perspective, it's all a bit insulting. I wasn't going to buy that product, but I now will because they've sprawled a half-naked woman across it. I buy Lynx not because I want to smell like a teenage boy, but because smelling like a teenage boy will definitely make women want to have sex with me. I'm not going to watch Formula 1 anymore because the absence of women in bikinis makes my penis flaccid. Who, in their right mind, would want to watch cars going around in circles without a hard-on? The two go hand-in-hand (as it were).

Anyway, that's all I have to say on the matter. After all this talk of women, I'm off for a ****.

Junkyard Tom

Stop crying.

Koala Sunshine

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

It's about relevance If Georgia Salpa (or any woman) is in a bikini to promote bikinis, or fake tan or waxing then it's not objectification because it's relevant. If it's to sell scratch cards, promote a bar or sell chocolate, then she's being used as a prop, because her being in a bikini is irrelevant to the item.

Also have you ever seen a lynx ad? Bounties of beautiful women there to be acquired by the bloke who douses himself in way too much cheap deodorant

And what's wrong with that? The company gets increased sales and Georgia Salpa gets some easy cash through her own free choice. #bodilyautonomy #righttochoose

Heres Johnny

The women in the ad trying to pull the man's towel from him are clearly rapists. He's resisting them and they persist. No means no ladies.

Where do I complain??

As for objectifying women, don't feed the feminist trolls. Most of them are fat enough as it is.

The J Stands for Jay

strandroad wrote: »

Seriously you never see women treated as accessories? Like one can't present a car at a trade show unless there is a "hostess" draped over it, or a phone without cute girls playing with them? One can't sell Magnum ice cream unless there's a woman giving oral to the ice cream and making I'm coming faces? Never see models undressing to pose with raffle tickets, tuna noodles or a set of tools?
I find it hard to believe!

I find that these days, I see a lot less women being objectivised. A lot of it is probably due to not watching live TV anymore (Netflix and recording stuff) and the Indo seem to have stopped the bikini pics to launch any new product (don't judge me, it's the only paper that's free in the office).

I've only ever been to one car trade show and I don't remember there being any hostesses draped over the cars. Is that something that's died off too? I'd say women featuring in phone adds went out with Nokia. The adds these days are all about the specs.

Heres Johnny

I just saw a woman have an orgasm eating Haagen Dass ice cream. Gorgeous she was. Looked like she was giving the spoon a blowjob too. Great ad.

Ooh I'd love to objectify her!!

Triceratops Ballet

Koala Sunshine wrote:

And what's wrong with that? The company gets increased sales and Georgia Salpa gets some easy cash through her own free choice. #bodilyautonomy #righttochoose

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, she has the right to earn a living however she chooses, doesn't mean it's not objectification.

The whole sex sells thing imo is more insulting to the consumer, the idea that people will only be interested in stuff if there's a scantily clad model of either gender is very dated, and is thankfully dying out.

splinter65

tigger123 wrote: »

Plus anytime anything is announced in the newspapers (particularly the Indo or the tabloids) there's usually a pair of rented honeys with a cardboard cut out of a slogan standing next to a CEO or industry big wig.

But the rented honeys weren’t frogmarched down to grafton street, they do it for a living.

Annasopra

professore wrote: »

No I don't actually, I just want to see what people consider objectification of women that is apparently so widespread, but yet I can't see it, and I'm a man so it should be obvious to me.

I see lots of women deliberately objectifying themselves for personal gain (Miley Cyrus for example) and men do this too but can't think of many for women in mainstream media where women are objectified.

You have stuff like lap dancing clubs and such like but they aren't mainstream and there's female alternatives to these.

So because it happens in tabloids it doesnt exist according to you. Weird.

Annasopra

strandroad wrote: »

Seriously you never see women treated as accessories? Like one can't present a car at a trade show unless there is a "hostess" draped over it, or a phone without cute girls playing with them? One can't sell Magnum ice cream unless there's a woman giving oral to the ice cream and making I'm coming faces? Never see models undressing to pose with raffle tickets, tuna noodles or a set of tools?
I find it hard to believe!

Laughing alone with salad?

https://www.thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad/