What Happens When You Replace the Women In Ads With Men?

 

Commercials tend to show women in provocative poses no matter what product is being sold. What happens when you recreate them with men?

What do you think? Do you think that sex appeal looks different when you turn it around? Is it all the same to you? Do you think men look hot or ridiculous in the sexy poses? And is this any way to sell a food product?

Comments welcome.

Originally published on BuzzFeed, where you can see more of their fun animated gifs.

Seriously, are Doritos *really* that sexy?

anigif_enhanced-6083-1394920558-9

Sorry to Break it to You

Is shattering stereotypes about men your cup of tea? (or your bowl of Doritos?)  Receive stories from The Good Men Project, delivered to your inbox daily or weekly.

Comments

  1. Jeanette says:

    Not going to lie, I actually really want some Doritos and Arby’s right now after watching that.

  2. Honestly, after seeing several of these role-reversal type commercials, they now all look perfectly normal to me. I understand that the makers of the video intended to show that constantly sexualizing women is ridiculous, but the video ends up making the sexualization of men look also normal. I suspect we will be seeing a lot of actual adds with half-naked men in them in a few years.

    As a man, I am perfectly fine with this, many people are wired to think about sex all the time and sex will never stop being an effective way to sell products. I don’t think this will change, I suspect that in the future we will see more and more sexualized men in ads aimed at women.

  3. Terry Brennan says:
    • Only if Maggie approves.

    • Thanks MOM (P&G) – They should definitely do one for dads!

      Kentucky Fried Chicken – I don’t know, as long as the one being slapped is bigger (physically stronger) than the one slapping that could happen. That is the reason why women slapping men OR other women (that is also considered super funny – if not sexual sometimes) is considered okay worldwide. Men slapping other (stronger) men or even a small, skinny nerdy boy slapping a female body builder would be humorous as well, if done right.

      Huggies – No, that is sexist against fathers and would also be sexist against mothers. I hope you feel the same, but I can’t really tell what you meant about this.

      Now, what do you think about THE ARTICLE, in general? You agree with role reversal, don’t agree, don’t know if you agree or not…? If that reaction is because you think this article is talking about women’s issues only, think again. That is totally about how men and their bodies (in a sensual way) are perceived in your society.

  4. I didn’t find it to be ridiculous, I thought it was quite hot . There should be more ad’s with guys like that :-)
    As the saying goes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander

  5. Anongirl says:

    I got to say that if a man or women enjoys those adds then more power to them. Its not like it is hurting anyone.

  6. But surely then, if all these “role reversal ads” are making the sexualisation of men in adverts seem normal to you, you understand what an insidious force it can be? We’ve had these sexual adverts about women our *entire lives*, and for decades before that.

    I mean, after a while you stop seeing it… hence the role-reversal designed to make it visible again. If the role-reversal can become normalised that quickly, I’m concerned.

    It’s scary. What a world my daughters have to grow up in.

    • Anonymous says:

      Thankyou for thinking one more step Jay. Exactly. And, in the role reversals, the men aren’t as skimpily clad as the women in the original ads. The “frumpy” man is replaced by a beautiful woman… Just saying…

      • I'm Talkin' Here says:

        I don’t think the makers of this parody video can even CONCEIVE of a truly ordinary looking-woman, much less a seriously overweight ordinary-looking woman, actually kissing a male model. That simply doesn’t happen on film, and our brains apparently can’t process the concept. Thus, they just put a pair of glasses on a pretty girl, called her a “nerd,” and equated it with the GoDaddy ad. Laughable and sad – a powerful commentary on where we really are.

        Broken.

  7. Jay, these examples are not so much role reversal but, instead, substitute subtle feminine body language for men, not masculine body language. You should be even more concerned about what world sons have to grow up in if the feminization of these men are any indication of what normal is to represent for men. Now, that’s scary.

    Let’s not keep out of the equation, these are advertisements. Decades of study says this is what sells product: S.E.X. These ad images not only stereotypes, but also represent societal ideals of beauty. Compare the US attitudes toward masculine and feminine with Brazil, for example-frquently thought the most sexually beautiful people in the world. We might be better served if the US society were to teach how to achieve a more balanced acceptance of gender ideals.

    • Agree with you. That about recreating women’s body language with men and saying it is the same is very precise and right. If it were men to be doing such ads, their movements and gestures would be very different to fit a man’s body characteristics, and not that of a woman.

    • Suzana Alves says:

      There is not natural “masculine” or “feminine” body language when it comes to these things. In fact, in many cultures, like South Korea, men acting more soft and displaying sensual/graceful sensuality is extremely desirable. That is all about culture.
      But if you think that is downgrading or degrading for men, why not for women? Think deeply about that; do you believe men acting like that is something that is not really that respectful for themselves? That men should do “better”?

      Brazil is huge and have many concepts about beauty, masculinity, femininity and so on. In Brazil, many women are getting sick for injecting steroids, for example, as it also became a beauty standard for women to get overly muscular. What are you talking about?

  8. The Doritos ad was pretty hilarious and in the reversal of the GoDaddy commercial, the female nerd was clearly much more attractive than the male nerd from the original.

  9. I’m good either way.

  10. This does not bother me either. I think most of the ads are supposed to be funny anyway.
    What isn’t funny is girls and women being protected from genital cutting and boys and men are not. That is something to really think about.

  11. Tbh, they both look stupid and ridiculous, it’s fiction, non connective with real life. It’s equaly degrading towards men when women are sexualised in this way, like all men are cavemans. But then again why should sex be a forbidden topic, it’s one of our most basic needs and expression, why shouldn’t it be bigger apart of our culture? Just not THIS stupid, for anyone to actually buy this stuff for its sexuall contet, they have to be very primitive.

  12. Personally, these types of ads look ridiculous whether a man or woman stars in them.

  13. I have to be honest, it was done well enough that I found the ads with men to be quite normal, and not the least bit ridiculous (except for the Doritos commercial, but that’s because I found the original for that one to be incredibly stupid).

    But there is a bit of a problem with that being “normal,” too. We need to be able to talk about sex in a regular and mature context in this country, sure; but we also need to be aware of the fact that equally sexualizing men doesn’t mean that there won’t be consequences. As a society, we’re dealing with the fallout of unrealistic sexual expectations with the young women of this country, and equally sexualizing men will then mean that young men will be forced to deal with unrealistic sexual expectations for themselves as well.

    There’s nothing wrong with having attractive people in a commercial; but when the focus is the person’s level of attractiveness rather than the product, there is a problem.

  14. I’m attracted to men and not women, so of course I have a different reaction than someone who’s attracted to women and not men. I’m curious what it would be like for someone who’s attracted to men and women.

    • anongirl says:

      The males were not as well done but still fun to watch. Also the body language was a big off but it did not hurt it all that bad.

  15. John Anderson says:

    I have no problem with it as long as the ads with topless men are recreated with topless women. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    • Women’s breasts (or nipples) in America are treated almost like a second sexual organ. That is weird, but I know that is how you guys see it. So you really can’t treat equally something that is not, well, treated equally. Then again, as soon as women start showing it in a non-sexual way I guess the stigma will be gone. We will need more cultural awareness before that happens, though.

      (Did you know Korea just started allowing men to show their nipples on TV? 5 year ago they still had to hide it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIxCkSu759A )
      😀

    • Suzana Alves says:

      That is the only problem you see with the role reversal? For real?
      Men are totally blind. Damn.

  16. John Anderson says:

    I wonder how people would react if the ads featuring topless men were recreated with topless women?

    • Yeah, talk about your ‘Double Standard’!

    • And there are woman who would love nothing more than to be able to walk around topless without being oggled, harassed, raped or arrested.

      Being topless is NOT illegal in some states and woman have STILL been arrested for “indecency”. If men didn’t find women’s breasts so indecent (unless its for their pleasure of course) society wouldn’t punish women for being topless.

      • John Anderson says:

        @ Lynn

        That’s partly my point. It’s not just the message that’s sent, it’s also how the message is received. Topless women are more likely to be considered sexualized or indecent. Should people blame them for their harassment? How many people would say don’t ogle them because it’s wrong, yet we blame the ads for the emotional responses that we have toward them?

        • So you’re saying a young ‘cut and buff’ topless man with ‘rock hard’ pecs would’t be considered sexually arousing by ‘hetro’ females?

          • Theorema Egregium says:

            According to science, no. Unfortunately. Wish it were different, but these apparently are the facts. Article from NY times. To quote from the article:

            They [meaning the heterosexual female test subjects whose genital arousal was being measured] responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes.

            In other words, a naked man with a good body is actually less arousing to a heterosexual woman than a naked woman in a non-sexual setting, or even goddamn monkeys. So how about that?

            The caveat (or ray of hope, if you will) is that the physical, measured arousal of those women and their reported arousel did not match up at all. In fact, that was the main result of that study. So women may at least claim they like hot men, but their bodies say differently. Shame.

            • So, how do you explain the popularity of those ‘Hunky Firemen’ calendars?

            • Okay. The hot guy was strolling. The woman was exercising. Exercising can be a lot sexier in my opinion lol.
              Also, what about their body language? If the woman was more “feminine” (as in more graceful, expressive, soft) that would be so much more appealing for most people than a “masculine” (as in non-expressive, harsh, robotic) person.
              And again: were these women already into porn? That could affect their perceptions. Come on, take a look at tumblr and the girls (yes, mostly young girls) talking about men’s bodies and how they love to masturbate to them. I don’t think older women, even the 30yo+, had that much space to discover the male body and their attraction to it since a younger age. Our attraction to bodies is learned.
              No, 30yo+ women did not have the internet as we have today (remember the media still does not show enough content to women in that aspect), society has always oppressed women’s sexuality and their choices… so no, most of them would not search for or be interested in it.
              Let’s wait for some more years and “test” women again.

            • “They [meaning the heterosexual female test subjects whose genital arousal was being measured]”

              There’s your problem, the penile plethysmograph is already unreliable when designed by Freund (yes the n is right). The vaginal one is even more unreliable. And in terms of reliability they fall WAY WAY far from even the lie detector – which is not admissible in court.

              In short, they don’t measure what they say they measure. Also, I don’t react to arousal in necessarily physical ways. I don’t think I’m unique there. It’s a case where physical signs show probable arousal, but where the absence of them doesn’t mean a thing. It certainly doesn’t mean the absence of arousal.

  17. Nobody would buy those crappy products if there wasn’t some-body (male or female) used to market it. I think the role reversal is good. It makes the ridiculousness of it more transparent. I’d actually rather watch the guys, given the choice. Good video. Now, if anyone believes that they have to look like that to be attractive, male or female, then it’s time to contemplate how much power advertising has over your mind.

  18. The thing is, even in doing this to show the ludicrous nature of the sexualizing of women in advertising the “nerdy girl” was still very attractive and the guy on the beach should have worn a smaller swimsuit, not the long loose shorts,

  19. ZoomZoom Diva says:

    The issue with an exact recreation is that sexy actions for a man are different than sexy actions for a woman. It is not the use of sex that looks ridiculous, but the actions themselves. Kraft dressings have sexy men in them… have no issue with the whole thing.

  20. This ad was hardly a role reversal. Where’s the man’s speedo? Why would a woman want to look at a guy’s ass that’s hidden in baggy shorts?? Speedos are an ACTUAL comparison to a bikini. And where’s his tan? He’s “pasty”. Where’s his fake spray tan?? And the nerds? Seriously? That’s not a nerd, it’s a woman that had glasses put on her. Hardly a role reversal.
    Whoever made this video is so deeply entrenched in the culture they can’t even see their blindness to it when they are purposely trying to. How sad that even when one TRIES to change around the roles, they just can’t SEE. (They think a woman in a bikini is being sexualized because the camera zooms on her ass, so they simply zoom in on the guys ass, without a thought to the clothing choices men and women have. She is being sexualized by being put in the skimpiest bikini they could find. The man on the other hand has shorts on, not just any shorts, Long, Baggy shorts. If they truly wanted to reverse roles they would have put him in something equally skimpy and focused on the skin showing… It is disheartening to know that people are so blind that they see THIS as a role reversal. (those guys looked like the skipped shaving – another thing that people will think “woman don’t have hair” when really the ROLE women are in insists that they don’t have hair – a true role reversal would have men shaving their bodies to look good enough for the female gaze – this too was conveniently “missed”)
    The man should have been more tanned, more oiled; he should have been in a speedo so we could see as much skin as possible. He should also be waxed or shaved so that we can see that skin that is showing. He should have had his eyes and especially his lips lined to draw attention (where’s the makeup!?). He is too natural looking and not unrealistic enough for this to be a true role reversal.

    • If the man should be in a speedo then the woman should be topless.

      • Actually you are wrong; men’s legs are not viewed the same way as breasts. Women’s breasts/nipples are viewed almost like their second sexual organ (kind of) in America.
        Men’s legs in America are just, and unfortunately, considered ugly or not worthy of showing. Even more, men showing legs are considered “gay”(?) and that would not be “manly”(?!) enough.
        I see what you meant, but we really can’t compare. The approach is totally different for both. Men in Europe wear speedos and most women still go to the beach covering their breasts.

        • If a mans searing a speedo, trust me, the women aren’t zeroing in on his legs!

          • Suzana Alves says:

            If the legs are shaved I am sooo drooling over their legs! I love smooth, sexy legs. But do not worry, I do not stare and would never make them feel unconfortable, I know how to look in a fast way no one ever notices ou caughts me lol 😉
            But yes I could look at that other thing as well, just like men could look at what is inside my top bra or bikini bottom.

  21. I’m fine with both versions. The male version is funny, the female version is sexy. Sexy sells! It’s us! In general we love it! I’m so tired of PC!

    • Theorema Egregium says:

      Personally I am so tired of always having to be funny, because society will never allow me to be sexy. Presumably for women the perception is just the other way around. But granted, PC will not solve that problem for us.

      • Denis Stone says:

        But society allows men to be sexy. Men can be sexy and funny at the same time and still be taken seriously… and be much less sexually harassed for it.

  22. I know the whole point of this is supposed to be a sociological statement about the objectification of women in advertising, specifically highlighting how “ridiculous” it is to use sex to sell these products by replacing the women with men. Except it doesn’t come across as ridiculous to me when I watch it. It comes across as HOT. I now want Doritos and Hardees, and I don’t know what GoDaddy is but I probably want that too. I’M INTO THE OBJECTIFICATION OF THE MALE BODY TO SELL ME PRODUCTS!! There, I said it.

  23. models dont eat burgers :’) that commercial sucks

  24. If you want to make a good comparison by swapping genders, then you have to isolate gender as a variable and keep everything else the same. So, if you replace a photogenic woman with a man, he needs to be photogenic as well. He should be in good shape, airbrushed, photoshopped, made-up, and a genetic anomaly just like most women portrayed in ads. In these examples, you’re switching gender as well as attractiveness. What’s the point of replacing female models with everyday dudes?

    If you really want to shock men, replace the magazine photo of the beautiful woman with the original photo of the woman. For example:

    http://blog.modelmanagement.com/2010/03/01/photoshop-me-the-truth-behind-digital-retouching-on-your-favourite-models-and-celebrities/

    • Steve, I could not agree with you more and you said it so beautifully. While I thought the men in the ads where socially attractive, they were not held to the same requirements the female models/actresses where. The woman who portrayed the female nerd was actually quite beautiful in comparison to the male nerd. The fact that we think that those women and men in the ads are comparable tells us something very telling about our perception of beauty when it comes to both men and women and the harsher judges we are of women.

      Also, you can not have men mimic stereotypical female body movements and think that it’s proves any point. Of course it’s going to look *ridiculous* to the majority of us who identify movement with having masculine and feminine properties. Even in the ads featuring the men, the feminine is still being objectified because they are moving in ways that is more associated with women.

      Lastly, while I believe there are women that do physically objectify men, I personally think that men are still more objectified for their income and status and that is actually what is comparable to how women are objectified for their bodies. It’s these things that should have been shown in juxtaposition to the original images. I believe had the ads taken men’s social status and income to exploit in the same vein that women’s beauty is objectified, it would have an even less favorable response. Why? Women do not want to be used for their bodies and men do not want to be used for their social standing and income. Because men are not as lusted after in our society as women are, this is actually something a lot of men actually want to see just as women would like to see images of women in positions of economic power.

      Lastly, everyone should check out the work by Gracie Hagen who has a book called “Illusions of the Body” in which she shows how body placement affects what we see as beautiful or not. Something a simple as cocked hip or a slouch can change your perception of one’s body and “sexiness” in a single instant. You can also check her website for a few pre-images of her work.

  25. Tom Brechlin says:

    This creeped me out because the guys mimicked the women’s moves … didn’t look natural at all.

    • looked perfectly fine with me – get over it :)

    • Suzana Alves says:

      It doesn’t look natural because, in fact, that is not “natural” for these men – the men are not on the same professional level and the mimicked videos were not professionally recorded.
      The moves are sensual and sexy, though, for both women and men. The guys just could not deliver.

  26. such a poorly thought out article.
    Male body is also sold sexually in Ads. There are lots of ads with tonedup and oiled male muscles being focussed on sensually and sexuality, and female readers go gaga over them.

    (Very important:)
    http://imgur.com/PYcmDNL
    http://imgur.com/AaK4j8i
    this poster with toned up muscles had hell lot of women going gaga over it for sexiness of the male body.

    why the advertisement of selling dishwash has a toned up muscleman
    http://imgur.com/SyacLwT

    man toned up muscles are different kind of sexual image
    http://imgur.com/FMhaURf
    ====================
    (Very important:)
    In the above article, you have replaced men with women , BUT you put them “in feminine sensuality moves”, thats why they look awkward.

    http://imgur.com/l0ushHu
    If we replace the toned up oiled muscle with female, then they will look similarly awkward too, they will not look as sexy had male body been in those advertisement.
    ==========
    CONCLUSION:
    http://imgur.com/AaK4j8i
    http://imgur.com/PYcmDNL shows that “sexuality” of male body is also used as commodity, it is shown with different sensual moves

    • The fact is that is is too much less likely. The male body is not explored as much as the female body.
      I don’t think they look akward, though. I believe sensuality is great for both men and women – and you and many other people call it “feminine” (as in for females) because it has been used only by women in such a long time now. It is just that the males used aren’t as attractive as the female ones.

    • The male body is used much, but much less frequently than the female body in a sexual way. In ads or media in general. And the concepts are much different as well.
      Men or women selling fitness products are an exception, of course they should show their bodies. Men and women showing muscles as a power quality also do not count.

      And that is funny, you believe standing there like an idiot flexing your muscle is acting sexy. It is not. In fact, EVEN MUSCLE WOMEN can and do pose sensually when trying to portray sexuality/sensuality, like that for example: http://fbbwandamoore.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/WM9.jpg
      While muscle can be sexy by themselves, while the people you linked can be sexy by themselves, we are talking about media here – the concepts used have to be sexual/sensual as well. If not, that is just about fitness, showing muscles/work and/or power, just like the images of all the men and the woman you linked. They are NOT being sexual, they are NOT acting sensual. Yes the men/woman are sexy, but the CONCEPT is not about sexuality/sensuality. And that is telling – you couldn’t even link a man posing sexily or sensually…. ridiculous!
      A man (just like a woman) being alluring, displaying a sexy facial expression and under dim light and maybe even lying down or sitting sexily is never about fitness/power, but about actual sexuality/sensuality:
      http://photos-b.ak.instagram.com/hphotos-ak-xaf1/10666215_911354388880305_1570741840_n.jpg
      http://www.mi9.com/wallpaper/dream-summer-2012-sexy-man_96468/
      http://photos-c.ak.instagram.com/hphotos-ak-xpa1/928318_1456330301285594_974216678_n.jpg
      Or even this: https://ladeetdareads.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/valentine-sexy-man-1.jpg?w=500

      Not awkward. Not “feminine”. In fact, that you say that is feminine is telling, once again – our media shows so many women in this way while using these types of concepts and almost no man that it became something “only women do”, something “feminine”. Many people will even think that is awkward when men do that. When actually if you research about sensuality in the past, it is most of the times MEN being portrayed in alluring ways.

      Watch Madonna’s Girl Gone Wild video for what real sexy/sensual men, playing an actual sexy/sensual concept look like:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYkwziTrv5o
      Or some video from Kazaky, too:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhN5yv8lvdc
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7-T8FSUQ_w

      The men in these video the article shows don’t look awkward, but the final product does because they were poorly directed and are just not professionals.
      The men in the videos I linked are extremely sexy, sensual and yes, sexualized. And they look extremely gorgeous and not akward at all.

  27. I see those ads as a unoriginal way to grab buyer’s attention for “doing something different or revolutionary”.
    They do look totally ridiculous and Im sure that was the purpose: to make it ridiculous so people watch and comment.
    The important thing is to sell so advertisers would resort to ridiculous and unnatural stuff as long as they sell more.
    Next thing they will use gay and/or lesbian models to sell you Doritos or Ruffles or whatever…

  28. The biggest single reason why there is a disparity in these advertisements is because it’s an innate difference of psychology between men and women: that is when it comes to courtship behavior we are like birds but we swap the “plumage rules” (it’s how we get around not having a mating season, unlike most mammals). Women care more about their looks than men and it’s been scientifically proven that a women’s clothing choices change when she’s ovulating. Men are more inclined than women on the corresponding “looking” side of the equation. Advertisers hijack this to snare the attention of male consumers.

    The images end up being sexist and harmful to the body image of girls because the advertising and entertainment industries have a deranged contempt for “moderation”. It’s no accident that LA has a reputation for being a place packed to the gills full of drunks and drug addicts.

    • “Women care more about their looks than men” – Cultural. In all nature, it is females that look for the male physicality.
      “Women care more about their looks than men and it’s been scientifically proven that a women’s clothing choices change when she’s ovulating” – Does it change for women in Tribal societies as well? Oh yes, in fact, in many tribal societies it is still men that need to make themselves physically attractive to find a mate.
      “Men are more inclined than women on the corresponding “looking” side of the equation” – Also cultural and changing drastically right at this moment. Let’s give it some more decades and Americans will (hopefully) get to it.

    • Innate? Just go and research about cultures that do not see bodies as something “sexy” and you will see that is all cultural. In fact, like Cybil noted, it is still women who will look at the physical attributes of the men to choose their mate, as most females of almost all mammal species do.

  29. truth001 says:

    ^ this article is typical tear shedding of “supposed pervasive female(female -only) victimhood”.

    Get out of fantasy, Welcome to the real world, and then see that In various Ads, Movies etc – when guy is kicked in nuts is passed as humour, Suggestion on “Penis cutting” is passed as humour , Slapping of Males by females is passed as humour — just try to do the same with gender reversed. And then think that which activity of this society and Ad industry is more sexist .

    • Truth, I understand your concern regarding the jokes that are made about men’s bodies and the violence. I don’t think being kicked in the nuts is funny. I cring at comments about a penis being cutt off and I speak up with my friends and my Mom even when they say unfair things about men. I’m not perfect but I try to think and challenge the things I see and hear.

      But you are simply inaccurate that women do not suffer largely at the hands of degrading advertising.
      I impore you to do your own research on this subjects and specifically seek out to research “sexists” or “degrading” ads toward women. Google it. It may shock you just what is done to the female body in ads.

      Here is a small sample of what is out there, which I think will have more of an impact if you actually do your own searching:

      Ducan Quinn (A Men’s Fashion Store) – Ad shows a man straggling a woman on the hood of a car. He is in a suit. She is in her bra and panties.

      Skyy Vodka – A women lays under a man who stands over her face with a bottle of Vodka while her perfect breasts in a tiny bikini are on display and he is completely covered up in a suit on the beach.

      Tipalet cigerettes – “Blow in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere”

      Che Men’s Magazine – Shows an image of a girl in her panties and bra with a game controller inserted into her belly button and the captions “Keep on dreaming of a better world”.

      Bacardi Breezer – Image shows an overweight woman with short hair and glasses. Caption: “Wanna look amazing this summer? Get your hands on the hotness-bosting accessory now: An Ugly Girlfriend!”
      Pitney-Bowes Postage Machine: Image shows a man angry at a woman who has her face turned away and nose stuck in the air. Caption: “Is it always illegal to Kill a woman?”

      Jimmy Choo: No Caption. Just an image of a car parked in a desert with a sexy woman stuffed in the trunk that looks lifeless and an older male holding a shovel sitting on the edge of the trunk.

      Puma: No Caption. Just an image of a sexy young woman with Puma shoes and sports bag in a plaid skirt and skimpy top on her knees infront of a jean-clad man. She has some white stuff dripped onto her leg that looks a lot like male sperm.

      BMW: A man and woman are in bed. she is lying down while he looks down at her. She has a magazine over her face with the image of a BMW car as he looks wantingly at the car while being on top of the woman whose face you can’t see. Caption: “The Ultimate Attraction”.

      I am not presenting these ads to suggest that men are not unfairly treated in media. They are. Even in these images of violence against women, these men are being portrayed as perpetuators of violence.
      But you are wrong to believe that sex and violence are not main themes in the advertising of products against women in both products sold to men AND women. There are so many ads out there that are even for women that show models being killed, dead-eyed or raped and all models are always beautiful made up and goregous in the process.

    • YOU should get out of you fantasy world and see that both genders are suffering degradation. YOU should stop seeing women talking about the things that hurt them as just complaining, whining and crying; they have VERY good reasons to talk about it. Have respect for women and stop seeing things as a gender war.

      “when guy is kicked in nuts is passed as humour”
      True. Physical violence against men is usually a lot more accepted by society. Violence against women is accepted, but usually in a way to bring the heroes to save them in the end. Still violence against women, even more when it is linked to sex, sexuality or sexy women is very prevalent.
      Most of the times violence against men is what males themsleves comsume – even more when it comes to movies. The most “masculine” movies or series are very violent. The same goes to the movies where many women are portrayed too sexually – it is also men who comsume it the most.

      “Suggestion on “Penis cutting” is passed as humour”
      Not usual. But yes, it should not be accepted.

      “Slapping of Males by females is passed as humour — just try to do the same with gender reversed.”
      That is all about physical strenght. It is a lot more acceptable when a weaker person slaps a stronger person than vice-versa and that is very understandable, we all can see why. We have ads with women actually pounching each other, or men punching each other. So that is also more acceptable when someone with the same physical strenght do that. No need to explain why. The humor is in the overly exaggerated violence, under a comical light, that will look bizarre and too unrealistic to be true and that also does not portray someone who would not be able to defend themselves against the “perpretrator”, like someone weaker being slapped by someone stronger.

      “And then think that which activity of this society and Ad industry is more sexist.”
      Eh. No one is talking about more or less sexist whatever. Drop that juvenile shit. Now, this ARTICLE is talking about sexual objectification and YES: women suffer much more about this. So much more that they had to recreated the ads, as we can’t really find males being portrayed in the same way.

  30. alan ward says:

    i had a little problem with the go daddy one. putting a pair of glasses on an attractive woman does not suddenly make her unattractive. you fell prey to the very thing you were trying to spoof. instead of going with a splotchy faced overweight woman with bad hair you put nerd glasses on a model type.

  31. People are so brain washed they cannot even understand the basic concept of over sexualization of anything. It has gotten so terrible that they are even losing the understanding of why it is bad for small children, let alone a civilization in general.

    A healthy balance in food and exercise they grasp. Too much loud music damaging their hearing they grasp. They seem to understand everything about proper amounts until it comes their brains. For them there is no such thing as too much exposure to sex and violence.

    No wonder the entire USA has turned into a nation packed end to end with extremists carrying their banners of their chosen issues constantly at conflict with one another.

    • My thoughts, exactly… No one ever thinks for themselves anymore and even if the truth is put out in front of them they can’t comprehend it or they ignore it…

    • I understand the over exposure to violence being a concern, but people don’t grow up to be violent psychos because of a TV show or movie or video games. They see it at home, they learn it from their parents, and the original psycho wiring needs to be there. I watch plenty of violent things and always have, and I am not the least bit violent of a person or ever hurt anyone because I was raised that violence was wrong. I don’t agree with the over exposure to sex & “sexy” things because sex is biological, it is healthy, and we as a society need to stop making everything related to sex so taboo and wrong. It is not wrong, it is what we were born to do, make babies & populate the earth.

      It has also been proven that having sex as often as possible increases your health & life span. The problem lies in parents that refuse to accept this & want to believe their kids are never going to have sex until they are married & refuse to have “the talk” with them. If parents accept that their kids are going to have sex, and probably a lot earlier than they would like, and stop thinking this is something so awful, and instead teach them about safe sex, instead of abstinence, there would be less young people getting pregnant & contracting STDs.

      Not to mention depending on the personality of your child, more times than not, especially with teenagers, it is almost a guarantee that they are going to go and do absolutely everything you tell them not to do because teenagers are rebellious. If you stop telling them they are forbidden to have sex, then they won’t have such a desire to thwart you & do it anyways. We need to be teaching our children that sex is natural & healthy, but that safety & discretion are what is important.

      When your child is emotionally ready to begin having sex & chooses to do so, would you rather they feel comfortable enough to come to you for advise & guidance & support so you can teach them how to be safe, or would you rather they go in blind with no guidance because they were too scared to come talk to their own parents out of fear? Because your child being too afraid to talk to you about sex, or to ask you for condoms, is exactly how they are going to end up with STDs and/or pregnant. This doesn’t mean you need to teach them how to give the world’s best BJ or what positions are best, but it does mean you need to be teaching them how to be safe.

      • Therese says:

        If you look at history, the occurrence of STD’S and teenage pregnancies have exponentially exploded with the promotion of “safe sex” and contraceptives. Biologically speaking you could say we were “born to make babies and populate the earth” but not without using the intellects we are also born with. Babies without a stable family won’t have as good and stable an upbringing, and societies, which depend on stable and healthy family units to thrive, won’t stand a chance. Just like anything else, sex needs to be properly balanced, and it would be foolish to neglect this.

        Perhaps some parents mistakenly imbue sex with a “forbidden” notion to their children, but other parents do a very good job of teaching what love really means, and teaching that sex is something so precious, and so connected to the heart and soul and essence of a person that it needs to be treasured like a precious jewel and not thrown around like cheap cash.

        Teaching teens, and even pre-teens, to sexually explore is a harmful thing, not because sex is bad, but because sex is so great! Human beings have been given something so great, so precious, so incredible, awesome, wonderful and sacred in their sexual nature. But then to teach kids that what they have is just another bodily function to enjoy when they feel like it is a huge deception and a travesty. Sex outside of the deep commitment and safety of a loving marriage does not satisfy the whole person, and will leave an emptiness that is real, and painful. Teens need to be given the chance at true happiness, and not deceived into selling their diamond for a dollar. Sex deserves to be celebrated for the great and beautiful mystery that it is, and should be total and complete, with no holding back. That is what makes sex the great gift it was meant to be. It says, “I am yours and you are mine totally and without reservation; I freely bind myself to you.” If sex leaves part of this out, binding only the body and emotions without the heart, this causes great harm, for it divides and isolates the heart from its sexuality. This is a lonely, empty experience, one which we should not wish on ourselves or our children; rather, they deserve to have sex that satisfies not just the body but the depths of their heart and soul. The parent-child “talk” does need to happen, and should leave the child feeling proud and in awe of their sexuality, not ashamed.

        “Over-exposure” to sex and “sexy things” should really be defined as the degrading of sexual dignity. It teaches that sex is something that’s NOT special, unique, awe-inspiring, fulfilling, and integral to the innermost part of the human person. There is evidence to show the harmful effects on children who become sexually active at younger and younger ages. The “over-sexualizing” of people through media and advertising is a degrading of their sexuality.

        • One STDs: we simply don’t have the numbers. Diagnosis and reporting are necessary for statistical analysis and accurate numbers are more recent than the safe-sex culture. We can draw very little in the way of conclusions from the history of STDs: there was enough unprotected and promiscuous sex for them to survive.

          On teenage pregnancies, someone made this statistic up. Roman law set the minimum age of a bride at 12, with consent from the father (this consent was not required at the age 25 in the latter portion of this era). In the twelfth century, the Christian church had marriage age at 12 for girls and 14 for boys, with no parental consent necessary. During these periods, it was standard for a couple to begin having children immediately after getting married.

          We know that cultural expectations eventually settled at 16 for the age at which a girl would marry, as this is the source of the “Sweet Sixteen” birthday and because of the history of spinsters.

          In summary, the statistics which underlie your argument are unsupported.

      • If you look at history, STD’S and teenage pregnancies have exponentially exploded with the promotion of “safe sex” and contraceptives. Biologically speaking you could say we were “born to make babies and populate the earth” but not without using the intellects we are also born with. Babies without a stable family won’t have as good and stable an upbringing, and societies, which depend on stable and healthy family units to thrive, won’t stand a chance. Just like anything else, sex needs to be properly balanced, and it would be foolish to neglect this.

        Perhaps some parents mistakenly imbue sex with a “forbidden” notion to their children, but other parents do a very good job of teaching what love really means, and teaching that sex is something so precious, and so connected to the heart and soul and essence of a person that it needs to be treasured like a precious jewel and not thrown around like cheap cash. Teaching teens, and even pre-teens, to sexually explore is a hurtful thing, not because sex is bad, but because sex is so great! Human beings have been given something so great, so precious, so incredible, awesome, wonderful and sacred in their sexual nature. But then to teach kids that what they have is just another bodily function to enjoy when they feel like it is a huge deception and a travesty. Sex outside of the deep commitment and safety of a loving marriage does not satisfy the whole person, and will leave an emptiness that is real, and painful. Teens need to be given the chance at true happiness, and not deceived into selling their diamond for a dollar. Sex deserves to be celebrated for the great and beautiful mystery that it is, and should be total and complete, with no holding back. That is what makes sex truly the great gift it was meant to be. It says, “I am yours and you are mine totally and without reservation; I freely bind myself to you.” If sex leaves part of this out, binding only the body and emotions without the heart, this causes great harm, for it divides and isolates the heart from its sexuality. This is a lonely, empty experience, one which we should not wish on ourselves or our children; rather, they deserve to have sex that satisfies not just the body but the depths of their heart and soul. The parent-child “talk” does need to happen, and should leave the child feeling proud and in awe of their sexuality, not ashamed.

        “Over-exposure” to sex and “sexy things” should really be defined as the degrading of sexual dignity. It teaches that sex is something that’s NOT special, unique, awe-inspiring, fulfilling, and integral to the innermost part of the human person. There is evidence to show the harmful effects on children who become sexually active at younger and younger ages. People deserve better than this.

  32. OK well that was terribly done. I understand you don’t have the equipment or skills to make professional add but still. The guy on the beach should have been wearing Speedos not board shorts, the ‘geeky’ girl was just a good looking girl wearing glasses and none of the actors where taking it seriously. If you fixed those mistakes I’d see no problem with reversing the roles and that guy covers in Doritos looks just as sexy as the chick, I’d be more than happy to see either.

    • Anonymous says:

      If you look at history, STD’S and teenage pregnancies have exponentially exploded with the promotion of “safe sex” and contraceptives. Biologically speaking you could say we were “born to make babies and populate the earth” but not without using the intellects we are also born with. Babies without a stable family won’t have as good and stable an upbringing, and societies, which depend on stable and healthy family units to thrive, won’t stand a chance. Just like anything else, sex needs to be properly balanced, and it would be foolish to neglect this.

      Perhaps some parents mistakenly imbue sex with a “forbidden” notion to their children, but other parents do a very good job of teaching what love really means, and teaching that sex is something so precious, and so connected to the heart and soul and essence of a person that it needs to be treasured like a precious jewel and not thrown around like cheap cash. Teaching teens, and even pre-teens, to sexually explore is a hurtful thing, not because sex is bad, but because sex is so great! Human beings have been given something so great, so precious, so incredible, awesome, wonderful and sacred in their sexual nature. But then to teach kids that what they have is just another bodily function to enjoy when they feel like it is a huge deception and a travesty. Sex outside of the deep commitment and safety of a loving marriage does not satisfy the whole person, and will leave an emptiness that is real, and painful. Teens need to be given the chance at true happiness, and not deceived into selling their diamond for a dollar. Sex deserves to be celebrated for the great and beautiful mystery that it is, and should be total and complete, with no holding back. That is what makes sex truly the great gift it was meant to be. It says, “I am yours and you are mine totally and without reservation; I freely bind myself to you.” If sex leaves part of this out, binding only the body and emotions without the heart, this causes great harm, for it divides and isolates the heart from its sexuality. This is a lonely, empty experience, one which we should not wish on ourselves or our children; rather, they deserve to have sex that satisfies not just the body but the depths of their heart and soul. The parent-child “talk” does need to happen, and should leave the child feeling proud and in awe of their sexuality, not ashamed.

      “Over-exposure” to sex and “sexy things” should really be defined as the degrading of sexual dignity. It teaches that sex is something that’s NOT special, unique, awe-inspiring, fulfilling, and integral to the innermost part of the human person. There is evidence to show the harmful effects on children who become sexually active at younger and younger ages. People deserve better than this.

      • “Over-exposure” to sex and “sexy things” should really be defined as the degrading of sexual dignity. It teaches that sex is something that’s NOT special, unique, awe-inspiring, fulfilling, and integral to the innermost part of the human person. There is evidence to show the harmful effects on children who become sexually active at younger and younger ages. People deserve better than this.

        This is just me but…
        sex never changed anything about me. You seem to think that sex is something that changes a person- who they are. This is where the concept of ‘virginity’ comes from. Virginity, the ‘purity’ and ‘virtue’ of a woman, is a tool that was set in place a long time ago as a means to control women and keep them from having sex outside of church sanctioned marriages. Women were led to believe that having sex would make them entirely different people- it would change them forever- in other words: a man, their husband, would have the power to alter them as a human being. In the eyes of many, losing one’s virginity can make one ‘dirty’ or ‘slutty’ or any other number of negative words.
        Sex really isn’t such a bad thing. Being so negative about it, trying to keep it hidden away when it’s something natural and kids will develop urges on their own, and condemning symbols or displays of sexuality can teach kids that sexuality is wrong and so as they develop and begin getting these natural urges they feel that there is something wrong with them. Or, they are rebellious and know that it would be taboo to have sex and they don’t fully understand it because such efforts were made to hide it from them and they do end up pregnant and/or with STDs.
        Sex sells. I’m honestly still on the fence about the exploitation of natural sexual attraction for advertising purposes but it’s not going away any time soon. Maybe spinning it as sex is natural, an acceptable act that requires a great deal of responsibility and educating kids would be better than letting them learn about sex from TV, public schools, and peers or bashing displays of sex because it is this mystical thing that supposedly is ‘integral to the innermost part of the human person’…
        But that’s just my view.

      • Stop spamming.

    • Anonymous says:

      I agree. There’s nothing wrong with a sexy guy in a commercial. But a sexy guy isn’t a reverse of a sexy girl. And yes, the people in the ads weren’t cast, costumed, or directed seriously.

  33. Not ridiculous at all, it works absolutely great with the guys too (for a nbr of us at least), although I agree the guy in the last one should have been wearing speedos (guess we’ll blame it on American prudishness)

  34. From where I stand, seeing men like this is SEXY! Bring it on!

  35. Ha, what was so bad about the role reversal? Except for the acting…

    As a guy, I’d love to look like the guy in the last ad and I didn’t find any confronting in the least, but the acting in the first 2 role reversals was cheesy not sexy like the original. Seriously they should make ads like that.

  36. Nimbus says:

    Funny thing I noticed: In the Carl’s Jr commercial, the “role reversal” filmmakers couldn’t make the sandwich look nearly as good as the one in the actual commercial. It goes to show how much fakery goes into fast food commercials.

    I’m not entirely sure why I noticed that.

  37. Yes the sex appeal is still the same. Men look just as hot (or as ridiculous) as the women. And yeah, it is a way to sell food products.

    Because by the end of the day, men are just as objectified as women in advertising. It’s just that not as many people are making a fuss about it.

    • Suzana Alves says:

      The men are not as hot as the women there. They also do not to act as sexy.
      Men are NOT as sexually objectified as women in advertising (or mostly everywhere else in the media). Not at all. But I believe men can be hot and sexy and should have 50% of the part. In fact, many men are complaining they can’t be portrayed like that when they WANT to, or are payed much less for the very same job.

  38. Anonymous says:

    Hey, I thought that the Doritos ad worked very well, although I suppose if it was actually done, that the sports game would be replaced by a marathon of Say Yes to the Dress or something. The GoDaddy commercial was not done right, the girl was not unattractive, at least not to the same degree as the original man was. The Hardee’s commercial was hilarious. I think it would actually work on a comedy level, but not a sex appeal one. The original Hardee’s ad was very disburbing, but then again, most Hardee’s ads I can think if are disturbing and sexist. Someone should write up about that.

  39. Okay, in NO WAY are men as objectified as women, especially in commercials and ads….. BUT I will say I would love to see more commercials with hot men in them!

  40. Well I found the role reversal quite hot. I mean it is time that they use more men and sexually objectify them. I am sure it sells just like women’s now!

  41. PandaMama says:

    I’m female. Even I prefer the ads, even though they’ve been “sexualized,” that have the women in them. Why?

    The female body is simply a beautiful work of art. But so is a man’s…yet they did NOT use a guy as hot and toned..and as REVEALED…as she was. In fact he didn’t really look like he was trying that hard to look sexy. So it’s an apples to oranges comparison, really.

    Remember, I’m not advocating using sex in marketing…but you know what? Sex sells, so that’s the way it is.

    Try again using a hot, toned, sexy guy wearing a spandex bikini that shows off HIS stuff, a guy who knows how to “act” like a sexy tiger, and then we’ll talk.

    • Suzana Alves says:

      Exaclty, everything you said.
      Call Jason Wimberly for the commercials and we will see what a true sexy male looks and acts like.

  42. I dont see anything wrong with this video. None of the latter video seem ridiculous to me. I enjoyed the male commercial just as much as I enjoyed females. Whoever made this video is trying to create a complicated scenario where there isnt any. Trash.

  43. Notta Chance says:

    Doritos on nude people is never sexy nor does it make me want doritos. Those little bastards are sharp and sitting on one sounds fucking horrible.
    I found the ‘nerdy girl’ much more sexy than the supposed ‘hot girl’ in the godaddy ad, and am jealous the gentleman got to kiss her.
    The Hardee’s one is dumb no matter who is doing it. It doesn’t make me hungry, doesn’t make me feel sexy. I was more interested in sitting on the beach far away from these idiots treating their meal like some orgy.
    Seriously, that’s a GORGEOUS beach.

    Seeing ALL of these people doing this is dumb. But some women out there probably find the role reversal commercials just as stimulating as men out there find the originals stimulating.
    Welcome to the world: Sexy Sells.

  44. Letters says:

    Man I would ravish that guy covered in doritos… mmmm

  45. I suddenly want some Doritos…

  46. Brickbook says:

    WHY ISN’T THIS A THING
    I WANT TO SEE THIS FOR REALSIES

    side note: The cheese from those Doritos is never coming out of that bed spread :c

  47. Andrew Timm says:

    I had seen none of these adverts before and found both equally hilarious, the girls facial reactions in the dorritos ad were especially well done. But yes the godaddy advert parody failed by fulfilling the general if she took glasses off and had a makeover hollywood dream would have been on level pegging looks wise with the male. Did Buzzfeed not have any, less than stellar lookers on staff that day? Finally if i were the burger company i would have had some of the burger sauce drip onto the model’s body and had her wipe it off and lick it off her finger. Beside the points being made here, but wold have been a more powerful, if even more overtly sexualised ad.

  48. The girl should have been actually ugly. The guy should have been in speedos. We need ads like this to be made so finally people will wake up to the ridiculous objectiction of women going on around us every single day.

Speak Your Mind

*