[iamzack]

What if they just want to be a good model and not have you focus on their looks? What if an actress wants to be seen as a good actress and not a pretty face?

1. Modeling is based on appearances. If you are a foot model advertising some moisturizing cream, you better have nice feet, otherwise the product's sales will be negatively affected. The point isn't whether the cream actually works or not, it's "look, she used this cream, look how nce her feet are" with the audience hopefully drawing the conclusion that correlation == causation. If you're a model who is advertising some "family togetherness" type product, you're not going to be hired for being totally gorgeous. The models that get that job will be more 'wholesome' looking, so that they'll look like a happy family enjoying the product. There's a difference between these and, say, a beer ad with some blindingly gorgeous girl in a bikini hanging around for no reason.

2. There are plenty of actors and actresses who aren't especially attractive who are also super famous.

[Blue Lion]

1. Modeling is based on appearances. If you are a foot model advertising some moisturizing cream, you better have nice feet, otherwise the product's sales will be negatively affected. The point isn't whether the cream actually works or not, it's "look, she used this cream, look how nce her feet are" with the audience hopefully drawing the conclusion that correlation == causation. If you're a model who is advertising some "family togetherness" type product, you're not going to be hired for being totally gorgeous. The models that get that job will be more 'wholesome' looking, so that they'll look like a happy family enjoying the product. There's a difference between these and, say, a beer ad with some blindingly gorgeous girl in a bikini hanging around for no reason.

You're proving my point. Correlation doesn't equal causation but we let them push this on us and accept it. And quite frankly there is no difference between that and a beer commercial. Neither one has anything to do with the product. Both are designed to put the good look with the product. If they did that in politics we'd throw a fit.

[iamzack]

Actually, the foot model example does have something to do with the product. They are showing how/that the product works. Kinda like a commercial for some get rich quick program where they have folks going "wow, it made me rich!" It's not necessarily true, but it's relevant to the product.

The beer commercial is "LOOK AT THIS SLUT buy our beer!"

As long as people continue to buy things because they think correlation == causation, advertisers will continue to use it.

Politicians, athletes, etc are different because appearance has absolutely nothing to do with what they are trying to achieve, and yet it constantly gets brought up IF they are female. Not regardless of sex, like it does with models and actors/actresses. With politicians, if the politician is male, you get the platform. If she is female, you get a criticism of her outfit. Which models, it's a given for everybody.

Now, whether the heavy focus on appearance in models is wrong or right, it's not an issue of sexism, it's an issue of an appearance-obsessed culture.

[General Battuta]

I think I concur with what iamzack said. She explains the difference rather well.

[Blue Lion]

Actually, the foot model example does have something to do with the product. They are showing how/that the product works. Kinda like a commercial for some get rich quick program where they have folks going "wow, it made me rich!" It's not necessarily true, but it's relevant to the product.

Whether or not the foot looks "attractive" is utterly pointless. How the person looks on the ad is not going to affect the product. A foot product will not work any better on a more attractive foot than a less attractive one (Man, we are really getting some weird stuff here)

We know WHY they pick pretty people. No one has disputed WHY they pick them. We know why, we're dumb. It works on us.

The beer commercial is "LOOK AT THIS SLUT buy our beer!"

And that is different from "look at this pretty foot buy our stuff!" because........ why exactly?

"We need to sell our product, get us the hottest ____ you can find and put it in there with our product."

The fact that you think there is a difference is pretty amazing. If they used an ugly foot, you wouldn't buy it. If you used ugly women, no one would buy the beer. That you think the look of the foot is vitally important to how the product works and not just candy to look good is weird.

As long as people continue to buy things because they think correlation == causation, advertisers will continue to use it.

Politicians, athletes, etc are different because appearance has absolutely nothing to do with what they are trying to achieve, and yet it constantly gets brought up IF they are female. Not regardless of sex, like it does with models and actors/actresses. With politicians, if the politician is male, you get the platform. If she is female, you get a criticism of her outfit. Which models, it's a given for everybody.

Think about that. You just said "It shouldn't matter what they look like..... unless they're trying to sell you something"

Can a female politician use her sexual appeal to increase her popularity? Is that right? Can male politicians have women in bikinis dancing next to them when they give press conferences? These women clearly know what they're doing. They consent to it. We know why. It should be ok, right?

Is it ok to use sexual appeal to push a product, in this case a political platform?

[General Battuta]

Hrm, well, now I see the point you're making too, and it's a rather good one.

[Blue Lion]

To make a simpler formula for people who don't feel like reading all my crap....


"Of course people use sexual appeal as a factor when buying a product!"

"Why?"

"Because we're sexist pigs!"

------------

"Of course people shouldn't use sexual appeal as a factor when looking at politicians?"

"Why?"

"Because then we'd be sexist pigs!"

The reasons we give for why we shouldn't use it in politics are the SAME reasons for why it shouldn't be used everywhere else. But we just throw those reasons out the window and accept what they peddle to us even though we KNOW what they're doing.

A guy that buys a TV simply because there is a hot girl in the ad will totally use a politicians looks as a factor. He was just swayed by something that had nothing to do with the product, what do you think he's going to do?

[iamzack]

Can a female politician use her sexual appeal to increase her popularity? Is that right? Can male politicians have women in bikinis dancing next to them when they give press conferences? These women clearly know what they're doing. They consent to it. We know why. It should be ok, right?

Is it ok to use sexual appeal to push a product, in this case a political platform?

Of course she can. Is it right? No.

Of course he can. Is it right? No. Well, unless his platform is "I can make you look like this," which would be bizarre.

It's relevancy. I don't think it's okay to use sex appeal to sell a product unless it is actually relevant to the product. If the product claims to increase beauty, increase sex appeal, etc, then there's a certain legitimacy to using a model who is good looking in the way the product claims. If the product is a frigging drink, then sex appeal is out of context and does nothing but encourage objectification with or without consent of the model.

So no, it is not okay to use sex appeal to push a political platform.

A guy that buys a TV simply because there is a hot girl in the ad will totally use a politicians looks as a factor. He was just swayed by something that had nothing to do with the product, what do you think he's going to do?

That's not my issue. My problem is when REPORTERS and DEBATES are where the bull**** "I don't like her hair, dress, face, etc" come up. If some jackass is gonna vote based on a pretty face, that's his/her prerogative. But when the media can't seem to discuss a female politician without bring up her appearance, there's a huge problem there.

So, yeah, I don't give a damn if individuals are shallow and sexist and stupid. It's that EVERY discussion involving a female politician, whether on the news, a forum, or any place else, brings up appearance like it's a relevant issue.

[NGTM-1R]

That's not my issue. My problem is when REPORTERS and DEBATES are where the bull**** "I don't like her hair, dress, face, etc" come up. If some jackass is gonna vote based on a pretty face, that's his/her prerogative. But when the media can't seem to discuss a female politician without bring up her appearance, there's a huge problem there.

Arguably, if you can't do something a simple as find a good hairdresser, you're going to be up **** creek without a paddle when it comes to assembling a cabinet. This doesn't come up in male political circles because there's some kind of compulsory hairstyle for them.

[Blue Lion]

It's relevancy. I don't think it's okay to use sex appeal to sell a product unless it is actually relevant to the product. If the product claims to increase beauty, increase sex appeal, etc, then there's a certain legitimacy to using a model who is good looking in the way the product claims. If the product is a frigging drink, then sex appeal is out of context and does nothing but encourage objectification with or without consent of the model.

Actually no, not really. Weight loss ads recently got in trouble for putting attractive people on their weight loss ads. They had to add in "results aren't typical". Odds are if you use it, you won't look like the people in the ad.

Don't you find it kind of odd that products designed to make average people look hot have to use hot people as models for the product?

The very fact that they don't use average people because they won't look hot kinda ruins the entire premise of "it'll make you hot".

That's not my issue. My problem is when REPORTERS and DEBATES are where the bull**** "I don't like her hair, dress, face, etc" come up. If some jackass is gonna vote based on a pretty face, that's his/her prerogative. But when the media can't seem to discuss a female politician without bring up her appearance, there's a huge problem there.

So, yeah, I don't give a damn if individuals are shallow and sexist and stupid. It's that EVERY discussion involving a female politician, whether on the news, a forum, or any place else, brings up appearance like it's a relevant issue.

BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT. It is relevant because people are sexist pigs. People are swayed by hot guys and girls into buying everything. Everything! They talk about it because guys care about it. Guys care about it because everything in the world is about it. Movies, phones, cars, clothes, deodorant, food, soda, everything. They all have an image and that image is always sexy.

Why do think sex appeal is used? Because it works! People care about it! People will buy a product partly based on the sexual characteristics of a person standing next to it. OF COURSE they'll look at the sexual characteristics of the politician.

[iamzack]

It's relevancy. I don't think it's okay to use sex appeal to sell a product unless it is actually relevant to the product. If the product claims to increase beauty, increase sex appeal, etc, then there's a certain legitimacy to using a model who is good looking in the way the product claims. If the product is a frigging drink, then sex appeal is out of context and does nothing but encourage objectification with or without consent of the model.

Actually no, not really. Weight loss ads recently got in trouble for putting attractive people on their weight loss ads. They had to add in "results aren't typical". Odds are if you use it, you won't look like the people in the ad.

Don't you find it kind of odd that products designed to make average people look hot have to use hot people as models for the product?

The very fact that they don't use average people because they won't look hot kinda ruins the entire premise of "it'll make you hot".

That's not my issue. My problem is when REPORTERS and DEBATES are where the bull**** "I don't like her hair, dress, face, etc" come up. If some jackass is gonna vote based on a pretty face, that's his/her prerogative. But when the media can't seem to discuss a female politician without bring up her appearance, there's a huge problem there.

So, yeah, I don't give a damn if individuals are shallow and sexist and stupid. It's that EVERY discussion involving a female politician, whether on the news, a forum, or any place else, brings up appearance like it's a relevant issue.

BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT. It is relevant because people are sexist pigs. People are swayed by hot guys and girls into buying everything. Everything! They talk about it because guys care about it. Guys care about it because everything in the world is about it. Movies, phones, cars, clothes, deodorant, food, soda, everything. They all have an image and that image is always sexy.

Why do think sex appeal is used? Because it works! People care about it! People will buy a product partly based on the sexual characteristics of a person standing next to it. OF COURSE they'll look at the sexual characteristics of the politician.

The point of advertising is to put the product in the best light possible. Duh? I mean, look at all the commercials for random-ass crap like sham-wow. It looks amazing on tv, but if you've seen videos of people with one they ordered to play with... yeah, no. And that's one with models at all. So of course they're going to use attractive people in ads for weight loss. It just makes sense to do that if you want the product to look as successful as possible.

And, no, it's NOT relevant. Just because people are thinking "wow, she's ugly" or "wow she's hot" is NOT a reason for it to come up on the news every goddamn time a woman is running for office, ESPECIALLY when it NEVER comes up for male politicians. Besides, you just showed another problem with it. Why is the standard "men?" Why is EVERYTHING directed at men? Not even actual men, but "typical" men. There's sexism on both sides and the majority of people (including all women) are marginalized. Women are horndogs just as much as men, but that gets ignored. Many men don't give a damn what the politician looks like as long as he or she is competent. Basically everyone is going out of their way to cater to sexist, horndog "typical" man who thinks about nothing but sex and will buy anything with boobs on it, when he is a tiny, tiny minority.

[General Battuta]

It seems like Blue Lion is talking a descriptive approach (this is what happens) but iamzack is talking a proscriptive approach (this is how the media should behave), but you're both saying the same things.

[Blue Lion]

The point of advertising is to put the product in the best light possible. Duh? I mean, look at all the commercials for random-ass crap like sham-wow. It looks amazing on tv, but if you've seen videos of people with one they ordered to play with... yeah, no. And that's one with models at all. So of course they're going to use attractive people in ads for weight loss. It just makes sense to do that if you want the product to look as successful as possible.

Yes exactly, they put pretty faces on products, even if they're crappy products, because people like looking at pretty faces. When you're talking about politicians, people STILL like looking at pretty faces.

And, no, it's NOT relevant. Just because people are thinking "wow, she's ugly" or "wow she's hot" is NOT a reason for it to come up on the news every goddamn time a woman is running for office, ESPECIALLY when it NEVER comes up for male politicians. Besides, you just showed another problem with it. Why is the standard "men?" Why is EVERYTHING directed at men? Not even actual men, but "typical" men.

Why are things in a male dominated society directed at men? Gee, that's a tough one.

There's sexism on both sides and the majority of people (including all women) are marginalized. Women are horndogs just as much as men, but that gets ignored. Many men don't give a damn what the politician looks like as long as he or she is competent. Basically everyone is going out of their way to cater to sexist, horndog "typical" man who thinks about nothing but sex and will buy anything with boobs on it, when he is a tiny, tiny minority.

If that were true, they wouldn't use sex in ads. If they could make more money by not going out of their way looking for hot people to model their stuff, they would do it.

"Bob, we need to advertise our product. A vast majority want a reasoned well thought out ad showing our product's usefulness. A very small majority would like to masturbate furiously to our commercial."

"Well damn it. Let's find the hottest chicks we can find and make them jello wrestle."

Remove sexuality from the equation. Let's replace sexuality with something else. Let's say the color green. You're in a new bizarro world

People are swayed into buying products by green. If it has more green, it's better. Ads with more green sell more. People wear green clothes, eat green food, drive green cars. Their houses are green, phones are green, hair is green. People who had the most green got the best men or women. People cry "Don't look at my amount of green! Look at my personality!"

You go to a political debate. One person mentions how much green one of them is wearing.

"How dare you bring up green! Green has no bearing here! Why green is meaningless, this is important!"

You'd think they were &$%#ing bonkers. If green is so meaningless, why is their life saturated by it?

[General Battuta]

BlueLion. You are describing how things are. iamzack seems to agree with you that this is how things work. She is advocating for change in the political sphere.

If I understand correctly, your objection is that she should be advocating for change in all related spheres?

[Blue Lion]

Exactly, if you have a problem with sexuality being an issue in this field, it should be so in all fields. Hence my "out hardcoring the hardcore".

I just don't get why she (and other people apparently) accept it as natural.

Sexuality saturates everything in American society. To be confused why it also is brought up in politics just boggles my mind.

[iamzack]

 

Sexuality is not this force permeating every aspect of everything. It's just not. People need to learn when it's appropriate to bring up appearance and when it's not. Since it almost never gets brought up about male politicians, then it should not get brought up for female politicians either.

[Mars]

Do you know how many girls I've heard calling Obama "hot"?

[Mefustae]

Do you know how many girls I've heard calling Obama "hot"?

Well, you know what the girls say about black guys. *Fans self*

[iamzack]

I would not refer to myself as a "hardcore" feminist. I don't even know what that is. That's being "hardcore" for sex equality. I don't see how there can be levels of equality. It's != or it's ==. But I see a time and place for sex appeal in advertising. Politics is not the time and place. Selling KY Jelly is a time and place.

Also, approximately 50% of the population is female, and another (though partially inclusive) large chunk of the population is prepubescent. Sex appeal in advertising is not very successful for those two groups. Most women tend to be turned off by excessive sexiness in advertising. So advertisements directed at women aren't boobsboobsboobs, but rather tend to have a more "wholesome" group of models. Advertisements directed at younger age groups do best if models are only slightly older than the target audience. Besides that, you have to factor in the many, many males who don't even fit the (rather negative) "typical male" stereotype.

So, yeah, sex appeal advertisements are directed at a smallish minority. That's why there aren't very many of them anymore.

[Blue Lion]

Sexuality is not this force permeating every aspect of everything. It's just not. People need to learn when it's appropriate to bring up appearance and when it's not. Since it almost never gets brought up about male politicians, then it should not get brought up for female politicians either.

That is a hilarious statement.

"Sex isn't everywhere!"

I would not refer to myself as a "hardcore" feminist. I don't even know what that is. That's being "hardcore" for sex equality. I don't see how there can be levels of equality. It's != or it's ==. But I see a time and place for sex appeal in advertising. Politics is not the time and place. Selling KY Jelly is a time and place.

Also, approximately 50% of the population is female, and another (though partially inclusive) large chunk of the population is prepubescent. Sex appeal in advertising is not very successful for those two groups. Most women tend to be turned off by excessive sexiness in advertising. So advertisements directed at women aren't boobsboobsboobs, but rather tend to have a more "wholesome" group of models. Advertisements directed at younger age groups do best if models are only slightly older than the target audience. Besides that, you have to factor in the many, many males who don't even fit the (rather negative) "typical male" stereotype.

So, yeah, sex appeal advertisements are directed at a smallish minority. That's why there aren't very many of them anymore.

Then why are you mad? If no one is paying attention to it and it's a smallish minority, what's the problem?