Yea, "Sex Sells"... But It Also Objectifies Women

Sex is everywhere. There are “sex scenes” in movies; popular actors and actresses are often sexy. Sex is discussed in song lyrics; the singers are generally sexy. Sex also permeates another aspect of our culture: advertising. Even if we don’t always realize it, we are constantly exposed to sexuality in advertising. Nowadays, “sex” can be used to “sell” almost anything, from perfume to watches. The idea that “sex” can “sell” a multitude of products has become an incredibly successful advertising technique and it is easily found in Cosmopolitan magazine; however, this common objectification of women has serious ramifications, especially for young, impressionable girls.

The use of sexuality to sell products is extremely obvious in the above advertisements. Each one uses a woman’s body to emphasize sexuality. All of the images contain thin, overly sexy women. The models all have perfect feminine features, and their bodies are on display due to a lack of clothing. Therefore, the focus of these advertisements is really sexuality, not the products. Nonetheless, the images successfully sell the products because consumers recognize the sexuality and attach it to the product. Jhally asserts, “Sexuality provides a resource that can be used to get attention and communicate instantly” (253). This idea is supported by a brief analysis of the advertisement for GUESS. When a consumer looks at this image, his or her attention is immediately drawn to the model and her prominently displayed breasts. Right after this happens the consumer attaches this image to GUESS clothing. Even if a conscious association is not made, the advertisement communicates that GUESS=Sexuality. The idea that sexuality is desired makes the advertisement effective. The overuse of this type of advertising has created a society that “seems to be obsessed with sexuality” (Jhally 253). This obsession objectifies women by focusing solely on their sexuality.

Advertisements that objectify women have become alarmingly acceptable and especially harmful when placed in magazines directed at young girls. Women of all ages are bombarded with images much like the JORDACHE advertisement above. In this image, the tall, gorgeous, half-naked blonde is really viewed as an object, and the jeans are a separate object. The advertisement is supposed to be showing the jeans, but it is really showing women what they “should” look like. It tells women that they need to be beautiful and unreasonably thin; if they aren’t, they must strive for it. Kilbourne states, “Advertising is one of the most potent messengers in a culture that can be toxic for girls’ self-esteem” (259). Girls are exposed to these images so much they get the impression that they really do need to look like the models in the advertisements. As a result, young women develop unhealthy fixations on being thinner and prettier. Kilbourne notes that these images to not directly cause eating disorders, but she does point out that, “these images certainly contribute to the body-hatred so many young women feel and to some of the resulting eating problems…” (261). Many women find it difficult to view an image such as the Bebe bikini advertisement without thinking, “I wish my stomach looked like that; My thighs are fatter than that; I need to eat less to wear a bikini like that.” Society’s focus on sexuality and the resulting objectification of women have created unrealistic standards for women to live up to.



Works Cited

Jhally, Sut. “Image-Based Culture: Advertising and Popular Culture.” Gender, Race, and Class in Media. Eds. Gail Dines and Jean M. Humez. CA: Sage Publications, 2003. 249-257.

Kilbourne, Jean. “The More You Subtract, the More You Add.” Gender, Race, and Class in Media. Eds. Gail Dines and Jean M. Humez. CA: Sage Publications, 2003. 258-267.