One Crazy Lady

Super Bowl Sells Sex, so does everybody else

Posted on: February 9, 2010

This is my blog post for WOST210 week #4
I thought in light of what I’ve learned in Women’s Studies class, it would be appropriate to observe and comment on the sexist commercials shown during the Super Bowl.
We even had a Super Bowl Party – my daughters were with Gramma, so it was all boys at my house. We invited another family, and their sons to join us.
However, I am such a stereotypical girl – I haven’t watched a football game all the way through since high school – and then, I only watched because I was in the stands and there was nothing else to do.
At home, there were just too many things more interesting – sorry guys, I just don’t really care about the game.
I did watch a few of the commercials and saw the last few minutes, so I know who won.
Luckily, for me, there are plenty of locations online where you can view all the Super Bowl ads, and you don’t even have to watch the game – HA!
Now, I started with the assumption that there would be sexist elements since the target audience is beer drinking, chicken wing eatin’, home on Sunday afternoon men. Well, there were a lot of Bud Light commercials, and I lost count of the Doritos ads.
As I perused the readings from Chapter 4 of my textbook, I found a theme that began with the idea that men use sexuality to control women, and I said
Hunh-uh (See what happens to my college level vocabulary when I watch even a little football?)
I immediately thought of Eve, who was the only girl that Adam had ever seen and God made her especially for him, so you know he thought she had it going on… she talked the boy right into disobeying God. That theme, of women tempting men would carry on throughout history.
Solomon? Well, he was the wisest man ever, and yet, every time a pretty girl came around, he got talk into paying for another wedding. Then, she would convince him to build an altar to her god, and soon the whole nation was in trouble. All because of women and their seductive ways.
Bethsheba took a bath naked on her roof in the middle of the day, right where David was looking; next thing you know, he’s an adulterer and a murderer. That girl took off her clothes and he just couldn’t help himself.
So, anyway, about those commercials. Megan Fox poses naked in the bathtub, and wonders what might happen if she sends out her photo
SEEIT I wasn’t going to post links to the ads, but everyone else has, so here you go. A woman using her sexuality to convince men that they should have a Motorola, why? Well, just in case Megan Fox decides to send out a photo of her naked self, you wouldn’t want to miss it because you bought a Blackberry.
Danica Patrick lays on a massage table in nothing but a towel, while another girl rips open her shirt to reveal a tight tank top that says This is a link to because I bought my domain name there and I don’t have anything against them. You can see the commercial on YouTube and just about everywhere else on the internet.
I could go on and on about sex in commercials, but I think writer Matt Philbin does a darn good job of explaining it in his article about smut in the Super Bowl ads.
My point is simply that anyone who thinks men use sexuality to control women are crazy – we’ve been using it to control men for centuries. We flaunt our bodies to make them buy phones, drinks, cars, flowers, and domain names. We even have the power to make a man turn his back on God.


7 Responses to "Super Bowl Sells Sex, so does everybody else"

Women have been doing so for centuries, I definitely agree with you there. But the problem is, women tempt men by taking off their clothes, essentially becoming men’s sexual objects (women becoming subservient to men). So what may seem empowering is actually demeaning to women. You don’t see men in advertisements taking off all of their clothes to tempt women into buying their products, yet women “cheapen” themselves everyday by doing the same thing for men. Do you think that Megan Fox and Danica Patrick would sell as many phones, etc. if they sat, fully clothed, for two minutes during an ad and talked intellectually about why they are endorsing their product? Probably not. All I know is, as the mother of a daughter, I do not want her growing up to think that the best way to influence a man (or anybody for that matter) is to take off her clothes.

Audra, you make some great points. Much of what I posted was intentionally smart-a–. In all seriousness, We teach our daughters and our sons that seeing and touching their bodies is a privilege that belongs to their spouses, and only their spouses. We go a step beyond that and teach them that they must consider their future spouse in all that they do. God has chosen a mate for them, and if there is anything that they are thinking of doing that they wouldn’t want their husband/wife to do, then they probably shouldn’t do it. My children are still fairly young, but a specific example that has come up with our teen girls is this: When you are thinking about wearing something revealing, ask if you would want your husband to look at another girl dressed that way. How would you feel about that girl? Then, think about whether or not you should behave that way in front of another woman’s husband. In the case of my sons, I wish that other mother’s would teach this to their daughters because even at 7 and 9, I already see my boys struggling to look away. I would never allow my son to treat a girl like a prostitute, but if she treats herself that way, there isn’t much I can do.

I have never watched the Super Bowl or football games before. I like to watch soccer game, but not football. But it is interesting because they try and work hard to get what they want to achieve it.

After reading your blog, which was quite interesting, I have to draw the conclusion that women use what they got to get what they need. I know that seems smug and a smart-a- thing to say I think it is entirely true. Take for example those young women in those commercials, they are selling their sexiness and targeted the male population. What male doesn’t want to see Megan Fox or Danica Patrick half clothed who would probably by anything they were selling if they showed a little bit more skin? So, in the instance, I think women have the upper hand just a little bit.

I forgot to say that I love to watch football games, not the biggest fan of the Superbowl because of all the extra hoopla but when it comes down to the final game of the season, I think it is like that in all sports games, probably.

I agree, whether we like it or not, women have historically been the temptress. It’s just sad that they do so in such an obvious manner even today. I didn’t watch the superbowl, even for the commercials this year, and I’m more and more glad for it. I remember when I was a teen and tween and was so excited about seeing the new hilarious commercials for the year. They we such an epic thing for me at that age. It is extremely disappointing that they have degenerated into what they are now. On one link I found regarding that commercial, all of the comments were in outrage that a sexually explicit commercial was taken OFF the superbowl list. It really makes me sad the direction television seems to have come these days.

(Blog 4 response)
It’s worth noting that these commercials are actually MEN using women to convince men to buy a product. Megan Fox didn’t pay for that commercial – she was paid, probably by a man, or company owned by a man, to be in that commercial.
So really it’s men using the sexuality of women to manipulate the sexuality of men to get them to open up their wallets.
The whole Super Bowl is aimed at men – the commercials are for “male” products and the game is for “male” entertainment.

On a related note: I was watching a documentary about botched plastic surgery (fake doctors, unqualified doctors, etc) and they were showing really gory infected wounds…but they blurred out the breasts. Is this really the direction we’re taking? We’re going to show disgusting bodily damage, but hide a breast – a normal part of a person’s body. Frankly, I’d rather have my son see a boob than see mutilated flesh. Obviously, if they were showing women’s bodies in a way that objectified them, I’d feel differently, but it was a medical show, I don’t think it was a judicious use of the blur.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Older Posts


February 2010
« Jan   Mar »

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3 other followers

Things I like to blog about


%d bloggers like this: