Originally Posted by
trishka
i saw this in the loblaws flyer and it didn't really seem to register. I did notice how good her hair looks though but i barely noticed that she was naked. But given the name of the product, i don't see anything wrong with this ad. I have seen much worse and ones with horrible innuendos.
I've always found it interesting that people get more offended by nakedness and sex than they do with violence. I'm talking about shows and movies that have a ton of violence (especially graphic violence) that no one seems to comment on, but the minute that someone (albeit, usually a woman) gets naked or sex is implied, it's all people talk about. The issue i have with the use of naked or nearly naked women in advertising is that it's often unnecessary to the product. You don't shower with clothes on (unless your a never nude) so having a woman who is naked and no "bits" are overtly showing does not seem bothersome to me.
The real problem is the over sexualization of women. Crazyqt asked "why do people always assume nakedness = sexual?" i'd say its because we have been conditioned to believe that when women get naked, something sexual is going to be involved. The oversexualization of women's breasts has caused us to forget what they're actually there for. Not something sexual but for providing nourishment to the tiny being that they just brought into this world. That story about a breast feeding mother being asked to leave a victoria secret store highlighted the issue that women's breasts are automatically considered sexual while men's are not. I agree that advertising is a problem to people (both male and female, young and old) as it creates unrealistic expectations but in this case, the only unrealistic expectation that i have from this ad is that my hair will look that good if i use this shampoo.